Democrat, did the same thing. So its something that came up and you will see congressional action early, in particular in the senate where theres been no action on these or really any other issues for the last two years. What about the public that will take questions in a minute but im cure use on the nsa intelligence issue some of your colleagues excuse for what voting for what they knowledge are excessive constraints or not well throughout through provisions in the programs and the public is up in arms and i need to give them something youch both had tough campaigns this year and your campaign was a central issue in the primary and came up in arkansas as well what is your sense of that . It was a central issue. We debated it. My part never had the problem he voted for it four times himself, so it was interesting. But suffice to say, ill have folks express concerns about provision inside the American Action here, domestic surveillance issues. We have to do this well. Our National Security apparatus has to do it professionally. Congress needs to have oversight. Thats an important part of these nsa programs. And if we do those well and we articulate that which is unclassified in a meaningful way, the American People will support this. Im very confident. Ive seen it in the fourth Congressional District ands atraveled around the country, they just want to understand this isnt some rogue set of actors. Theyre specially concerned with this particular president , at least in kansas, some actor behaving without oversight or boundaries to their activities. I would say the same thing. Arkansasans like most americans worry about their privacy, especially in the digitaltime. More worried about getting nuked by iran or islamic terrorists cut off the head of fellow citizen. And one other excuse of more moderate democrats or some republicans, well, on Foreign Policy issues, National Security issues, Defense Budget, intervention in syria and iraq, tough line with iran, or arming ukrainians the American Public is war weary. That would the right thing to do but the public wont tolerate that. Your have been out and about among the American Public for the last several months. What is the truth of that . I grow weary of claims of the weariness o. The American People and its no surprise the American People may be perceived as war weary since the commander in chief is the weariest one of them all. Over the last year in arkansas, certainly, i have seen arkansasans who feel embar rayed by what happened in america in the world and feel threatened bit what is happening to america in the world. They dont want to waste money on the military. They dont want to go abroad looking for monsters to slay, an John Quincy Adams said. They want to protect americas interest and america to be strong and a leader in the world, and we need elected leaderred that will explain those things. As mike pointed out on terrorist surveillance programs, theres a lot of misunderstanding, not just among the American People but even among members of congress. And something about which theyre passionate and deeply informed, havent gone into the Security Communications facility to get the briefings. They may think the nsa is taping your cell phone calls which is not the case at all. If it takes elect leaders we have a lot of new ones on the way in the senate and in the house for that matter as well, to help make the case for a strong and confident america in the world and the tools our forefighters and professionals need to accomplish that. Actually talked about this idea of war weariness. Youll hear from time to time in different places. Dont have a lot to add. Its awl about leadership. Deemly american tradition, from the very founding days, from washington and his talk about thing that arent americas problem but when american leaders talk about what it means to america and our own american interests and what it means to us to keep us secure and behave in a way that americans can be proud of, found that any weariness vanishes and a desire to do the right thing emerges very, very quickly, bit of eu9 does take a leader. Its difficult to do when theres 535 of you. It takes someone in the white house to really make the case for these important National Security things, actions, and this president is loathe to do so. We have about ten minutes here so well take questions. I dont know if we need a mic. I will just call on people. Right here in the back. Hough about repealing executive order 12333 so that we can decapitate genocidal world leaders. A 20 million bounty on bashar alassad. Let him retire to tehran and then we remove the bounty. So, i dont know if that it was a question but you can comment on it. Exactly. That was more a pastor to his flock. You guys can appear moderate. Thank you for that. I would say this. So president bush talked about in the aftermath of 9 11 he said not only are we going after the terrorists we are going after those who took those actions and who harbor them. Ill have the quote a little mangled. He probably mangled it, too. [laughter] but i do i agree with the predicate of your statement. Ites the case that if america was clearer about regimed that were behave until ways we thought inappropriate, and that the penalty was not going to fall far from the top of the leadership of those regime, a very different way than we handle our Foreign Policy today, if america made clear that was our stated policy would have been much more successful in getting the outcomes consistent with our american policy. I once heard the difference between a democratic military and a autocratic military is where the leaders stand. In the democrat military theyre in front of their troops with the rifles aimed at the bad guys and aunt tocratic one theyre behind the troop with the rifles aimed at the troops in 1991 and 2003. A bunch of poor iraqi kids had no loyalty to Saddam Hussein but knew they would by killed if they dissented and is it motorhome for us to be killing those privates as opposed to taking oned the leaders of wilked wicked regimes and can end a war with less suffering. Carl, jfk vigil. Com. As long as were putting assassination on then table maybe we should come clean with 50 records still sealed concerning kennedys assassination, sense e. Howard hunt admitted he was involved and implicated other personnel. So maybe we should do unto others as we want others to do unto us. Assassination should be off the table. Didnt the u. S. Go rogue in 71 when we a ban donned ore obligations and weight me not restore 0 pore Peaceful World if we recognized our obligation to have a stable monetary unit under the constitution and globally, and last question, World Trade Center seven, behind clean up the rubble of World Trade Center sentence. Building collapsed in seven seconds in new york city. Mainstreet media wont talk about it because it points toward the possibility of false flying terrorrity. Hr48, will you support it . How about it . Members of the house defer to the senate on these issues. Mike wasnt alive during those so might defer to him. Im sorry, im not informed about much of the matters you discussed so ill have to defer. Its not appropriate. Thank you. Back there. I wonder if you two distinguished gentlemen would describe for me how you see the role of National Security adviser should be performed . And if you think an nfc of 400 people is useful. Thank you. That is a a long time ago, before tom was born, but mike and i were around, i think the nfc was 7580 people and now its between 450 folks on any given day. How is it affecting things in reality . We talked about white house micromanagement. A number of things that follow from running your National Security and your Foreign Policy more broadly from inside the white house. Enormous accountability that is lacked. Senator here will get to confirm some folked but very few of the folks making policy decisions will have been confirmed officials. You also have processes. I will tell you that we have been pew suing documents from the white house and another committee i said the Benghazi Committee and each time one moves from the department of defense or from the inside the white house, inside the National Security council, the claims for accountability are greatly diminished. So you have three things happen. You have less accountability, you have whole lot less transparency, and i think you also run the enormous risk of drinking your own bath water. You just have a bunch of folks around you that are your guys or your gals and youre novelty getting the breadth of opinion that comes from running National Security policy in a much more diffuse way. I would say with one major caveat, the National Security couple has become too big and too much of a policymaking organization of its own. I was reading a book with an account of the early day odd of the Ford Administration and the steps he took to ensure continuity. And i guess under nixon, Henry Kissinger had been both secretary of state and National Security adviser and ford was insistent on maintaining con minute when it came to National Security policy because it was treacherous time in the world then as well, but and not too long a time kissinger shed the role of National Security advicer and remained secretary of state and then it was Brent Scowcroft that came on as the National Security adviser. The point being the National Security adviser, like the chief of staff, which was ultimately dick cheny, was viewed as a role to collect the views of cabinet heads and agency heads and be an honest broker to ensure that the president got the right kind of advice. And theyre not i dont think playing that role right now. The major caveat is in the end, any organization, whether its the National Security council or the depth of defense or department of state, reflects the leader at the head and the problem goes back to our president , his world view. More so than any kind of prophecy he has put in place. I saw recently that bob gates told the story in a speech or to a reporter, about going to afghanistan, his first jew toll it. Its in the back . Maybe not. A direct line to the white house, and he ordered them to tear down immediately. The reason an accountability issue when you have confirmed officials that are Actual Department with a line of the chain of command you have accountability you cant have when a bunch of white house aides who dont testify, arent confirm, you can the president can vote executive privilege for white house music. It does shuts off accountability. Shows how little the president and his senior advisers understand basic principles like the chain of command. Theres a reason that Congress Passed the goldwater nickels act and established the structure to report to the secretary of defense, important to president. If the president wants to give orders to the special Operations Sergeant or major on the battlefield, thats her prerogative as the commander in chief but needs to go through the established chain of command. Not going to go to a Junior Officers in the National Security council who was the kiefer of a van in iowa seven years ago. Just offended someone. I think for what its worth. Over here. Theres such a compelling argument against fighting isis, without also forming strong strategy to the wart and contain terror sponsoring, wmd, proliferating states syria and iran and putting to end the brutal assad regime. Its so compelling i wonder if now that the public is engaged in looking at the fight against isis, and sensing all these bigger forces at play, and if theres enough thought to putting together a document that would outline grand strategy in the middle east, not just for government but for the public. Just to get the discussion on to a much more intelligent level than it seems to be right now. Thats white we have important organizations like fti. Obviously run for congress. Really is a problem that you all face over the next two years. Waugh constant to be responsible and serious live affect policy and you can in the way we discussed but theres only one president , and the congressional commitee can produce a document, we can produce documents. Not quite the same. I think the function may be performed in the coming, say, 18 months in the republican president ial primary as well. One thing struck reading about the transition to the Ford White House and then the 76 he weather was the challenge from Ronald Reagan against gerry ford. A conservative challenge from the right to saying United States president. Thats division. But a lot of the divisions were about National Security. And Foreign Policy. And i think were going to have a real serious debate within the Republican Party and the ultimate republican president ial nominee may produce exactly that signed of thing youre talking about. Either of you want to announce the force for either your own candidacy or support for someone else . Tom pompeo launches a Foreign Policy initiative conference. Okay. Quote misch for knoy, not me. I want to thank anything we havent covered that you want to say to people to think about . Theres some parts of the world, issues on your mind . No. Thanks for having us here. Thanks for your serious work helping us do our job better. We appreciate it. Thank you both for being such serious and responsible members of congress. [applause] the Foreign Policy initiative heard from former defense undersecretary eric edelman who worked for the george w. Bush administration. He what joined by former democratic congressman jim marshal. They discussed military readiness and defense spending. This is an hour. [inaudible] ladies and gentlemen, as we move into our next panel, one of the highlights of the last discussion brought up was that no matter what, the president and congress are going to have a deep agenda on National Security defense, intelligence policymaking as we look forward to the next congress and one of the items we hope will shape that debate are the recommendations of the National Defense panel on which both emboars eric adeleman is a member of the board of directors and jim marshall served before issuing their report. Its a pleasure to welcome our moderator. Vargo is the editor of defense news and especially wants to highlight sunday morning on abc at 11 00 a. M. Is the host of inside defense news. This week. We dropped the this week. When he shifted from cbs to abc, you cant have this week and this week. So instead of stephanopoulos klaining why we we changed it. So its defense news. Even better. Defense news, 11 00 a. M. On abc. Thank you so much, and thank you so much ambassador and congressman for joining us. Thanks very much, chris. I appreciate it. Chris was one of our first guests, so i owe chris a lot. Thank you very much. Im honored to be here. Im particularly honored to be on a panel with both ambassador adeleman and congressman marshall because common difference one of those of fundamental things the government is supposed to provide for under the constitution, unsurprisingly, and it is can be harold its having an exceptionally difficult time doing that at a very complicated time in National Security. The defense game is fundamentally changing. Technology is leveling the can improve our camables and also advantage or adversaries, including nonstate actors, as you saw the head of gchq said that twitter and facebookbeing used by isis as not only command and control but recruitment and propaganda tools. So thats a different universe in which youre living living ad thats one of he reasons why the work of secretary hagel theyre working on the strategy, but the fundamental reality of National Security decisionmaking is the necessity to make choices and america has always faced crises, always been you look at the history, you see how many have dealt with the cavalcade of problems while struggling with resources, and the in this effort to try to make better choices we have adopted, if its the cold war, the defense review as a way to help us do this, a bottomup review, and then there were criticismed that it wasnt good enough and so bill cohen convened the National Defense panel in 1997 to review the qdr and then a dozen years later was mandated there be an official relook at american strategy on a regular basis and hence the panel to achieve this goal of an actual bipartisan independent review of the u. S. Strategy. The most recent report issued in july of which fortunately our panelists have copies here. I have a printedout copy in any bag. And after the pentagon its qdr and some of the fundmentams was to end budget cuts in return to sort of normal financial order and secretary gates under the 2012 budget that secretary gates originally proposed, retain a construct that ambassador