i cut my teeth on henry kissinger and nixon and gerald ford. that was an interesting place to start. >> host: are you seeing a trend toward more and more white house influence as opposed to -- >> guest: during the '70s for sure you see the influence of the white house and in particular the national security counsel. this is, you know, it's a trend that has been ramping up for some time. obviously. it reaches the apex and well known with nixon and kissinger. it's the department of state plays a larger role in my volumes. the carter administration than it does in my nixon-ford vom yum. i anticipate hearing from reagan that other agencies are going to play a larger role than the national security counsel. in the '70s you have, of course, two -- fundamentally three very strong national security advisers. you have henry kissinger -- [inaudible] kissinger in particular are very keen to leave their very well-thought out mark on u.s. foreign policy. >> host: kathleen at the state department. thank you for your time. >> guest: thank you for coming to ta

it's a time that have been ramping up for some time with richard nixon and henry kissinger. the department of state plays a larger role in my volume in the carter administration than it does in the nixon ford volume and i fully anticipate that in fact other agencies are going to play a larger role than the national security council. in the 1970s of course you have fundamentally three strong national security pfizer's with henry kissinger followed by brent scowcroft and kissinger and brzezinski in particular are very key to make their well-thought-out marked on foreign policy. >> host: kathleen rasmussen of the state department, thank you for your time. this is book tv on c-span2. >> guest: thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you for being here. we are going to have a blast. i appreciate your oldness and your courage. especially caring that look under your arm going all wiki. [applause] it is good to be here on this book tour. i appreciate those of you who want to read my words unfiltered it's refreshing for me to get to call it like i see it and not worry about what eve

right after dealing with the chinese in beijing in 1972, henry kissinger flew to moscow. beijingugh his deal in was against the russians, to reassure the russians. i would imagine in the coming months, if secretary kerry were make -- were to make a trip to tehran and then he were to fly to tel aviv -- >> i would suggest he needs to go to those other places first. first, is to tehran will put it this way -- surprise in diplomacy works if it is such a transformational surprise that everyone sees the benefit. surprise in diplomacy does not work if it is anything less than that because your friends will read the substance of what you are presenting through the lens of their suspicion. they will already have their defensive worries built a very high and what they hear is interpreted through that lens. they may not hear what you are saying. they will hear only their fears. duende to throw it to &a to thence -- q audience. we will start with this gentleman here. b-55 bombers just through over the east china sea. china just announced the air defense identification zone. could you

kissinger secretary of state. were secretly bombing cambodia and they murdered it certainly three hundred thousand people that got almost no attention at all by people who were focused on was a cage on the break in a democratic party headquarters and lies being told by now which was the more important story by far more important story was what was happening in cambodia and yet hardly anybody. bothered about that story at the time and people now remember watergate as a high point in print journalism has and i think that it was a low point in print journalism in that it distract attention away from a hugely important issue and it was a by comparison with a trivial issue but it's still that significant very profound political change and it happened because of the reporters if you look at the recent revelations of the government's wrongdoing i mean i'm. talking about disclosures by bradley manning or at what snowden you know they didn't require annie journalistic participation toll so isn't it the case that we journal

henry kissinger can write his memoirs, but i also want to read seymour hersh's take on henry kissinger as the man responsible for the bombing of cambodia. i can learn a lot through kissinger's memoirs, but i want the balance and i still believe that an unauthorized biography gives me a better chance. >> host: knowing what you know about jackie kennedy, john kennedy. if you had known that, would you vote for john kerry for president, again knowing what you know now? >> guest: knowing what i know now and knowing what i know now about richard nixon, yes, i would vote for john f. kennedy. not simply because my last name is kelley. that would not have been the reason. i would vote for john f. kennedy based on the speech he gave in june of 1963 when he talked about civil rights and he introduced civil rights legislation. i think that speech ennobled his presidency. and his presidency was flawed. the cuban missile crisis, the step up in vietnam. but what he said on civil rights to me was a shining moment. he taught about civil rights is a moral right, as something that's clear is the constitu

i think this is kind of a henry kissinger, henry viii people sitting around a boardroom in new york. it won't resonate with the republican base. governor bush is a very talented politician. he's a really charming guy. but, you know, he's is going to run into some head winds. look at marco rubio as soon as he came out with the immigration thing. we'll see. >> chris christie will have some tough sledding. i think there's a big myth that republicans don't want immigration reform. we want legal immigration reform. we want to deal with illegals but in a positive way. chris christie is not the answer. any state that picked these republicans like california has become a republican wasteland, new jersey is, new york, they occasionally elect a governor that's very much like a democrat but those states have no republican party and i don't want the republican party to being democrat-like. >> i got to leave it there. let me just say two things. number one best to mary who i just talked to on the radio on saturday. the other thing is the republican party stems me, this is grist for another day, t

henry kissinger can write his memoirs, but i also want to read seymour hersh's take on henry kissinger as the man responsible for the bombing of cambodia. i can learn a lot through kissinger's memoirs, but i want the balance and i still believe that an unauthorized biography gives me a better chance. >> host: knowing what you know about jackie kennedy, john kennedy. if you had known that, would you vote for john kerry for president, again knowing what you know now? >> guest: knowing what i know now and knowing what i know now about richard nixon, yes, i would vote for john f. kennedy. not simply because my last name is kelley. that would not have been the reason. i would vote for john f. kennedy based on the speech he gave in june of 1963 when he talked about civil rights and he introduced civil rights legislation. i think that speech ennobled his presidency. and his presidency was flawed. the cuban missile crisis, the step up in vietnam. but what he said on civil rights to me was a shining moment. he taught about civil rights is a moral right, as something that's clear is the constitu

a dinner party in stamford and build some, buckley, limbaugh, conrad black and henry kissinger . [laughter] apparently it was in the summer where russia's hearing was starting to fail before the losses terrier altogether. he had been fitted with a hearing aid, but he couldn't seem to get it right all along. all day long he was with his hand under the table fidgeting with the controls trying to get it right. he was assured that he had done the right. so after dinner for his people were saying their goodbyes he approached bill and said, bill, i have to ask you, i've got this problem with my hearing of that is come all the sudden. of that this new hearing aid. i've got these controls command had been working and the table trying to get it right now was wondering if the sound level was correct. bill looked at him and pull the his pocket a hearing aid and said, well, i've worked my this late. mine seems to work just fine. >> in mind works better two. working controls. >> this drolen right there. one second. just wait for the microphone please. >> arguably president reagan and bill buc

afterwards, henry kissinger came up to me and said, we have more in common with iran -- were common interests with iran than with most of our allies. u.s. and iranian interests in afghanistan are quite consistent, except in so far as they require a u.s. presence there. u.s. and iranian relations are overall antagonistic. the u.s. presence to realize goals that are otherwise in iran's interests are seen as a threat by iran. this creates a lot of confusion. i see craig karp is here. i'm about to tell a story he was a part of. at the bonn talks, where craig was part of the delegation, the u.s. and iran work together to reach agreement on the successor government to the taliban. the iranians came up to craig and said they wanted to use this as an opening to discuss -- to improve relations with the united states. craig said, there are other issues we have to discuss. they said, let's discuss them. instead, they were put on the axis of evil. iran still manage this contradiction by making the stabilization of afghanistan de facto cooperative with united states higher priority than its antagonism wit

. >> you and i were at a dinner last night in which henry kissinger spoke about this. he said if you take the nuclear problem off the table, there will be no problems between the united states and iran. do you think it's true? >> i do think it's true if this problem can be resolved. it's going to take months to do. then the understand and iran have a lot to talk about in afghanistan, in syria, and iraq and there's a promise that we could go far forward and finally having some kind of sensible relationship with iran. but the iranians need to make it possible by making these compromises today and in the future in geneva. >> all right, nick burns, good to see you as always. appreciate it. we're going to have more on super typhoon straight ahead. plus, just days admitting he smoked crack cocaine, toronto's embattled mayor now explaining more bizarre behavior. we're going to play the video up for you up next. retirement plan. i started part-time, now i'm a manager. my employer matches my charitable giving. really. i get bonuses even working part-time. where i work, over 400

. >> john, former secretary of state henry kissinger has said he would be delighted if christie were to become the 2016 nominee, but you write in your book a marvelous reference to a moment with kissinger, and risinging now with the aid of his cane, kissinger said, if you ask me whether governor christie knows anything about foreign policy, i would have to say he knows nothing about foreign policy. now john, is that why mr. christie couldn't conjure a single constructive response when he was asked about nuclear talks with iran on "meet the press" sunday? >> well, martin, i think you're appointmenting to something that's a relevant consideration. and it goes to the question. i think joy is exactly right about the fact that chris christie is not a known quantity nationally. and one of the things that's going to happen as he goes forward, people are going to start asking questions about things that go beyond new jersey. i think -- i don't think he pretends to have foreign policy expertise. but, again, this is one of these things where as soon as he starts to look like he's actually runn

henry kissinger for a luncheon at the fairmont hotel. dr. kissinger's topic will be the a ship hit it -- asia pivot strategy. on december 4, the council's annual international .oliday affair we will be honoring the ambassador of rozelle and his diplomatic team at the 2014 global education gala in march -- the ambassador of brazil. this kicks off what will be an extended series of activities with brazil in the coming years. the annual giving campaign gets going next week, and i invite you to consider supporting the international and affairs and global education program, especially our programs with high school teachers and students to bring a much-needed global education into our classrooms. there are many ways you can help . become a sponsor of our global education program, sponsor one teacher or one student or tend to attend one of our events, or the easiest of all, and i hope one that everyone here who shops online will consider, if you purchase items on amazon.com, please do so via our website. go to our homepage, click on the icon for am

afterwards, henry kissinger came up to me and said we have more with iran not our other enemies but with most of our allies. the paradox difficulty of the relations in afghanistan. roughly speaking, the us and iranian interests in afghanistan are quite consistent, except insofar as they require a u.s. presence there because the relations overall or antagonistic. overall the us presence to realize goals that are otherwise in the interest are seen as a threat by iran. so, this creates a vote of confusion. now, as many of you know, i see craig here because i'm about to pull the story that he was part of at the bond talks where craig was part of the u.s. delegation in 2001, the us and iran worked together to reach agreement on the successor government to the caliban. the iranians actually came up to craig and said that they wanted to use this as an opening to discuss and proving relationships with the united states and as i recall he said there are other issues we have to discuss that are in the way of that and he said let's discuss them. they were put in the axis of evil, so move forward. i

afterwards, henry kissinger came , we have moreaid in common with iran -- were common interests with iran than with most of our allies. u.s. and iranian interests in afghanistan are quite assistent, except in so far they require a u.s. presence there. u.s. and iranian relations are overall antagonistic. the u.s. presence to realize goals that are otherwise in iran 's interests are seen as a threat by iran. this creates a lot of confusion her. i see craig karp is here. i'm about to tell a story he was a part of. at the bonn talks, where craig , theart of the delegation u.s. and iran work together to reach agreement on the successor government to the taliban. came up to craig and said they wanted to use this as an opening to discuss -- to improve relations with the united states. craig said, there are other issues we have to discuss. they said, let's discuss them. instead, they were put on the axis of evil. iran iran, during the beginning of the modern the job -- mayinejad period, defect incorporating with the united states higher priority than its antagonism with the united states and

when president obama came in, henry kissinger said the one part of the world where he is not institutionalized at all from a strategic point of view is asia. in apec you had hong kong and taiwan, but that could not be a security situation. now with the east asian summit, it can and does address security issues in east tennessee, radically imperfectly, but at least there is a form there and we are part of it. building the african union, which we have worked with more effectively, and in the middle east. the arab league and the gulf cooperation council are imperfect, but i think ambassador ross would agree they have played more of a role in certainly the libya crisis and in syria, even without direct impact yet. there is an entity to engage. the idea that what we are thinking about is a world of strong regional organizations that we are directly connected to. in the americas, oas is still a weak organization from that standpoint, but we started the summit of the americas, thinking about beginning and energy community. looking at this from the military point of view, to be a more central node, pa

kissinger and others like those three men for the center's inaugural security conference. their goal was to look 10 years into the future and define political, military, and economic strategies that would help america ultimately prevail in the cold war. to determine, as david abshire once wrote, how to use power in all its forms to influence the actions of adversaries or would be aggressors as well as friends and allies. that is the essence of strategy. this kind of long-term perspective is always needed and will always be required. but it is especially relevant today as we try to manage the complexities of a volatile, dangerous and rapidly changing world. particularly when geopolitical and political gridlock and budget uncertainty here at home continue to undermine the strategies necessary to protect america's interests and enhance its future. i would like to take this opportunity to join you and looking acrossin the strategic landscape and share with you a few per spec is -- a few perspectives on our shifting long-term national security challenges, the u.s. military's ro

kissinger and others like those three men for the center's inaugural security conference. their goal was to look 10 years in the future and define political, military, and economic strategies that would help america ultimately prevail in the cold war. to determine, as david abshire once wrote, how to use power in all its forms to influence the actions of adversaries or would the aggressors as well as friends and allies. that is the essence of strategy. this kind of long-term perspective is always needed and will always be required. but it is especially relevant today as we try to manage the complexities of a volatile, dangerous and rapidly changing world. particularly when geopolitical and gridlock and budget uncertainty here at home continue to undermine the strategies necessary to protect america's interests and enhance its future. i would like to take this opportunity to join you and looking across looking across the strategic landscape and share with you a few per spec is on our shifting long-term national security challenges, the u.s. military's role in addressing the

kissinger. so have you done any research or who these people are, whether democratic or republican is sorted by the power brokers to decide whether people get to come before us to vote for not? just go yes. the most instruct the book on modest probably than nancy nancy reagan book because there was what reagan called his kitchen cabinet. these are very, very rich conservative republican that backed ronald reagan from the very, very beginning and helps them become governor and it can help you become president. but i don't think there is a group of 10 people and neither party that can control that. right now because of the recent supreme court decision, it's the money that controls it. who raises the most money? and whoever raises the most money and does the most advertising is usually the person who gets the nomination. >> host: if you can't get through the phone line, you can send kitty kelley each week. @booktv vizard putter handle. or facebook.com/booktv. from our twitter feed, rich neumeister

and henries pleasanter and others like that as well. their goal was to look 10 years into the future and to find the political and military and economic strategies that would help america ultimately determine how to use power in all its forms to influence the actions of adversaries or would-be aggressors, as well as friends and allies. that is the essence of strategy. in this kind of long-term perspective, it is always needed and will always be required. but it is especially relevant today as we try to manage of a volatile and rapidly changing world, particularly when geopolitical gridlock and budget uncertainty here in our home continue to undermine the strategies necessary to protect america's interests and enhance its future. and i would like to take this opportunity this morning to look out across the strategic landscape and share a few perspectives are shifting and long-term national security challenges and the u.s. military is role in addressing these challenges and what this means for the department of defense going forward. as w