Ambassador John Bolton addressed Missouri Boys State on Tuesday, June 15th. After his speech he took questions from the audience for almost an hour. This is the second part of that question and answer session.

Previously:

Ambassador John Bolton at Missouri Boys State: photos

Ambassador John Bolton at Missouri Boys State: remarks

Ambassador John Bolton at Missouri Boys State: Q and A, part 1

….Question: …In recent years we’ve seen how or recent weeks we’ve seen how oil dependence can hurt us environmentally. And in your speech you talked about how the Middle East acquiring nuclear weapons could lead to higher gas prices, but my question is, how, uh, is oil dependence, particularly foreign oil dependence crippling our national defense by placing our dollars in the hands of governments responsible for harboring terrorists?

Ambassador Bolton: Well, I think, uh, given that we’ve got global markets in oil, uh, you, you can see that the, uh, the countries that produce the bulk of it and that form the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries or OPEC, uh, have a, have a disproportionate ef, effect on, uh, on the world’s economy and, and really on the world’s politics simply because they’ve got oil in the ground. My own view is that it would be a lot better for the United States, uh, to drill in, uh, our territorial waters and on our soil and, uh, if we’re gonna pay high gasoline prices let’s at least pay it to ourselves. Now I [applause], I think [cheers], now, we’re, we’re, uh, we’re missing the President’s speech tonight or maybe it comes on shortly about, uh, what, what he now plans to do about this leak in, uh, the Gulf of Mexico. And I don’t, I don’t doubt it’s a severe ecological problem. Uh, but I am worried that we’re gonna get carried away on this. This, this leak, uh, was, uh, was something that obviously nobody foresaw and that, and that, uh, was so severe that it overcame any number of redundant, uh, devices that were designed to prevent exactly, uh, what has happened. There’s no doubt we need to do more on it. But if the conclusion is that we’re simply gonna turn away from oil before we have, uh, substitutes that are, uh, that are in the same cost range we’re gonna cripple the United States economy. Uh, and I think you’ve got to be very clear eyed here that despite the impact of this spill, uh, that it would be a lot better, uh, to find ways to drill that are more ecologically sensitive, uh, and that don’t contain this risk. Why are we drilling in one mile deep ocean territories when we could drill on the North Slope of Alaska, uh, with far fewer environmental risks? [applause] I, I’m not here defend British Petroleum, uh, or what they’ve done as a consequence of this, I’m certainly not here to defend the U.S. government’s response, which I think has been uncoordinated, late, and, uh, obviously ineffective. [applause, cheers]  What I am saying is you cannot let one accident, no matter how serious, uh, uh, cause us in a kind of emotional rush, uh, to give up the capabilities that we have in this country. Because if we put more limits on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico or in offshore regions in other part of the country, uh, we’re simply gonna have other countries open up for more drilling, uh, and we will be buying an even larger percentage of oil and natural gas from overseas. Uh, which I don’t think is in our interest. So, uh, as bad as this spill is and it is bad and it’s probably gonna get worse, uh, we need to take a deep breath, clean it up, plug the hole, and keep drilling for oil in our own, in our own backyard. [applause]…

…Question: …Tonight during your discussion you were talking about Iran’s developing nuclear program. I was wondering what the U.N. or the U.S. would do, um, to intervene when the, um, the, Iran’s, um, threatening Israel, um, Israel’s sovereignty? And do you think it would make a difference if Mousavi got elected in the past Iranian, um, election because most of the power lies within the theocracy and, aya, Ayatollah Khamani?

Ambassador Bolton: Well, I, I don’t, I don’t  think the election fundamentally would have changed very much. But I think that the fraud that was, uh, so visible in last year’s election, uh, actually helped demonstrate to a lot of Iranians just how, uh, illegitimate, uh, the Islamic Revolution nineteen seventy-nine has become. I think it’s a very unpopular government in many respects. And I wish the United States, both during the Bush administration and the Obama administration, had done more to supply the opposition with support so that when that fraudulent election had occurred, if we had really given them the resources we might have had an opportunity to see the regime overthrown. Uh, that didn’t happen, we didn’t give them adequate support, either in two thousand nine or in the years preceding that. Uh, and so that opportunity has slipped away and I think it will be quite some time before it comes back. The fact is that, uh, because we have engaged in, uh, now nearly eight years of diplomacy with Iran they have used that time to overcome essentially all of the complex scientific and technological obstacles that stand in the way of a nuclear weapons program. They’re very close to having a weapons capability, it’s really a matter for them when they decide they’re gonna do it. Uh, the diplomacy has failed, the sanctions have failed, uh, so I think today, uh, there are really only, uh, two options facing us with respect to Iran’s nuclear weapons. One is, and this is the most likely option, that indeed they do get nuclear weapons and we’ve got to deal with the consequences of a nuclear Iran. The only thing that will stop that is the second option, which is that some outside power uses preemptive force to strike against the nuclear weapons program, uh, and destroy as much of it as, uh, might be possible, thus setting Iran back, two, three, four, maybe more years. That that is in itself not a complete solution to the problem, but two to four years in, in this business is nearly infinity. I think there’s no chance that the Obama administration will use force. I once thought there was a chance that President Bush would use force. That obviously didn’t happen. I’m not even holding my breath on this administration. Which means that the choice, it’s a very [applause], it’s a very, it’s a very unpleasant choice for Israel, is between seeing Iran get nuclear weapons and taking preemptive action. Uh, military force here is a very unattractive, uh, outcome. It’s very risky, uh, there could be enormous, uh, potential consequences, uh, but in Israel’s case, uh, nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran, uh, could bring, uh, a second Holocaust, this time a, a nuclear holocaust. And, uh, I don’t think that’s something that they want to wait and find out about. When Israel has faced, uh, a potential nuclear threat in the past it has not hesitated to act, uh, preemptively. It destroyed, uh, Saddam Hussein’s Osirak reactor outside of Baghdad in nineteen eighty-one, as I mentioned a few moments ago it destroyed the North Korean reactor in Syria, uh, in September two thousand seven. Uh, so given, given the alternative of a nuclear Iran I think the military option is very much on the table for the Israelis. I don’t know what they’re gonna do but I don’t think they have much time. Both because, uh, that Iran is increasingly close to actually having a nuclear weapons capability and because, uh, at, at some point the Russians may yet deliver the, uh, what we call the S three hundred air defense system, a very sophisticated air defense system that Israel couldn’t penetrate, uh, which would effectively eliminate the Israeli  military option
. So, I think we’re very close to a decision by Israel and, uh, and the consequences that will, that will, that will flow from that. [applause]

Question: …You’ve often been referred to as a neo-conservative and you’ve also been known to, uh, not really appreciate that title all that well. I was wondering why?

Ambassador Bolton: Not, not appreciate the what, the title?

Question: The, yeah.

Ambassador Bolton: Well, the, the, uh, the term neo-conservative was first used about thirty years ago and, uh, the best definition of a neo-conservative was, uh, a neo-conservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality. [laughter] And I’ve never been a liberal, [applause] so. [cheers] I should move to Missouri, uh. [laughter] So I’ve never been mugged by reality. Uh, I think it is a, uh, it’s obviously intended now as a negative term, uh, used largely I think in a kinda almost anti-Semitic way, uh, because so many, uh, neo-conservatives are, uh, Jewish. You know, I’m, I’m a Lutheran. I, I, I catch it from all directions [applause] [inaudible] sort of no alternative. [applause] Uh, but I, I don’t  consider myself a neo-conservative, I’m very much, uh, people, when people ask what kind of label I would put on my foreign policy, they used to ask me this at the U.N. all the time, I say my foreign policy is pro American. [cheers, applause]

Question: …I want to know, briefly, if this is America’s best interest. You spoke heavily on weapons of mass destruction and how America needs to be on her guard, however, legislation has recently been passed which promises to other nations that should they strike the United States with nuclear weapons we will not strike in the same manner. Is this policy, and I quote, in America’s best interest, unquote, if it will further promote those nations with nuclear weapons to impose a terrorist attack on the United States with greater casualties, great, with casualties greater than that in nine eleven.

Ambassador Bolton: Well, I think, I think what you’re referring to is, uh,  is, uh, is a thing called the nuclear posture review, uh, which is a, which is a statutory requirement, uh, that administrations go through and the, uh, the policy that the Obama administration announced was essentially limiting the circumstances in which the United States would use nuclear weapons, uh, and, uh, and specifically, uh, when nuclear weapons might be used in response to countries with chemical and biological weapons. Uh, this, the, what they said in the nuclear posture review, uh, comes from a line of thinking, uh, that says countries that are not able to develop their own nuclear weapons program, uh, develop chemical and biological weapons as an alternative, sometimes called the poor man’s nuclear weapons, because actually, they fear that one day the United States is gonna get up in a bad mood and drop a nuclear weapon on them, so that their response is to develop chemical and biological weapons. Now, uh, and, and, and that their, the concerns of these other countries will be allayed if we say, don’t worry, we’re never gonna drop a nuclear weapon on you to begin with. Now, the logic, uh, behind all this is, uh, is, is extraordinarily bad. Number one, these countries aren’t developing chemical, nuclear, biological weapons because of any fear of us, they’re developing for their own reasons in their particular regions, uh, based on their own defensive strategies, number one. Number two, uh, our saying we’re not gonna attack them is not gonna have the slightest impact on their determination to continue, uh, to try acquire exactly these kinds of weapons. And three, it is better for the United States to leave everybody else guessing when we’re prepared to use nuclear weapons. Uh, obviously, this is the kind of discussion nobody wants to have. We don’t want to use nuclear weapons at any point. But if the United States is threatened it seems to me we ought to reserve to ourselves the ability use whatever weapons we have to protect ourselves, [applause] and [ cheers], lim, lim, limiting what we would do simply endangers our own population. And of course the final irony here is we say to all these countries, well, if, if you use chemical or biological weapons you don’t have to fear our using nuclear weapons, they don’t believe us anyway. So, we’ve, we’ve, we’ve limited ourselves for some purposes, we haven’t achieved the objectives we wanted and I think on balance we end up with a weaker and as I said before, therefore, more vulnerable United States. [applause]

Question: …When you were appointed to your position as Ambassador to the U.N. , uh, by president Bush, it was during a time when Congress was in recess, and, um, that they had not appointed you to the position previously when they were in recess., or when they were not in recess. And my question is, when you went into this job, what kind of mindset did you go in with and how did you feel you were going to effectively be the Ambassador to the United States when Congress, who was in effect, um, a representation of the United States, did not fully support you?

Ambassador Bolton: Well, the, the reason, uh, why there wasn’t a confirmation vote was that the Democrats were filibustering me. Senator Biden, now the Vice President, Senator Obama, now the President, uh, and others, uh, didn’t want to let it come to a vote. But I remember having a conversation with Senator Biden who at that time was chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, uh, who acknowledged that if there had been a floor vote I would have been confirmed with a very large majority. They didn’t want that to happen because, uh, heaven forbid, they knew I held views about the United Nations that were skeptical and, uh, and I think what they really wanted was not an American Ambassador to the United Nations but American who would be in New York representing the U.N. , uh, back to Washington. That was the exact opposite of the view I held of the job. So, uh, because they, they had enough, uh, votes to, uh, prevent, uh, cloture from being invoked in the Senate, uh, President Bush decided to give me a recess appointment. So, by the way, when you look at the past year and a half and debates about Republican efforts to obstruct President Obama’s program, uh, and the importance of a filibuster proof majority, this is a classic case of, uh, uh, of who’s ox is being gored, you know, when you have the capability to filibuster then it’s a good thing, when you don’t have the capability then it’s a bad thing. So, it’s a , it’s a matter of, uh, of one’s perspective. But the fact is a recess appointment is provided for in the Constitution, uh, it’s exactly the same as being confirmed, uh, and, uh, in terms of the, uh, attitude at the United Nations, uh, it didn’t, there wasn’t any difference really, they just wanted an American ambassador they knew, uh, had the confidence of the President and they obviously knew that I had that. [applause]…

The transcript of the final portion of the question and answer session will follow in a subsequent post.

Ambassador John Bolton addressed Missouri Boys State on Tuesday, June 15th. After his speech he took questions from the audience for almost an hour. This is the first part of that question and answer session.

Previously:

Ambassador John Bolton at Missouri Boys State: photos

Ambassador John Bolton at Missouri Boys State: remarks

Ambassador John Bolton: …Yes, sir.

Question: …My question for you, sir, tonight is about global isolationism. And since the end of the Monroe Doctrine at the end of World War Two the U.S. has become increasingly involved in foreign affairs. Now, when the U.S. does not get involved in some crisis going on in the world, such as Darfur, we’re criticized for violating human rights, not doing anything about it. But if we are involved in something, such as Iraq or Afghanistan, we’re criticized for getting involved in other countries’ affairs. How and when should the U.S. get involved in foreign affairs and how can we do it correctly?

Ambassador Bolton: Well, it’s a, it’s a complex question but I think what has to guide American foreign policy fundamentally, fundamentally is the perception of American interest. And, uh, you can obviously disagree about, uh, what a national security interest of the United States is. But, I think it means fundamentally protecting, uh, Americans, protecting friends and allies, protecting, uh, our ability to deal in the international, uh, economy of the world without interference.  The United States really has, uh, uh, surprisingly limited foreign policy goals, except when it’s threatened. We don’t have territorial ambitions, uh, we don’t have religious or political ideological ambitions, uh, all we really want to do is, uh, engage in our own business and, and trade with others and have them, uh, uh, keep to their own affairs as well. It has been our lot for the last century though to have to respond to threats, one after the other, uh, that we have faced, uh, because, uh, be, because of the, uh, threats that we saw to our interests and values and, and, uh, to those of our friends. So, I think fundamentally, uh, you have to look on a very practical case by case basis, uh, as to what’s in America’s interest and what’s not in America’s interest. And it is almost inevitably the case that whatever we do, uh, we’re gonna be criticized, as you say. Uh, that, that’s why, uh, I think, I think we have to be, uh, a kind of inner directed country. I don’t think we can listen to the criticisms of, uh, people in other countries. I think we have to look at what’s in our interest, uh, and make a decision how we’re gonna protect those interests which can include the interests of allies, uh, around the world. Uh, otherwise you, you, you’re engaged in a very abstract foreign policy that ultimately doesn’t protect, uh, America’s interests. And I think that’s a, a very real risk, this is not a partisan comment, this is a purely objective comment, that’s a very real risk about the current administration. I don’t think it appreciates, uh, some of the threats we face, uh, internationally. I don’t think it’s prepared to take the steps that need to be taken to protect our interests, uh, and at the same time it has a very hazy view, uh, of America’s exceptional role, uh, in the world at large. And I think as long as, uh, that view persists that our adversaries will draw the appropriate conclusions, uh, and challenges to our interests around the world will grow. [applause]…

Ambassador John Bolton on stage in Hendricks Hall for Boys State at the University of Central Missouri.

…Question: Thank you, sir.

Ambassador Bolton:  Over here.

Question: …What is the best way to get disagreeing  nations to compromise with each other? Uh, for example,  uh, the Israel Palestine conflict.

Ambassador Bolton:  Well, uh, uh, I guess I would say a couple of things. One, it, it’s not, uh, you know, you can always reach agreement with somebody on the other side of the negotiating table simply by giving up your position. I mean, that’s, it’s not easy to reach agreement, and if you’re prepared to do that. And on the other hand you’re, uh, pursuing interests that you think are, uh, extremely valuable to you as a country, uh, obviously the costs of, uh, giving up, uh, those positions have to be answered in any negotiation that’s gonna succeed over the long term with, uh, equal compromises from the other side. And there are some issues that at any given point are simply not susceptible to diplomatic resolution. Diplomacy can only, uh, act as a bridge when there’s a sufficient convergence of interest, uh, to, to allow, uh, negotiations to succeed. And there are any number of cases, uh, where that’s just not possible. Let. Let’s take Iran, uh, as an example, uh, and it was true in both the bush and Obama administrations that the United States sought to, uh, solve the Iranian nuclear weapons program through diplomacy. Uh, but that was fundamentally doomed to failure. Uh, and I think it was obvious from the outset. If the United States objective is to use diplomacy to give up, to, for, have Iran give up its nuclear weapons and if Iran is determined to achieve nuclear weapons capability there isn’t any compromise. So that engaging in diplomacy doesn’t move you toward the solution to a problem, it obscures, in this case, uh, the fact that there isn’t going to be any solution to the problem, at least not from our perspective, one that’s satisfactory, if Iran gets nuclear weapons.

Now, let’s take the case of Israel and the Palestinians. Uh, uh, at least, uh, uh, as of now, uh, they have irreconcilable claims to the same piece of real estate. Uh, and, uh, although there have been adjustments in negotiations, fundamentally I think the situation is getting harder to resolve and not easier to resolve, in large part, uh, because, uh, on the Palestinian side there’s no responsible leader who can make commitments, uh, with any assurance of being able to carry through on those commitments in the years ahead. Uh, what was once, uh, a functioning Palestinian Authority, uh, has been split into two pieces, one piece of which, the Gaza Strip, is run by Hamas, a terrorist organization, uh, with which I don’t think there can be any responsible negotiation. So that’s why my own conclusion for some time has been that the objective, uh, that’s been pursued by American administrations, Europeans and others for many years, the so called two state solution, isn’t gonna work. Two state solution is two states, one Israeli, one Palestinian, living side by side in peace. But we’ve been at that now for about thirty years, uh, and we’re not any closer to it really than we were when we started. So what I’ve recommended is what I call a three state solution. That is, the Gaza Strip goes back to Egypt, the West Bank in some configuration which has to be negotiated, and that won’t be easy, but the West Bank in some form goes back to Jordan, uh, and Israel, uh, remains, uh, as it is, with border adjustments. I think that’s the best solution for the Palestinian people, to, to integrate them into functioning economies, uh, and not to try and create, uh, an artificial state, uh, where one really never existed before. Now I don’t underestimate the difficulties of, of the three state solution, but we’ve seen first hand the difficulties achieving the two state solution, and that isn’t working. And I don’t think it’s gonna work. So, unless we’re prepared to continue to butt our heads into a wall, uh, and particularly if we’re, if, if we’re content to have the Palestinians live in very difficult conditions, uh, you have to have some othe
r alternative and that, that’s what I would propose.

Question: Thank you very much, sir. [applause]

Ambassador Bolton:  Over here.

Question: …I would like to know if you feel you were successful, uh, during the Bush administration when basically all the U.S. citizens were critical of everything that administration was doing?

Ambassador Bolton:   Well, I don’t think, I don’t think all, I don’t think all Americans citizens were critical of it. I mean, I, I think that, uh, uh, the Bush administration had a very difficult task after nine eleven, uh, in trying to respond to the terrorist attacks. And the, uh, I think anybody who, uh, criticizes the steps that were taken need to go back and remember, uh, what our reaction was after the, the terrorist attacks. Uh, and, and why we’re so concerned about making sure that another terrorist attack doesn’t occur on American soil. Um, uh, if you, and, but if you look recently you can see that the terrorist threat, uh, has, not really, uh, diminished. We had the Christmas Day bomber, where the terrorist, very close to destroying an aircraft landing in Detroit. We had the Times Square bomber who came very close to, uh, to a detonation that could have caused hundreds of deaths in Times Square. Uh, and what I worry about is the risk that, uh, on one of these occasions we’re gonna have a terrorist, uh, not with a improvised explosive device, but with nuclear, chemical, or biological weapon. Uh, the, the attacks of nine eleven would pale into insignificance compared to a terrorist attack, uh, with a, with, with, with a nuclear, chemical, or biological device. So, I think that the threat, uh, remains and I think that the, uh, to back to, to what the very first questioner asked, uh, if you’re not prepared to defend yourself, despite criticism from, uh, from around the world then inevitably you’re doomed to defeat. And I think the American people overwhelmingly feel that they ought to be defended against the threat of terrorist attack. I think that comes through again and again. And I think they support strong measures to do that, uh, and that’s why I think ultimately, uh, our failure to follow through on that, uh, actually leaves us, uh, more vulnerable to attack, more vulnerable to challenge around the world. Because it’s not American strength that’s provocative, it’s American weakness that’s provocative. [applause]

Question: …Why does the United Nations allow Iranian President Ahmadinejad to address the U.N. Assembly and then recognize his government when he frequently denies the Holocaust and says it was an elaborate falsehood circulated by Jews and Jewish friendly nations such as the U.S.?

Ambassador Bolton:   Well, this, that, that’s because that’s the U.N. is. I mean, this is a, uh, this, this is, it’s not, it’s not, I think most Americans look at Ahmadinejad and the fact he is a Holocaust denier, uh, and say we shouldn’t even let him into the country. But, uh, we have agreed, uh, as a member of the United Nations through what’s called the Headquarters Agreement, obviously it’s headquartered in New York, that, uh, heads of state, foreign ministers, diplomats from any U.N. member who come to the United States to come to New York to do U.N. business will be admitted to the country. We can restrict their other activities, uh, but that’s what it, that’s what it means to, uh, have the U.N. functioning. Uh, and it’s also part of one of the basic premises of the U.N. that I think, uh, it’s, it’s very hard for us to understand, and that’s the so called principle of sovereign equality. Is that every member of the U.N. in the General Assembly is equal to every other member of the U.N. So the United States has one vote in the General Assembly and so does Palau. Uh, and, and you can go on down the list of the hundred and ninety-two member states of the U.N. The way the U.N. functions, uh, is a, is the product of decades of cultural development.  Uh, and it is the way that it is and it is extraordinarily difficult to change. What that means to me is that, uh, the U.N. has very limited, uh, functionality. It can do some limited number of things well. Some of the specialized agencies of the U.N. do important humanitarian work, uh, they do important scientific work, they do, uh, work in areas that nobody even thinks about the, like the Universal Postal Union that helps handle the transfer of mail between countries, uh, and which functions with, us, essentially no attention at all. Where the U.N. doesn’t work is in the political decision making area, the field of human rights, the field of international security which should have been, uh, one of its, uh, principal responsibilities, in large part because of this culture that has developed, uh, and that, uh, basically requires treating every country just like it’s every other country. So, Fidel Castro, when he was able, would come and speak at the U.N.  During the cold war you’d have dictators from all over the world. Uh, today you have,  uh, uh, countries like Iran and North Korea, uh, that use the U.N. and, and, and it’s, uh, and the opportunities that presents just like any other country. Uh, we, we may find this very difficult to accept. We do find it very difficult to accept, but that’s the way the U.N. is. That doesn’t mean it’s a good thing it just means that’s the way the U.N. is and to me it indicates how limited, uh, are the benefits we’re gonna get from a system that is developed that holds those kinds of cultures. [applause]

Question: …When dealing with countries that can operate largely outside the global economy what solutions, long term feasible ones, can be implemented by either the U.N. or the U.S. in dealing with issues of human rights violations while at the same time respecting national sovereignty?

Ambassador Bolton:   Well, I don’t, I don’t think the U.N. is capable of dealing with human rights violations in a coherent fashion. Uh, you know, the, uh, years ago, uh, the, uh, the U.N. Human Rights Commission, uh, had become thoroughly discredited, uh, because it spent its time in, uh, uh, issuing resolutions and sending out people to do reports, primarily negative on, uh, the United States and Israel. Uh, and it was used by countries that, that are the, were the worst abusers of human rights, essentially to protect themselves against international scrutiny. So, everybody said, all right, look, this has gotten to the point where it’s an embarrassment to the United Nations, we need to reform it. So, in two thousand five,  two thousand six, uh, when I was up there we went into this big effort to, uh, to eliminate the U.N. Human Rights Commission and come up with something new that actually would be capable of, uh, of protecting human rights around the world. And the, the way we approached it was to say we’re gonna have a whole bunch of individual, uh, provisions. Uh, no one, which in itself could make the new, what we  were gona call the Human Rights Council, no one of which in and of itself could make the new council, uh, immune from being abused by the human rights, uh, by the countries that, that were gross violators of human rights.  But which taken together, uh, would, uh, would help protect the new council from being, uh, from falling prey to the same problems that its predecessor had succumbed to. Uh, and so we took, we wrote all these things down, we went into negotiation and the third world countries essentially objected, one after the other, to each of these provisions. And our friends in Europe, one after the other, conceded them. I knew that we were, uh, in pretty desperate shape, uh, when we came down to one of the last protections we had, which was to say that no country under U.N. Security Council sanctions for terrorism or human rights abuses could serve on the new Human Rights Council. Now, that doesn’t strike me as a terribly onerous provision, that if you’re a terrorist or an abuser of human rights you shouldn’t sit on the Human Rights Council. But the third world objected to that, too. Uh, and our E
uropean friends gave it away. So, finally, uh, we said, uh, that if the General Assembly creates this new Human Rights Council, the Bush administration will vote against it and we will not seek to have the U.S. join it. And that’s eventually what we did. Uh, and we did so on the basis that without real reform the new Human Rights Council would turn out looking like, uh, exactly what its predecessor looked like. And that is precisely what has happened. Uh, in, uh, in barely, uh, three years of operation the, uh, new Human Rights Council has passed, as of couple weeks ago, uh, thirty-three country specific resolutions, thirty-one of which are critical of Israel. Uh, as if there aren’t, uh, aren’t governments around the world that are, that are, that are, uh, violating human rights, uh, on a daily basis in the grossest and, and most abusive way. So, uh, th, this is what happens to reform in the United Nations. And this is not just my opinion, uh, the New York Times and the Washington Post have both written on their editorial pages that, in fact, the new Human Rights Council has turned out as bad or even worse, uh, than its predecessor. So, I see very little prospect that there’s a serious way to address human rights violations in, uh, the United Nations. The place where they’re gonna be addressed, if at all, uh, is in the United States where, uh, we have the opportunity for debate on it. But nobody should have any illusions that, uh, that our concern about human rights around the world is mirrored to the extent where even the other democracies are prepared to do much about it. [applause]….

Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan (D) addressed Boys State and swore in the elected Boys State office holders tonight in a ceremony in Hendricks Hall on the campus of the University of Central Missouri.

Greeting the clerks of the Boys State General Assembly after being escorted into the hall.

Secretary of State Robin Carnahan (D): ….Oftentimes the goals that we see and the things that we know we want to do we can’t reach in one step. But we know we can start in that direction and after a series of steps and commitment and being dedicated and being persistent that we can reach that goal. And so I hope as you wind down your time at Boys State you’ll do that with a renewed sense of purpose, some understanding about yourself, about your community, about you can be leaders in that community. And I hope each of you will go home and try to figure out how you can make a difference. To look around in your community, at things that you can help make better.

Martin Luther King said something many years ago that has stuck with me through my life and I hope you’ll remember this. He said, “Every one of us ought to believe in something. And believe in that thing so fervently that we’re ready to stand up for it ’til the end of our days.” Think about that. Think about what that is for you. What is it you believe in? What is it that you’re passionate about? What is it that you are ready to stand up for ’til the end of your days? I hope that you’ll spend some time in the next little while before you leave and through this summer finding out what that is. Because folks, our state and our nation is depending on you to do just that.

So, thank you very much. [applause]

Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan (D).

Ambassador John Bolton addressed Boys State last night in Hendricks Hall on the campus of the University of Central Missouri in Warrensburg.

Previously: Ambassador John Bolton at Missouri Boys State: photos

Ambassador John Bolton [applause] Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Well, it’s a great, uh, pleasure to be here with you this evening.  I have a, uh, lot of contacts, uh, with the state of Missouri. My wife was born in Kansas City. [applause, cheers] Uh, I have a lot of friends, uh, from Missouri.  I was, uh, preceded as, uh, U.S. ambassador to the U.N. by Jack Danforth, uh, who was a great senator from this state, held many state offices besides. One of my, uh, law school classmates, uh, worked for Jack Danforth when he was Attorney General, uh, of Missouri and then went with, uh, Senator Danforth when he went to Washington.  Uh, and he’s now, uh, an associate justice of the Supreme Court, Clarence Thomas, one of the great, uh, judges, I think, we’ll see in American history…

Ambassador John Bolton speaking at Missouri Boys State from the stage on Hendricks Hall on the campus of the University of Central Missouri.

…Uh, my, my background was probably a lot different than, uh, than yours. I was born and raised in Baltimore, Maryland. Uh, and when I was growing up in the fifties and sixties Baltimore was the second largest port in the United States after, uh, after New York. It was the sixth, at that time, the sixth largest city in the United States. Uh, but Baltimore was centered around its port, and while obviously a lot that went in and out, uh, was domestic commerce, uh, the majority of what came in was from overseas. So, from the perspective of somebody growing up in Baltimore trade with the rest of the world was, uh, was a very important part of the life of the city, uh, and the, uh, and the state as a whole.  In fact, I remember every Sunday morning watching a, uh, television program called “The Port That Built a City.”  It was hosted by the Baltimore Sun’s maritime reporter, a woman named Helen Delich Bentley who later went on to be elected to, uh, Congress. But one thing that she picked up as a maritime reporter was, uh, the ability to swear with any sailor in any bar in port in the world, which talent she brought to the House of Representatives only to find that, uh, even she was outmatched by a lot of the people who were already there.  [laughter]

Uh, but it is a, uh, it is great, uh, privilege to be here with all of you this evening and to, uh, to welcome your interest in public affairs and public life. We all have our personal lives, we all have our private careers, but it is critical for America, uh, both for ourselves and for the example we set for the rest of the world that our citizens are active on matters of public policy. Uh, and it’s really hard to describe, hard to imagine really, for people, uh, here in the United States how different this experience is from, uh, the way citizens even in other democracies in Western Europe and, uh, other countries treat their civic responsibilities. Uh, and in fact, uh, as I’m sure you understand, even the tradition of Boys State and Girls State itself goes back, uh, to the time when Nazism was, uh, taking control of Germany and, and rising in other countries in Europe, when we faced the threat of international Communism . And, and this is really the American alternative to that. Uh, and it survives and flourishes to this day and I think gives a real basis, uh, for all of you whatever your future career plans, uh, to keep your eye on what, uh, politicians do and perhaps even to pursue the career yourself.

Uh, because this is really the embodiment, uh, of American sovereignty. To us sovereignty is not an abstract concept, it doesn’t rest in our government. In America we understand that sovereignty rest with ourselves.  We the people are sovereign in America and we really don’t fundamentally have anything to worry about from the rest of the world as long as we keep that in mind. It’s when we forget it, when we turn our attention away from those civic obligations I think that we find ourselves, uh, threatened. Uh, and I think that’s especially true even at a time when we’re focused on, uh, domestic problems, uh, understandably so, we have an economy that’s still not fully recovered, we’ve got a major environmental disaster going on in the Gulf of Mexico, we have a lot of issues that focus our attention on domestic policy.

I wanted to take a few minutes tonight to talk to you about international affairs and, of course, I’d be happy to answer any questions that you might have on really anything that’s on your mind. But, I think it’s, uh, it’s especially important, uh, to remember that even as we, uh, debate many important issues at both the federal and the state level that affect our daily lives our adversaries around the world are not waiting for the United States to get its house in order. In fact, if anything, they see our current economic difficulties, our preoccupation with, uh, domestic issues, uh, as an opportunity for them to advance their own agendas, uh, which are a long way from benefiting, uh, the United States.  And I’ll just focus, uh, for my remarks here, uh, on something that may seem remote to some of you but which is in fact, I think, the central organizing, uh, premise for threats to the United States in, in the years ahead.  And that’s the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, chemical, and biological, uh, and the ballistic missile systems that can be used to deliver them.

During the cold war we had a very precarious stability based on, uh, the standoff between the United States and the Soviet Union. And one consequence of, uh, the cold war was that proliferation, particularly of nuclear weapons to other countries, uh, was not very much of a threat. But unfortunately one of the adverse consequences of the end of the cold war, and there aren’t many, thank goodness, we’re happy to have it behind us, but one consequence, uh, is the threat of nuclear proliferation has grown over the years. And indeed, we’re at a point where if we don’t address it seriously, the entire structure of nonproliferation around the world, uh, is in danger of collapsing. Uh, and this, to me, is a very clear, uh, point of emphasis about the importance of American leadership in the world. You know, you can talk about, uh, multilateral organizations like the International Atomic Energy Agency, you can talk about the role of the U.N. Security Council, you can talk a lot, about a lot of different, uh, uh, ways in which, uh, the nations of the world try and prevent proliferation, but when it comes right down to it, it is only the United States, uh, that can summon the will to stop proliferation, uh, if it’s inclined to do so. And unfortunately over the past several years in administrations both Republican and Democratic we have not, uh, assumed the responsibility that, uh, that we can, uh, to defeat this very grave risk to ourselves and our friends and allies, and really all civilized countries around the world.

We’ve got two particular cases at the moment where nuclear proliferation is succeeding. Uh, let me start first with North Korea, a country which is, uh, probably the worst totalitarian state, uh, on the planet today. Uh, it is, if you can imagine it, the world’s only hereditary Communist dictatorship, uh, having passed from, uh, Kim Il Sung to the current ruler, Kim Jong Il, who’s busily preparing for, uh, one of his sons to, uh, take over the country when he dies, which could well be, uh, in the very near future.

North Korea is fundamentally a criminal state. It sells drugs in its diplomatic pouches, uh, it’s the world’s largest proliferator of ballistic missile
technology, largely into the very unstable Middle East, uh, it’s a country ruled by, uh, a military and a Communist party that, uh, don’t care, uh, at all about their own population. Let me just, uh, give you, uh, one example. Korea was partitioned right at the end of World War Two, in nineteen forty-five, the two halves of the country, after fifty years of Japanese occupation, were roughly equal, if anything North Korea had more industry than South Korea. From that point in nineteen forty-five to today, uh, the populations have developed in radically different ways. And in fact, the average person in North Korea is today four to six inches shorter than the average person in South Korea. Now think about that. In sixty-five years the same population, divided between, uh, the two very different governments along the thirty-eighth parallel has produced two radically different societies. If you look at a map of the Korean peninsula, uh, from space, a picture taken at night, South Korea is completely illuminated.  Uh, you can pick out the big cities, you can see, uh, where the population centers are, and in contrast, North Korea is indistinguishable from the seas that surround it. There fundamentally has no electrical grid. And yet this desperately poor society, uh, which in imprisons large numbers of its own people continues to pursue nuclear weapons, and in fact, in two thousand six and two thousand nine tested nuclear weapons proving that they have that capability. Uh, North Korea has undoubtedly, uh, also cooperated in the nuclear field with countries like Iran and Syria. Uh, we know that because, uh, North Korea was building a nuclear reactor on the banks of the Euphrates River in Syria until it was destroyed in September of two thousand seven by the Israeli Air Force. Uh, ask yourself, why North Korea would be building a nuclear reactor in Syria. And the answer’s very clear – if you want to hide an illicit nuclear weapons program from prying international eyes, what better place to put it than the country where nobody’s looking.  So, North Korea is not simply a threat to peace and stability in Northeast Asia, although it certainly is, it’s a threat worldwide.  And you can bet if Al Qaeda or another terrorist group had sufficient hard currency, uh, North Korea would be delighted to sell them a nuclear weapon. So, the efforts that, uh, we need to make principally to, uh, persuade China that, uh, North Korea is really, uh, indirectly, at least, just as much a threat to them as it is to South Korea, Japan, Taiwan,  the United States.  Because as long as North Korea exists with nuclear weapons that instability in Northeast Asia will harm China’s own desire for its economic development. And it will ultimately induce even countries like Japan to consider the importance of getting nuclear weapons themselves in order to, uh, defend against the threat from North Korea.

Uh, but let’s, let’s follow the North Korean threat back into the Middle East. I mentioned Iran a moment ago. We will find out, I am certain, that that reactor the North Koreans were building in Syria, uh, was actually financed by Iran. And it was probably a three way joint venture, because after all, Iran has the same incentive that North Korea does to hide its nuclear weapons program from, uh, international inspection.  Now Iran is a very different country than North Korea. It has enormous reserves of oil and natural gas. It has an ancient culture. Uh, it has a high degree, uh, of education for its citizens. It’s a very sophisticated country, even under the rule of the Islamic revolution of nineteen seventy-nine.  And Iran, uh, sees itself as a major player, uh, in the Middle East, uh, within the struggle inside of Islam for dominance. And it aspires to be, uh, a global power. That’s one reason why its pursuit of nuclear weapons, in many respects, uh, is even more dangerous than North Korea’s, because Iran is not dependent, uh, on the outside world, in the case of North Korea, dependent on China. Iran could be uh, completely self sufficient and indeed is a major international supplier of oil and natural gas.

But Iran is also in the grip, uh, of a, uh, of its own form of totalitarianism, in this case, religious fanaticism that has over the past several years moved into a kind of military theocracy. The real power in Iran today is held by the Revolutionary Guards which are controlled by, uh, by military officials loyal to, uh, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Now, we are almost exactly today, uh, on the fifteenth of June, one year after the election in Iran last year held on June twelfth that was quite obviously stolen by Ahmadinejad. And you’ll remember the pictures of the demonstrators in Tehran and other Iranian cities going out into the streets to protest the fraud that was, uh, was so evident. And, you know, when the, when the, when the people who went out, students, middle class people, uh, all over the country, uh, they didn’t begin their protest by, uh, calling for the overthrow of the regime itself, although the regime is very unpopular. They just thought, uh, that they ought to have a free and fair election. The regime’s response was to bring the Revolutionary Guards and their militia allies, the Basiji, into the streets, uh, resulting in, uh, hundreds and hundreds of deaths of, uh, innocent civilians, students, uh, uh, shop owners, uh, regular people who had probably never demonstrated in their lives. This was the real face of the regime in Iran. It is a dictatorship. It is essentially today a military dictatorship. Uh, and so effective was it in crushing the opposition, uh, that this past weekend on the first anniversary of that fraudulent election, uh, there were almost demonstrations at all. And that reflects the unfortunate reality that the Revolutionary Guard’s power in Iran is even more entrenched then it was before, and reflects also their growing confidence that their pursuit of nuclear weapons is getting closer and closer to success.

What will this mean when Iran gets nuclear weapons? Well, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president, has himself, uh, announced that it’s his desire to wipe the State of Israel off the face of earth. Uh, he has held conferences in Iran with names like “The World Without the United States and Israel.” So, he’s made his intentions pretty clear. Uh, but even if Iran doesn’t use nuclear weapons against Israel, simple having nuclear weapons will exert a profound change on the balance of power, uh, in the Middle East. Uh, and if you don’t like the price of gasoline at what it is today, imagine Iran with hegemonic control, not only over its own oil and natural gas supplies, but exerting effective control over the supplies just across the Persian Gulf, in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, and Oman. That kind of power, uh, in the hands of this theocratic dictatorship in Iran could have a profoundly disturbing consequence for the American economy and the economy of Western Europe and, and the world as a whole. Moreover, if Iran gets nuclear weapons, and I think it’s very close to that point, uh, I don’t think we can count on being able to contain and deter Iran as we did the Soviet Union during the cold war. I think the calculus of the Mullahs, the Ayatollahs in Iran, is very different. Say what you want about the Communists, they were atheists, and they thought they only went around once in life. They weren’t about to throw that away too quickly. But if you believe, uh, as the Ayatollahs do, that life in the hereafter is a lot better than life on Earth, it’s pretty hard to deter somebody, uh, with that kind of approach. I like to think the American view, uh, is summed up in the, uh, Kenny Chesney song, uh, “Everybody want to go to Heaven, nobody want to go now.” That’s how deterrence works for us. It doesn’t work that way with the Iranians. But, even if I’m wrong on that, and Iran could be contained and deterred, it doesn’t stop with, uh, their achieving nuclear weapons status.

Other countries in the region will respond. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, and perhaps others w
ill get nuclear weapons. So, in a very short period of time, five to ten years, you could have a multi-polar nuclear Middle East which almost guarantees, uh, because of the instability that’s the consequence of that, uh, display of nuclear weapons, uh, almost guarantees that somebody will decide to strike one of their neighbors before their neighbors decide to strike them. And that level of uncertainty and risk, uh, will no doubt have profound consequences, uh, for the global price of oil and other natural resources.

Moreover, the lesson that others will draw when they see that the United States is not able to stop North Korea’s nuclear program, when they see that Iran, despite U.S. sanctions, despite four, uh, sanction resolutions in the U.N. Security Council, despite sanctions by the European Union and Japan, still Iran is able to achieve nuclear weapons status.  That will prove to every other would be proliferator, uh, that if they’re simply determined enough they too can obtain nuclear weapons.  Uh, and that will inspire the terrorists groups, too, Al Qaeda and Taliban and others. So that the risk that we see here is a world that, despite the end of the cold war, doesn’t become more stable and more peaceful, uh, it becomes at greater risk because the threat of a terrorist with a nuclear weapon or a biological or a chemical weapon is far worse, even than the threat from terrorists, uh, who brought the attacks of nine eleven.

That’s why I think we are at a very critical point in the overall struggle, uh, against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. And as I say, while it may seem distant from your concerns here and the concerns we face with our economy, uh, and with the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, these are the forces that are shaping, uh, the rest of the world. These are the kinds of challenges that you will face, uh, as you grow into adulthood and take up your responsibilities as citizens. Uh, and that’s why thinking about, uh, the rest of the world, thinking about, uh, the challenges and opportunities that face America today and in the future, uh, is so important. Because if we’re not preparing for those challenges and opportunities now, when they finally come upon us we will be at much greater risk.

So, I congratulate you on your, uh, interest that brings you to Boys State, that leads you to participate, uh, in all of these activities. I hope you have a wonderful week here. And I hope you carry this forward with you, uh, when you leave and go back to your home.

Thank you very much. [applause]

Transcripts of the question and answer session will follow in subsequent posts.

Ambassador John Bolton addressed Missouri Boys State this evening in acceptance of the annual George W. Lehr Memorial Speakers Chair. His prepared remarks touched on proliferation issues, North Korea, and Iran. He then took questions from the audience for almost an hour on American foreign policy, diplomacy, the United Nations, oil and energy policy, Iran’s nuclear program, neo-conservatism, his recess appointment as Ambassador to the United Nations, weapons of mass destruction and the Iraq War, and Israel.

Ambassador John Bolton speaking at Boys State from the stage at Hendricks Hall on the campus of the University of Central Missouri in Warrensburg.

Transcripts will follow in subsequent posts.  

The professional journalists at Boys State again had me talk to students in the Journalism School about blogging on Show Me Progress. I tried to be coherent and interesting with mixed success – and they asked good questions about what we do.

Wait? Could it be? Yes! RBH is famous and up on the big screen!

Students in the Journalism School gather for the session on blogging.

In previous years:

Missouri Boys State Journalism School 2009

Missouri Boys State Journalism School (2008)  

Missouri State Treasurer Clint Zweifel (D) at Boys State on the campus of the University of Central Missouri on Monday evening.

On Monday evening Missouri State Treasurer Clint Zweifel addressed Boys State in Hendricks Hall on the campus of the University of Central Missouri in Warrensburg:

State Treasurer Clint Zweifel  (D): ….And I really want to talk to you about the experience of serving. Because one of the things I am most passionate about, for every party and for everyone in this, in, who’s young, is that public service matters. And I want to let you know what a rewarding experience it is to be able to serve. And how good people, and good young people are going to make the difference. And that’s going to be the critical difference upon where Missouri is in the next few decades and where the United States is….

[….]

….I think a lot of us we, we tend to think, and I might have even thought at that point, that leadership fits into this nice box. And it looks the same and feels the same for everybody. But, it really doesn’t. It’s not something that you can simply put into a formula. That we think about, when I think about the effectiveness of those members that I looked to as leaders, you know, I thought of people that were strategic and really focused on a, and knowing what they wanted to accomplish. And able to have a laser light focus on that. You know I think of, I think of individuals that I looked to were people that were intellectually curious. Listen, we, we all have our political persuasions and we all have family and party identification, but the best leaders in the House were people that were intellectually curious and were open minded toward different ideas and different approaches to solve problems. That they were able to move away from ideology and actually get down to solutions.

We talked about individuals that I think had compassion. You know, it’s the easiest thing that we can do when we identify a problem, is to blame. But when we begin to actually have compassion and understanding it helps us get to a solution for those problems. And understanding that how you treat others, with respect and basic kindness, and that you uphold the same ethical values that, that you think you should carry with you in life are important and they really matter.

And finally, the people that were most successful in my time in the House were people that had the confidence to be themselves.  So these leaders were quiet sometimes, sometimes they weren’t so quiet, they were really talkative. Sometimes it took four years for them to really sprout up and become a leader. But, but the key is that all of those individuals that, that I talked about, while they were really different in personality and their sense of style and how they approached the job, they had those factors that they really stuck to….

[….]

….We made an important change to our low interest loan program to make sure that more family farms and more small businesses qualify. We’ve lent about three hundred million dollars in low interest loans throughout the state since I took office. It’s affected thirty-three hundred jobs, it’s affected twelve hundred farms. Folks, we’re reinvesting in the state in a way that hasn’t been done before by previous State Treasurers. We’re going to be able to put a billion dollars back into the State of Missouri to works for farms and small businesses over the next year and a half. [applause]  And I think one of the things that is most, most rewarding about this loan program – these are things that you can see and feel and touch across the state. These are loans for, for farmers that we see throughout the state, everywhere in the state. These are loans that we see for hardware stores, small businesses. These are loans that we have for carpet cleaning companies. Folks, these are loans for the types of businesses that ultimately are gonna drive seventy-five percent of all job growth during the recovery. This is the time now, during the challenging time, to invest in those businesses and do the right thing. Those are the investments that we need to be making. [applause]….

[….]

….When you think about the large changes that our state has faced and large changes that our country’s faced, those huge social changes that happen.  Guys, they don’t happen in one night. They don’t happen because politicians pass legislation. They don’t happen because somebody gives a speech. These are a series of small investments that really are the agents of change. So when you think about the investment that you’re making by being here right now, when you think about the investments that you’re making by being engaged and by being active and by participating in school activities – these things add up. So, that same approach I want to encourage you to keep taking. But it’s also the philosophy on how we’re gonna grow our state, is that ultimately we have to make smart and small consistent investments in the people of this state. And when you think about where you want Missouri to be in five years and ten years and fifteen or twenty years, it’s gonna be the result of people who were willing to stand up to make the investments we needed and who saw that vision and then said we’re not gonna get there overnight, but we’re gonna make these investments to make Missouri a better place.

Thank you. It is an honor to be here. [applause]

Previously: Governor Jay Nixon at Missouri Boys State: Q and A on Arizona’s SB 1070

Missouri Governor Jay Nixon (D) addressed Boys State participants at the University of Central Missouri on Sunday evening.

Governor Jay Nixon (D): [….] First of all, I think we have to really focus on making sure that education really matters in this state. And when I say education matters I focus for, for talented students like y’all, not just on, you know, getting out of high school. Everybody here is gonna graduate from high school and do it next year and do it real well and all that sort of stuff. But, it’s what do you do after that…

…It’s a much different world than it was when I was your age. When I was your age we could get a job in the summer, go to the University of Missouri, went on to law school, never borrow a dime, pay for school with a little help from your parents, get out with no debt, get your first job you got and buy a car or buy a house, and get going. It’s been fundamentally changed. And it’s something we gotta turn because right now students graduate with tens of thousands of dollars of debt. Tuition skyrocketing, and, and students not in a position to do much about it other than sign the bottom line and spend the next ten years, fifteen years after they graduate being in significant debt. Uh, to get a average middle aged, excuse me, middle class person graduating from law school or med school, graduates from Missouri with, you know, a hundred and fifty to two hundred thousand dollars debt. In essence, paying for education for the next ten to fifteen years. Now, I talked about that when I ran and we’re trying to turn the corner on that. Missouri is the only state, we, we negotiated deals with the higher education community and Missouri’s the only state in the country that in last two years we haven’t seen a single penny increase, I’ve negotiated deals to make sure we didn’t get a single penny increase in tuition or fees., uh, beginning to, hopefully, turn that. But, that, that’s just to kind of, a policy position. I think the more fundamental and more significant thought position is how do we use both economic development tools as well as the education infrastructure, if you will, of our state to make sure that people have careers in the future, not jobs. Let me differentiate between those two and I’ll say two other things and I’ll open it for questions.

It is really important that people, when they complete their higher education, that they have a view towards more independence, financial, intellectual, that they get these tools. That they don’t just show up at the work place and work nine to five and get a paycheck and walk in lockstep. That people have to have that spark, that spark of creativity, that spark of courage, that spark of challenge. And when you think about the show me state, we’ve had a lot of people that have met that challenge.  Go to Marcelline, Missouri. Young kid born there about seventy years ago, very creative, worked his way up, that young man, obviously was Walt Disney, built the largest entertainment enterprise in the world.  Go down to Marshfield, Missouri, as you drive there, there’s a little sign on there, home of Professor Hubble, Hubble telescope is above us. A young man who came from Marshfield, Missouri  to be the outstanding astronomer of our age. You can go on, on down the list, and I don’t need to make that list. But once again, that use of education, that use of opportunity, that use of independence, that not acceding your thought processes to a very quick moving information age in which decisions are made in fifteen or twenty seconds, in which people text each other and do all the other stuff . It’s, we have got to become, once again, more creative, a more entrepreneurial, a more risk taking, education based, futuristic economy.  If we don’t, if we cede that ground to the Chinese, or cede that ground to the Europeans then we will have not carried the torch that has been given to us by folks that came before us.

I want to, I’ve got a piece I want to comment on real quickly here before I start taking questions. But, I’ve been able to speak at Boys State now almost every year since nineteen ninety-three.  And I can tell you that one of the many great things about Boys State is how you are able to experience both politics and governing and come to recognize that they’re different.  They’re not the same thing.  They’re both necessary tools, but they’re not the same thing. To know what politics is you kind of have to understand what governing is. Because if you engage in politics for the right reasons, you play fair and you win, everybody here will run for something this week, the prize for politics is governing. Now governing is service, it’s quite, it’s pretty much that simple.  If you don’t have a deep driving commitment to serve then you should just kind of stay out of the governing piece. And if you have no business in governing you have really no business in politics, because otherwise it’s just an avocation, it’s a game to be played. Governing means serving the public by insuring that the business of government runs smoothly and efficiently. It is a way for the people to do better things collectively than they could do themselves. If governing is service then politics is supposed to be the public debate about what services should be provided and how best to provide it. Everyone pretty much agrees on some of the basic services that government should provide, you know, roads, schools, law enforcement. But even on these basic issues there is and should be constant debate on how to best deliver those services.  But in recent years we have seen a new generation of politicians who have neither the ability nor the inclination to engage in real political debate. Instead they are single issue salesmen or saleswomen hoping they can convince fifty-one percent of the electorate to become single issue voters.  To these politicians, “them” has become a new evil in America because they have no ideas about governance, no real interest in the issues anyway.  They cannot engage in true political debate, instead they use the weakest of ultimate political debate, trying to divide people and say what’s wrong with things. I’ll have to tell you folks we’re very good at it, if I want to, if I want to do that I can, I can criticize, you can criticize, you can say what’s wrong. The more you can demonize your opponent or his supporters the less need there is to debate the issues. Campaigns then to, come to resemble a fight to the death gladiator match, in the old time coliseum, rather than debate about what services government and the people should provide and how. The, the bigger point of this is not to be distracted from the substance.

My golly, y’all are giving up a week of your lives, you’re coming up here in a very uncertain way, to interact with a bunch of goofballs from other cities all across the state, don’t let it, don’t, don’t, when you go back, don’t, don’t, don’t be less substantive for the process of understanding politics, be more substantive.  You didn’t get to be one of those selected to go to Boys State by being someone who didn’t think for themselves. Thinkers analyze and consider all sides of a debate before coming to a conclusion. They don’t let others assign them positions on issues so that they lose the responsibility to think about it.

One of my other pet peeves I talk about each year is do not be a single issue voter. If you fall into a single issue voter then, then, it, it’s, become informed on the issues, especially ones that impact you whether you know it or not. Then transform that information into action. Not only this week, but take from this week, if you’re gon
na leave here with just one skill, one acquired opportunity, is that to not tolerate intellectual weakness and laziness when it comes to choosing the direction of our state and country. Be a participant, be engaged, challenge the status quo if you so desire. But don’t be assigned a position on an issue. Independent thought, don’t be a heard of lemmings heading to the sea. Be individual thinkers….[applause]

Missouri Governor Jay Nixon (D) speaking at Boys State on the campus of the University of Central Missouri in Warrensburg on Sunday evening.

Missouri Governor Jay Nixon (D) has participated as a keynote speaker at Boys State almost every year since 1993, coinciding with the beginning of his sixteen year tenure as Attorney General. The Governor clearly relishes the freewheeling (yet respectful) atmosphere and the frank give and take of the question and answer session. A case in point, his answer tonight to a question on Arizona’s recently enacted SB 1070:  

….Question: …What’s your personal opinion re, regarding the immigration law recently signed by the Governor of the State of Arizona? [crosstalk] Thank you very much.

Governor Jay Nixon (D): Um, Governor Brewer signed two laws. Um, the first one that she signed, uh, I, I have serious problems with. I mean, which, if you’re gonna require people in the United States of America to, to, show their identification papers just because they’re walkin’ around, I mean,  in order for them to have the right to walk through, a city square or walk through a park. That you could be stopped and demanded to prove in that setting that, that, that you’re, you know, a citizen or you’re American or whatever.  I, I think that is way over the top. I, I, man, oh man, I, I [applause], it, it . [inaudible] We need to think about people working together. We need to increase the number of people of all, we, we, I mean, the Statue of Liberty was given to us by France as a gift because we were the melting pot of the world. I mean, everyone of you, when you talk to your mom or your dad or your grandma or your grandpa, they’ll talk about how they were German or how about they were English or how they were Swiss or Norwegian or whatever. And, and in one or two generations everybody wants to ignore all that, and act like we’re just these, these Americans things. We have great roots all around the world and the future of the economic engine of the world is not gonna be sitting here in, in Henry County in the middle of Missouri bunkered down. We’ve gotta, we gotta join this new world.

So, the first piece, um, that, of that law I, I obviously somewhat mildly disagree with. [laughter] Um, [inaudible] they cleaned it up a little bit. I do believe that, that for national security purposes, uh, we need to have secure borders, uh, we need to make sure that we know who’s crossing those borders, and we’re certainly entitled if somebody comes into our country at in particular time, or if someone is here illegally, to, to deal with those issues and, and to, to send those folks back to their country of origin. Um, you know, so , like I say, I think that, that Arizona took a political solution in which they tried to be the toughest in the world that I think crossed a line that’s not a line we should cross in America. I think basic civil rights, basic individual freedom is extremely important and, and, and just because it’s, it’s after one group today doesn’t mean that it’s, it’s not gonna be after another group tomorrow.

I mean, the Constitution is a great document. Probably the best document ever written, but after it was in power, it was in for only a few short years, they figured out they forgot some stuff. So they came back and they did the Bill of Rights and I would just recommend to y’all, you know, politicians run around, hold up the Constitution all the time. Don’t forget to hold up those first, those first ten Bill of Rights, too. The freedom of press, freedom of religion, you know, freedom to counsel, you know freedom to, you know, the freedom to bear arms, I mean, you know, you don’t, you know. [cheers, applause] I think in that first piece Arizona crossed the line….

We’ll write more on Governor Nixon’s opening remarks and other portions of the question and answer session in a subsequent post.

Previously:

Attorney General Chris Koster at Missouri Boys State

Attorney General Chris Koster at Missouri Boys State: Q and A, part 1

Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster speaking at Boys State on the campus of the University of Central Missouri in Warrensburg.

This is the second and final part of the transcript of the question and answer session at Boys State with Attorney General Chris Koster on Saturday evening:

….Question: …What kind of strategies do you use whenever you’re building a prosecution?

Attorney General Koster: What kind of strategies that, do I use when I’m building a prosecution? Uh, I start, so it’s a legal question, are you planning to go to law school?

Question: …That was one of my plans.

Attorney General Koster: Everybody does it differently. I, uh, learn the case file. Tend to, I want to go see the crime scene. I’ll always go walk the crime scene because I always learn something, uh, by walking a crime scene. And then, actually, I start with my closing argument, so I start with the end. Uh, I don’t write out the closing argument completely, but I want to know what is the goal, where am I gonna to get to in front of the jury.  And so I, I want to know what that story is and how it’s gonna be told and how it impacts, uh, the jury in their ability to decide the issue. Then once I have a sense of what that closing argument is, I work my way backward and try and figure out how am I going to provide the jury with the, uh, the information that they need in order to listen to that story I want to tell them. So I, I work my way backwards.

Question: Thank you. [applause]…

…Question: …How would one person go from, after college, to getting to a high office like you have, or how did you go through to reach the Attorney General?

Attorney General Koster: That’s an interesting question, I’ll give you a candid answer. I, uh, I grew up in St. Louis. My dad was a pretty strong father, as a lot of guys, I’m sure, a lot of guys in here have strong fathers.  And my dad was completely against, uh, a political life, or political profession. He thought it was not a wise thing to do. So, coming out of law school I had two job offers, one from a, a St, Louis law firm and one from a Kansas City law firm. And I, five generations , six generations of my family had grown up in St. Louis and my dad, because he was in the media, was relatively well known in town. And so it was just kind of crazy for me to pick up and leave and accept the, the job offer at, uh, in Kansas City. But I, I went over there, I think in part because I, I wanted to try this, but I was probably too afraid to try it under my father’s eye. And I knew that if I went to the western side of the state and I failed then nobody would notice and I could go home. [laughter] Um, but I came over to the western side of the state and, uh, things went well and I, I , and it was a, just by chance,  a terrific thing, uh, for me personally because one of the interesting aspects of Missouri  politics is it’s hard a lot of times for St. Louis government officials to get elected statewide because some to, the stereotype  is that St. Louis politicians tend to concentrate on what happens east of the two-seventy loop and they don’t really think much of the Missouri that’s  outside the two-seventy loop. So, getting my tail outside of St. Louis and representing, uh, a rural portion of the state for four, fourteen years, um, before I became Attorney General was extremely beneficial. Just to kind of get my mindset, uh, closer to the real Missouri than I would have had if stayed in St. Louis. So, I, for me it was a lot of luck and a lot of chance, honestly. Um,  the most traditional way to do it, I suppose, would be to run for state representative. Although I think probably, uh, coming up the prosecutorial ranks, which is what I ended up doing, uh, may be more beneficial.

Question: Thank you. [applause]

Question: …I’d like to know, uh, what part of the newspaper has the biggest impact on your, uh, government job.

Attorney General Koster: Um,  reading the, the political headlines from around the state is sort of a, a mandatory, uh, just a, a daily must.  I, from the Attorney General’s position, since we represent all thirteen , uh, uh, departments of government, the boards, the commissions, the Governor, the statewide officials, the General Assembly, uh, as well as the, essentially, the statutes themselves, um, having a strong sense of what all of the other policy makers on the field are doing at any given point of the day, if I only had one thing I could read, um, every day I suppose it would have to be that. That doesn’t necessarily mean that that’s the most interesting portion. I have a lot, I’ve, uh, had the opportunity to travel a lot in life. Um, and, so reading international, the international section I, uh, find, uh, intellectually gratifying and I, I’d learn a lot about it and I find that, you know, there was a, uh, there was a story. Let me just kind of give you one, a small world story it is. There’s a country in, uh, southern Africa called Malawi and you may have seen, there were two, Malawi’s a country that has had, uh, these extremely punitive laws against the homosexual community that have been in place. And, uh, the, these laws, [inaudible] laws been decried by most every civilized, uh, nation in the world. Uh, and two homosexuals were put in prison for fourteen years. About, uh, I don’t know, two months ago., they, in Malawi. So I’m reading the article and the president of Malawi is a guy named Mutharika, seventy-six year old guy. Rang a bell in my mind, I’ve seen that name before. So I thought, I’ve had Professor Mutharika, it can’t be that my professor is now the president of this African country. Uh, and I, so I quick, google check, turns out that Professor Mutharika who was, uh, one of my professors first year of law school at Washington University, is the younger brother of President Mutharika. And is now taking, has taken a leave of absence from Washington University and is the Minister of Justice, uh, helping his brother run the government.  And the brother, the older brother  just released and furloughed the, uh, the two, and has basically given in to the international  pressure, uh, to change or at least to cut these laws out at their knees. Um, you know it, it’s just amazing how much learning about what’s going on in the rest of the world gives you interesting insights into what is happening here in the United States and, and at times, um, uh, within the state itself. Uh, one other thing it, to answer the question, um, I start every morning with the opinion pages. Um, I usually start with the op-ed, uh, writers, uh, and then go through the editorials. Uh, just because I find the editorials are a really great way to learn what, uh, what issues, even within the front page and the front section of the newspapers, what issues, uh, are really hot in the country. And I, I , so I start with the opinion page, then I go to the front, uh, uh, the front section, the international section, the national section, and then move my way back toward the specific.

Question: Thank you.

Attorney General Koster: Sorry for the long answer. [applause]

Question: Given your readings, your experience, and your education, what do you think are the big issues that affect either the sovereignty or the quality of life for our generation?

Attorney General Koster: Well, probably the budget and how we deal with health care within the budget.
Um, we didn’t have Medicaid, uh, prior to nineteen sixty-seven.  And when Medicaid came into effect, say, in the State of Missouri in nineteen sixty-seven it was just about three and a half percent of the state budget. It was a twenty-seven million dollar line in the nineteen sixty-seven Missouri state budget. You fast forward to, forty years and it’s gone from twenty-seven million to six and a half billion. It’s gone, uh, from three and a half percent of the state budget to thirty percent of the state budget. And so the difference in that, twenty-seven percent, between three and a half percent and thirty percent over that forty years? Everything else in the state budget has had to throw in toward. Higher education, elementary secondary education, Department of Corrections, Department of Agriculture, department of Insurance and Finance, everything has had to give in order to create this, this thirty, uh, percent. That is what is happening in Missouri and every other state in the country. Uh, it’s also happening at the national level with the Medicare budget.  And so, it seems to me that the, the largest, uh, question is how do we deal with controlling health care costs, uh, in the state, uh, and in the country moving forward, That’s the, the biggest question that we’ve got for the rest of my life and for all of your life.

Question: Thank you, sir. [applause]

Attorney General Koster: Okay, last question. They’re telling me.

Question: …This year [at a university], we’ve been asked again and again to increase student fees, which student really can’t do because they can’t afford, but at the same time, the University’s budget is being cut by five point four percent, I believe, but they’re not allowed to increase tuition. How, with the rising cost  of education, does the university continue to run and provide an effective education for our citizenry when we keep getting our budget cut? And what can students do?

Attorney General Koster: Well, that’s the corollary to the answer that the gentleman, uh, that I gave the gentleman over here.  Higher education in the state has sacrificed as much as any department, uh, in state government, any division of state government, over the last decade. In inflation adjusted terms the buying power of the, uh, university system across Missouri has been cut by about forty-five, forty-three, forty-five percent over the last ten years. Um, for the, I think two thousand five or two thousand and six was the first year that student tuition, your individual tuition, when you, you go to one of these state universities, that your individual tuition would, would cover more than half of the total cost of your education. So, we’re moving from a system of public education to a system quasi-private or quasi-public education.  And there is absolutely no evidence in, in the General Assembly or in the state’s budget, that that march is getting close to stopping. My fear is that ten years, fifteen years from now, that your tuition or your, you know, a younger brother’s tuition, is going to have to cover sixty or seventy or seventy-five percent of, uh, the, the total education costs that, that you’re gonna have to bear.  And so one of the things which we’re trying to do is explain what is going on with the state’s budget and to try and figure out how to balance, uh, other entitlement programs with the ongoing costs of things that all of us value. That state budget is nothing but a representation of our values.  And one of your values and one my values is providing a real, true public education. And it’s time that all citizens of Missouri step back and ask themselves whether we are even coming close to accomplishing that.  And I think most fair minded people would say that we’re not.

Thank you very much.  It’s an honor to be here with you tonight. [applause]