habitat. this is one thing you see. you're also seeing warnings that there are snakes moving around in the water. they're just trying to get to protection. there's a lot of snakes in the water. we saw quite a few during our time in butte la rose last night. also black bear. people saying be careful about the wildlife. something to keep an eye on as the waters rise. we'll continue to do that. we'll see you back here tomorrow night. that's all for us. "in the arena" starts right now. -- captions by vitac -- www.vitac.com our top story tonight, the men who killed osama bin laden and their families may be in danger, because of what we know about his death. that, according to the nation's top two military men who say the details of the navy s.e.a.l. raid in pakistan, they say that information should never have been released. in a pentagon briefing told,

joint chiefs chairmen mike mullen and defense secretary bob gates expressed strong concern for safety of the s.e.a.l.s. each of them gave a stark warning. >> from my perspective, it is time to stop talking. and we have talked far too much about this. we need to move on. it's a story that if we don't stop talking, it will never end. and it needs to. >> i'm very concerned about this. because we -- we won't to retain the capability to carry out these kinds of operations in the future. and when so much detail is available, it makes that both more difficult and riskier. now, with respect to the s.e.a.l.s, in my meeting with them the thursday after the operation, they did express concern not so much for themselves but for their families. and all i will say is that we

have been taking a close look at that and we will do whatever is necessary. >> chris lawrence is in washington. he joins me now. chris, so explain this to me. here you've got the two top guy s in the pentagon objecting. whose decision has it been to release this information? >> reporter: that's the thing, everybody's making the decision for themselves. he's talking about you, me, government officials, people speaking on background inside the pentagon. look, we've heard details about this raid from the white house counterterrorism adviser, from cia director leon panetta. like i said, pentagon officials have spoken on background about it. even retired s.e.a.l.s have come forward to talk about some of the tactics they used and equipment they used in the past. what he's saying is, look, it's one step short of saying shut up, because he's saying that, now, too much has gotten out,

and it's gotten to the point where you just cannot release any more information about this raid. >> chris, i rarely will disagree with you, but i think he did say shut up. he was doing it more politely, i suppose. in the speech he gave the other day, he said, we had an agreement in the situation room sunday not to talk about this and now everybody's gone out blabbing away. you know, different note -- do we have any information about specific threats that have been made about the s.e.a.l.s or their families? anything more tangible that we can say, man, this really is a crisis right now? >> nothing specific. and of course they are not going to talk about any additional security that they put on these s.e.a.l.s or their family to protect them, otherwise what's the point. but he did say when they met with the s.e.a.l. team, it was the members themselves who spoke up and said, look, we're a little worried about our faemzs. not so much ourselves, we're a little worried with our families because so much has gotten out about this raid. also, it's not just this raid.

what the pentagon and some of the officials i've spoken to have talked about and are concerned about is, you know, we know exactly how many s.e.a.l.s assaulted that compound. how many s.e.a.l.s were on backup ready to come in. how they moved up the stairs. the fact they used a stealth helicopter. all these details. now the officials are saying, look, what if we've got to do this again? what if we have to go in the frontier region of pakistan and go after maybe the leader of the hakani network or another high-level figure? how are we going to do that if our technology is out there? hey, just to be fair, not to come off -- we shouldn't come off too hypocritical. look, it's me and you that are beating down our sources, trying to get all these detail, us, fox, "new york post," "new york times," "washington post." we've all been reporting on these details ourselves. so, yes, the government's leaking like crazy. we're asking for the details. >> look, that's exactly right. i think what confuses me is you have a white house that is participating in the dissemination of information and

you have the senior military folks pushing back against the white house. so is the white house -- been asked, look, do you agree with secretary gates, is there, in fact, too much information, or are the folks in the white house defending the information they're giving out saying, look it's important for the world to know that we have this capability, so that they feel as though we can get them wherever they are? >> yeah, i don't think there's any sense they necessarily wanted the world to know about some of these capabilities. look, who knows, this helicopter, this stealth helicopter for example may have flown a dozen times before. it's highly unlikely this was the first time they ever put it in the air. until it actually clipped that wall and crashed, and we had video of it, we probably still would not know it exaisted. so i don't think anyone is out there saying we want the world to know about this technology and they're not necessarily pointing the finger just at the white house, but i think there's a feeling from the pentagon that people were so proud of what had happened that this mission came

off and it had been such a long wait to get osama bin laden that people were enthusiastic. they were excited. they wanted to talk about this in a way that really you never hear this kind of detail about special ops missions. but now it has gotten to the point where they feel like so many details have been squeezed out of this mission that they literally, you know, have been given a playbook in a way of the kinds of missions that the s.e.a.l.s do. >> thank you, chris lawrence. the debate over how much is too much when it comes to sharing secrets with the public has been going on within the intelligence community for years. it's a debate that former cia officer jack rice has found himself in the middle of time and time again. he joins me live now from minneapolis. jack, thanks for being here. >> great to be with you. >> so let me get your perspective on this. have you ever seen this much information tumble out about a top secret mission, right after it happened, and such a media

frenzy? >> no, not like this. but we're talking about $3 trillion, two wars, ten years. the u.s. government turning itself upside down, turning the world upside down. when you finally get the guy you're claiming this is all about, it's not shocking there's a bunch of people at the pentagon and the agency and the white house and everywhere else pounding their chest, talking about how great this was, so i don't think anybody should be shocked about that. >> the sense of rah-rah, we finally got this done, absolutely understandable. the thing that's always defined the cia in particular, the intelligence community, has been the discipline to keep secrets like this under wraps and that sort of need to know psychology and emotion is what has been per vase thrive. with all this stuff out there. if you were still in special ops, would you be troubled by this? >> not quite yet but they're right on the edge. you were right when you say it's not just shut up, it's probably shut the hell up. because the fear here is you're

starting to talk about sources and methods. and that's the terms we use inside the intelligence community. you start getting close to talking about assets that were used. the methods that were actually going into this process. and the concern that this may actually stop future operations. we're not talking about osama bin laden now. we're talking about zawahiri, we're talking about others throughout the middle east we may have our eyes on. and that's what people are talking about inside the intelligence community. frankly, special ops at the pentagon too. >> you know, jack, one of the facts that came out that seemed it was inevitable it would, and chris made that point, when the helicopter crashed, pictures of it came out and people said, aha, this is a slightly different chopper. the information that came out about the safe house in abbottabad, that seemed to me to be a uniquely distinct piece of information. because who gained by that? now they start going back saying, who was there? that is the one that ticked me off and said, this is a problem. >> well, you know if you look over last few years, we can

think about the situation with valerie plame. as a simple example, when that comes out too and you sort of hearing about the places she may have been, contacts she may have had, assets that may have been disclosed there, this is a perfect example of this concept of -- and the term we use is opsec, operational security, what comes out and what doesn't. when we started this conversation, we were talking about this idea of just how transparent this should be. if we're talking about freedom, how much should we actually make available? that has been an ongoing debate inside the cia across, frankly, the u.s. government, and that fight goes on right now, even sort of amongst the various organizations and within those organizations. >> well, let me ask you -- we can pursue that but i want to add a conspiracy theory. let me ask you this, how much of the so-called information we think we've gotten may, in fact, not be accurate? in other word, how much of it may be misinformation? maybe there was no safe house in abbottabad and this is something being told to send people down a

dark well? is that a possibility as well? >> well, let's be clear here. i'm always careful in terms of what i can say. just because the government tell youls something doesn't necessarily make it true. boy, does that sound dark or what? >> guys from the cia sounding cynical like that, i'm shocked. when you're at the cia, having this discussion about transparency, that is a sort of theoretical conversation. where are those decisions made? how far up the ladder at the cia do you go? is it the deputy director, the general counsel, before somebody's saying, this can't get out there? how do you have that conversation? >> it cuts a couple different ways. you certainly see them at the direct ate level. the guys at the top of the heap politically. certainly at the director level. this comes frequently down from the white house itself, in terms of what comes out versus what should come out. but, again this is my opinion. one of the problems the intelligence community's had again and again and again is that they've tried to keep nothing out, they're trying to keep everything inside the

billion. the problem with that is when we talk about representative democracy, the idea that the american people need to know, i think there are certain things the american people should know. in fact, i think the intelligence community actually hurts themselves sometimes because they're so concerned about security, so concerned about secrecy, sometimes overclassifying ridiculous things and in the end, the only thing the american people get is when the intelligence community screws up because it becomes public. the good stuff never gets out there the. i think there's a real problem with that too. >> i think that's right. part of what's going on here is there's been so much negative publicity about the cia, our intelligence, every time there's a failure, fingers are pointed. now you finally have a success. people do want to claim credit, and rightly so. then you have the guys in charge of the operation, mullen and gate, who are saying, wait a minute, guys, this is going to create problems. so things have got to stop right here. all right, jack rishgs thanks so much for being with us. >> thanks, eliot. coming up, we're winning the war in afghanistan.

a prominent journalist says it's so and he's got some astonishing information to back up the claim. that story is next. but first, e.d. hill. >> we're talking about dominique strauss-kahn. if there's any clearer example, i can't figure one out, between what the united states holds valuable and what the french hold valuable. it is how we're treating the alleged victim in the sex scandal. the french press posts her name and many of them have posted her face. in america, we're trying to shield her. and one of the french editors for slate france said, we put her name out there because it's a common name. if it hadn't been so common, we wouldn't have put it out there. this is trying to help her save her reputation. which we don't understand here. there's a lot about this story that's confusing. >> not only confusing but as you say goes right to the vortex of the very emotional and different ideological approach to the idea of privacy. up next, could we actually beat the taliban? stay with us. th arthritis pain.. and a choice.

take tylenol now, and maybe up to 8 in a day. or...choose aleve and 2 pills for a day free of pain. enjoy the flight. or...choose aleve and 2 pills for a day free of pain. ♪ ♪

when you're resonsible for this much of the team, you need a car you can count on. ♪ ♪ well, you know i love it too ♪ ♪ you love money ♪ well, you know i love it too ♪ ♪ i work so hard at my job ♪ and then i bring it home to you ♪ ♪ i love money in my pocket

osama bin laden is dead and u.s. military commanders estimate fewer than 100 al qaeda members remain inside afghanistan. so why is afghanistan beginning

to feel like obama's vietnam? now we're hearing we might actually be winning? we're joined by two men who have deep personal knowledge of the situation and very strong personal opinions. peter bergen is an al qaeda expert and cnn national security analyst. and sebastian junger is the author of "war," about troops in the korengal valley in afghanistan. you are two of the leading experts on not only counterinsurgency but afghanistan and warfare generally. peter, you have just written a blockbuster article from my perspective in "the new republic." i want to read this sentence. you say, when i look at the hopeful signs that are starting to emerge from the country and when i consider these indicators in tandem with the likely consequences of a hastiy exit, i do think the wise choice now is for the united states to stay. you're talking about afghanistan. i was completely shocked by this conclusion. first, what is winning? what does that mean in

afghanistan? >> well, winning in afghanistan would mean leaving the country in a situation which it was in the 1970s, which was, you know, a very poor country, at peace with itself and its neighbors. existed within historical memory. i think when we overthrow somebody's government, we have a responsibility to pick up the pieces. and we've already run the experiment twice already of kind of washing our hands of the country. we did it in 1989. we did it in 2002 because of opposition of nation building by the bush administration. i think we owe it to the afghan people to get it right. >> you wrote "war," about -- you were literally embedded with the u.s. soldiers in the korengal valley and the day-by-day combat. we just withdrew from the valley. have we given up? do you agree with peter that we are in any way, shape or form winning this confrontation? >> well, here's the thing, the korengal valley, it's a six-mile long valley in afghanistan. it's really nome emblematic of

the country. there are other valleys where they're not fighting at all. they pulled out of korengal because it sort of served its purpose. there were a lot of attacks coming out of the korengal to the pesh river valley and they put an american base there while they paved the road up the pesh and i think the commanders decide the benefit isn't worth the cost. >> let's look at the movie that was based on your writings that you and tim hetherington did that is gripping, the sense of interplay between the u.s. soldiers and the real afghan people. let's take a look at this. i think it shows folks what goes on. >> -- the information about -- he's the owner of the cow. >> the cow, the reason why we killed it, because it ran into our team wire. and it was mangled inside the wire. so we had to kill it to put it out of its misery because if we

would have got it out, it would have been useless. >> they're asking -- it was -- >> illegal? >> yeah, like a -- >> to kill it? we're not going to be able to give them the money. if money is all he came for -- >> now, this captures, in a way, the real interplay between the soldiers and the afghan people. are we winning hearts minds in this context? >> well, there's many different scenes we could have shown. you know, there were scenes where there was a lot of really good feeling and then there was that and there were worst scenes than that. ultimately, it really isn't hearts minds in a sense. we don't have to have the afghans love us being there for it to work. they're very practical people. the thing that made them resistant to cooperating with the americans in the korengal really was that we didn't go in there with enough soldiers. i mean, we were there with 150 men, with a battalion, i think we could have done anything we wanted. we could have paveled the road, built the school, everything we said we'd try to do. and had we done that with 600

men, think the afghans on the ground would have bought into it. they all would want those things. they took a look at a company of men. i think they just shook their heads and said, this is not going to work. >> here's the toughest question. we can go in with a massive force and do the nation building you talk about as well. once we leave, what happens? does the taliban then re-emerge from the woods? you get the sense reading your book, the articles, watching the movie, they're sort of an omnipresent force. >> i had a conversation with a u.s. senator about this. i said, look, you have to answer the question, why is one taliban fighter worth about ten afghan national army soldiers? the same people, the same guys? and his answer was, well, the taliban believe in what they're fighting for. i think the problem is not a tactical military problem. i think while we're there, we can -- we can keep order in that country. but we have a finger in a dike.

and i think ultimately it's a problem of cooperation in the government. until there's a government that serves the afghan people, that the afghan people can be proud of, they won't be willing to risk their lives fighting for it. we will always have to do that job for them. >> what is your sense -- having been in afghanistan so much, are the taliban parrit of any successor government? >> there's sort of two kinds of taliban. on the one hand, there's homegrown afghan-taliban. they're part of afghan society. i think they deserve some kind of consultation as long as it's in good faith by them. then there are the proxy forces of afghanistan. people like the hakani network, mullah omar who are essentially paid in forms in arm of the isir with the pakistani government. they do not have the afghan's people best wishes at heart. so when you negotiate with the taliban, you're not going to the haka ni network and saying what do you want to do in kabul?

then if you have a conversation with the real afghan taliban, i think that's a legitimate process. >> i want to ask you a different kind of question. time runs short but you got close to the soldiers. you sort of absorbed their emotional content. if you asked them if they thought we were winning what do you think they would say? >> they where so focused on their job, you know, they were in the korengal valley, and they were winning for a year and then they left. that was how they saw it. i think the ones who sort of stepped back and looked at the broader war, they would probably look at the death of bin laden and say, wow, it was confusing for a while but it kind of worked. i think some of them do also realize the reason bin laden was in afghanistan was because it was a failed state. so you can kill bin laden, let it relapse into a failed state and you have the same old problem over again with the next bin laden. think some of them would realize there is a kind of logic to overseeing this a bit longer. >> and so last word to you, peter, your view would be if we used the death of bin laden as

an excuse to leave without rebuilding the state, we sow the seeds of our own destruction down the flood. >> yes, they've run this experiment before and it didn't work out very well. >> there's excerpt from "war" on our website. thank you, fascinating stuff. up next, the latest on the dominique strauss-kahn case. he's looking to make bail and he's willing to pay a lot for it. ♪ [ male announcer ] in 2011, at&t is at work, building up our wireless network all across america. we're adding new cell sites... increasing network capacity, and investing billions of dollars to improve your wireless network experience. from a single phone call to the most advanced data download, we're covering more people in more places than ever before in an effort to give you the best network possible.

at&t. rethink possible. [ man ] at ge capital, we're out there every day with clients like jetblue -- financing their fleet, sharing our expertise, and working with people who are changing the face of business in america. after 25 years in the aviation business, i kind of feel like if you're not having fun at what you do, then you've got the wrong job. my landing was better than yours. no, it wasn't. yes, it was. was not. yes, it was. what do you think?

take one of the big ones out? nah. ♪

dominique strauss-kahn, the head of the imf, may make bail tomorrow. his lawyers are going to court, reportedly going to ask he be released on $1 million bond. he's also said to be willing to wear an electronic bracelet and submit to house arrest. meanwhile, the french are having

a reaction to the arrest that actually might shock you. joining us to talk about the view from abroad is terry anault, our political correspondent for the french network bfm tv. thanks for being with us. >> pleasure. >> i was shocked when i looked at the new council, polling analysis, in france, showed that 57% of the people who were polled said they thought dominique strauss-kahn, dsk, was the victim in this. does that surprise you? >> well, the victim is suddenly a strange way to put it. i'm not sure what the question was. but victimized to some extent i can understand why and the reason was the way he was put on display so to speak before undergoing any trial, before being proven guilty. there's no such thing as a perp walk in france. this is actually illegal. it has been for over ten years now. comparable circumstances, the most you would get to see would be barely distinguishable head

and shoulders inside a police car that would drive by very quickly. certainly not, you know, what we have seen, the walk, the pictures from the court and all of that. >> and then from the american perspective, then what makes it even stranger to me, to understand that perspective, but then to have the french media willingly publish the accuser's name and some of them, her photograph as well, and there was one editor who said, well, we published it because we wanted to protect her from rumors. it's a common name. if it weren't so common, we wouldn't publish it. to us here in america, publishing the accuser's -- the alleged sexual assault victim's name and face is unthinkable. the perp walk is common. so why this disconnect? >> i don't know. i think it's important as well to protect the identity of the victim. >> so that's not common in the media in france? >> no. it's entirely on this side, that, media's discretion. in my case, i know what her name

is. i'm not going to say it on air. if i have a picture, i'm not going to show it on my network. it's for each media to decide how it's going to go about it and i'm not sure that's justification, but that would be my position. >> there was april 28th interview that dsk gave that may come back to haunt him. he was asked about, what would keep you from becoming president? because he was the front-runner to beat sar kotzy. he said there are three things that working against me winning, and that is money, women and my jewishness. well, he then went on to verbally describe a scenario in which someone could be paid off to accuse him of rape. and there it is. a woman who would be raped in a parking lot and who would then be promised 500,000 or a million euros to invent such a story. that's really, to me, kind of huge leap, to go from what keeps you from being president, well you know, women, and then here's a scenario of rape. it was -- it's just eerie. >> i agree that this is strange.

it is completely strange. but i think the point he was trying to convey, albeit maybe in a strange fashion, was he knew he was vulnerable. he had that this reputation for a very long time. you knew he was a womanizer. you knew he was sometimes, you know, bold, even almost aggressive in the way he would -- he would chase women, you know, to put it frankly. but that doesn't mean he -- you know, he was suspected of anything close to rape. but he knew he it was something he had to take care of in the frame of a presidential campaign because he knew he was vulnerable to accusations that he was sleeping around basically. >> sarkozy apparently, this is a report that is out, warned him when he came to the united states. he said, listen, they don't treat things the same way we do here so watch yourself was the general warning to him. >> yes. >> watch yourself, they don't view it the same. is that part of the issue there? because i understand that people take it very, you know, casually, he's having an affair, he's sleeping around, he's got

an active sex life, but the idea of forcing himself on someone seems to just take it to that level that it's not acceptable. is that a fair -- >> i think -- you have to be very careful how you put this. i think it is true that in france there's a much larger degree of tolerance to whatever concepting adults are going to do behind closed doors. you know, if my mayor has affairs but does his job very well, i don't care. if mine president does that sort of thing and still is a good president, that's his problem. you know? i don't think that forcing yourself upon women would be considered acceptable behavior in france by any stretch of the imagination. i think what sarkozy was trying to warn him is be careful the way you address your secretary. be careful about the way you approach people you work with. because some practices that may be upsetting and would be criticized in france would be

downright illegal in the u.s. and cost you your job. >> interesting. we will watch as this unfolds. thiery anault, thank you. this guy is about to get out of jail possibly. eliot and jeff toobin discuss eliot and jeff toobin discuss it. phillips' caplets use magnesium, an ingredient that works more naturally with your colon than stimulant laxatives, for effective relief of constipation without cramps. thanks. [ professor ] good morning students. today, we're gonna... the new blackberry playbook. it runs all this at the same time. ♪ why can't every tablet do that?

♪ i was diagnosed with copd. i could not take a deep breath i noticed i was having trouble. climbing the stairs, working in the garden, painting. my doctor suggested spiriva right then. announcer: spiriva is the only once-daily inhaled maintenance treatment for copd, which includes chronic bronchitis and emphysema. i love what it does. it opens up the airways. announcer: spiriva does not replace fast-acting inhalers for sudden symptoms. stop taking spiriva and call your doctor right away if your breathing suddenly worsens, your throat or tongue swells, you get hives, have vision changes or eye pain, or have problems passing urine. tell your doctor if you have glaucoma, problems passing urine, or an enlarged prostate, as these may worsen with spiriva. also, discuss the medicines you take, even eye drops. side effects include dry mouth, constipation, and trouble passing urine. it makes me breathe easier. i can't do everything i used to do. but there's a lot i can do that i was struggling with. announcer: ask your doctor if once-daily spiriva is right for you.

as we've been discussing, lawyers for dominique strauss-kahn will argue for bail tomorrow. cnn's jeff toobin has new

information on the story. have they reached an agreement or are they just begging in front of the judge? >> begging and pleading. there is no deal. the proposal they just filed moments ago, a 16-page application for bail, and it's really a fairly straight-forward proposal. $1 million bond. 24-hour monitoring in an apartment in new york. and an ankle bracelet, electronic monitoring, so that if he leaves a prescribed area, bells will go off and -- >> he could be wearing his own gps? >> exactly, which is actually fairly common for bail in a federal court proceeding where there are a lot more white collar cases. i think one of the things strauss-kahn has going against him is this is state court where that's more unusual set of circumstances. >> state court cases ordinarily are street crime, where bail is fought over more vigorously. the interesting thing, if he gets his apartment, he could begin to try to fulfill his job obligations. >> that may be. he just wants to get the hell out of there though.

i don't think he's worried about, you know, being head of imf. i think that train has left the staying. >> has the d.a.'s office resp d responded yet? >> they have not filed but my information is they will respond and will object. this is very similar -- not identical but very similar to the bail application that was rejected earlier in the week. this went before a different judge. >> how was that judge chosen? >> i think it was random but i'm not entirely sure. >> whatever the outcome of this, friday he's back in court, presumably with an indictment that will have been returned based upon the testimony of the victim. will we then begin to get a better sense of the case? >> probably not. i don't think we'll learn a lot more. you know how -- you were an assistant district attorney in this very courthouse. the indictments in state court, in manhattan, tend to be pretty bare bones. because the questions we don't know, which the really important questions are, is there any sort of forensic evidence? is there dna? are their hair and fiber

evidence? were there injuries to either party? scratches? any evidence taken from underneath fingernails? those are the kind of evidence that's going to be very important, that's going to change this from a he said/she said. >> when will that evidence come out? getting his hands on that evidence is critical for the defense attorney who has to make the most important choice for his client. what is his theory? >> the two big options are "i wasn't there." alibi defense. this is just some crazy mix-up. the other theme of a defense is consent somehow. both of those seem to have a lot of problems. but you can't do both. >> you can't say i wasn't there but if i was it was consensual. and here's the thing, forensic evidence, if there's evidence of dna under fingernails indicating a fight. if there's evidence -- video of somebody leaving the room disheveled, all of that goes to the lack of consent. >> all of us covering this, we

want all these answers immediately. we want to know what the defense is. ben brafman, the prosecutors in this case, they know what they're doing. they're going to wait and see what the evidence is, wait and see what are plausible defenses. this is going to take weeks, if not months. >> the other thing that just happened, all the criminal case, both federal and state, there's been a push by judges for the prosecution to share this evidence with the defense just as a way of saying, look this isn't a game, let's figure out what really happened here. so in the next month, i bet we will know what the answers to this are. at least ben brafman will know. when will he begin to make this choice? >> i think in a matter of weeks. but you know i think we also don't -- you know, they're not in as big a rush as we are. it's much more important for them to wait a couple weeks and be right than to start spouting off in the press for a theory they can't sustain on the evidence. >> which is why brafman was dancing lightly at the arrai arraignme

arraignment. as long as his client is in rikers, he's in a big rush. >> what they're really talking about today is risk of flight. arguing that there is no risk of flight. and that doesn't really relate to the evidence in the case. the 16-page application, which just came in, it's all about, you know, what a responsible person he is, his daughter's a graduate student at columbia, he has roots here, he has house he lives in in washington, the imf is in washington. so trying to take away his frenchness, saying this is someone who has roots in the united states, and he's not going to flee. >> why do i suspect that even if he's permitted to go back toz apatment there are going to be cameras -- >> one interesting fact -- >> very quickly. >> the flight he was on, he booked that flight a week in advance. which i think is interesting. >> all right, jeff toobin, thank you. coming up, the good news about jobs -- there isn't any. the problem is there isn't any good news about jobs unless you have big ideas like cnn's fareed zakaria. he's up next. uncer ] in 2011, at&t is at work, building up our wireless network all across america.

we're adding new cell sites... increasing network capacity, and investing billions of dollars to improve your wireless network experience. from a single phone call to the most advanced data download, we're covering more people in more places than ever before in an effort to give you the best network possible. at&t. rethink possible.

ask me. if you think even the best bed can only lie there... ask me what it's like... when my tempur-pedic moves... ...talk to someone who owns an adjustable version of the most highly recommended bed in america... ask me about my tempur advanced ergo. ask me about having all the right moves. these are real tempur-advanced ergo owners! find one for yourself. check out twitter. try your friends on facebook... see what they have to say...unedited. it goes up... ask me what it's like to get a massage ---any time you want. ...it goes down... ergo...nomics... ergo...nomics... tempur-pedic brand owners are more satisfied than owners of any traditional mattress brand.

(in chinese) ask me why i never want to leave my ergo. ask me why i'm glad i didn't wait 'till i was too old to enjoy this. start asking real owners. ask me how to make your first move... find out more about the tempur advanced ergo system! call the number on your screen for your free dvd and information kit. to find an authorized dealer near you, visit tempur dic.com. tempur-pedic. the most highly recommended bed in america. first ever half price sale. we've slashed prices 50% off our everyday low pricing. it's time to man up and slim down with nutrisystem for men. i'm dan marino, and i lost 22 pounds on nutrisystem for men. join dan marino and nearly a million other men just like you who've gotten dramatic results with nutrisystem for men, because it's the first weight loss system designed for men and men only. order now and get five hearty meals a day: pancakes, pasta, meatloaf, chocolaty desserts, and dozens of satisfying snacks.

guys want to feel good and look great without starving themselves on a diet designed for women. call now and save 50% on your first order. but hurry, at 50% off, this sale won't last long. guys, this is it, the offer you've been waiting for. go online or call now... to get this limited time offer. all this week, cnn has been focusing in depth on the crisis of jobs in america. and that includes an amazingly insightful article in this week's "time" magazine by our own fareed zakaria. fareed, as always, thank you so much for being here. frame the issue for us. >> the simplest way to think about it i think is we don't realize what the unemployment rate is. we think we have about 7 million people unemployed. actually, if you take into account the people who have stopped looking for work and you take into account the people who

have part-time jobs and these part-time jobs pay on average $19,000, which is half the median wage, so if you put all that together, you have 24 million people unemployed. this is almost close to great depression levels of unemployment. what unemployment does is outside of the fact that it means you have fewer tax, all your budgets get screwed up at the state level, the personal tragedy of unemployment is that you lose these people. this becomes a lost generation because they lose skills, they lose work habits. they kind of get lost to society. >> let me summarize it this way. there's a corrosive effect to our society. we have 20-plus million unemployed. then as you point out, all the presumptions about the federal budget are completely thrown out the window because they assume revenue from jobs that simply don't exist. >> this is true of all the budgets put out there but take president obama's budget it

assumes over the next ten years we will create 20 million new jobs. >> why is this happening? you highlight two fundamental causes. >> there are two things. one is technology. if you look at the american technology now, we are back to precrisis level of gdp which is about $13.5 trillion. we've gotten there. we're producing the same number of goods and services as we did in 2007 with 7 million fewer workers. so at some level, that's a productivity increase, right, which is admiral, but what it tells you is we are achieving producti protivety when you can get gdp growth without hiring more people, in fact, firing people. you look at every industry, technology is replacing people. >> traditional economists would say the people displaced by that technology get new jobs in new sectors. what's happening is those people have been displaced, are sitting

on the sideline, and new jobs, such as they are, are overseas. >> exactly. part of this technological change is also happening at warp speed. maybe that's part of it. the other part of it it, there's a pencil movement. you have the technological change but you also have global markets and global labor so there are cheaper workers doing the same kinds of jobs overseas. and the two things together, technology, plus globalization, mean the average american workers feeling pressure like i don't think he's ever felt before. >> it used to be our sense was manufacturing jobs were being displaced and being sent overseas. now you point out it's happening in white color areas as well. lawyers. maybe nobody will cry for lawyers. but lawyering jobs are being displaced as well. >> discovery, which used to be the classic thing that young lawyers did, is now something increasingly being done by computer programs. if you were running a law firm and you could replace a lawyer you're paying $150,000 with a computer program, you'd do it in a heartbeat, because it's huge

cost savings for you. even if professions like law, computers and technology are replacing people. >> here's a number to give people a sense of scale. back in 1979, general motors had 618,000 jobs in the united states. 2011, down to 77,000. >> right, and the new companies so people talk about technological change. facebook employs 2,000 people. it's a $50 billion company. if ford motor company, when it started, when it was the new hot thing, it employed 1 million people -- >> look there's something much more important in your article. you diagnose the problem, you do it brilliantly. and the book that catapulted you to global fame did as well, people should read it. give us what you think is the single most important. >> probably the single most important is small business because if you look back over the last two decade, almost all job creation came not out of

these big companies that we think about, but out of small businesses. and we've got to sit and focus on the question of what does it take to grow small business? this country? and that means rationalizing the patent system. creating a regulatory environment that allows it to happen. i would argue, powerably, immigration reform that allow skilled immigrants -- >> because that's where so much of the small business comes from. >> the statistic is half of all the internet start-ups in silicon valley had a founder who was an immigrant. if you ask yourself, what would it take to get these small companies going? because these are companies that often employ less than 100 people or even 25 people. but there are lots of them. >> you also talk about retraining. we need to retain the existing workforce where people had been an assembly line but simply don't have the capacity to step into the shoes of the jobs that are needed. so how do we do that? >> honestly, we haven't had great luck with this, so i think this is one of those areas where you want to try a bunch of different things. i think part of the problem is we have never thought about this

as ambitiously as we need to. you're talking about a whole generation of workers in their 40s and 50s who need to be retrained. think this is a place where you need the government, you need being an deem ya, the institutional institutions and industry. the government probably pays the bills. the educational institutions train people. and industry tells you what training they need. you need something on the order of the g.i. bill. that kind of magnitude where you really change people's lives. >> fareed, great article, thanks for coming by. >> pleasure, eliot. >> you can read fareed's article in its entirety on our website cnn.com/arena. coming up, it's hard to run with one foot in your mouth. ask newt gingrich. has his campaign for the white house already run out of gas? stay with us. ocid most calcium supplemts...

t adththod it's dif - alcium crhea festival of shrimp for just $11.99. create your own combination of two of our most tempting selections from favorites to new creations for just $11.99 during the festival of shrimp. ending soon at red lobster. aflac! oh, i've just got major medical... major medical. ...but it helps pay the doctors. pays the doctors, boyyy! [ quack ] oh yeah? what about your family? ♪ we added aflac, so we get cash! it's like our safety net... ♪ to help with the mortgage or whatever we need! so my family doesn't feel the pain too. ha! [ male announcer ] help protect your family at aflac.com. [ pigeons ] heyyy! hooo!!!

like every single american airlines flight. orbitz doesn't have them. but you'll find all 3,400 of them at aa.com. every day.

we turn to breaking news. a new bin laden recording has just been released. it was presumably taped sometime in april or may of this year before he was killed. in it, he praises the arab spring that erupted across the middle east and north africa. let me read some of what he says here. this is a direct quote from this tape. my muslim nation, we are monitoring with you this great historic event and we join you with your joy and delight. so congratulations on your victories and may god have mercy on your marters. may he cure your injured and grant the release of your prisoners. then what we gather is an

outtake of some poetry. the days of glory came to the people of islam and some rulers of the arabs lands have vanished. carrying gospels to the people and new banners. he continues, the muslim nation was always getting really for the victory that is rising from the eastern horizon but the surprise of the sun of the revolution rose from the maghreb in the west. the nation felt the release. the faces of the people got brightened. the throats of the rulers got coarser and the jews got teared because of the coming of the promised day. mayhem from bin laden. with the overthrown of the tyrant, the definitions of fear, humiliation and surrender have fallen as well. the new meaning, of freedom, cried audacity and courage were risen. the winds of change came in a will of liberation. all right. that is bin laden's own twisted

view of the history clearly that does not relate to what has actually happened in north africa or the middle east. and we're joined now by former cia agent jack rice once again. he joins me on the phone. jack, what's interesting about this is that it was recorded obviously before he was killed. it does not strike me as though it was a statement he wanted to be released in the event of his death. in other words, it was not in contemplation of his death. it was more just commentary on state of the revolutions that were sweeping north africa. >> oh, i think you're absolutely right, eliot. if what we have seen about osama bin laden over the last few years, he has become less and less relevant. part of that problem is he was on the run. he was ice lasolated. he didn't have a command and control structure. he didn't have the ability to essentially do face-to-face, on the ground operations. that was all clear. part of what he was trying to do was to sort of stay in front of it. almost one of those lines like just tell me where you want me to go and i'll lead you there.

guess what, that's kind chd what was going on when it came to this spring awakening. >> in fact, i think you're exactly right, because he was watch. presumably he does get some form of accurate information, even there in his compound in abbottabad. he was seeing revolutionings that had little or nothing to do with the jihadist islamic campaign he had been trying to wage. he is trying to recast the history, to claim, in fact, his ideology was what was motivating those in tunisia. he's trying to plant his flag in revolutions from which he'd been entirely absent is how i see it. >> oh, think you're absolutely right. that's what we've seen. if we want to be really honest about this, we have to take a look at what the social media world has done. that really drove this in ways that nothing else did. this provided the voice to the small, to the insignificant, the inconsequential, who, in fact, are not, but in many ways in the

middle east they have been. this gave them the voice to sort of rise up together, in many way, unilaterally, from the americans and from osama bin laden, and said against mubarak, against trunisia, parts of egyp, and say, this is enough. we're still seeing ramifications of it in syria and it has nothing to do with anybody except these people being tired of where they are and the live there's leading. >> freedom not only from the tie rants but freedom from the jihadist rhetoric which had been the only voice they had had of rebellion. bin laden of course needs to watch and he sees in egypt the muslim brotherhood now participating in a democracy, speaking about the virtues of secular democracy, speaking about how, yes, kind of, okay, we know we're going to have to abide by peace with israel, even though they can't quite see it, and he's feeling marginalized so he spouts off, angry rhetoric against the jews here, something that isn't always in his tapes. this was almost literally a last

hoo ra for an guy who el toos his own edevelop venice. >> we think about what comes next. now we have zawahiri, really, the guy who is driving al qaeda in many ways. this guy came out of egypt, came out of the muslim brother hood. what do you do now if you're essentially the leadered of an organization that's been cornered from all directions, the organization that you left is now standing up for this concept of a secular democracy, the very organization you say is the one that you stand behind is now the one who essentially is opposing the one you believe in now. >> put on your cia hat. time is running short. why is this the tape they would release now? is it fair to presume now this is the only tape they had? was there -- do we presume there was no post death, if i get killed, here's what i want the world to hear tape? >> no, there may be more out there because they're actually trying to use that to wrap up other operations that may exist, other people who may have been involved. >> jack rice, thank you so much for joining