same reason you're not going to get reform of the u.n. security council. any reform has winners and losers and shockingly enough, the losers will resist it. i ended up thinking it made sense to traffic in put up these thoughts. i do think there's one or two ways things could turn out better. one is the way i fear, which is only after a crisis have essentially business as usual is no longer sustainable. the problem is we pay an enormous collective price for the crisis. this is not the way any of you should want things to happen. the alternative is something of a new majority or plurality for reforms we need. i think aker, about for leadership willing to willing to in some ways combine the best of fdr, the fireside chats for policy reform and lyndon johnson and some good retail politics to bring it about. it's a longshot? are. is it possible? definitely. no way have they given up. americans can be counted on to do the right thing, but only after they've tried everything else. the real question for me is whether we get time before the crisis forces us to unde

much attention has been paid to the internal white house e-mails and changes to the u.n. ambassador susan rice's talkingpoints explaining the source of the attack. i believe that a key question still remains to be answered. why for two weeks did the administration propagate the tale that it was a youtube video-inspired attack when officials knew almost immediately that it was cared out by afil affiliates of al qa? that's a prist simple question. -- that's a pretty simple question. why were the american people told that an antii anti-islam ye video prompted the attack when it is known at that it did not? no one -- no one, mr. president, has answered this very basic question. instead of providing answers to these questions, a top white house advisor has impugned the integrity of those seeking the truth by decrying persistent questioning as a witch-hunt. it is time for the president to put politics aside, demand accountability from his staff, step up and do his job. congress is doing its part by conducting serious oversight hearings on both the i.r.s. overreach and the bengh

the u.n. system to adapt and in developing close and cooperative bilateral relationships across the globe. but cooperation, too, requires investment in diplomacy, in technical assistance and helping friendly countries do a better job of defending against common threats. according to surveys, the average american thinks that we give about a quarter of our tax dollars to foreigners. terrible. the truth is that our entire international affairs budget including everything from the protection of our ambassadors to emergency food for refugees is equal to about 1%. i don't know about you, but i am fed up with politicians who demand a strong america and then vote to deprive our diplomats of the tools they need to protect and advance our interests. and that's why our country should have a comprehensive national security budget that will enable us not only to wage war, but also to preserve peace and to lead both on the battlefield and at the bargaining table. our second imperative is education. the tech

concerned at the emerging evidence of the use of chemical weapons, and we demand that the regime allow the u.n. to investigate these allegations. assad should be in no doubt that the world is watching and will hold him to account, him and anyone else to account who is found responsible for the use of chemical weapons. as we face up to these security challenges and those posed by iran, we also face significant budget constraints, both in london and in washington. secretary hagel and i have addressed the issue of defense reform and how we can get more bang for our buck on both sides of the atlantic. greater military cooperation is at the heart of this, and we also need to look at how we can encourage our partner countries within european nato to reform their forces to take on more of the security challenge with more effective and deployable forces. of course, the u.k. and the u.s. already enjoy a very high level of cooperation and interoperability, but we have agreed to explore what more we can do in our armed forces to drive greater efficiencies through collaboration together. yesterday, as sec

same reason you're not going to get reform of the u.n. security council. any reform has winners and losers and shockingly enough, the losers will resist it. i ended up thinking it made sense to traffic in put up these thoughts. i do think there's one or two ways things could turn out better. one is the way i fear, which is only after a crisis have essentially business as usual is no longer sustainable. the problem is we pay an enormous collective price for the crisis. this is not the way any of you should want things to happen. the alternative is something of a new majority or plurality for reforms we need. i think aker, about for leadership willing to willing to in some ways combine the best of fdr, the fireside chats for policy reform and lyndon johnson and some good retail politics to bring it about. it's a longshot? are. is it possible? definitely. no way have they given up. americans can be counted on to do the right thing, but only after they've tried everything else. the real question for me is whether we get time before the crisis forces us to unde

the u.n. is doing a great job. they are running out of money. jordan is about to fall if we don't stop this war. from a human point of view, senator mccain, we have got to get this war over and america needs to be seen as part of the solution, not part of the problem. from a national security point of view, syria is going to become a nightmare for the whole world, including the united states. mr. mccain: i thank my colleague. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to include in the record a piece by senator casey called time to act in syria. it was in the huffington post, "washington post" editorial entitled repercussions of inaction, "wall street journal" article u.s. has warned planned syria arms sale, and finally a syria arms sale, and finally a >> the situation in afghanistan and 78 and 79 was just how different it was from what we face today. many things are radically different. there are no radical leftist parties or secular parties at afghanistan today. that has all been pretty much wiped out but in the 1970s those were the powerful force

. >> between a group of u.n. the president. >> in this town nothing happens behind closed doors which is okay. this needs to be something that is transparent. at the end of the day this will affect the lives of millions of americans in fundamental ways so it is going to be a process, patty murray will be involved, paul ryan will be involved and it requires a presidential leadership. if you look back whether it is tax reform 86 or whether it is social security reform 83 the last two examples where we did something significant to improve the economy and deal with what seemed to be a huge debt and deficit problem which by the way seems small relative to what we have not always involve presidential leadership. it must. the president had ultimately been in support in order to have it become effective and inactive but the resources of management and budget and the treasury department are critical to this. the president has got to step up and show leadership. >> do you believe he started? >> in a small way and that is i

they don't like the u.n. security council voting on sanctions against them for their military activities. and i think the same thing is true in terms of the commission of inquiry. i think we continue to document, we continue to establish the facts, and there's a growing sense that north korea is out of step with the rest of the nations in the world. and i think this commission of inquiry is part of that process. the economists intelligence unit produces reports periodically. they did a report on freedom, what countries have the greatest amounts of freedom, who are the best countries in terms of human rights and so forth. they went through a process of giving numerical values to certain kinds of criteria, and then ranking all of the nations of the earth as to how they stand on human rights. the united states was in the 20s. north korea, there were 167 countries in the study and north korea was 167. now, no matter what your country is, that's not a good place to be. and i think we need to continue that effort.

but we're not relying on the u.n. alone. we are pursuing and gathering information independently of that and working with our allies and the syrian -- most importantly, the syrian opposition. i don't -- i don't have the depth of information about the progress that's being made to assess whether or not the report you said about the evidence available, whether or not that's the case. i know that we have been for some time now working in an effort to build on the intelligence community's assessment about the use of chemical weapons to make sure that we have a case, if you will, a set of facts that can be corroborated and reviewed. and from which we can make assessments about possible policy actions. even as that takes place as you have seen at the direction of the president, we have stepped up our humanitarian assistance, we have stepped up our assistance to the syrian opposition. we have made assistance available directly to the military, supreme military council of the opposition. nonlethal assistance, but we have stepped it

this working dialogue between the u.n. that was established several years ago is working dialogue. working dialogue without special relation center for everybody, i believe, it should be maintained for the benefit of european union and nay tow -- nato. [inaudible] and my third remarking, about necessary corporation between the both institutions but also for abilities of particular -- [inaudible] especially in the -- [inaudible] and smart defense. to what extent you can say that it -- [inaudible] it should be harmonized in the progress of both. thank you very much. >> translator: thank you for that very interesting speech. you said nato was a unique transatlantic forum. and there's no doubt about that. what i think is most encouraging is that nato has concentrated on the new challenges of cybersecurity and the like. and yet, there's a general view that nato is -- the u.s.a. turning in on itself has to, some extend downgraded nato. my question to you is, to what extend is the united states now less interested in europe. and my second question -- [inaudible] and the european enthusias

and that is i don't know the level of responsibility that u.n. the president bear for this scandal but i know it's not zero and i think the american people would like to hear a little bit more from you and the president that the buck stops here as opposed to hear no evil, see no evil and i know nothing, and that may just a little bit of unsolicited advice so i'm not going to look retrospectively. i'm going to look prospectively. i know you have seen the forms that the irs has sense to american citizens. the irs now reports to you mr. secretary and as for the last two and a half months. so i've looked through these forms and i find out where the irs is asking american citizens for all of their goodies both facebook and twitter including hard copies of all advertising or social media. under your watch will it be appropriate for irs agents to ask this? >> mr. chairman i take responsibility for the management of the treasury department and the management and oversight of the irs. there is a difference between general management oversight and the very

the e-mail says hey our u.n. office? i respond, should i be? and they respond, you might want to be in the office. so i respond, can it wait until halftime? the responses you might want to be in the office. that of course is the day that lehman brothers was about to go into bankruptcy and also the day that bank of america bought out merrill lynch and the day that wall street change forever. it events that followed an ugly weeks of the fall of 2008 have been chronicled in a lot of books and history. it's aig and the tarp and all these ugly payloads and all of this economic calamity happening at that time. i'm going to focus on a couple of aspects you might not know about that are important in understanding this in a global level. in the 19s the central bankers didn't understand each other and didn't communicate and act with common assault. that a change by 2008 in by the time 2008 rolls around there is very much a sense of common purpose among these guys. they meet six times a year. they go to basle switzerland. they have two days of meetings in

so far the u.n. security council has failed to reach a consensus i strongly regret because i do believe we have a political framework that could be used as an june 2012, the so-called action group in syria issued a statement of declaration, signed by all five permanent members of the u.n. security council. in that statement, it is clearly stated the regime in damascus should initiate a process of transition leading to accommodation of legitimate aspirations of the syrian people. i do believe a solution could be based on that declaration. too bad and of course negates u.n. security council resolution. now mr. burkett asked me about the good. they have made substantial progress. this is the reason we have granted a membership action plan. they do not fulfill the necessary criteria, but i am quite impressed by the work done and the progress achieved. but there's a political statement. a couple years ago, we granted a condition based membership action plan. we have declared we are willing to activate tha

of the two weeks around then-secretary of state general colin powell giving his push for war at the u.n., february 5, 2003. a speech he would later call, general powell would later call a stain on his career. that speech was the final nail in the coffin for so many, because he had been hesitant about the war, so he had a great deal of credibility. and he said, yes, the evidence was in. there was, there were -- there was final proof that there were weapons of mass destruction. f.a.i.r. did a study to have two weeks around that address and looked at the abc world news tonight, cbs evening news, nbc nightly news and the pbs "newshour". in that two-week period six weeks before the occupation, this was extremely significant because this was the period when americans are making up their minds. about half the population was for the war, half opposed to war. in those two weeks, there were 393 interviews done around war in the four major nightly newscasts. guess how many were with anti-war leaders? well, you figure, you know, half the population for, half against, maybe 200, 150. three. three of

but in order to use something like u.n. membership of going to the international criminal court, or any other diplomatic or other tool at your disposal, you have to have a strategy. i have seen the slightest inkling of a stretch from palestinian politician four years. what are they doing? whether complex are they going to get the? i just don't see the. i see nothing in anything they see -- say, anything they do that if it were up to me, i would be trying to increase resistance on the ground to this grinding annexation and occupation process. i would be trying to increase pressure external in by, i don't know where you go are what where you go out what to where you go are what you do but there are many things you can do, and i would say, this is a process that was supposed, going to the letter of assurances which i have right here, u.s. letter of assurances, invitation to the peace conference which have right ere, these tattered copies ideas back in 1991. this process was supposed to end in 1997. they interacted was supposed

that would take agreement among the five permanent members of the u.n. security council. the only way forward is a political solution. but to that end, we need a strong and unified message from the international community. mr. glick asked me whether the so-called u.s. pivot to asia will weaken t transatlantic relationship. my brief answer is that will very much depend on us, the europeans. i think it's in our interests that the u.s. rebalance its interests and focus a bit more on the asia pacific region taking into account the rising powers in that region. but if we are to insure that the americans still find europe relevant as a partner, the europeans must also invest in that transatlantic relationship politically, economically and militarily. that's my point. i was asked pretty much the same question, would this u.s. pivot to asia downgrade nato? no, not in itself. but, of course, if the europeans don't invest in the transatlantic relationship, it may, it may weaken that bond. but actually we have seen a strong u.s. commitment to european security. for instance, the u.s

we operate on the basis of a u.n. mandate. we have an obligation to implement the u.n. pan kate to insure -- mandate to insure free movement -- [inaudible conversations] [laughter] >> you asked me about afghanistan. there is a clear road map. by the end of 2014, the isaf mission will come to an end. that will complete our combat mission. but we will stay after 2014 with a noncombat be mission, a training mission to help the afghan security forces. mr. lisek asked me when we do anything to stop cuts in defense budgets. as you know, international decision. they toe as an alliance can't interfere with that. that's a national decision. we have a men be. mark according to which -- a benchmark according to which nato allies have stated that those allies that spent more than 2%, on defense commit themselves to stay above the 2% while those allies below 2% will try to work towards 2% benchmark. it's not a legal requirement, it's a political obligation. and whenever i visit capitals -- and soon i will visit warsaw -- i will repeat that message. and, actually, i can tell you that

we operate on the basis of the u.n. mandate. we have an obligation to implement the u.n. mandate, to ensure free movement. you asked me about afghanistan. that in 2014, the isaf mission will come to an end. that will complete our combat mission, but we will stay after 2014 to help the afghan security forces. mr. lisette asked me whether we do anything to stop cuts and defense budgets. as you know, international decision as a benchmark according to which nato allies have stated those allies that spent more than 2%, 2% or more on defense commit themselves to stay above the 2% while those will try to work towards the 2%. it's not a legal requirement. it's a political obligation. whenever i visit capitals and soon i will visit, i will repeat that message. and i can tell you i've had political dialogue with governments, but also with parliamentarians in some capitals. i have seen a positive response. i can mention one country in which the main political parties have reached a broad political agreement according to which they will now move gradually toward 2%. so that his life

just google the u.n. got the google. what made him say you lie was the reference that barack obama, president obama may to the fact that health care this law was not going to be readily available and easily acceptable to anybody in this country illegally. if you're here illegally -- so you're not going to get, it's not available for those who are here illegally and the cards and jumped up and said july. why do i raised that? i raise it because of all the things that barack obama said in that speech that this republican congressman had to disagree with, the thing that really got his eye was the very idea that the president would dare say that this is not going to happen with this card says your life. we know it is and we're going to fight against it. so years ago this health issue already has this color-coded notion connected to it. it's in the past. now going forward you've got a senator who is suggesting that you shouldn't healthier on the other side of this citizenship fight. talk to me about health care and where we'r

yes, again, fruit is a healthy buzzword that the ngdustry is putting out there, i especially to pull u.n., as presenting these two kids and as but wh have ave for sugar? uestnd 11 grams. that is more than: 2 tablespoo. that is significant.are >> one of the fascinating things [lau about chips, and i really think this is so interesting because y love potato chips. cou i couldn't figure out why they induce such incredible cravings and people. we know that the salt is right there on the surface of the the chips, providing what the industry calls the flavor bursts.dialls your saliva races to theinto pleasure center of the brain, which sends the signals. and they say, okay, let's get o more of that. we know that the senses are soae soaked with that. and that gives the pleasurable feeling. races the chips are also loaded with h sugar, a convertito starch itself, which begins to convert to sugar thet instant it hits your tongue. so you have the holy trinity yoe there of salt and sugar and fat, all interacting.duct, but but just just make you like the potter product but to make you want more and

they draw an analogy between the daily irritations and from government bureaucrats and rules and a u.n. conspiracy to remake american businesses, put in every house that are going to regulate the temperature for you. we couldn't figure out where that came from, and then vanessa went through the fox news transcript and there it was. many of the tea partyers that we talked to told us they watch fox news six to eight hours a day. so i think there was a big push about the time we were doing our interviews to get a certain scary image of environmentalism out there, and we can report it was working. >> all right. well, on that note, thank you for takenning. it was a wonderful discussion, and -- [applause] there's a reception upstairs, and they'll be signing books, on the second floor here. [inaudible conversations] >> coming up next, elizabeth liz price foley talks about her book "tea party: three principles." >> i am delighted to introduce you to our last author, elizabeth price foley who has written book on at the tea party. you make the tea partyhahey tea party is not a party, it's a move

the u.n. is doing a great job. they are running out of money. jordan is about to fall if we don't stop this war. from a human point of view, senator mccain, we have got to get this war over and america needs to be seen as part of the solution, not part of the problem. from a national security point of view, syria is going to become a nightmare for the whole world, including the united states. mr. mccain: i thank my colleague. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to include in the record a piece by senator casey called time to act in syria. it was in the huffington post, "washington post" editorial entitled repercussions of inaction, "wall street journal" article u.s. has warned planned syria arms sale, and finally a piece by leon wieseltier that is in "the new republic." the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: i thank my colleagues. i yield. the presiding officer: morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of s. 601 which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 44, 601, a

we then had the u.n. enterprises that are on the korean peninsula to keep the people of the republic of korea free. vietnam war, very, very dramatic and important in american history. and then today, you know, we face the issues with taiwan, our relationship with japan, and present a republic of korea. so it's always been a pretty important issue set for the united states. on the other hand, it's also always been taken for granted, to a degree. admittedly, america has for a long time been a very eurocentric nation. you know, we have worried about that. we faced the soviet union in europe. when i was a young lieutenant that's where everyone was focused. then the middle east, things like 9/11, which we're now totally focused their and still remaining that way. so in a certain way the administration's so-called pivot towards asia is very much overdue. and we should celebrate the concept of doing that. i mean, the portion of the world's population that happens to be in asia is enormous. the markets that are t

i write about this, and i was just giving a speech at the the u.n. the fact that so many news organizations, um, in the time when half the population was opposed to war, the four major nightly newscasts -- abc, nbc, cbs and the pbs "newshour" -- two weeks around paul giving his push at the u.n., he was secretary of the tate at the time -- state at the time, it was a final nail in the coffin for so many because he'd been so respected for dragging his feet on war saying is the evidence in. but on that day, february 5, 2003, six weeks before the invasion, he said the evidence is in. and that swayed so many. but, you know, the population was wided. and -- divided. and these newscasts were so important at this time. they set the agenda. 393 interviews done around war in that two week period on those four newscasts. would we expect, 200, 150 would be with people for the war and against the war? no, three against the war. three anti-war leaders of almost 400 interviews. no longer mainstream media. it's an extreme media beating the drums for war. we know in

we operate on the basis of u.n. mandate. we have an obligation to implement the u.n. mandate to insure free movement. [inaudible conversations] [laughter] you asked me about afghanistan. there's a clear road map. by the end of 2014, the isaf mission will come to an end. that will complete our combat mission. but we will stay after 2014 with a noncombat mission, a training mission to help the afghan security forces. mr. lisyk asked me whether we do anything to stop cuts in defense budgets. of as you know, the it's a national decision. nato as an alliance can't interfere with that. that's a national decision. we have a benchmark according to which nato allies have stated that those allies that spent more than 2%, 2% or more on defense, commit themselves to stay above the 2 percent. while those allies below 2% will try to work towards the 2% benchmark. it's not a legal requirement, it's a political obligation. and whenever i visit capitals -- and soon i will visit warsaw -- i will repeat that message. and, actually, i can tell you that i have had political, a political d