tv Tonight From Washington CSPAN July 11, 2013 8:00pm-11:01pm EDT
population of a million white cats and one black cat and suppose that being the black cat does provide you with some big advantages but in this blending theory, you makes things like gin and tonic that cat mixed with a white cat you get a grey cat. the gray cat mates with another white cat to get the paler shade of gray cat and the thing just gets diluted and deluded and the black advantage would disappear and never appear again. coming up tonight on c-span2 a confirmation hearing with state department nominees taking questions from members of the senate on relations committee.
stamey wanted a representative look at american life so i need politics, business, entertainment and food, finance art. i also was interested in this recurring pattern which you see with gingrich and you see with oprah and you see with jc and sam walton. people who really begin in very humble places and are not unlike the main characters but to sort of reinvent themselves as something new and find a new language and a new idea that is riveting to americans. through that they build an empire and they can't stop doling it. it's almost like an imperative with the corporation. you have to keep growing even as
a person. as a brand you have to keep growing but eventually sort of decadence that then where the language becomes a parody in itself and they no longer seem to produce something good. they just continue to produce. gingrich just keeps writing book after book. oprah was on the cover of every issue of her magazine and so they become the celebrities that we are now familiar with who are just dominating our imaginations and in a way have come to replace the institutions that have faltered in this period of time. now his senate foreign relations committee confirmation hearings for several state department nominees. among the nominees former state department spokesman victoria nuland nominated to be assistant
>> calling the hearing to order, the senate foreign relations committee will consider three-mile nominations that tory is applied to the assistant secretary of state for eurasian affairs and douglas lute to nato and daniel baer to be the u.s. ambassador to the organization for security and cooperation in europe. before we begin let remind the members that the deadline for submission of questions for the record is as of the close of business this monday. first let me welcome our nominees as well as your families. our first nominee victoria's nuland is a 29 year veteran of the foreign service. she most recently served in the state department as the spokesperson there but ambassador nuland his work at the highest levels of both republican and democratic administration turning their respective her colleagues at every step along the way pages served with integrity and dedication as a special envoy for conventional armed forces in europe, the u.s. permanent representative nato and the principle deputy security
adviser to vice president cheney. as her colleaguecolleague s know for 20 years of work as an expert specifically on russia as well as negotiator and strong voice for democracy and human rights takes are ideally suited for the position of assistant secretary for europe and eurasia. victoria is originally from my home state of connecticut so i am especially pleased to preside over her confirmation hearing today. she is here with her family. her parents as well and her husband robert and her son david and we welcome them as well. daniel baer is the deputy assistant secretary and improve democracy and human rights and labor currently at the departmedepartme nt department state. prior to joining the administration had teaching positions at georgetown and harvard and during his time in academia and the private sector and government dr. baer has distinguished himself as a talented diplomat and passionate defender of human rights and i believe he is an excellent choice for our ambassador to the
os cd. he is here with his partner brian and we welcome him. douglas lute has long had a distinguished career in both the military and civilian service. he is currently serving as deputy assistant to the president coordinator for south asia and the white house national security staff. he retired from active duty in the united states army as lieutenant general after 35 years of service. general lute's previous positions include the u.s. european command in germany and as the commander of u.s. forces in kosovo where he first worked with nato. general lute we thank you for your service and look forward to working with you in your new position and we also welcome your wife jane who is here today. i congratulate all of you on your nominations. let me say as we are going to be talking about europe today probably the most overused word in the foreign policy community today is -- there is no doubt that america
has new and important diplomatic economic and security interests in asia. there is no doubt that the original reason for many of our values-based alliances with europe, the cold war is no longer present but today no less than ever before europe as a unit and its european nations individually remained america's most trusted and important ally to be found anywhere on the globe. our most important security relationship is with europe. when confronting a global crisis the first place we almost always turns to her european allies. her most important economic relationship is with europe. that is why we are investing with a kickoff this week of negotiations of the transatlantic trade investment partnership. in a lot of ways this united states and europe face a new economic growth in asia as we look at communal security challenges in places like syria iran and afghanistan our alliance is more important than
ever before. so if confirmed ambassador nuland you will -- at a crucial moment in our alliance and i look forward today to hearing your thoughts friends and somehow the state department can assist the u.s. trade rep in moving forward a potentially transformational economic deal with europe. we need to hear from you as to how we continue to maneuver and increase equally complicated to use a generous term relationship with russia. how do we work together on common goals like arms control and middle eastern instability without letting them off the hook for the downward turn in the treatment of civil society. while we welcome these leaders in the balkans that we work with their partners in europe to continue to integrate these fragile nations to the world community? general lute you will be working with nato partners to bring our troops home from afghanistan while at the same time formulating a future role of the alliance. nato still remains the world's
preeminent security alliance but to remain strong you are going to continue the work of your predecessor in emphasizing emphasizing the importance of smart defense, interoperability and coordinated strategic -- and dr. baer you are going to an organization that more than any other represents our ideals and yet you will be faced with the challenge, maybe more of a challenge today than ever of putting those ideals into action. so i congratulate each of you on your nomination and i hope is that the full senate will work quickly and positively on their confirmations. at this point i turn it over to senator johnson for opening remarks. >> thank you mr. chairman. appreciate your opening remarks and i certainly appreciate also the distinguished service the nominees have already provided the nation and truly appreciate the fact that you are willing to step up to the plate again and serve your nation and your capacities here. we have some i think first-class nominees here and i'm looking forward to your testimony.
what is being contemplated in the united states senate require some comment and i would like to utilize my opening remarks to talk about what we were talking about in our caucuses and the majority is contemplating action to break the rules to change the senate rules in a way that i believe would be incredibly damaging and very destructive to the united states senate. it is doing it on the basis of what i think certainly the folks on our side of the aisle has to do with nominations and supposedly republican obstruction and apparently our blocking foundations but here are the facts. and the 111th congress there were 920 a president obama's nominations confirmed in only one was rejected. in the 112th congress, 574 nominations were confirmed. only two were rejected.
in the 113th congress the current congress there have been 66 nominees confirmed with only one being rejected, hardly a record of obstruction. in terms of nominees in terms of the length of time it has taken to get confirmation president obama and his cabinet nominees have taken 51 days on average. during president bush's administration today is during president clinton's administration in five days. again president obama says ben given due consideration his nominees have been moved forward very rapidly. in this term, in a second term president, has confirmed 28 judges. the senate has confirmed 28 judges compared to 10 judges in president bush's second term. this manufactured crisis and i'm not the only one that believes the nuclear option would be incredibly damaging. this is the word of majority
leader harry reid when he wrote a book in march of 2009. the nuclear option was the most important issue i have ever worked on in my entire career. if that had gone forward it would have destroyed the senate as we know it. it's not the only thing harry reid has mentioned about rigging the rules to change the rules. he said in violating 270 meters is standard procedure in the senate changing the rules by breaking the rules is as far as you can get with the constitutional option necessary for people to suggest you can break the rules to change the rules as un-american. the only way can change the rule in this body is through a rule that now says change the rule in the senate rules to break a filibuster still require 67 votes. you can't do it with 60 does. you certainly cannot do it with 51. now we are told the majority is going to do the so-called nuclear option. the parliamentarian would acknowledge it's legal.
it's wrong, you can do it. they would overrule it. it was simply be we are going to do it because we have more votes than you. you would be breaking the rules to change the rules on that as un-american and finally the american people and affect reject the nuclear option because they see it for what it is, and abuse of power, arrogance power. lord acton said absolute power corrupts absolutely. that is what is going on. the rules are being changed the middle of the game. they're breaking the rules to change the rules regardless of one's political affiliations americans understand it's a political power grab a partisan political grab. vice president biden commented on this when he was a senator. the nuclear option is an example of the arrogance of power. it's a fundamental power grab by the majority party. it's nothing more nothing less. former senator christopher dodd in his farewell address had where there is such a temptation motivated by noble desire to speed a village that a process
or political expediency believe such changes would be unwise to my fellow senators who have never served a day in the minority i urge you to pause in their enthusiasm to change the senate rules. senator murphy neither one of us unfortunately have pleasure of serving with senator robert c. byrd from west virginia somebody who certainly as i watched the senate from afar was acknowledged as someone who revered the senate and fully understood the rules. we unfortunately do not have him speak to us during orientation but he gave a famous orientation speech december 3, 1996. i would like to take some time because i think his words bear repeating. he said let us clearly understand one thing. the constitution's framers never intended for the senate to function like the house of representatives in the majoritarian body. i have said this as long as they senate retains the power to amend and power of unlimited
debate the liberties of the people were remain secure. the senate was intended to be a forum for open and free debate before the protection of political minorities. i have led the majority and let the minority and i can tell you there's nothing there is nothing that makes you appreciate the senate's role as the protector of the minority interest like in the minority. since the republican party was created in 1854 the senate has changed hands 14 times. each parties had the opportunity party has had the opportunity to appreciate first-hand the senate's role as guardian of majority rights. almost from its earliest years the senate has insisted upon its members rights to unlimited debate. when the senate adopted the cloture rule in 1917 it was made closing of debate difficult by requiring a supermajority and by permitting those cloture debate. by the way that supermajority was two-thirds vote and now it's
three-fifths. the deference of them minority view distinguishes the majoritarian house of representatives. the framers recognized the majority can be right and the majority can be wrong. they recognize the senate should be a treat delivered a body a floor in which to slow the passion of the house hold them up to the light and examined them and threw informed debate educate the public. the senate is the proverbial -- saucer to cool a a cup of coffee in the house and the one place the whole government with minority is guaranteed a public hearing of its views. the senate informing function was as important as its legislative function and now with televised senate debates its informing function plays even larger and more critical role in the life of our nation. the senate is often castigated for 10 efficiencies but in fact it was never intended to be efficient. its purpose was and is to
examine, consider, protect and be totally independent a totally independent source of wisdom and function on the lower house and house and the executive. as such the senate is the central pillar of our constitutional system. the senate is more important than any or all of us. more important than i am, more important than the majority and minority leaders. more important than all 100 of us. more important than all of the 1843 men and women who have served in this body since night -- 1789. each of us has a solemn responsibility to remember that and to remember it often. finally in a speech he gave me 19, 2010 senator byrd said the senate has been the last fortress of minority rights and freedom of speech in this republic for more than two centuries. i pray that senators will pause
and reflect before ignoring that history and tradition in favor of the political priority. i have that same prayer. i came to the senate because this nation is facing enormous challenges. you and serving this nation will face enormous challenges. you simply cannot afford to damage this incredibly important institution the united states senate and i hope our colleagues on the majority side contemplates exactly what they are doing that without mr. chairman i will turn it back over to and look forward to testimony. see thank you very much senator johnson. let's go to our left, right to left and we will start with ambassador nuland. welcome. >> thank you very much budget chairman chairman ranking member johnson all the members of the committee did i'm honored to come before you to be considered for the position of assistant
secretary of state for european and eurasian affairs and i'm grateful for the cop at its events present opponent secretary carrey have shown in me. is confirmed i pledge to work with all of you to protect and advance u.s. interests in promoting security prosperity democracy and human rights in europe and eurasia and working with our allies and partners there to advance our shared global interests. i'm also delighted to share this panel today with my colleagues and friends doug lute and dan baer. i can think of no better partners to provide vital leadership on to multilateral institutions. as a lifetime european as i have witnessed first-hand some of the most profound change in europe and eurasia. from my days as a young political officer in moscow when i stood on the red square on new year's eve when in 1991 the soviet flag came down on the russian flag went up to the brutal wars in bosnia and kosovo and the enlargement of nato and the e.u. and the creation of
euro. i know when europeans and americans joined forces in defense of our common security and values we are more effective than we arbonne whether in afghanistan molly verma countering terrorism and promoting nonproliferation development human rights for a cleaner planet. america needs a strong confident europe and our european allies depend on america's unwavering commitment to their security and their continued support for europe's prosperity is cohesion and its growth. as we look at the agenda at the buzzer first task is to revitalize the foundation from our global leadership in their free market way of life. we need growth, we need jobs on both sides of the atlantic. the transatlantic trade and investment partnerships that senator murphy mentioned began this year with the e.u. and could support hundreds of thousands of additional jobs at the tip is about more than our
economic underpinnings. it is also a political answer t. chick investment in our shared future and our effectiveness as global leaders in the 21st century. we have also got to focus on the unfinished work within europe. today we have a chance to capitalize on changing attitudes and circumstances to address the 40-year-old division of cyprus. kosovo and serbia have made the minister's long-term reconciliation and does those deserve our support and we must not break faith with other members of our european and eurasian family who have been trapped for too long in frozen complex and territorial disputes. we must also do more to defend the universal values that bind us. the quality of democracy and rule of law in europe and eurasia is gravely uneven today and in some key places the trends are moving in the wrong direction. if as the transatlantic that is the transatlantic community we aspire to mentor other nations who want to live and justice of
peace and freedom we have got to be equally vigilant about completing that process in our own space. we must also continue to work together beyond our shores has the president has said so many times and as you have said mr. chairman europe is our global partner of first resort whether in afghanistan libya working on iran and syria, the united states and europe are strongest when we share the risks and responsibilities and in many cases the financial burden of promoting positive change. when we can we also have to work effectively with russia to solve global problems. with respect to iran and afghanistan counterterrorism and nuclear arms control we have made progress in recent years and the president is looking for opportunities to take our corporation to the next level however we must also be very careful when we disagree with russian policy whether with regard to weapons sales to the assad regime are the treatment of civil society political activists and journalists inside
of russia. finally we have to be attentive to the fast-changing energy landscape of europe and eurasia. we welcome the many steps that europeans have taken to diversify their energy market. if confirmed i will work to ensure u.s. companies continue to play a leading role in this dynamic market. as the president said in berlin last month our relationship with europe remains the cornerstone of our own freedom and security. if confirmed i pledge to work with all of you to seize the opportunities before us to revitalize and deepen our ties with europe and ensure we continue together to have the will of the trust to trust and the capability to advance our shared security and prosperity and to meet her many global their many global challenges together. thank you. >> yankee. general lute. >> thank you mr. chairman ranking member johnson and all the members of this committee. i'm honored to be considered today for the position of permanent representative the north atlantic organization. i'm grateful for the confidence present upon as shown in my
nomination and if confirmed i pledge to work with all of you to represent america's interest in nato, the alliance that since 1940 and has served as the cornerstone of our security interests. it's a privilege today to sit here and appear alongside big torreo nuland and daniel baer two distinguished colleagues. if we are confirmed as ripples will join the core u.s. officials devoted full-time to securing your interest in europe and beyond likely have no better teammates. at the outset i want to recognize and thank my wife jane who joins me along with my sister pat. jane recently completed service is the deputy secretary of the department of homeland security. a public the public service also includes work in several foundations and over six years in the united and the united nations department of peacekeeping operations. together we have served the federal government for a combined total of nearly six decades. with both of this beginning as
army officers right out of college. we both took initial assignments in germany at the height of the cold war. jane and i along the east-west german border. i would not be here today without her support. this opportunity for me to serve once again with nato began at that first assignment in germany and continues to this day. i was in germany when the wall fell in 1989. i remember well on september 11, 2001 nato for the first time ever invoked article v of the washington treaty in response to the terrorist attacks here in america. demonstrating an attack on one is an attack on all. later i commanded u.s. forces in nato's peace enforcement mission in kosovo and important crisis response on the periphery of nato. most recently i spent the last six years in the white house focused on the wars in iraq and afghanistan where again nato has played important roles. if confirmed i look forward to this opportunity to -- in nato.
much has changed over the past several decades but there is than one cornerstone for transatlantic security, nato. large multilateral institutions like nato cannot adapt quickly or easily yet in the 20 years we have seen, in the last 20 years we have seen nato adjust to the end of the cold war, expand its membership into former enemies extend its reach to threats on its periphery and adapt its descent structures to emerging threats. no one would have believed would have believed in 1989 when the wall fell that nader would conduct operations in places like the balkans afghanistan and libya. serious challenges lie ahead for nato. the key operational challenge is afghanistan where nato leads today the coalition of 50 nations. we are on a path to passable security responsibility to afghan forces by the end of
2014, next year. this is a path that by nato and the afghans together at the lisbon summit in late 2010 and it was refined last year in chicago. several weeks ago the afghans reached a very important strategic milestone along that path as they assumed the assume the lead for security across the entire country great with nato passing into its support and advisory role. the military campaign is only one part along this path and it represents only one variable and a very complex equation that includes political transition that culminates the presidential elections and includes economic transition which has afghanistan adjusting to the reduced presence of western forces and includes a political process that explores the potential of the afghan government talking to the taliban with an effort to
bring in afghan solutions to this conflict. finally afghanistan lives in a very tough neighborhood and regional dynamics will play a major role. none of this work will be completed in the next 18 months by december 2014, so nato and the united states are both planning for military presence beyond 2014 with a mission to continue to train and advise-and-assist afghan forces. such a post-2014 mission requires a political agreement with the afghan government and our negotiators are making progress and it ends up next year's afghan election season. afghanistan has been nato's largest operation drawing it to responsible close will be a significant challenge in the next several years. nato also faces a fundamental policy challenge and that is the growing gap between nato's mission in the resources allies permit for fulfilling that mission.
this and and means gap is centered on the imbalance between america's defense resources committed to the alliance and those of the other allies. all 28 members of the alliance benefit from that membership. all 28 have to contribute equitably. this is especially true as nato recovers from a decade of operations in afghanistan and faces new challenges like missile defense and cybersecurity. there ways to approach this challenge including smart defense, pooling and sharing high-end resources and exploring specialization among allies. finally nurturing partnerships that extend the reach of nato beyond the core 28 members but this ends means gap may be the most severe challenge the alliance faces since the end of the cold war. nato operates on a firm foundation of shared democratic values that line together the 28
member nations. because of the shared values i am confident nato can fulfill its three core tasks collective defense crisis management and corporate security while also addressing the challenges of the future. if confirmed i will do my best to represent american interests in the most successful most durable alliance in history the north atlantic treaty organization. seeing thank you general lute. dr. baer. >> thank you mr. chairman mr. ranking member and members of this committee. it's an honor to come before is a present summit to service united states permanent representative to the organization for security and cooperation in europe and i'm grateful for the confidence that president obama and secretary kerry have expressed in this nomination. i'm humbled to be in front of you and also humbled to be here with two great american public service ambassador nuland and ambassador designate lute. i'm compared to look for to
working with each of them in all if you could dance the presence interest. i have worked closely with victoria and she is not an only great friend but it great partner and acknowledging human rights humanize that i would like to knowledge my family and thank them for the love and resources my future and and my sisters hitman my partner brian seated three rows behind me who as i stood beside me. mr. chairman for the test for yourself at the privilege of serving as deputy assistant secretary in the state department or of democracy human rights and labor. in this capacity i welcome the opportunity to country but a long tradition sustained the republican and democratic administrations and putting human rights at the center of u.s. foreign policy. this experiencexperienc e has deepened my conviction that human rights must be the core of any successful long-term strategy for peace and security and u.s. leadershileadershi p is as crucial today as when eleanor roosevelt helped draft the universal declaration of human rights seven years ago. there is not genuine security or lasting peace in the absence of respect for human rights.
recent history has shown us the apparent instability by progressive regimes is a loser and because of the sun this unsafe violate the rise of their citizens and fail to uphold obligations its rightful concern of the entire international community. the osce is unique in having raised conference is approach and is the only regional security organization that places the military economic and environmental and human dimensions of security on an equal footing here the 57 participating states have recognized whether and how estate is implementimplementing its commitments as a legitimate concern for all participating states. this principle as part of a broader framework of highly elaborated human rights corporate security rule of law reflected in the mandates of field operations. enabling them to respond to a range of challenges from attacks a medium for him to ethnic tensions from vancouver to --
arms-control military transparency and confidence building regimes to the quiet diplomacy of the high commission on national minorities to the exchange of technical expertise in combating trafficking supporting women up to printers or maintaining border security the osce's resource encompass expertise and cooperation that cannot be replaced we created or duplicated. challenges to security human rights and rule of law or puppet profound across the base including intolerance and xenophobia corruption fraught election declining military transparency and on to solve complex. some participating states are failing to uphold and implement their commitments including as they relate to fundamental issues such as media freedom in the role of civil society. this is troubling but it cannot and does not change the fundamental on which the osce is based. the three dimensions of security are interconnected and must be advanced. sure coming to reinforce the fact of the workers on the need
to osce to contain to address challenges in a practical principled manner in order to achieve true conference of security for all citizens throughout the osce space. if confirmed in all of my efforts by perdue will be to have to strengthen the osce is an institution that efficientefficiently and effectively advances american and european interest. ambassador nuland and lute laid out than questionable u.s. interest in the strong democratic prosperous secure europe as a central component of maintaining our own own national security in the 21st century. by supporting robust transatlantic ties and bilateral diplomacy maintaining the strength and agility of our nato alliance i continue to advance transatlantic partnership conference or purchase security issues like those in the u.s. european relationship will remain a progress toward a more peaceful and democratic will. thank you again for having me and if confirmed i will continue to work with this committee and
the helsinki mission and i welcome your questions. >> thank you to all of our nominees. let me start with questions to you ambassador new lens. let me draw near years of expertise with respect to russia it's an immensely important relationship and given all of the attention on the disputes we have and sometimes it belies the fact that we are at work with them on a friday of issues in which we have mutual interest whether the counterterrorism efforts missile defense or the work we have done together on afghanistan. that being said as i mentioned in my opening statement we cannot let them off the hook with respect to the fairly severe downward turn in the kremlin's take on civil society. as i have said before if you are sitting in front of a court today accused of political
crimes you are less likely to be acquitted and the word during the great purge. so we can attack the issue of u.s.-russia issues from a number of perspectives but let me ask you to talk about this. what are the right drescher points upon russia to try to turn around this very detrimental turn that is, in a way in which putin and others are treating civil society and political dissidents? >> thank you senator. i certainly share your concern about the internal mcleary environment in russia. as i said at the outset i agree with you as well that wherever we can as we try to do we have to try to work with russian our common interests and we have had success in that regard particularly on foreign-policy issues that we share. with regard to our support for democratic change and reform for
those speaking out for a pluralistic society we have to despise the environment continue to work with the russians who are willing to work with us. we are not able to support them as fully and we still need to make support available in other ways and i will if confirmed he eager to work with all of you on the committee to look for more ways to do that. in addition we have to speak out as you said and as i said in my opening when we disagree and we have to work more intensively and more cohesively with our european allies and partners because when we speak together our concerns are even stronger. see let me ask you one question about the trade agreement. how worried are you about the ability of europe to be on -- we have seen over the past week
france seems to try to find an excuse to postpone or maneuver the beginning stages of these negotiations. there at two sets of negotiatinegotiati ons happening one between european nations and one between the u.s. and europe. what is your role in coordination with the trade rep in trying to make sure that europe speaks with one voice throughout these negotiations which is the only way we are going to end up getting a product. >> thank you senator. you are right that on one hand it's a bilateral trade agreement between the u.s. and e.u. but obviously a trade agreement between the united states and the 28 member states if we are able to be successful. so we do have an interest in the european position remaining clear and remaining cohesive. we have a role to play at the state department through our 28 embassies and continuing to help make the case along with our colleagues in ustr to leave
these negotiations for a trade agreement that will increase jobs and will reduce barriers. we need to be coordinated in the way we use our public diplomacy and the way we work with business groups on both sides and as i have said in some of my calls to meet some of you in advance of this hearing i also hope that we will have bipartisan support in the senate and the the house are working closely with parliamentarians in europe and particularly members of the european parliament will have responsibresponsib ilities for ratifying this agreement. i know some of them are here to see some of you just in the last week and we thank you for taking the time to do that. but we are going to have to provide a clear sense of the landscape in europe and where we have points of agreement where we have difficulties emerging and we are going to have to provide a strong american voice in europe through our embassies
and i look forward to supporting ustr in that regard and also working with our under secretary for economic affairs. >> senator johnson and i have led several of those conversations with our parliamentary colleagues and hope to continue that. general lute i think today there are three or four nations in nato that are at target percentage of gdp dedicated to to -- defense and clearly with the european economy we can't count on that number getting any better so we are having a conversation one that occurred in chicago at the last summit. europeans believe that has to be a two-way street that if they are going to be asked to specialize so should we and as part of that negotiation we might consider giving up some of our capabilities on maybe some
non-integral defense platforms to our european allies. talking about the european anti-american will to get into a serious conversation about specialization which ultimately can solve the problem today of picking up 75% of the tab for nato. >> thank you senator. i think the specialization argument largely hinges on different views of the balance, different views of the balance between full spectrum stability by each of the 28 to fulfill its article v commitments for mutual threats. on the one hand those capabilities balanced again as you suggest increased efficiency across the 28 by way of specialization and national specialization, if you look at the 28 allies today clearly the united states has a full spectrum full spectrum capacity and every defense round. they are only a couple of other
allies that approach that and even those who approach the full spectrum capability can do so for only limited durations before they can rely on us. i think the secretary general and nato already have begun the move down the path of specialization. you see this by way of the pooling of resources and especially high-end high-tech expensive niche capabilities like the airborne or air ground surveillance system based on the pooling of resources to buy the global hawk surveillance aircraft. you see it with awacs and the c-17 pool of lift resources. i must tell you that in my view we should not relent on the 2% goal. we should let no one off the hook and the will membership means equal contributions and 2% as the standard. but at the same time we should pursue these kinds of efficiencies that could include national specialization because
the reality is that the economic pressures across the 28 members is not likely to relent and the next five plus years. >> including this nation as well. i've run out of time so i will turn it over to senator johnson. i would just mention that we may have votes over the course of this hearing. we hope that not to be the case but if we do have time for a second round we will require dr. baer and i will turn it over to senator johnson. >> again i appreciate your service to the country and ambassador i particularly want to say thank you for coming at the height of the talking points and controversies in sitting down with me in my office and explaining a few things. unfortunately their awful lot of questions that still remain about what happened following ben goss and quite honestly before it. for example we still have not been given the names or access
to survivors. i asked general dempsey what was the status of the commander so it was training in croatia. there is still an awful lot of questions. during the hearings of this full committee the secretary clinton in response to my question which he uttered at this point what difference does it make or what difference at this point does it make? the question i have is do you believe in your role representing the united states government the american people deserve the truth out of the members of the administration? >> senator the american people deserve the truth. this body deserves the truth and those who are friends of the victims as i was deserve the truth, yes.
>> in reviewing the exchange from talking points and original talking points and how they were sanitized and it is remarkable how sanitized they were. i know you have some participation in your september september 14 e-mail stays the talking points don't resolve all my issues or those of my building leadership. can you please tell me who that building leadership wasn't who you are referring to? >> senator i very much appreciate the opportunity to talk about my role in the talking points issue. with your forbearance i would like to give a little bit of background before answer your specific question. first i just want to make clear that when i was reviewing these talking points which was only on the friday evening of september 14, they were not for a member of the administration to use. they were talking points that the cia was proposing to give to members of the house intelligence committee so that was the first thing. second i was not in a policy
role in this job. i was in a communication roles for my responsibilities were to ensure consistency of our public message not to make policy so i never edited these talking points. i never made changes. i simply said i thought the policy people needed to look at them. also by way of background by the time friday came around a spokesperson for the department i had already given the public briefings on benghazi. the first was on wednesday evening. i gave a background briefing in which which i clearly said this had been a complex attack. it was an attack by extremist and then i gave to briefings at the podium. my regular midday briefing on thursday and my regular review on friday. in those briefings i was on interagency talking points and which i noted again and again our firm commitment to investigate fully what had happened but i declined to get any more details citing the need to have a full investigation
particularly the integrity of the fbi's's investigation so when i saw these talking points on friday night just a few hours after that had been my guidance they indicated a significant evolution beyond what we had been saying and it was on that race is that i raised three questions in my communications role. the first was and again these were four members of the house to use and not my administration official to use on my first question was whether guard to consistency. it struck me as strange that we work getting talking points to members of the house that went considerably further than what we in the administration have been saying at that point i felt if house members were going to say this we should be able to say it too. the second was i had been under very tight guidance that we must do and say nothing that would prejudice the integrity of the fbi's investigation so i wanted
to make sure that the cia had actually checked with the -- and they were comfortable with these talking points. they concern that i had was with regard to the second to last paragraph of the talking points as i was looking at them which made reference to past agency reporting about the situation in benghazi. frankly senator i looked at them and they struck me as a partial rendering of some of the background information behind this situation and i was concerned that giving them out this way would encourage members of congress and members of the public to draw inaccurate conclusions about our respective agencies role in the entirety of the benghazi issue. >> i appreciate that but i think your specific e-mail about that
point was that you were concerned that the members of congress. >> were more concerned about the state department getting beat up by members of congress than getting the truth out to the american people. that wouldn't be my concern in terms of my interpretation of that. >> sir, as i says that my concern was this was not inaccurate representation of the whole picture is. >> getting back to facts it would be the building leadership that weren't satisfied with the resolution of suggested changes and talking points? who would those be? >> after my first e-mail with these concerns agency came back with another draft that draft continued to make reference to the past agency reporting that i thought was a prejudicial way of characterizing it. so it was on that day says that i have raised objections again. >> ambassador nuland i'm running out of time.
i just really want facts. who are the building leadership you're purring to that wasn't satisfied with suggested changes? who would those individuals be? the next question will be who we are at the deputies meeting? who were those people? >> with regard to building leadership i was concerned that all of my bosses at the policy level needed to look at these to see if they agreed with me. >> who would those bosses be? what are the names and who are those individuals? >> obviously as a reporter to the full spectrum of under secretaries and deputy secretaries -- >> where their particular people concerned about the changes that were being made? >> the only person that i consulted with that night was my regular reporting channel with regard to issues that i was unable to solve at my level so our regular procedure when i have spokesperspokesper son could not solve an issue at my
level or when i thought they needed to be more policy input versus communications input was to send my concerns up to the deputy chief of staff for policy. i did not consult with anybody else. >> and that person is? >> at the time it was jake sullivan and he is on the e-mails as you can see. >> thank you senator. >> thank you mr. chairman and let me thank all three of our nominees for their extraordinary service to our country. we thank you for your willingness to assume these new responsibilities and i particularly want to a knowledge of families. this is a family sacrifice and we very much appreciate your willingness at this important juncture in american diplomacy to take on these responsibilities. i i want to spend a moment since i have missed her baer and the ambassador sub byte type here to go over the helsinki commission and the human rights thing and i am particularly want to
acknowledge senator mccain on this day whereas you might have seen the russian courts held mr. nitschke guilty of certain crimes whereas the international community knows full well that he was the victim. my question is basically to mr. baer and ambassador nuland that you work very closely together. the administration and congress on human rights issues good governance issues on economic stability issues for countries in europe and central asia and central asia and partner countries within the osce all coming under ambassadambassad or nuland your portfolio and the new position for which you have been nominated and to mr. baer your responsibility in vienna. i would like you to comment as to how important you see the relationship to the helsinki commission and to the congress and the work that you do to
advance the priorities of america and its participation to the osce. >> thank you very much senator cardin and thank you for your leadership on human rights across the world. the last time i testified for you was on asia so it's a pleasure to have a conversation with eight different part of the world and thank you for your leadership on the helsinki commission as well. i see the helsinki commission as one of the unique gifts that whoever is fortunate enough to be serving as u.s. ambassador to the osce has because it confirmed it would be a real boon to be able to have an institutional connection to congress that is really unique in the world. as you know there is somebody from the commission is serves served on the staff of the mission in vienna. there is also detail leave from the state department users on the staff of the commission and
their is an opportunity for open communication and collaboration on a full range of osce issues polluter -- political environmental and human rights on an ongoing basis and and have confirmed that as an asset is announced that i would look forward to leveraging to the fullest extent. >> i fully agree with what dr. baer has said. in my long experience working with the bureau concerning europe helsinki principles the commission are the the foundation of all that you together undergird our values and all we need to look back at that document from 1975. so i look forward to working on these issues with dan if confirmed in with you senator and as full committee. >> thank you. one of the most challenging countries will be russia. we have already talked about were a shakeup of times. brush along with many international organizations have
been challenging. they have committed to the helsinki principles but the opportunities they can undermine they have done that whether election monitoring or whether it is the minsky issues. can you tell me how you will, whether you will assure this committee that in the relations particularly as you are responsible at the with the present administration to develop agendas or bilateral and international organizations, can we be assured that human rights with russia will remain a hide priority issue on those opportunities? >> absolutely senator. i have never in my career been shy about speaking out on human rights and i will certainly continue to do so if confirmed. >> mr. baer you are going to be confronted with some tough choices with russia. they are going to say you need a consensus and therefore back off on different issues.
will you commit to us that the united states will stand strong on the human rights basket within the osce as it relates to russia? >> senator you have my full commitment to stand strong and it's part of the reason why i m. interested in serving, to stand strong for human rights. >> thank. >> thank you. mr. chairman i yield back the balance of my time. >> senator risch. >> ms. nuland i don't want to dwell on the benghazi question but the bank was -- in gaza question is there and it hasn't been answered. i have got some questions that made you can help me with. the administration is focused on this fitness hiding behind the curtain of oh what we are doing is an investigation and they have done that since day one on this. when we get briefed on stuff this is the only situation in my experience here that they have done this. senator mccain and i sat at a
briefing a week or 10 days after. we have the secretary of state and the cia number two in the fbi's, that was the question. the american people want to know who did this. was this a protest gone bad or was this indeed a terrorist attack which of course we all know it was. these people told us they didn't know. we are 10 days out and they are telling us that they don't know. since then we have run into a number of people who said that they advised both the state department and virtually every agency of government that it was indeed a terrorist attack and they told them that in real time. real-time. when was the first time that you were advised that this was a terrorist attack? >> senator, i don't recall the precise date that we moved to being confident that it was a terrorist attack but i do recall that the president made
reference in that first week to a terrorist attack and i believe secretarsecretar y clinton did as well on friday so my talking points would have obviously derived from what they were ready to say and the intelligence indicated. >> of course susan rice was telling people that indeed they didn't know whether was a terrorist attack. you are aware of that are you not? >> i'm aware of those programs, yes. >> what other information that you have that this was a terrorist attack and when did you get it within the first 48 hours? the senator i just need to remind that i was not in a policy job. i was in a communications job at that time so i was frankly not reading intelligence reporting because it was difficult to keep one brain for the public and one brain privately so i was the conveyor of agreed policy and agreed decision-making about what we could say publicly. so i really, i think it was
quite clear when the president made his first reference to terror that this is what we were dealing with but i never took an intelligence briefing myself that we. >> since than if he combats and looked at that information you had that you have access to? >> sir, it was not something that i was privy to because i didn't need it in the jobs i was in. >> did you help in choosing the susan rice to speak -- >> no, sir. >> did you brief you brief read all? >> no, sir. >> you had no conversation with her on the time of the attack until she appeared on on the sunday talk shows? >> ido conversations with susan rice herself. we had interagency discussion which her staff participated in on the days that i briefed which was the wednesday, the thursday and friday. i never spoke to her and i frankly never saw the talking points that were prepared for her in final final form. as i said when i saw the talking
points they were from members of the house intelligence committee. >> mr. baer, senator shaheen and i had the honor and privilege of representing the united states in the october 1 elections in georgia as overseers and we came back and gave the report. i was interested in the report from the osce on the subsequent elections that took place in april and i realize this is dated july 9 in warsaw. have you had an opportunity to review their report on this? ..
when i was in the job aspects envoy for conventional forces in europe. and, as you may know, we were trying to look at how we might update that treaty and we came to consensus within nato about how that might be done. we came to consensus among most of the 35 members who were party to the treaty, 36, but we were unable to come to consensus with
russia because of the problems agreeing on tater tomorrow integrity issues with regard to moldova, it was my call to the secretary that we call off the negotiations because it was not possible to settle the issue without impugning those basic principles of democracy in europe. >> is there any plan at this point that you're putting forward to assist the georgians in recovering these two provinces? the russians refuse to leave obviously. that's a huge issue. do we have a plan in that regard? >> senator, we have been active in supporting efforts that the georgians themselves have initiated to try to reach out to the people of opasia and the people of south osettia, to have a better understanding that their future would be bright in georgia itself and impact and give them a better understanding of the conditions in that
country because as you may know the media environment is controlled pretty heavily. we will continue to do that. we will continue to be guided by georgian efforts to work on these issues. >> thank you. my time is up. thank you for all three of you for your service to the country. >> thank you, mr. chair. >> thank you, senator kaine. ha u thank you for your service. senators do a lot of things but not that many things we do on the written job description in the constitution. article 2, section 2 the president will make appoint for executive positions that to be done with advise and consent of the senate. advise and consent is supermajority not by treaties. it is not supermajorities by appointments. i wish you the best. general lieutenant my questions will be about afghanistan because of the karma of foreign relations committee meeting i was in the same room all about
afghanistan. we heard a number of witnesses. ambassador dobbins, dr. peter levoy, stephen hadley, former national security advisor, from election foundations free elections foundation in afghanistan and sarah chayes, carnegie endowment for international peace. i asked a basic threshold question which they all agreed and i wonder if you do. that question was, is it their opinion that the strong majority of the afghanistan population want there to be a residual united states and nato force post-2014. they all said they believe ad strong majority of the afghan population wanted that. is that your sense as well? >> it. adam: senator. all our opinion polling and our work across the political spectrum in afghanistan supports that view. >> and just, i know from your background that you have been deeply involved in questions about iraq as well. was there similar polling done or similar effort to undertake what the iraqi population sense
was about that question? >> i don't, i don't know that, i don't know that there's a close parallel with iraqis experience in this regard. there certainly was among the two political classes. the two political elites, the two sets of political elites. i don't recall from my iraq experience that kind of a countrywide opinion poll, popular opinion poll. >> regardless from polling just from your experience in the area do you have a sense much your own about the afghan population for a desire for a follow-on residual force versus that desire in the iraqi population? >> i think there are two things that clearly underline afghan interests in a continuing western presence of some sort beyond 2014. one is a question, just raw resources. the iraqi people always knew they didn't really require external resources to prosper as a nation and clearly the afghans
know that they do require external resources. the other thing is the neighborhood. iraq lived in a difficult neighborhood but i would argue afghanistan lives in a worse neighborhood and it is very clear from even the last 30 years of experience that all afghans understand that very clearly. >> general lieutenant lt., you're opening -- lute, you talk about the residual debates going on about potential sides but i will not get into that but stephen hadley testified i have thought an interesting bit of testimony and i followed it up orally, that his recommendation was that the united states, should, announce relatively promptly, with some clarity the size of a robust follow-on force and if that happened there would be the following consequences. it would create more confidence among the afghan population in reference to the 2014 elections. it might encourage more
candidates to consider standing for election which would be a positive thing. it would potentially deter or dissuade some who want to manipulate either the bilateral security agreement association or the elections themselves. he also indicated in oral, not written testimony but a relatively prompt and certain statement from the united states about the follow-on force might also promote prompt and certain commitments to be made from the partners, the nato partners that we have in afghanistan. that was, if you just take it from me, i think i've done a pretty fair job of summarizing the written testimony. do you, what would your opinion be of that, that testimony. >> certainly those factors ring true to me. i just argue and i actually heard steve's presentation. >> okay. >> i'd argue that the size and scale, scope of the u.s. military presence in afghanistan beyond 2014 is one factor in afghan confidence but maybe it
is not the dominant factor. i think equally dominant or equally important, will be the smoothness, the efficiency of the political transition which i know the testimony covered in a lost detail this morning. i think afghans need to see under the constitution for the first time that they can efficiently and smoothly, peacefully transfer political power from the karzai regime of the last 10 years to whoever succeeds president karzai. i think that is the dominant factor in afghan confidence. there are others as well. they need to see the security forces will be sustained. the international community along with nato has taken additional steps to secure the funding beyond 2014. they can feel confident that way. they need to see that the economy will not crumble. the international community in tokyo marshalled resources four years beginning in 2014 through the transition to fill the budget gap between what the afghan budget can provide for
itself and the needs of the country itself. so there are a number of confidence factors one of which might be u.s. military presence but i'm not even sure it's the dominant one. >> would you agree the commitment of the u.s. and nato allies to a presence might have an effect on the smoothness of the transition to the extent it might encourage to run for office, to the extent that it might give people some confidence going into the election season? would you agree that u.s. and nato commitments vis-a-vis the residual force might be a factor in the smoothness of the political transition which i agree ultimately is the most important element we're looking at? >> i think it's a factor, senator. i think alongside that is a political factor, the political commitment made by nato in lisbon in 2010 and u.s. by way of the strategic partnership agreement last spring that we're politically committed to be there beyond 2014 and counterpart economic commitment
made for both security assistance. that is to sustain the afghan forces but beyond that for economic assistance. finally i think the presence of some residual force would be a factor. >> thank you. mr. chair. thank you to the witnesses. >> senator rubio. >> thank you to all the nominees for your service and for being here today. miss nuland i wanted to first say i think there is very little debate on this committee about your qualifications to serve in this post and as i mentioned to you yesterday the only reason why you're getting questions quite frankly about the benghazi issue pause you were in that policy role and because the committee is not holding any further hearings on it you're quite frankly the only witness we have who on questions with regards to these things that we want answers to. so i wanted to briefly touch on it in hopefully an effort to expedite the hearing and maybe close the book on it. i read your e-mail that is now available that is dated the 14th of september at 7:39 p.m. you raised two concerns primarily. the first there was mentions of ansar al sharia in the context that you didn't want to
prejudice the investigation. the second concern talked about the agency having produced, agency being the cia had produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al qaeda and benghazi in eastern libya. those are two concerns that you raised in that e-mail. on the point number one about mention of ansar al sharia and prejudicing the investigation, did the fbi share that concern? >> senator, thank you for that. i want to clarify here that with regard to the substance of mentioning ansar al sharia i did not have concerns about that. >> okay. >> as i mentioned earlier, it was not for me to decide what we knew nor what we could declassify. i assumed that evening, that if the agency was prepared to have members congress name ansar al sharia that their information was solid and it was releasable to the public. my concerns were that the two that i mentioned earlier, namely that i didn't understand why members of congress could say
more bit than we could in the administration and secondly that we had been under tight guidance not to prejudice the investigation. so i wanted to make sure my cia colleagues had cleared these points with the fbi and justice. i was later reassured that they had. >> okay, good. then the second question i had is on point number two and it's the one about the agency producing numerous pieces on threat of extremist linked to al qaeda and benghazi in eastern libya. we now know that is accurate, correct? >> the, the agency had produced some pieces. my concern was not about the accuracy of what was on the paper, senator. my concern was that it was an incomplete representation and frankly a prejudicial one, i felt, of the totality of the situation in benghazi. i had been under pretty tight instructions for the three days running up to that along the
following lines. that we were to stay, as a state department, very tightly lashed up as an inneragency community with with regard to what we could say and that the integrity of the investigation was paramount. we had to get all of the facts so we could learn the lessons from this tragedy and that i had to be extremely attentive to the equities of other government agencies. there were a number of other government agencies that had very sensitive equities in this and that that was the environment that all of us should be operating in. so my concern when i saw that particular paragraph which was retained was that it might not be in that spirit. and again i didn't edit them. i simply asked policy people above me check my instincts. >> those instructions that you just highlighted for us, were they from mr. sherman? >> they were from the entire leadership of the department that we needed to get the facts and we needed to learn the
lessonses of benghazi and we needed to be good colleagues in the inner agency, yes. >> so does that the entire leadership include secretary clinton? >> secretary clinton was, as she testified her self, the leader in saying we had to get to the bottom of this. that we had to take responsible for what had gone wrong and we had to fiction it, yes, sir. >> did you have any conversations with secretary clinton about the talking points or, the specific concerns that you raised? >> at no point that evening or subsequently did i talk about the talking points with secretary clinton. >> you did talk with mr. sherman about these concerns, however? >> i did not. >> so, the, your concerns were unilateral, these were concerns based on the instructions you had received from your leadership but not concerns that they specifically told you to have? >> correct. and as i said before, and as the e-mails indicate, whenever i had a problem that i could not solve
at my level or a concern what i was being asked to clear was not a communications question but a policy question i referred it to the deputy chief of staff for policy which is what i did -- >> just to close the loop on it, you had instructions on what the tone and tenor of talking points should be from the state department's position. you reviewed and made decisions on the talking points based on those instructions, but they did not specifically tell you object to this point or object to that point? >> at no point, was i ever told to object to anything. i was acting on my instincts asking for a higher level review to check them and i did not make any edits as i said. >> thank you for your answers. in the minute 1/2 i have left i want to ask about russia. we reset our relationship with russia, about, i don't know three years ago, 2 1/2 years ago. what is your personal opinion of how that's worked out and where are we today with russia? are we still in a reset mode or a reset of the reset? where are we with russia and
what is in your view the status of that relationship given the re-election i guess we should call of mr. putin and the direction he has decided to take his country? >> senator, as i said at the outset i do believe that we have made important progress with russia in recent years. that the work we do together to contain and sanction iran, the dprk, our ability to excel and move equipment from afghanistan through russia, our counterterrorism cooperation and the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty are valuable things that resulted from the reset but i also believe that when we disagree with russia we've got to be absolutely clear and you can see that that is clearly the case now with regard to russian policy in syria. we are, and you've seen secretary kerry's efforts to try
to use the geneva agreement that the russians agreed to undersecretary clinton to try to get to the negotiating table but at -- >> can i interject. i'm sorry to interrupt you but i'm about to run out of time. i want to ask you in specific. what are your views, your hopes, your odds that the russia would have any incentive to reach a negotiated settlement in the syrian conflict that results in the something to the national interests of the united states? or are their interests vis-a-vis syria so diametrically to ours that any real arrangement there is almost impossible realistically? >> senator, without delving into it in this setting i believe russian views of the situation will be very much guided by the ground situation in syria. >> senator mccain. >> thank you very much and thank the witnesses. for the record i have known and admired ambassador nuland for a long time.
general lute, you and i have been friends for many years and mr. baer i congratulate you on your assignment. i must say is, the progress that you noted, ambassador nuland, is miniscule compared to what the russians are doing. i'm very does ap.ed in your answer. did you see the news report yesterday? yesterday? dead russian lawyer found guilty? did you happy to see that? did you see that mr. baer? does that remind you of the good old days or the bad old days of the soviet union when we convict dead people? is it, doesn't that appall you? i would ask secretary nuland and you, supposed to be an advocate of human rights? isn't that outrageous a man who we know was tortured to death bit russian authorities, it was guilty of nothing, and we're
saying and it is valuable progress that the russians are letting us transit some equipment back? somebody's got their priorities screwed up here. i'm proud to have worked with senator cardin on the magnitsky. you both say getting tougher. give me some specifics. how can we get tougher? one of the ways we can get tougher? expand the scope of the act and make more russians feel some pain. obviously they didn't react well or didn't like the fact that we passed the magnitsky i would like to hear verbally or for the record what specifically do you want to do -- we reset back to 1955. and. when i meet mr. broder and i meet the family of sergei magnitsky, we have a situation where it goes almost unremarked by our administration when they
try and convict a dead man? i'd be glad to hear your responses. i hope they're a little more vigorous than what you've been giving so far. >> thank you, senator. and i appreciate -- >> by the way i admire you very much, ambassador. i don't admire your choice of spouses but that is another issue. [laughter] >> you've given me an opening, senator. i neglected to thank my fabulous family. my parents and two handsome gentlemen in the middle and my husband and, and my son david for coming today. i thank you for all the years we worked together including when i was out at nato. i can not disagree with you that it's a travesty of justice when one is putting energy convicting a dead man rather than finding out who is responsible for his murder. when i was spokes personal of the department i was very proud to speak out forcefully on the issue as well as the mag knit ski legislation. with regard to the legislation,
our work on the list is ongoing and we will add names as we are able to? >> you will? >> we will. i don't know if you want to add anything? >> mr. baer. >> what victoria said is absolutely right. my bureau has been involved in producing the first list and we do see it as an ongoing project and we plan to add names to the liz and i certainly share your, your feeling of being appalled at the conviction of magnitsky. that is a tragedy. >> i don't want to, i would rather ask a couple questions. i think it is important to point out literally on every major issue of significant consequence the mr. putin has exhibited nothing but most obdurate and most aggressive behavior. we know the support they're providing to ba'asyir assad and we know of many other
transgressions and this including internally, and this where your work comes in, mr. baer, repression of the media. bringing people to court who disagree. it smacks of the old soviet union. we wan to think somehow things will get better that everything i can see of real consequence has been retrograde. let me ask general lute real quick, general, i was a little surprised you didn't mention syria in your comments. i would like to have your comments about that, but i would like for you to explain to the committee why the united states is, isn't negotiating or seeking to negotiate with a group, the taliban, that refuses to renounce its relationship with al qaeda and refuses to commit ahead of time to respect for women's rights? what, tell me, explain to me the
logic there. >> well, as you know, senator, right now we're not negotiating. what we're trying -- >> oh, but we intend to. >> we like to explore the possibility. >> i've been briefed several times and you have too, general. let's be clear they were settings up the office in qatar and they were doing everything possible to have negotiations. why do we want to have negotiations with an organization that refuses to rye announce its relationship with al qaeda and refuses, as a precondition to recognize women's rights? >> the two things you mentioned, the support of al qaeda and the support generally for the afghan constitution, which includes the kind of women's rights provisions that you're suggesting, are both designed to be outcomes of a discussion with the taliban. and so the -- >> in other words it is on the table? >> no, it is not on the table. >> it is on the table or a precondition, it is one of the two. >> it not a precondition to
talks. it is a precondition to taliban being reconciled and eligible to return to political life under the constitution in afghanistan. so it is very much the distinction between preconditions and end conditions and the idea that's under exploration is to see if it can get into talks. most important, afghan government to taliban talks that to see if those end conditions can in fact be met. so there's no, there's no supposing or imagining that reconciliation comes without achieving those three end conditions. the third one by the way is to end the violence. >> well, again, that i think if we're going to really be interested in the afghan people and their rights, those are preconditions. there can be no agreement without them. so they might as well be preconditions and by not making them preconditions we have somehow conveyed the impression to them that they're on the table. and that's they're either on the
table or they're preconditions. it is not quote, the subject, if they're the subject of negotiation, then they are the subject of negotiations. my time has nearly expired. i want you to say a little bit what you think we ought to be doing in iraq in light, in syria in light of the 100,000 people that have now been massacred. do you believe we should be moving forward with arms to the, to the rebels and establishing a new no-fly zone? >> well, senator, first i have to just say i don't follow syria like you and i used to follow iraq together. it's, about 15, actually mower than 1500 miles away from where i focus on afghanistan and pakistan. i think that certainly the situation in syria is absolutely central to stability in a vital region. as much as iraq was five, or six years ago when we were there in
the numbers we ran and, as much as iraq is today. i support the administration's policy of the, the blend of tools that are being applied. principally the diplomatic political approach to try to find, to try to find a resolution. but, that approach, as supported by humanitarian support, to the refugees, to address the humanitarian crisis, and then finally, the, the provision of means, to include lethal means, to the, to the insurgents. >> i thank the chair. >> senator shaheen. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ambassador nuland, general lute, mr. baer, thank you all very much for being here and your willingness to serve the country. ambassador nuland i will begin
with you and ask about georgia. senator risch, who was here earlier and i had the opportunity to be election monitors during their recent elections last october and, i have watched with some concern, to see that the government of prime minister has arrested a number about folks who were in opposition to them and am concerned about the kind of signals that sends about what's happening to their move to democracy in georgia, and i wonder if you could assess for me how you think the progress is going under the new leadership and, what kind of action we're doing to try to encourage to encourage georgia to keep moving toward democracy? >> well, thank you, senator.
i thank you you and senator risch willing to be election monitors and for your long-time commitment to georgia. i share your concern. georgia has come so far in recent years including elections last year and the peaceful transfer of power, the development of a vibrant multiparty parliament, greater media freedom. efforts to curb police and prison abuses an continuity in foreign policy and nobody wants to see georgia slide backwards. we completely understand this government ran and won on a platform of redressing past abuses but we believe strongly, in the primacy of rule of law and this can not become cover for retribution or even the perception of political retribution. there has got to be full transparency. there has to be real respect for rule of law and because the world is watching. this goes to the heart of georgia's own aspirations we support fully to join all the
transatlantic organizations. georgia has to stay on a democratic path. i'm also frankly concerned about the economy. we want to see georgians looking forward and not looking backward. if confirmed i will look very vigorously on these issues and work with you and other friends of georgia in the senate. >> let me stay on georgia. general lute, one of the concerns i have been encouraged about to hear prime minister sack vashilli to continue to map nato and continued conflict in afghanistan. they have been a great partner in that effort. can you talk about how you see what you see in terms of their efforts to get map through nato? . .
>> that work is underway. so we join that effort nationally, but we're joined by other members today of nato to insure that they understand what the path consists of and that they're making steady progress along that path. >> thank you. let me ask another question about afghanistan. one concern i've heard from some followers of the conflict there and what we're hearing from afghans themselves is concern about the zero option should we withdraw all american troops.
can you talk about what, how that discussion is influencing what's happening on the ground in afghanistan? >> thank you, senator. so as we deal closely with our afghan counterparts, we remind them that the u.s. commitment beyond 2014 is embodied in a binding international executive agreement signed by president obama and president karzai more than a year ago. so we already have a strategic partnership with afghanistan that extends well beyond 2014, in fact, ten years beyond 2014. likewise, nato, in fact, beat us to the punch and established a strategic partnership of its own with afghanistan in the lisbon summit in november of 2010. so the framework already exists for a continuing contribution, a partnership beyond 2014. beyond that we've solidified those commitments beyond 2014 with the funding commitments
both to sport the after -- support the afghan security forces but also the economy beyond 2014. so i think as we discussed earlier with senator kaine, this is a multipart package of political commitments, economic commitments and security commitments. and the last piece that needs to fall into place is exactly what will be the size and shape of a u.s. military presence and then beyond that a nato military presence. and that's still you should negotiation. but -- under negotiation. but those negotiations are active, they're progressing, and we think we'll see them through to a successful conclusion. >> great, thank you. ambassador nuland, i on that same trip to georgia last year, i had the opportunity to stop in turkey and meet with the ecumenical patriarch of the greek church who was very impressive, and i wonder if you can -- one of the things that i talked with him about was what was happening in cyprus.
and i know that secretary kerry has indicated that this isn't, we have an opportunity here with what he calls a frozen conflict perhaps to make some progress in addressing what has been a stalemate for a very long time on cyprus between greece and turkey. i wonder if you can talk about whether there is, this is an opportunity and how additional diplomatic engagement might help to change what has been a status quo for too long there? >> senator, i do believe we have an opportunity now. i think circumstances are changing, attitudes are changing not just within cyprus, but also in greece and in turkey, and we have to capitalize on that. we also have natural gas off the coast of turkey which is -- off the coast of cyprus which is a powerful motivator for getting to the solution that we all want which is a bizonal, bicommunal federation that can share the benefits.
and it's absolutely vital to europe that turkey -- that cyprus begin to prosper again, and i think that working on this could be a positive in that direction as well. >> thank you. my time is up, but let me just say in closing i hope that we will continue to support very positive progress that's been made between serbia and kosovo onsetting their disagreements -- on settling their disagreements there and anything we can do to support that, i think, is very helpful. thank you. >> senator barrasso. >> thank you, mr. chairman. on may 10th the republican members of this committee sent a letter to chairman menendez respectfully requesting additional committee hearings to review the open questions surrounding the september 11th, 2012 benghazi attack in libya. we have not heard back from chairman menendez about our request. while the house of representatives has heard from many witnesses including the deputy assistant state for counterterrorism, eric
nordstrom, former regional security officer in libya, those important witnesses have not had the opportunity to testify and provide answers in the senate. the american people have lingering questions about what happened on september 11th, 2012, and why the state department failed to protect our brave americans in benghazi. yet this committee has failed to schedule any additional hearings and has been attempting to avoid the issue altogether. during an interagency e-mail exchange on september. 14th of 2012, you expressed concerns that the information you were providing could be used by members of congress to question the state department for not paying attention to cia warnings about the security situation in benghazi. in an e-mail you stated that you had, quote, serious concerns, closed quote about, quote, arming members of congress, closed quote, with information from the cia. you went on to say that, quote, points should be abused -- could be abused by members to beat the state department for not paying attention to agency warnings, so
why do we want to feed that either? well, now the president has nominated you as assistant secretary of state for european and eurasian affairs. this handles a very critical region. i'm concerned about your willingness to provide truthful and relevant information to the american people. and i say the this because you have implied that it is dangerous to inform members of congress who are the representatives of the american people. so my question is why should we believe that you will be open and forthcoming on the disclosure of important information to congress when you deliberately and intentionally withheld information about benghazi from congress and the american people while working at the u.s. department of state as the spokesperson? >> senator, thank you for the opportunity to address this. i am 400% committed to positive cooperation with the congress, to sharing fully all information that we can. as you recall, in that first
week after the attack there were numerous briefings classified and some unclassified and briefings thereafter of members of the senate, members of the house of representatives that my bosses participated in. my concern was not, senator, that evening about sharing information with congress. my concern was that these were talking points that the cia was proposing that members of the house intelligence committee use with the media. and i felt that if the, if these were used with the media, they would give a mistaken and flawed perception of our respective agencies' roles in benghazi. it was a partial representation of some of the information that we had had, some of the activity that we had been involved in together. so i thought that as media points -- not as information to
congress, obviously, i have always and will continue to if confirmed fully support transparency with the congress and cooperation with the congress. my concern was they would be misleading for the media. >> i think you just used the phrase partial representation. so were your concerns with the benghazi talking points, were may thead -- they made to shelter the pentagon regarding the terrorist attacks? >> absolutely not, senator. as i said earlier, we were under firm instructions, all of us, that what mattered most was a full and fair investigation of all of the facts so that we could learn the lessons and insure that it never happened again. as i said earlier, i was perm friends with -- personal friends with ambassador stevens, somebody i was very close to. for me, it's personal to get to the bottom of this. >> the president in his comments as he said as soon as he heard about the attack, he said, number one, i want to make sure that we're securing our
personnel, doing whatever we need to. number two, we're going to investigate exactly what happened so it doesn't happen again. and number three, he said we want to find out who did this so we can bring them to justice. in a letter dated december 18th, secretary clinton stated, quote: we continue to hunt the terrorists responsible for the attacks in benghazi and are determined to bring them to justice. today, july 11th, it has now been exactly ten months since the attacks. to your knowledge, are we any closer to identifying and bringing those terrorists to justice? >> senator, i share your frustration, as i said, as a citizen i want to know what happened as well. i have to tell you that in my previous role as spokesperson of the state department and in my current capacity i am not privy to information about how the investigation is going. >> in your written testimony, you talked about things related to energy. you talked about that europeans have taken important steps to diversify their energy market with new routes and new
regulations. i've introduced legislation enabling the u.s. to use its newfound abundance of natural gas to help our nato allies diversify their energy imports in order to break russian dominants over them through its control of their natural gas supply. many experts argue that u.s. natural gas exports can diminishing the cartel behavior, help persuade allies to isolate these rogue states and encourage the decoupling of natural gas prices and oil prices. do you agree that natural gas exports, including lng, can serve as an important diplomatic tool for the u.s. to strengthen our relationships with our allies and restore our standing throughout the world? >> senator, certainly. the fast pace of change with regard to the natural gas picture in europe is making a very valuable contribution to europe's energy security, and i think you know that the department of energy has
approved some u.s. exports. it's obviously within the purview of the department of energy to decide if we can do more of that, but the agree to which europe -- degree to which europe has more diverse sources of natural gas, it is a good thing for europe, and it is a good thing for the security of the transatlantic alliance. >> it does seem that our energy resources can at this point increase our own economic competitiveness and enhance our power around the world. do you support expediting lng licenses to our nato allies? >> senator, this decision set is not within the purview of the state department, it's within the purview of the department of energy, so i wouldn't want to speak to decisions that they have to make, but it is certainly the case that the more sources of natural gas for europe -- and they are really diversifying their lng terminals now, they're also looking at shale gags, -- gas, as you know, the better for our common
security. >> mr. chairman, my time is expired. at this time i'd like to submit additional questions for written records. thank you, where have. >> 14ru8. thank you, senator barrasso. senator paul. >> congratulations to the panel for your nominations. ambassador nuland, where were you the evening of men benghazi during the attacks and in the aftermath? >> i was at the state department on september 11th until about 1:00 in the morning, sir. >> was secretary clinton there also? >> she was. >> i didn't hear you, was or was not? >> she was. >> she was. were you in the same room with secretary clinton during the period of time of the attacks? >> for some of that period. she did a written statement on the attacks that evening. i worked with her on that written statement, but i wasn't with her the whole time, no. >> okay. did you have any conversations with anybody in libya during the attacks or during the immediate aftermath? >> no, sir. >> with anybody from special operations command in africa? >> no, sir. >> okay. were you present during any
conversations with secretary clinton with anybody in libya? >> no, sir. >> were you present with any conversations with secretary clinton and anyone from special operations command in africa? >> no, sir. >> did you have any conversations with secretary clinton concerning reinforcements being sent from tripoli? >> no, sir. my role with her was purely with regard to communications. public -- >> you didn't have -- you weren't present during any conversations that had anything to do with sending reinforcements. >> no, sir. >> were you present during any conversations with either, with yourself or with secretary clinton of general hamm, admiral loci, lieutenant colonel gibsonsome is. >> no, sir. >> okay. have you ever had any conversations with secretary clinton concerning the purpose of the cia annex? >> i'm not quite sure what
you're asking. >> what was the purpose of the cia annex in benghazi? >> senator, i would be delighted to talk to you about the relationship between the state department and the cia in a separate setting if that's, if that's helpful. i don't think it's appropriate -- >> have you had any conversations with secretary clinton concerning the purpose of the cia annex? >> not with regard to the purpose, no. but with regard to the responsibility of government communicators to protect the equities and requirements of all other agencies, yes. >> did you ever have a discussion with secretary clinton concerning the fact that the function and the act deaths of the c -- activities of the cia annex may have had something to do with the attacks? >> no, sir. >> you personally aware of what the cia annex function is? or was? >> sir, i don't believe i've had a full briefing on what all, on
what the activities were, no. >> have you read "the new york times" article from two weeks ago that talks about the fact that the cia has been involved with sending arms to syria over the last year? >> i did see that piece. i can't ais the its accuracy. >> okay. are you aware of the reports that a turkish ship left benghazi or libya in the week preceding the ambassador's killing, docked in turkey, interviews have been conducted with the media, with the captain, distribution of the arms to syrian rebels have been reported and discussed in the media, are you aware of those reports? >> i am not, senator. >> okay. we've got a lot of questions. we got a lot of very short answers. [laughter] how often with your tenure as sort of your typical routine as communications, in charge of
communications at the state d., how often would you have personal contact with secretary clinton or conversations? >> when i was briefing which was most days when we were home, i would see her every morning at our senior staff meeting. i would also support be her when she had bilateral meetings with foreign visitors, particularly when there were press conferences. that was our home drill. and then i traveled with her on all of her foreign travel. >> right. part of the reason i bring up the cia annex is that, you know, we're in the process of becoming involved in a new war in syria, and there are many within the administration -- which you'll be part of -- who argue for just doing this secretly without votes, basically, to have a covert war. and that's basically what we're having now according to articles in the -- concerning cia activity in syria is that we're going to have a covert war, not a war where congress votes on declaring war on votes on whether or not we should be involved. the question really here is a
big question of whether or not, you know, we obey the constitution which says the congress really declares war, the congress makes these decision, that unilaterally these decisions are not made without the approval of congress or the people. there's a question of the rule of law, basically. we have it on the books that says that if there's a military coup, that foreign aid will end. not only if there's a military coup, if the military's involved in any way, in any substantial way in removing a government from power. so you can understand the, you know, the displeasure of some of us who believe in the rule of law that basically this administration has said we're not going to obey the law. we're above the law. we're just going to say it's not a coup. the problem here is that there's a certain lawlessness. there's been a big discussion on, you know, leaks from the nsa. people have said, my goodness, these leaks are damaging national security. well, you know, it's also damaging to national security
when people come and lie to congress. now, i'm not saying you did. you said it was of classified, you can't talk about it. but if members of the administration are going to come to us and say, oh, i'm just going to lie because it's classified and tell you the least untruthful thing, what it does is it really does damage the intelligence community. it damages the reputation of your administration or the administration you will choose. it just, it damages the whole community in a way to say that it's okay to lie to congress. that's basically what the opinion is now and what is being told to the public. it is fine to lie to congress. if that's true, it really damages the credibility of people who do things. so when i ask the question, which i understand your inability maybe to answer it because it may be classified, there are many of us who believe that it was, it had to do with an arms trade going out of the cia annex and that perhaps people were unhappy about arms being taken from one group to another and sent to another that may have incited the rioting and
may have incited the terrorist attack. but the problem is we can't even get to the truth because people just say, oh, it's secret. that's the problem with running a secret government and running secret wars. we don't get any oversight. we can't have oversight, because we don't have information. all i would say is we need to think these things through. if you look at what the public wants, the public's not interested in a new war. thank you very much for your testimony. >> thank you, senator paul. we'll do a second round, maybe five minutes each for members that are remaining. ambassador nuland, i just wanted to expand upon the questions from senator shaheen on turkey just to ask a broader question. what erdogan is doing is certainly not the extent of russia with mr. putin, but troubling nonetheless. the crackdown within istanbul, his dispositions toward the military. what are the tools at our disposal to continue to raise these questions of a free and open society in turkey given the
same problem we have with russia in that we have so many irons in the fire with respect to our very complicated relationship with you are turkey that often t difficult to put the issue of human rights and his treatment of political opponents front and center? what are the tools at our disposal to continue to press erdogan with respect to some of the same issues, albeit to a lesser degree, that we are pressing putin's government on as well? >> thank you, senator. our alliance with turkey, our relationship with turkey is absolutely critical, as you know not just in the eurasian space, but also in all of the work that we're doing now in the middle east and north africa and particularly with regard to syria. i think it's because we have such an intense and tight relationship and because we have constant contact, i think secretary kerry's now made seven-plus trips to turkey. the president talks regularly with president erdogan, that we can speak very clearly and frankly when we have concerns about turkey's democratic path,
and we have done that at all levels. because it is turkey's democracy and the strength of it is important not only for the country itself, not only as a nato ally, but also because as a majority islamic population, turkey's democracy is looked at by other countries around the world and in the region who aspire to be able to be islamic and democratic at the same time. so these are the points that we will continue to make to the turkish government that freedom of assembly, freedom of expression, protection of journalists are fundamental democratic values that strengthen the country. and in the context of the review that the government of turkey is doing now of the constitution, we are urging that these protections be strengthened and not lightened. >> well, i thank you for raising the issue of constitutional reform. i hope that that will be an issue that we will continue to raise with them. i think that we should be troubled by the prospect of
erdogan trying to rearrange the constitution as a means of continuing his reign there beyond what has been expected by the people of turkey. i appreciate you raising that. general lute, just very quickly with regard to nato enlargement, we've got a number of candidates particularly in the balkans. can you speak very briefly about the commitment that you will have as our ambassador there to actively work with the balkan nations who are in line for membership to go through the final stages of that process? >> yes, senator -- yes, senator. you have my personal commitment to do this. of course, this is standing nato policy under the open door provision, and it's longstanding u.s. policy as well that the door should be open not only to the balkan states that you're mentioning, but as we mentioned earlier, georgia as well. >> let me just finally before i turn it over to senator johnson, i do want to associate myself with at least the final comment made by senator paul. i know this isn't particularly
within your individual books of business, but it may be. i do think he raises a very important point about the interplay between overt and covert activity, and we have seen that produce fairly troublesome results for this nation but also for the state department in places like pakistan as we move forward in syria which you may have some interactions with. i hope we look to prior history and understand that major military actions happening in a covert manner present problems certainly with regard to oversight by the united states congress, but also present problems within the administration when there are entities negotiating with players across the globe who don't necessarily have control over all of the tools that are subject to those negotiations. senator johnson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. general lute, as long as you did listen to the afghanistan
hearing, i was able to be here for the first hour and couldn't ask questions, so let me ask you a couple questions. it was, a comment was made that isaf is providing critical support to the afghan army and police force and that the elections were, i can't remember the exact quote, but absolutely essential in terms of progress being made in afghanistan. but there have been some real problems. critical appointments haven't been made. the point i want to make is if we are going to stop all military operations by the end of 2014 and basically turn it over to the afghan army and police force by 2015, what if they're not ready? what is going to happen? >> well, the december 2014 goal to arrive at a point where the afghans are fully responsible as we said in lisbon in 2010 at the end of this four-year transition process is just that, a goal.
and the reports i think you heard this morning, but the reports we consistently get and have gotten for a number of years now is that, are that our military believes -- and they have day-to-day, shoulder-to-shoulder contact with their afghan counterparts -- that we're on track and that the remaining 18 months will complete that job to arrive at a position where they're fully responsible. now, i think you also heard this morning and we see in more routine reports that there remain gaps today. some of the ones most obvious are close air support, medical evacuation, logistics. and -- >> well, let me -- i mean, one of the more critical gaps is managerial at the officer level which is an incredibly difficult gap to fill, isn't it, in just 18 months? >> well, senator, i think you're right. you don't build an army in four or five years, and we've really only been seriously at the building of the afghan army over the last four or five years. and that's why beyond 2014 the
work won't be done. and that's why we're committed to a training, advising, assisting mission even beyond 2014. as i mentioned earlier, that, of course, needs to be governed by a bilateral security agreement which is under negotiation. so -- >> to what extent are militias being stood back up in afghanistan? >> i don't think this is a major change or a major initiative in afghanistan today. the ethnic groups especially in the rural areas that are quite remote from the population centers, the metropolitan population centers have always been somewhat secured by local power brokers who have armed contingents, and this is to some extent the natural state of affairs in afghanistan. but these are not dominant. and i can also tell you that in the last several years we've not seen a dramatic rise in the presence of these sorts of
forces. >> do you think those militias are stabilizing force? >> i think they're a natural part of the security landscape in afghanistan. we don't see them as a destabilizing force. they tend to, they tend to stick quite close to their home turf. they're ethnically and tribally organized, and they don't present a necessarily destabilizing force. now, what is new to the scene is 350,000 afghan national security forces both army and police, and the standup of that national force is designed to provide the glue that holds the very disparate regions of afghanistan together. >> okay. with my remaining time, i'd like to ask unanimous consent to the -- >> including my predecessor, senator lieberman is on that letter. >> thank you very much. >> senator rubio, you're recognized. >> thank you. and i apologize for this, but i just want to clearly understand
the time line on the talking points issue once more. so i want to go back. on october 10th, mr. carney, jay carney said again from the beginning we provided information based on the facts as we knew they became available based on assessments by the intelligence community. not opinions, assessments by the intelligence community. this was an ongoing investigation that the more facts that came available, we would make you aware of them as appropriate, and we've done that. he went on to say later back in may that what we've said and remains true is that the intelligence community drafted and redrafted these talking points. that was, in fact, the president on october 18th of last year said on jon stewart's show, believe it or not, every piece of information we get as we got it, we laid it out to the american people. that's the statements from the white house with regards to the talking points. now, the original cia talking points were pretty blunt. they talked about an assault on u.s. facilities in many benghazi as a terrorist attack conducted by a large group of islamic
extremists including some with ties to al-qaeda. that was the original talking points that the cia circulated. well, prepared. they then circulated these talking points to the administration policymakers on the evening of friday, september 14th. they had changed islamic extremists with ties to the al-qaeda to simply islamic extremists. but they also added new context in the references to the radical islamists. they pointed to ann starral sharia's involvement, and they added a bullet to highlight the fact that the cia had warned of an attack on u.s. diplomatic facilities in the region. and that was the point where the e-mails circulated, you raised the concerns, etc., and overnight on the 14th. then there was that meeting on the 15th of the -- i don't want to mischaracterize the name of the group, the deputies' group, is that right? you were not a part of that meeting, but there was a meeting, correct? >> correct. my understanding was that this issue was taken up there, yes. >> so you weren't in the
meeting -- >> i was not there. >> but we know in an e-mail to ambassador rice after the meeting, according to the e-mail there were several officials in the meeting that shared your concerns, you were not part of the deliberations, that the cia talking points might lead to criticism that the state department had ignored warnings about an attack. and the e-mail also reported this to susan rice that mr. sullivan were to work with a small group of individuals from the intelligence community to finalize the talking points on saturday before sending them on to the house. so that was what happened from that meeting, and then these changes came about, and then we get these talking points. so i guess the point that i want to raise is that while, in fact, the intelligence community may have physically and technically written these talking points, the most substantive changes to the talking points, the most substantive changes to these talking points from the original version east, even the amended versions that were first
circulated, the substantive changes came as a result of direct input from the state department and from these, this deputies' meeting. that's correct, right? >> senator rubio, as you correctly pointed out, i can't speak to the whole chain of events. when, when i received the talking points on the evening of friday the 14th, they said they did not make reference to al-qaeda. they made reference to ann starral sharia. i had no difficulties in substance with that. when i as a citizen read the dozens and dozens and dozens of e-mails that we released to the congress and to the public about this, it was clear to me in reading those, as i'm sure it was clear to you, that significant changes were made apparently inside the cia before they -- >> but they were, right. and i understand that the cia typed the changes -- >> but before, while they were in clearance within the cia before they went to -- >> but the point is that the
major substantive changes came between friday evening after you and other state department officials expressed concerns about criticism from members of congress and the saturday morning following the deputies' meeting. that's when the big changes to it came. and the reason why that raises alarm is another e-mail to chip walter, the head of the cia's legislative affairs office from secretary petraeus where he expressed frustration noting that they had been stripped, so the point that i'm driving -- quite frankly, this has nothing to do with you, but, in fact, when mr. carney and the president says these talking points were a product of the intelligence community, that is not accurate. these talking points may have been typed by the intelligence community, but these talking points were dramatically changed directly at the input of non-intelligence community individuals primarily in the state department and in this meeting of the deputies. that's where the changes came. they did not come from the intelligence community. the intelligence community, in fact, its leader at the cia
expressed frustration at the changes that have been made. i know my time is up, but i have one more quick question, and it has to do with the s.t.a.r.t. treaty. is russia in compliance, in your opinion, with the new s.t.a.r.t.? i know that's a big change of topic. [laughter] >> senator, at this, in this current state that i am in, i am not privy to all of the information with regard to compliance. if confirmed, obviously, i would be fully transparent with you within my responsibilities -- >> okay. then here's my last question, anyone who wants to answer. maybe, general, you could help with this. did the administration seek or receive any input from our nato allies ahead of the president's announcement two weeks ago about additional cut toss the u.s. strategic nuclear arsenal? did we talk to our nato allies, and if we did, what was their reaction? >> senator, i'm not aware of that. i'm, obviously, not following that issue at that time. but i can, i can investigate this and come back to you.
if thank you, senator rubio. thank you very much for answering all of our questions. you've all acquitted yourselves very well. you've all had such impressive careers, and i'm appreciative of the fact that you're ready to stand up for this nation. we look forward to your confirmation. this hearing stands adjourned. >> in a few moments, a discussion of egypt's future. in a little more than an hour, a hearing on the boston marathon bombing investigation and domestic counterterrorism and after that we'll reair the senate foreign relations committee confirmation hearing on state department nominees. >> several live events to tell you about tomorrow. the center for strategic and international studies looks ahead to september's g20 summit in russia. that's here on c-span2 at 9 a.m. eastern. finish at 10:00 on our companion
network, c-span, a wilson center forum on security africa issa hell, the area south of the desert that includes parts of mali, south sue -- sudan and mauritania. also on c-span, the heritage foundation looks at proposed changes to the so-called nuclear option. speakers include former parliamentarian robert dove. you can see that at 12:30 p.m. eastern. >> the problem was that darwin did not understand, and that's his blunder, that he did not understand that with such a theory natural selection could never have really worked. because, you know, imagine you have a population of a million white cats and one black cat, and suppose that being a black cat does provide you with some big advantage, yes? but in this blending theory, you know, you mix things like gin and tonic, the black cat mates with a white cat, you get a gray
cat. the gray cat mates with another white cat, you get the paler shade of gray cat. and this thing just gets diluted and diluted that black advantage will disappear and never appear again. >> on "after words," astrofizz qis mario livio explores the work of five scientists and the mistakes made on the way to their achievements. part of booktv this weekend on c-span2. >> now, a discussion on egypt's political future with a former member of the egyptian legislature. from the middle east institute in washington, d.c., this is a little more than an hour. [inaudible conversations] >> well, good afternoon, everybody. welcome to the event sponsored by the middle east institute.
i'm wendy chamberlain, i'm president of the middle east institute, and i'm happy to see so many of our loyal members who have joined us this afternoon for a very special presentation. we are extremely fortunate to host once again dr. mona makram-ebeid. she is professor of political science at the american university of cairo. she's a former shura council member. she's a harvard kennedy school graduate, and she's a woman who i admire tremendously. she's here to give us her firsthand account, she's come from cairo, give us her firsthand acod of the upheaval -- account of the upheaval that we have all been reading about with great interest over the last months and years, but particularly this week. dr. makram-ebeid has been on the front lines in egypt. she was there as a key player during the overthrow of mubarak. she was an adviser to the
military government, she was very much a player in, during the spire period of the muslim -- entire period of the muslim brotherhood government, and now she's been very much involved in the toppling of president morsi. she's a true political insider having served as the only female as a christian on the shura council. she was an adviser to the scaff and most recently a vocal supporter of the movement. so you can see she's a woman who really knows her stuff. she's someone who's been an influential player in all aspects of the very exciting and historical events in egypt. the timing of today's event could not be better. as you know, it's been a pivotal week in egypt and its transition process. whether and how egypt will
rebound from the political, social and economic turmoil that is destabilizing the country is anybody's guess. but if there's one person who can speak with authority on what's happening in egypt, it's our guest speaker here today. so we're lucky to have her and to hear what she has to say from this accomplished expert and particularly an opportune moment in egypt's history. please join me in welcoming dr. mona makram-ebeid. [applause] for a full bio, please see the flier that we've prepared for you on your chair. thank you very much. >> so good afternoon, everybody.
i am particularly pleased to be back at the middle east institute which is my favorite think tank here, and i can't believe that you don't hear me. [laughter] i can't believe it. so, and i want to really thank ambassador wendy chamberlin and kate seally for inviting me once again. i feel honored and privileged to be here with you, and i see many familiar faces, which i'm glad to see again. i hope you're as glad as i am to see me again. [laughter] so as ambassador wendy told you, i came to washington a few days ago after having lived through the most exciting but terribly dangerous days of my political career.
i had been in constant touch with the young people through my agency's students and other activists of the 2011 revolution. i was transfixed, i must say, by their courage, by their determination and fascinated by the courage of these young people particularly their young leader whom i met several times. and like many of us of the generation, i was skeptical that they would be able to collect the 15 million signatures. but all the same i duly signed the rebel petition for the ouster of mr. morsi. we had lived three decades of torture under mubarak, so it was difficult to see how people can be so energized and so
courageous. so, and lo and behold, on the 30th of june 30 million egyptians, if not more, to tooko the streets to demand mr. morsi's resignation. only in tahrir square where i was there were about three million egyptians filled with a sense of hope, especially when the army helicopters were flying all over us and dropped the egyptian flag and, also, when we saw the young policemen all clad in white arriving carried on people's shoulders, something that we haven't seen for a year or more since the revolution, because they were reviled, and they had left the streets really. so this was the first sign not only of the police rebelliousness, but also of the solidarity with the people.
that very morning i was -- on the 30th of june, i was privy to an urgent meeting at former minister's house and in the presence of -- [inaudible] for the egyptians who are here who was former deputy head of the security forces and the well known writer and 10 or 12 other people representing labor and present syndicates and so on. and we were all wondering why we were gathered there. and the minister told us that they had been in touch with the army, with the pope, and with general assisi. so the army had requested from them to have a written popular demand for them to intervene and prevent a disastrous bloodbath. so we drafted it very quickly
because we had to give it in before 3:00, and by phone we got the approval of 50 other personalities. and such as the -- [inaudible] such as the new head of the cairo university and many others of the same caliber, and we had it delivered to armed forces -- to the armed forces before 3:00. part of the wording of the drafting said you gave everyone one week to resolve the problems and to come to a compromise, otherwise you will step in to prevent a bloodbath. so we are asking you to fulfill your pledges, because we are on the brink of a civil war and a bloody, and a real bloodbath. and so it was by july 2nd the
morsi era was over. was this inevitable? egyptians like to think of tear country as -- [speaking in native tongue] the mother of the world. not a struggling economy dependent on demeaning loans from the imf or cynical charity from countries like qatar and others. it may be that no government could have sold the fundamental economic -- solved the fundamental economic problems quickly. but after the 2011 revolution, any wise government could have instilled a sense of pride and possibility. whoo the egyptians -- what the egyptians crave far more than anything else, more than the u.s. dollars is dignity. and this was one of the main
slogans of the january, first revolution. and that is exactly where mr. morsi failed. he and his party had no plan, he offered little in the way of real solutions to the major crisis that were facing egypt like electricity, shortage of fuel, a spiraling economy, a lack of security, rights abuse, sectarian violence, education and so on. i don't have to go all over the many ills that we went through during this year. moreover, mr. morsi was unpopular. he was whatever the opposite of charisma is. [laughter] and never got to grips with the grinding problems of poverty and unemployment. egyptians felt, you know, humiliated when they saw him, you know?
can this be the president of egypt? it's not timbuktu we're talking about. it's egypt, 90 million people with 7,000 years of civilization. so it was very difficult to swallow when people say from the beginning you're all against him. no, we're not all against him, but he didn't help much. [laughter] so he and the brotherhood perceived their victories in the elections as mandates to shape the nation's policy as they deemed fit. overlooking the need to share power and what they sought was to institutionalize islamist ideology and amass as much power as possible for him and his cronies. so instead of installing a government of national unity, he filled all the sensitive posts with his cronies whether in the cabinet or the government or the
institutions or even the judiciary that they wanted, that they attacked and wanted to remove half of them or the ones who were over 60 and put instead their people. so the biggest problem was that both government and opposition lost the confidence of the majority of the people. and i'm saying again not only the government, but also the opposition. with the result that the muslim brothers majoritarian and increasingly authoritarian rule, his approach to governing was dictatorial, was -- [inaudible] and managed to destabilize the country rather than stable it. -- stabilize it. you always hear, you know, the u.s. administration say they want stability. so this man managed to destabilize the country because
he was divisive. he divided the egyptians against each other. and now let us go to the debate which exists in this country which is, is this a coup or not a coup? it is as if we're in, you know, a $50 million question of, what's his name? george -- [inaudible] exactly the same thing. is it a coup or not a coup? and every day we -- how important is this? it's over. whether it's a coup or it's not a coup, it's over. and at least the administration was wise enough not to use this word coup. because according to u.s. law if it's a coup, then the great amount of assistance that the u.s. administration gives to egypt would be suspended.
so is this a coup or not a coup? let me start by saying one thing. inaction, not intervention by the army would have been criminal. it is not intervention that is criminal, but it would have been inaction that would have been criminal. in the sense that it is not a coup in the traditional sense and certainly does not merit a suspension of u.s. assistance which the law prescribes. what the army did by intervening in response to popular demand evidenced by the 30 million egyptians who took to the street was to prevent a bloodbath that would have scarred egypt for decades and would have jeopardized each mr. morsi's -- even mr. morsi's life. because he would not have been spared by the mob. so i believe the movement was expressly the movement of
empowered citizens, and this is really one of the achievements of the january 12, '11 revolution, the empowerment of the people. egyptians have never been empowered. they've always had either a pharoah or a king or a colonizer, etc. so for once they felt the country really belonged to them, and they had a say. so i believe the movement was not only the movement of empowered is citizens -- empowered citizens who are writing their own history and which was one of the greatest achievements of the 2011 revolution, but people refused the secular dictatorship of mubarak, and now they're refusing the islam aric authoritarianism of the brotherhood. so it has nothing to do, really, with religion or liberals against islamists, etc. it is against dictatorship, it
is against authoritarianism and so on. so i would rather call it a popular impeachment. and i think this word was given to me by somebody very dear to me, and i think this tribes exactly -- describes exactly what it is, a popular impeachment. as this was probably the largest revolutionary outpouring in human history. what about the present situation? the present situation in which the military has deposed a brotherhood president was not inevitable, and i'll the l you why -- tell you why. had morsi not done such an abysmal job as a president, the military would have lived quite happily under a constitutional system that left its power and budget large i outside -- largely outside the bounds of the emerging religiously-grounded political system whose imposition of a
conservative vision of society served the interests of the power elites as a whole much as the rise of social conservativism in the united states has served its economic elite quite well. but the only way this could have succeeded would have been for morsi's government to give enough other political forces a voice in the new system to enable them to feel that they had a stake in its successful and that -- in its success. and that did not happen. morsi and the brotherhood spectacularly failed in this task with their narrow focus on social issues, managerial incompetence, rising sectarian violence and a constitution that was sure to antagonize large segments of the society such as women, cops, the judiciary, the
intellectual and artistic community, political parties, labor syndicates, etc. in other words, all those who took to the street on june 30th. i was elected to the nurse first con stitch went -- to the first constituent assembly, but with i had to resign because 75% of the a'em my was -- assembly was islamist. so we wouldn't have had the chance even to put in a word. the second constituent assembly was deemed as illegitimate as the first one, but it remained, and it drafted the constitution that has now been suspended. another problem was the disbanding of the lower house which was the parliament closed off one institutional political space for egyptians both to
negotiate with, moderate and even push back against the new leadership leaving nowhere for the normal push and pull of politics to transpire. and so the streets became the only viable vehicle to assert opposition to the new order, a situation which inevitably reinforced a uniformly antagonistic relationship between the opposition and the president and his allies. because here you hear all the time that from the beginning the people were against him, wanted to bring him down and so on. that's not true. this only happened last november when he took upon himself constitutional powers that not even a pharoah would have had and immunized them, guaranteed an immunization to anything he
said, no judicial overview, etc. so, of course, this made people mad, and this is when the trouble started. last december. and here i would like to recall my early day cans at the kennedy -- days at the kennedy school of government and to read something from the federalist papers which we had to study, so let me quote thomas jefferson. he said, quote-unquote: experience has shown that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have in time and by slow operations perverted it into tyranny. the spirit of resistance to government so valuable on certain occasions that i wish it to be always alive. every generation needs a new revolution.
if morsi broke all his pledges to start with he said that they would not run for the presidency. the second was that they would only take 20% of the parliament. so if morsi broke all his pledges and if he has broken faith even with the values of those who put him in power, then it seems that those who revolted against governmental tyranny once before now must be encouraged in their efforts to do so once again. such a result, i believe, is fully in keeping with the ideals expressed by one of the most prominent found ors of -- founders of u.s. democracy. every democratic government gets a second chance to get it right. and remember that that the
united states constitution was promulgated in 1789. the revolution was in 1776. so it is clear that what the military have just done has ended the career of an anti-democratic leader, and the military is materially supporting democratizing moves including the stepping aside of the military and transfer to power to a civilian leadership as you have seen in the past week. the united states should support these moves in the most concrete way possible, by not interrupting aid. i was an adviser to the supreme council of the armed forces, the scaf, during a year when they took over after mubarak's ouster. of course, they a always politely listened to us, but they never did anything that we asked them to do.
so, and this is usually what the army does. they listen, they're very polite, they're very disbritained, but they don't -- disciplined, but they don't do anything that you ask them for. [laughter] and all the violations, the human rights violations, they didn't even know what it was about. [laughter] but, and they made a series of blunder, as you know, during the whole year. but general assisi was one of the 19 generals we used to meet with. he was the youngest, so he was at the end of the room, but i remember him. i don't think that he's more of a democrat than general pantowi, but he is younger, he is savvy, he is bright, he has been trained in the united states and not the soviet union, so he will be much more adept. [laughter] the united states today should do what it's failed to do after the 2011 revolution, and that is
not only support egypt because of peace with israel, but this time it should prod the government and the army to push for a democratic, pluralistic, inclusive government that pursues sound economic policies. .. alleviate some of the serious. mind the most serious is use unemployment. then we have poverty, education,
health, and so on. i would like the united states to tell these businessmen that philanthropy is what made america great. so maybe they could be inspired by that. the united states should engage with that different countries. it should condemn any sectarian violence against the christians of egypt, 15 million population or any marginal addition of women. do not forget that perception is better than reality. the perception was undeniable support to the brotherhood. that is not kodel well with the egyptian people. on the other hand, the united states has continuously been little the seriousness of the
secular opposition movement. therefore, it should reach out and emphasize respect of human rights. also, the building of democratic institutions, the drafting of a constitution conforming to a broad principles to which most egyptians can agree and plan to resolve the economic crisis rather than calling, as they do, for in egypt elections. these are much more important issues. egypt needs the best and brightest to coalesce around principles and plans, to lead the country out of its political and economic crisis. democracy can only find roots when people have a job and a voice. therefore, solving the economic crisis and social inequality
must be paramount. so, give the military and its allies time and incentive to act responsibly to put the country back on a sustainable democratic plan. cutting aid now would be highly counterproductive, turning the united states into -- the very actressy today have the responsibility to return agent to a democratic. the armed forces. what lies ahead? we are now facing the beginning of a consultative democratic transition. the three main actors today are the armed forces, the muslim brotherhood, and the citizens it took to the streets to oppose mohammed morsi and the muslim brotherhood. every one of these actors have learned critical lessons during
these months, or we hope that they have. they're all very different from who they were 30 months ago. the military, for example, needed to include civilian and religious figures, as you saw, the day that he was ousted. it was done in front of the highest institution and the world. the pope, christian pope the doctor who represented their youth of the opposition and they let the time opposed the morsi government. so this was very symbolic will. this was not done in 2011. it was done this time. i believe that the army will likely remain over the short term.
after the constitution there will look in the wind as long as the constitution is amended. as for the citizenry, it has been reenergize with the knowledge that it's peaceful expression of discontent continues to have force and bring about historic change. most significant are the youth of tomorrow, the fantastic movement that organized and mobilized. a real manifestation. i am in all. i imagine that several of their members would be in leading positions in not too distant future. as for the muslim brothers, we are facing a war of confrontation and tear. the popular does not mean that the brotherhood is out of the game. on the contrary, they are determined to engage in astro
will -- a struggle that they see as a up matter of life and death. to use religion to insight the fervor and the anchor of their supporters, particularly after the killing of 51 and 435 injured. this, of course, is shocking to virtually everyone and was condemned by virtually everyone. they called to escalate protests and tell morsi is reinstated. wishful thinking, i hope. they're trying to exploit whenever tensions do exist within the military, and this is new, but publicly distinguishing did generals from the broader institution of the army. the fear that the brotherhood was trying toe egypt in
its own image was probably a more powerful energizer of the opposition that had troubled economy. people refused to be -- to have the imposition of clerics and so on. the challenge today is to lower back some of the up more moderate muslim members. i have dealt with them and i can say that there are people who are more moderate than others. there are some who are good, and i believe that the real challenge today is to lure them back into the new political process in order to air and the profound polarization of the past year. another focus should be a on a
young members of the muslim brothers who have lost faith in their leaders. this is interesting. they are expected to take over, i believe, also in the near future. the challenge today is to prevent the muslim brotherhood from turning to the bullet instead of the ballot. with the putting out of the party which had initially joined the new governing coalition and now declared that it is pulling out of the new regime, it says that the massacre has consolidated egypt. so, i think it may come out as a winner. another target of the muslim brothers of the christian. nearly 15 million of aegis population are christians.
mostly there live relatively harmoniously in this muslim majority country. some islamists extremists want to see them driven out as they did. sectarian violence as it is during their rule of morsi, egypt would nest deadly attacks on the churches and christians. the last one even attacked the federal cathedral which triggered the anchor of millions many egyptians doubted the commitment to protect them. now that morsi has been ousted, there is a counter suspicion by some muslim brother of supporters that christians somehow had a hand in his removal. that is extremely dangerous because if egypt were tough fall
prey to violence christians would find themselves easy targets. before the upheaval the leaders of the muslim brothers went to an eminently respectable and wise man to ask and to prevent the joining of the demonstrations. something keep firmly refused saying that the church does not interfere in politics. they're free in their decisions. what is interesting is to see the evolution of these new young people who have joined the revolution, and the forefront as there were in the 2011, whereas before they were insulated behind the church premises and refused participation. having said that, i believe the biggest challenge lies with the
secular and civic political forces in need to help the government establish a political process that is popular. to do so and as preliminary victimization is beat -- without any further incitement are demonization of the muslim brotherhood. strive toward the conflagration instead. they had both worked together to bring down the old mubarak regime and dictatorship and should find a way to coexist in and newt and reconciled matter. number two, the military as we all know has no particular interest in democracy. it falls upon secular and civic political parties, not the military, to help define a democratic and pluralistic --
pluralistic egypt. unifying around one leader and one program. as to how to direct the transition and implement the agreed upon roadmap. at the end of the day but it is they who must define the limits of the military's role. the opposition and the civic forces need to guarantee that the transitional time toward the restoration of the civic order is as short as possible. to conclude, the ongoing political upheaval has transcended morsi and the presidency. it has no travel over the soul of egypt, but also forces each of its identity and unity of the country. the early -- the only force that matters is the will of the citizens.
egyptians will not give up their objective. constitutionally citizenship and sovereignty. egypt's democratic revolution still holds the potential for shifting the arab world decisively in the direction of liberty, accountable government, and promotion of universal human rights. if it does it will be the first modern arab country resulting from the will of its citizens. thank you for your attention to. [applause] >> i think once again we heard of very powerful presentation. were looking for to the question and answer from -- many
penetrating issues. let me start with a question. we have had -- some very good advice to what the united states should do. giving good advice to what the army and the opposition should do. democracy is a ground game as well. they youthful people have been able to mobilize on their computers be sitting in coffee shops behind their computers. 22 million signatures on out petition. a lot of democracy is built by getting out into villages, getting into the streets of the urban areas, knocking on doors, meeting with people, building a party from the ground of. i'm wondering if you see this kind of activity going as we approach another very important election in the next several months, the kind of organization
that unfortunately did not happen in this last round. what are your views on that? >> right. as you said, most of the people thought it was the best thing to do, to be on the talk shows and not do anything else. a room became a prima donna, an expert. there was no one left to run for elections. so i think that today the young people and not the same young people, by the way. some of them are from 2011. most of them are even younger. i believe they see things more -- they're more open. you know, to get 22 signatures is not through the network. they went around. they did do some leadwort -- legwork.
i note that this could be translated into a grass-roots organization. i don't want them to it joined all parties. they can choose somebody among them. i am sure some young leaders will appear in the coming months. i have nothing against elderly people. but we want to see some new flesh -- fresh blood. i want the young to identify, to be able to identify. they cannot identify with the figures so we see every day. they happen to be the same. >> questions from the back. >> stanley caliber. on your quotation from jefferson , every generation needs a new revolution.
it's apparently a misquotation. he was ambassador to paris. god forbid we should never be 20 years without such a rebellion. referring to rebellion in massachusetts, but he continues. the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. it is its natural. we have shootings in egypt. we're seeing civil war in syria. is that each tips future? >> i didn't "everything. i quoted what i wanted. what i wanted was not that. that didn't talk about blood. i talked about the importance of resisting tyranny. this was the main thing that i talked from thomas jefferson. so, i don't think that we will
sink into what syria is because syria is finished. chaos. there is no state. there's nothing. don't forget, egypt has the most influential army in the region. it is culturally the most influential country. geostrategic lee is the most important fur different countries' interests. secondly, i don't think -- you know, the terrorists kolar whoever you want to call them, they are at a minority in egypt. 90 million coming case you forget. every ten months we have new -- a new million. this is it. this is the truth. you cannot compare.
hopefully we will not get to that point. we will have violence. there will be blood, but the egyptians have seen worse crisis in 97 there was a whole massacre and laxer. they were able to overcome that. there were able to get back to tourism. the rebel to instill confidence in tourism. the year before the revolution that tourist industry brought in a $11 billion to the egyptian treasury. so i think it's going to be a turbulent time. it's going to be full of obstruction, but at the end of the day i think the egyptians will overcome.
>> thank you so much for such an interesting talk and for mentioning and praising. you may have noticed, it's practically not mention that all . i actually heard a major policy expert you will go and named. on the morning of june 30th the did not know what it was. something in rebel is never going to go anywhere. so i think there's a profound misunderstanding of what is going on in the policy community here, missing the importance of the ongoing reza -- revolution. relating then almost entirely, and this is what we read today, through the military. it is relating to the american
officials. so your message is needed. but having said that, i confess, i'm confused about what is going on right now. >> in not the only one. >> i hear from people in egypt that is just fine. the military is in charge. it's propaganda. but what role are they having now? it looks like the military is just running everything. hell is that being divided? >> no. the military are not running everything openly. but obviously they are there. for the time being they will continue, as i said, to be in charge. they will not govern. that, i'm sure of having been
with them for a year. and know how reluctant they are. second, to go through an experience, it was a very miserable experiment -- experience. they don't want to go through that. this time of course they have interests that they want to keep . the people of there. just before i came out was on a tv panel. there were there speaking. so they are there. we don't see them very much. i'm sure that they are the ones who are continuing. as i said, i do hope that they will do some grass-roots organizations, formal political
party. just not be people in the street. >> let me draw your attention to the mai website which has a video of one of the leaders explaining how they organize a movement. we had a very good article on the movement. >> how gray would you say the divide is between people in the city's and areas in terms of engagement and what the priorities are? and in light of that, how can both rural and urban citizens be brought together? >> no, if very -- funnily enough
there were brought together. much more. the rulers, of course, were the ones who were the most supportive of the muslim brothers because they have an emotional message. it's religion. these are the people. plus the fact that they gave them sugar and rice and whenever so they could guarantee their support in the elections. but strangely enough, these people -- because one thing that happens in egypt which is quite interesting is the politicization. no one was interested in politics before. it's not like leaven on. no one spoke about politics. you never wind.
now in the street people stop you to ask you your opinion. everyone is interested, including the people in the rural areas. although they are in a letter it and poor. they watched the television. most of them have children who of gone to school and to our wizards at the new technology and tell them, i have my -- i don't think you have that here. i don't know what the word is. and he comes and tells me, when is morsi leaving? i heard he remarried. had you know this?
i saw it on the net. aliterate. but the saw. yes me get my job. i was fascinated with the amount of qualifications that the head. so this is what you get today. a discrepancy with the older generation, but not the new one. whether their rulers are not. and so this is the hope for the future. second, if you have the term the people, it means those who don't move, who are not moved. they even put that in front of their house. now, and with you. they don't care about who rules them or democracy. they want to have a better life.
they want to know that there children will get the job, that there is hope that the end of the tunnel, that all the things will be realized. nothing was realized. the live got worse. they have less money to buy things. so these people are angry and frustrated. [inaudible question] >> i had to put questions. the first, if you have any comments about the constitutional amending process and whether or not you believe there are certain articles that should be focused on heavily and also about the road map and the timetable for parliamentary
elections, where they're not used seat it's feasible. late january, early february by the timetable they have set up. whether not you think there's certain parties that are better poised to make certain gains are weather and not you believe there should be a collective kind of revolutionary ticket for these parties to move forward. >> what is our revolutionary ticket? apart -- >> working together. >> well, then nationalization front which represents not all the opposition, but a big chunk of the opposition. the constitution. i read the 33 articles. i have reservations on many of them. particularly the one about sharia because it is not as we
have asked for. we asked that it should be on the principles, not the judgment so this is what they have now. i'm sure it's going to provoke a big debate. there are many other articles that the intellectual community is not happy with. the civil liberties are not really guaranteed as we would of thought. anyway, it needs amendments, but it does not mean that it is bad, particularly one of the big constitutionalists said that we can work with the. and i believe he will be one of the ten people that would be chosen to see it. the road map, the road map, the elections, the people have asked that they should be a presidential election before parliamentary elections. this would be subject to debate.