doctrine@@@@@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ countries reserve the right to act this their own self-right if they are about to be attacked. this wording and this use of public doctrine, i think, was one of the reasons why iraq's diplomacy was so hard. it was seen as a first test of a new thing. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute] >> it's always been true that the united states has been able to act pre-emptively in a situation if they thought it would be in our national uld self-defense. be in our national self-defense. the issue was not preemption. it was the other word in the doctrine -- "prevention." there and is knockenot -- iran t going to have a missile with which to attack the united states. but knowing that iran may soon have a nuclear weapons capable program, do we act before they get to that point? that would be preventive war, to prevent something from happening. for all the reasons that she stated, i think we will end up in a very similar situation to the way things work in the cold war. there was a phrase in the cold war that was called "adequate verification." it was a term invented by the nixon administration. it meant that we could have an agreement with the soviet union, who we know are lying and cheating and stealing rations -- [laughter] >> it is not like they cannot help it or something there were born with. [laughter] >> right. but we could do this in time to respond. i think that is where we will end up with iran. we will develop some analogous phrase. >> we will let them back of their nuclear weapons. >> we would -- >> know. we would attack -- >> no. we would get tax if they throw the inspectors out. we would detect that and then we would make this decision to use force and prevent iran from ever having this capability. to get into a diplomatic discussion with other countries, if they were about to brandish an actual weapon or put the final pieces together or throw the inspectors out who currently monitor this material, that would yield a different response. i think that is where this debate is going to go. >> may i respond? >> i feel like a lowly college professor. why wait? why do we not blow them up? >> it worries me that the soviet contract gives me comfort in this context. russia was not a state sponsor of terror. when you add that into the mix, the notion that we will be able to know that they have cheated and be able to take time to make a decision to act or that we will be able to track adequately the material, i do not think that is realistic. in the context of the potential for not just a nuclear weapon, but for the movement of materials and the use of those nuclear materials and an improvised nuclear device by a terrorist organization, this is asymmetric. that is what worries me. >> i do not disagree with any of that. but the primary threat has already been dismissed, which is to use military force. i am talking about where we are likely to end up. the reason why president bush did not choose to attack iran and the reason why president obama seems disinclined to attack iran is because the attack would not fully achieve the objective of preventing them from ever getting a nuclear weapon and it would have all of these costs. >> and there would be some push back. >> right. this would be used against israel, against the gulf, against embassies around the world, against americans ourselves, and we would be initiating a major war in the middle east for a gain that has been described as questionable. that is the reason weapon of bush did not do it, and presumably why president obama is reluctant to do it. when we are left with the the real world, there are preferred auctions of preventing an iranian nuclear weapon capability. we do not have good options. >> you may use the military option. you can get to the point where the use of the military option for delaying it is a better alternative than the acceptance of them acquiring a nuclear weapon. >> but we are not there yet. >> no. that is right. i think we may find ourselves there. certainly, our is really friends may find themselves there. -- our is really -- our isreali friends may find themselves there. >> here is the next question. why are americans so despised around the world? [laughter] >> i don't think that that promise is true. during the clinton administration, a relatively popular present around the world, there was a lot of anger and frustration at the united states. the french foreign minister said that we were the hyper power and that european countries did not like being told what to do when it came to sanctions on iran and libya. we were criticized for things like be telling the secretary- general of the u.n.. in all candor, president bush took that to a new level. even after president obama had come in and fixed theucñ major differences that existed between the two parties, like climate change and change in the practices with respect to the treatment of prisoners and supporting international control agreements, we did something that nobody had ever heard of before. we unsigned a treaty. i guess they had an eraser or pen and the race did. [laughter] -- and you raised it. [laughter] -- and erased it. [laughter] >> too often, other countries are willing to put their head in the sand and hope the problem will go away or live in the knowledge that somebody else will take care of it, whether it is the united states or the israelis. this is a good example. you talk to moderately arab countries and you get this funny moment where moderately arab countries basically admitte that they would like the israelis to block the iranian nuclear reactor. -- to blow up the iranian nuclear reactor. in the recent case went israel attacked the hezbollah operations in lebanon because they had attacked israelis in the north, for the first time ever, you had egypt, jordan, saudi arabia issuing a statement blaming hezbollah for initiating the war. it is rare that you have dishonesty. with all the difficulties that we go through, america is the strongest military power and the world. we have a system that is admired. americans themselves are admired, probably less than it ought to be, if we could fix immigration officers being mean to all of those foreigners. it is hard to come to this country if you're not american canal. it is tough to go through immigration. -- if you're not american now. it is that to go through immigration. it is not anybody's fault. >> so we are not despised. but we could do things to be more admired than we already are. >> did the administration worry -- not that americans were despised -- that the attitude toward the american government was causing problems that we're serious and needed to be resolved because it was dangerous to us? >> yes. one of the things is that, when you read the question, my first reaction is that there is a difference between this agreements by people around the world with american policy versus americans being despised. i have travelled throughout the persian gulf, including to saudi arabia many times. i have never had the experience where anyone in any part of the world, including the arab world, hated americans. they may have disagreed with policy. they may have locally been disagreeing with american foreign policy. but they did not despise americans. when condoleezza rice went to become the secretary of state, she and i talked about this issue. we had met with a group of american university presidents who were concerned about the drop in student visas from around the world. we were clamping down and issuing fewer student visas. our allies in canada and great britain and australia were easing restrictions on students and were attracting them. the university officials said that, once we losezo!t them, a percentage of them we will not get back. teaching the customs and immigration officials at airports how to behave in a way that does not unduly offend people who were visiting this country, i can remember a great story. a man who had gone to harvard and said that his wife would not let him go. i said, i will meet him at boston's logan airport if you send him. he said, that is fine, but my wife will let him go because you will not be there every time. it is by no means perfect. it is better. it was the group of university presidents who said that, by and large, we have gotten students back to this country. they are not at the level that it was before 9/11. people admired the ingenuity and the capability of this country and they wanted to come here. the important thing was to get past the government-to- government relations around the world and reach out to people and let them come here and let them be comfortable and take advantage of the many blessings we have in this country. we worked very hard. that was one of the things we thought we could do to ease some of that. . >> a number of dramatic decisions, the moniker of fighting a of fighting as hard as we should for democratic values around the world. and i think the decision not to see the -- cede the dali lama before the president wept to china, the decision to downplay human rights in our relationship with china, the decision to put aside some of the democracy programs in countries like egypt and elsewhere. each one of these decisions on the merits had good practical value and good pragmatic rationale. but the net effect of all these decisions, it's a shame that democracy prome promotion, the great idea that the rest of the world should have more and more infrastructure of democracy and ultimately the democratic government, i would say, became hyper partisan the day that president bush gave a speech to the state of the union and every republican legislator put purple ink on their finger, and whenever iraq was discussed to signal iraqi democracy they waived the fingers to try to make the democrats in the room feel like because they had legitimate questions about the iraq war they were not for democracy, as if those two were the same. and so i think unfortunately the result is that the democratic party during those years began to associate the promotion of democracy with the iraq war and president bush's doctrine and remembered this day when they were -- an attempt was made to embarrass them. so the democratic party as a whole has stepped back from being as much of a promoter of democratic values around the world despite president kennedy, president carter, or president clinton's historical support for democracy. democracy. >> in your area, nobody seems very happy. do you think the president has handled it ok? >> i think the president, it is interesting. when you look at the press coverage with the health care debate, the president has not really spoken about the terrorism threat and the issues facing this country in terms of homeland security since the christmas day attempt. i think that leaves open the ability for partisans to criticize him. there is no question that we are going to be attacked again. we can quibble whether it is enhanced derogation or did interrogation techniques are guantanamo bay or the federal trials, all of those are legitimate public policy debates. regrettably, it denigrates into a partisan debate. i will say to you that i think it is really important and my concern at the moment is the president must find his voice on this issue. i fear, given the christmas day attempt and his concern that the system did not work as it should have, that is -- that we failed to detect the threat before it manifested itself, he had gotten remarkably quiet on this issue. i did not think that serves him or the country well. i think we need to talk about the issue. we need to be off -- honest about the threat we are facing. part of that is there is no good that comes from not talking about it. let me speak from personal experience. your national security officials, every day they are in office, will strike a balance between security and privacy and civil liberties. they do would on your behalf. just because there are not talking about it does not mean they did not do it. public officials make better decisions when there is an informed public debate on the issue. you may not ultimately agree with the decisions they make, but i can assure you they will make better decisions by virtue of the public debates. >> that is a great place to end this. thank you, both. thank you for being with us and all of you for being with us. [applause] >> up next, president obama announces a new treaty with russia. then your calls and comments with "washington journal." >> this weekend on c-span2's book tv, bill bennett examines the 20th century. and throughout the weekend, look for highway lights from the virginia festival of the book. find the entire schedule online at book tv.org. >> mr. gorbachev, tear down this wall! >> whether you are researching former presidents or just watching their speeches or if you missed an event from the white house just yesterday, you can search it and watch it or delip clip it online. over 160,000 hours of video. every c-span program since 1987. cable's latest gift to america, the c-span library. >> now president obama announces a new treaty on nuclear weapons. he calls for both countries to reduce their nuclear arsenal by a third. following this, we hear from secretary of state, hillary clinton, and joint chiefs of staff chair admiral mike mullin. this lasts about 35 minutes. >> good morning, everyone. i just concluded a phone call with president medvedev us. after a year of intense negotiations, russia and the united states have agreed to the most sweeping arms control agreement in decades. one of my missions has been to address the threat of nuclear weapons on the american people. that is why last april, i stated that we sought a world without nuclear weapons. a goal that has been embraced by presidents like john f. kennedy and ronald reagan. this will not happen in the near future but i put together an agenda to pursue it. to secure formal materials from terrorists and reduce nuclear arsenals. a fundamental part of that was the negotiation of a new treaty with russia. furthermore, since i took office, i have been committed to a renewal of our relationship with russia. we can work effectively in the interests of our two nations and the prosperity of the greater world. we have worked together on afghanistan. we have coordinated our efforts through the g-20. we're working to pressure iran to meet its international obligations. today, we agreed to a new arms control measure. in many ways, nuclear weapons represent the darkest days of the cold war and the darkest threat of our time. we are leaving behind a legacy of the 20th century while building a more secure future of our children. we made progress that is clear and concrete. we have demonstrated the importance of american leadership and partnership on behalf of our own security and that of the world. the new treaty makes progress in several areas. it cuts by 1/3 the nuclear- weapons that the u.s. and russia will deploy. it reduces missiles and launchers. it puts in place a strong and effective verification regime and maintains the flexibility that we need to have in protection of our national security. with this agreement, the u.s. and russia, the two largest nuclear powers in the world, send a clear signal that we intend to lead by holding our own commitments under the treaty and to strengthen our efforts to stop the spread of these weapons and make sure other nations meet their responsibilities. i am pleased to one-year to the day to my trip to prague, we have been invited to prague to sign the treaty. in the following week, i will post a 40 leaders of nations and we can hold a summit on a clear weapons so that they never fall into the hands of terrorists. we will come together to continue to strengthen the global non. proliferation regime. cooperation between the u.s. and russia will be essential. i want to thank the president for his personal and sustained leadership as we work through this agreement. we can agree through closer cooperation. my national security team has worked to make this possible. it includes a tireless negotiating team. the u.s. will be more secure and the american people will be safe i will be continuing to work closely with congress in the months ahead. we have worked on a bipartisan effort of arms control. leaders of both parties have seen the importance of securing these weapons. earlier this week, i met with john kerry and dick lugar to discuss this. throughout the morning, my administration will be consulting senators and my administration will be consulting senators from both parties as we prepare for a strong bipartisan support to ratify the new treaty. with that, i will leave you in the able hands of my secretary of state, henry clinton, the secretary of defense, robert gates, and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, robert mullen. >> thank you very much. has president obama reiterated, that is one of the highest per these of the obama administration to pursue an agenda to reduce the threats posed by the deadliest weapons the world has ever known. president obama said the fourth in his speech in prague last year and today he and president medvedev reached an agreement to make significant and verifiable reductions in our nuclear arsenal. long after the end of the cold war, the u.s. and russia still possess more than 90% of the world's nuclear weapons. we do not need such a large arsenals to protect our nation and our allies against the two greatest dangers we face today. nuclear proliferation and terrorism. this treaty represents a significant step forward in our cooperation with russia. we recommended to reset our relationship because we saw this as essential to making progress on counter-terrorism, nuclear security and non-proliferation. we will continue to have disagreements with our russian friends but this treaty is an example of the deep operation on a matter of vital importance. it shows that patient diplomacy can advance our national interests by producing real results. in this case, results that are good for us, russia, and global stability. this shows the world that one of our top priorities is to strengthen the global non- proliferation regime and keep nuclear materials out of the wrong hands. the new treaty demonstrates our commitment to commit to this -- to strengthen our efforts. we can hold other accountable to do the same. i know that secretary gates and admiral mullin will have more details but i want to make clear that we have adhered to the russian proverb that ronald reagan frequently employed --, "trust and verification." we will reduce the chance for misunderstandings and miscalculations. president obama insisted on a whole government effort and this is exactly what it was. he and president medvedev met several times and spoke often by phone. @@@@@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ g@åg @ e2@å) let me conclude by saying that i look forward to working with my former colleagues in the senate. they will be our partners in this enterprise. i know president obama had an excellent meeting, as he reported to you, with both senators kerry and luger. others of us have reaped members along the way. my pleasure and honor to turn the podium over to my friend, secretary robert gates. >> this treaty strengthens nuclear stability. it will reduce the number of nuclear weapons that both russia and the u.s. are permitted to deploy by 1/3 and maintains a verification regime. our arsenal remains an important pillar to our defense posture. it is to reassure allies and partners who rely upon our umbrella for their security. we can accomplish these goals with less nuclear-weapons. the reductions in this treaty will not affect the strength of our nuclear triad or does it limit plans to protect the u.s. and allies by improving and a plane and defense systems. of our negotiating position was provided by the defense department's nuclear posture review. as the number of weapons decline, we will have to invest more heavily in our infrastructure in order to keep our weapons -- our weapons safe, secure, and it effective. we want to make sure the departments of defense and energy have the funding necessary to accomplish this mission. this treaty carries a personal meeting for me. my professional career began as a junior officer in the strategic air command. one of my first assignments was home to 150 icbm's. i have been involved in different to negotiations in my professional capacity. president reagan signed the intermediate range treaty which marked the transition from arms control to the disarmament. that accelerated a start and reaches another important milestone with this treaty. the journey we have taken from being one step away from mutually assured destruction to the substantial reductions of this treaty is testament to how much this world has changed and the opportunities to make our planet safer and more secure. >> good morning, everyone. i would like to add that i, the vice chairman, the joint chiefs, our combat commanders stand solidly behind this treaty. we have made our recommendations and we helped to shape the final agreements. we appreciate the trust and confidence placed in us by the president and vice secretary gates throughout this process. we recognize the trust and confidence this house to foster and our relationship with the russian military. -- this helps to foster in our relationship with the russian military. i met with my russian counterpart no less than three times during the negotiations. each time we met wheen grew closer towards our portion of the result and a better understanding of the common challenges and opportunities our troops face every day. the new start deals directly with us some of the most common challenges. our stockpiles of weapons are dramatically reducing the stockpiles. this treaty achieves a proper balance, more keeping in today's security in burma. reducing tensions even as the pollsters non-proliferation efforts. -- keeping in today's security in the environment. it protects our ability to have a global strike capability if that is required. it allows us to deploy and maintain strategic nuclear forces -- and bombers, submarines, missiles. through the trust it engenders, the cuts it requires, and the flexibility it preserves, this treaty enhances our ability to do that would -- which we have been charged to do, to defend the citizens of the u.s. i'm confident in its success and safeguards. >> we will take three or four questions. >> , how confident are you of any ratification in the senate? you mentioned no limits on a missile defense. do you see in the future in gauging with russia in any kind of limitations on missile defense? >> we are focused on ratification. we are working hard we will engage deeply and broccoli with all of the members of the senate -- and broadly with all the members of the senate. i will not send any timetables but we are confident we will make a case for ratification. if you look at the last three major arms treaty, the treaty of 1993, 95-0, the second treaty, 93-6. in 1988, 93-5. when it comes to the goals of this treaty as were outlined by bob and mike, the great balance that it strikes, there should be very broad bipartisan support. >> will continue to try to engage the russians as partners in this process. one of the technical benefits of the adaptive approach that the president announced is that it actually makes it easier to connect the russian radars and capabilities to those in europe. we think that there is a broad opportunity to not only engage to the russians but also make them a participant. >> do you believe that these reductions are enough? >> i think that this is a major achievement in our relationship. equally importantly it fills the foundation of the trust we are accomplishing between the u.s. and russia this is a very complex relationship and it is one that we have given a great deal of attention to from the president all the way through the national security team. we believe there are other areas of cooperation we can pursue. we continue to look for ways to engage with russia on missile defense in a way that is mutually beneficial and which secures us against these new threats. the relationship coming out of the by national commission that president obama and president medvedev announced have covered some much ground and we'd would be glad to give you an in-depth briefing on that. it demonstrates that we are not just talking about the big- ticket items like european security, iran sanctions, missile defense. we are looking to create more people to people contacts and more business investment. we are committed and we will work together. >> you are facing a difficult task to convince the u.s. congress and the russians will face the same task. please tell me how the russian interests will take this into account >> the russian leadership will be in the best position to speak to the russian interests and how those are met. what we both believe as we went through the negotiations was that cutting our arsenal by 30% was in the best interest of both of our country'ies. more confidence between us. the concessions made were clearly in the interests of russia. we have to go to the congress, but president medvedev has to go to his legislative body. >> obviously a couple of deadlines were missed. what are the sticking points and howard ave resolved? what is your message to the europeans concerned about the missiles aimed at them? >> in any complex negotiations, there are going to be points along the way it where negotiators have to go back to their capitals. the negotiators needed to negotiate -- i had to talk to my counterpart many times because president obama and president medvedev were very clear. we want to do this and get it done in a timely manner. it took quite a bit. we needed to make it clear that this was a priority of the highest level of our government. the russians responded to that very positively. we began to work out the last details. we made a decision that we wanted to have not the treaty agreed to only, we wanted the protocols. sometimes they have been submitted and the work of the protocol goes on what we wanted to go through all of the technical work in the protocols so that when we went to the senate, it was that we can look at the treaty and the protocols. that was some of the time taken to be able to get to the point where we felt like we had the package necessary to go to our legislative bodies. we have consistently conveyed it to our friends and allies our commitment to our partners and to their defense. the adaptive approach that the president concluded with the best way forward on missile defense makes europe's a for. -- europe safer. there is the ability to build confidence in our central and eastern european partners with russia. everyone aware that this is something on going. one of the reason that the presidents will meet in prague is that we want to send the @ @ @ @ # s o snoo @ # s o can you explain how this treaty paves the way for progress on those areas? >> as the president said, we have a long-term vision of moving toward a world with no more nuclear weapons. we are absolutely realistic about how long that will take to convince everyone that this is in the world's interests. but the steps we are taking add up to something that makes a very clear statement of intent. so the treaty says to our country that the cold war really is behind us and this massive nuclear arsenal that both of our consumer thizztrizz maintained as deterrents no longer have to be so big. we can begin to cut that. that is not only in our security interests, but it is a commitment to the united states and russia toward nonproliferation and toward a world without nuclear weapons. nuclear weapons. the largest gathering as leader since the end of world war two in the u.s. will happen and is devoted to the idea of how we keep nuclear materials out of the hands of terrorist and row regimes. russia and ourselves come with more credibility having negotiated this than the non proliferation treaty which takes it further in how we can bring this regime into the 21st century. iran and north korea are pursuing nuclear weapons. you have to look at this whole approach on proliferation. >> it was a fairly brief conversation finalizing the treaty. the president mentioned it to president obama that he wanted to speak with him next in the czech republic. >> you mentioned the overwhelming majority -- is anything that concerns you about this political environment? is the pentagon uncomfortable about the campaign? >> national security has always produced large bipartisan majorities and i see no reason why this should be any different. we have had a very dynamic political debate in our country over health care which was brought to a successful conclusion this week to the betterment of the american people going forward. i do not believe that this ratification effort will be effected by anything other than individual senators assessment of whether this is in the best interest of american security. what you will hear over the weeks ahead as we testified and make the case to the press and the public, we are absolutely united in our belief that this is in america's interest. it puts us in a very strong leadership position. i believe the vast majority of the senate will see that this is in america's interest and it goes beyond policy. >> let me say a word about this from my perspective. there has been a very intense continuing consultation on the hill as the negotiations have proceeded. two of the areas that have been in the concern is are we protecting our ability to go forward with missile defense and we make the investment in our nuclear infrastructure so that the stockpile will remain a reliable and safe. missile defense is not constrained by this treaty. we have in our budget, the president's budget almost $5,000 for investment in the nuclear infrastructure and maintaining the stockpiles. we have addressed the concerns that there may have been on the hill. i echo the sentiments of secretary clinton. i think the prospects are quite good. the president has been very realistic in terms -- the president discussed that there might not be able to have zero nuclear weapons in his lifetime. others are attempting to develop them. we will do this in a realistic way some of the other steps of trying to get control of fissile material, these are concrete steps to move in that direction that i don't think anyone expects us to come close to. >> to what degree will missile offensive be addressed? is there some kind of linkage on future plans with the u.s.? is any concerns you have about russia? >> can i ask the undersecretary to address this? >> president obama and president medvedev of discussed this agreement. this is a strategic offensive weapons treaty and there is a relationship. that is where this discussion ended. when you see the treaty and the protocol, they are -- on missile defense. when it comes to romania, the approach is in phases. we have gone too extensive lengths to brief the russians. frankly, most of the status review has been on the web 4 weeks and months. we don't clear every conversation that we have with allies and friends before we do anything. we talked to the russians and they knew about the romanian invitation in 2015. >> i would like to follow up with the secretary of state. what does the russian cooperation portend and what you had with iran in the sanctions? >> we have had very constructive talks with all of our partners and in depth consultations with the russians, most recently last thursday and friday. we are pursuing the plan that we set forth in the very beginning of this administration. this is an 80 stracke process. the first track was engagement. the president has reached out to the iranians. the other track of pressure in the event that the iranians would not engage or refuse to comply with their international obligations. there are many questions that raise concerns about the behavior is. i think that this would be widely viewed in the authoritative source in coming to the united states. this summarizes why the international community needs to move on this second track. i believe you will see increasing activity in the very near future as we work to bring to fruition a resolution that can muster the votes that are necessary in the security council. president medvedev and president obama talked about this continuously. honwhen they are together, they talk about this. we were out on the new yankee stadium field for the n.y.u. commencement. she was at the center of activities. one of our goals is to try to move the world towards a recognition that nuclear- weapons should be phased out. from our perspective, that is our goal. it is what we are dealing with the nuclear security summit. a number of the region's in the area will be represented. it remains one of our highest priorities. i'm going to reaffirm our commitment to convincing countries that the path of non proliferation is the path they want to be on. >> verification is an important part of the process. the american people are talking about the treaty, what can you say about your level of confidence in the verification process? >> the verification measures have been designed to monitor compliance with the provisions of this treaty. for example, because the -- of missiles was not an issue, telemetry was not nearly as important for this treaty as it was in the past. we don't need telemetry to monitor compliance. znevertheless, there is a bilateral agreement to exchange bilateral agreement to exchange telemetry informationno carrier0 [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captioning performed by >> coming up next, your calls and comments on "washington journal." then, secretary of state, hillary clinton. that will be followed by israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu.