may, the operating strategy was what was articulated in lisben which will secure the combat 4r50ed that will shift to the afghan security forces by 2014. by the end of 2014. but that is where we are and, you know, what that transition looks like and the discussions about that transition will take place over time and as secretary panetta said, it could happen and hopefully it will happen that we could do it sooner. >> let me just wrap up on my original question that the president has been withdrawing troops, but there would be 68,000, 70,000 troops by september. is there any clarity about how fast the rest of the troops would come home? >> after september, i'm sure that will be a subject of discussion among nato ministers and heads of state and combat

commanders, but i have nothing to add from here. and that will be in part how successful the transition is taking place over to afghan security forces. as you know. as the president said in an interview, if i don't have this done in a few years, then there's going to be a one term proposition, assuming you don't think it's done, but does he regret having said that? >> you aptly point out that that statement was made three years ago and you ask in a month that the economy shed close to 700 or 800,000 jobs. in the process of shedding 8 million overall.

at a time when the economy had shrunk. he had successfully through the policies he has pursued changed the direction that we were in when he took office. and while we are not phone and won't be done until every american who wants a job can find a job and until we have built a foundation for our economy to compete and win in the 21st century, there is no question and i talked about this basically the u shaped graph of unemployment and what it looked like as the president was taking office, inheriting the economy that he had at the time and what it had begun to look like in the slope upward was the policies began to be taking effect. i think he made clear in that whole interview and i'm sure

every interview he gave at the time that what his primary obligation was as president was to stop this cataclysmic decline in the economy that was taking place when he was in office, he did that, working with congress. he put in place policies that led to five straight quarters of job growth instead of contraction. i don't think anybody who looks at that objectively could subject that that turn around hasn't happened or that we are finished with the job and certainly not go back to the policies that indisputably

helped precipitate the situation we found ourselves in 2009 where the economy was in free fall. >> just going back to afghanistan, the statement by the defense secretary clearly surprised a lot of people. why make the disclosure now? >> well, he was simply discussing, secretary panetta was discussing the consultations he would be having shortly with nato defense ministers. so i guess the disclosure, if you're referring to it in that way, which i would take issue with, was going to happen within hours or within a day because those discussions were taking place. all it was was a framing of the kind of conversations that the president would have in brussels an what would take place up

until may when the president hosts nato in chicago. >> does it moosh that u.s. troops are going to be coming home faster. >> let me just be clear, and as i said in answer to ben's question, this was an assessment of what could happen within the context of the stated policy of nato, which is to transfer security, lead to the afghan security forces by 2014. and within that frame, within that timeline the transition will take place. it has already started in parts of afghanistan, and u.s. troops are already coming home as you know. obviously as time passes and defense ministers make decisions about assessments of how the -- how much progress is being made, what the conditions are like on the ground. adjustments will be made in terms of scheduling and timelines.

that's what secretary panetta was referring to. >> -- posing legislation to hold see quested in 2013, a federal pay freeze, what would the white house say about that? >> that would say that, america, we didn't know what we said. the whole idea of a sequester was to design it in a way that no one, democrats or republicans wanted to design it as fact. therefore they would be compelled to make the tough choices. >> ever that would lead to the 75 million in deductions. the sequester is bad policy for a reason. so it doesn't get enacted. >> the cuts have to take place, congress is compelled to make them happen and this congress will obviously sign into law a balanced approach to makinga

deficit reduction happen. but it can't be that some members of congress promised to their constituents, you know with the bublt control act, look what we have done, we're holding our own feet to the fire, my fellow americans, and then a few months later decide, we didn't really mean it, let's change that. that's not how it should work. the question is honerous for a reason. and that the bipartisan deficit reduction commissions. >> two health care issues, the susan g.komen foundation has said they're going to stop funding planned parenthood.

i'm wondering if the white house or the president has an opinion? >> i have seen the reports but i don't have any comments on it from the white house these are obviously two private organizations so i don't have any information for you on that speaker boehner said today that he thought the rule that hhs announced to provide kwon tra acceptive services that that -- is unconstitutional. and i'm wondering, why, without getting into the whole constitutionality, why does the obama administration think it has the right to tell any organizationa they have to provide a service even if that service going against their

religious believes. let's be clear about what the decision does. first of all on the constitutionality issue, we obviously do not believe this is constitutional. but the point of the decision, which was made aftercareful consideration and we believe reaches the appropriate balance between religious believes and the need to provide-make services available to women across the country. we want to make sherr that women have access to good health care. and that all women who need access to contraceptives can get them without strog pay a co-pay every time they go to the pharmacy. there's been some misstatements about what it actually does. this rule does not force anyone

with a religious objectionation such as a -- it merely requires that insurance companies provide coverage for contraceptives for those that want them, which is a nonpartisan institution of medicine. and doctors prescribe birth control in the treatment of some cancers. the policy maintains, the religious exemption. other houses of worship are exempt. it's also important to note that as we develop this policy and found what we believe is the appropriate balance, that 28 states in the county have laws with comprehensive coverage

mandates. over half of all americans live in those states. some states like colorado, georgia and wisconsin have no exemption as all. no exemption for other houses of worship. >> there are catholic charities and other catholic organizations that are not houses of worship in which obviously their believes are very strongly held, it's what they do for a living, they believe that life begins at the moment -- >> sure, and the policy does not require any individual to take or provide or prescribe contraception. it simply requires employers to offer insurance coverage that provides that. >> services that they found

objectionable. but the individuals in our estimation should have the same rights to have tra kind of coverage. it's an important health issue and it's also an important financial issue for women across the country. again, 28 states have similarly require insurance companies to cover contraception and several states, large ones, north carolina, new york and california have identical religious employer exemptions. i think the idea that this is something wholly new has not been well explained in some of the coverage. again it makes sure that employees -- we're talking about employers here and employees and employees of all different

faiths who might work as organizations that are affiliated with a single faith. we need to make sure that employees of all different faiths have access to contraception. and that's why it's what we thought was an appropriate balance. >> we certainly see that there's disagreement about this, we consulted with a wide range of people in establishing this policy, and finding the balance that was found. and we're certainly aware of some of the reporting out there but it's interesting to note that there's not a lot of clarity of the note. it is again not requiring any individual to in any way to violate his or her conscience, it is not requiring anything but

employers, big hospitals and universities to include this coverage just like elsewhere. >> my questions are on the very same topic, the president talked about making policy decisions within a moral frame work. i just wondered if this one followed that. did the president pray about it? did he talk it over with religious leaders? >> i don't know whether he himself prayed about it. i just haven't had that conversation with him. he did consult with some religious leaders about it, and he did provide in a necessary frame work. it's also a decision that falls under that context. when you seek to approve the

following balance, you have to weigh all these factors including the need to provide these services to women and obviously the issue of religious belief. and that's the balance that we found, a balance that's been found by other states in the country. and where other institutions have certainly dealt with in this these states. we want to continue to work with organizations throughout the next year as they develop how they're going to handle this policy. and so this was done with careful consideration, it was not done arbitrarily, it was done absolutely focused on the issues. like our consideration now. >> did you also talk about the response that you've gotten since this picked up steam and people have been aware of it. and also were in some religious

leaders who wanted to talk to the president about. >> it i didn't travel with the president to the prayer breakfast and i didn't discuss that with him so i don't know. but we have seen the media reports with people expressing opinions on a variety of sides of this issue. and i'm sure that some folks have heard from people who believe it's the right policy and people who disagree with it. but i don't have anything specific on that for you. >> what about president -- so the president also, he's hopeful that by mid 2013, american forces and others can transition from a combat role to a -- >> the president made clear that the u.s. forces are in afghanistan to accomplish a mission. and they will not stay in afghanistan forever and they will not stay in afghanistan any

longer than is necessary to accomplish that mission. one of the things that he made clear that he would do since he's came to office is clarify exactly what our mission in afghanistan is. as you know, nora -- >> i think what was made clear back in june when the president talked about the drawdown is that they would be there would be discussions about the transition, the pace and the slope of the drawdown and how the transfer would unfold to afghan security. obviously when the context of making the full transfer by 2014, you can't make assessments two years out about how thinchs will look every month along the way. but it is absolutely the case that ts achieving our mission afghanistan. and let's be clear, the policy he inherited was one of, you

know, neglect in othe war in iraq. and he made clear as a candidate that he would change that. he made clear that he would heighten the focus on the real enemy, which was al qaeda. he has phone that and he has made clear that he would commit resources and make sure that we were objectively pursuing the right objects in after stachb and he's done that. >> will you respond to the criticism specifically from mitt romney who has said why in the world would you go and get people that we're fighting and tell them the date we're going to pull out troops, it makes absolutely no sense. >> i'm not go -- the president has a very clear, focused achievable policy with a lot of muscle behind it. what he does not support, is a

war without end. and i mean that in the temporal sense and in the objective sense. a war with a temporal end, how long will we be there and why? and i think there are some critics of the president's very focused objective in afghanistan who said this supported the policy in afghanistan under the previous administration that no two people involved in it could explain. why was that number chosen as opposed to more? it was entirely unclear and i'm sure you know that because you covered it. this president has been relentlessly focused on what the mission is and in achieving it. >> and general petraeus, he said that secretary panetta overanalyzed, would you air that

view? >> yeah, it's up to you anders to analyze it. >> he's the director of the cia. >> i don't know, is it over, under annal niced. it's always worth paying attention to. the secretary of defense made some comments about a very important p policy that the president is implementing and i think it's perfectly appropriate to discuss it. but i would say as i have said in the answerst context is important to understand here, the about transferring afghanistan to the security defenses by 20134. that conversation will continue right up through may when president obama posts his fellow nato heads of state in chicago

and also that the deficit again will be over a trillion dollars this year, making president obama the only president to have tree years of trillion plus deficits, how does the president defend that. >> made possible in part by the trillion dollar deficit made possible by his pled session sorry. he came into office with the great recession. a catastrophic growth in unemployment. and made efforts to reverse that trochk situation. i saw an interesting graph about what policies contributed to the policies that we have ---the deficit that we have now and it's worth reading because there's no question that two massive unpaid tax cuts, two very unpaid for wars, expansions in titlements that were unpaid

for that happen as the president came into office are big contributors to the deficit. it is also true because of the catastrophic he wasn't talking about the deficit itself, he was talking about turning the economy around and there's no question he turned the economy around dramatically and it's now been climbing out of the hole this was dug for ten straight quarter es, 20 straight months of private job growth. the work is not done, but i think it's important to remember that the deficits that we're having to address is -- it's important to remember that in january of stwun, after president clinton left office,

there were budget surpluses for the first time in a generation, and cbo and others forecasted budget deficits for as far as the eye can see. >> what is the white house position on these new financial sanctions that were caused by the banking commission? >> i haven't seen those new sanctions. but i'm sure we will look at them and have a position for you on them. >> in general terms, is the administration worried that some of the actions on the anations that congress has taken to some extent usurped president obama's stance on world policy? >> i it's it's been made clear. and making sure that we inch meant these sanctions which were designed with a goal in mind

that we absolutely share, which is further pleasuring and isolating the iranian regime in order to get it to comply with its international obligation. we want to make sure that the implementation of those sanctions is handled in a way that does not inadvertently do any harm to our allies or to the oil markets. but we believe there's a way to implement them appropriately that achieves a goal that those sanctions have which is to further isolate and put pressure on iran. >> speaker boehner also followed the e'i think it's important that the point that you made at the end of your question is the question i was going to begin

with, is that there was extensive and careful consideration as this policy was made. the issue here is we want to make sure that women, all women have access to good health care. and the fact is on average, an american woman uses contraception for 30 years of her life with an average cost of $30 per month. so in seeking to find the appropriate balance that we believe we have found, you know, it was very important to take into consideration the need to make sure that all women had good access to health care and that's what we have done here. >> do you know whether or not this should be reconsidered? >> there's not a debate. i think as was noted initially, i said again earlier that we want to work with organizations for the next year to you're

quite aware that priests got up and read letters of protest. any indication that this type of push back would grow to a wider extent among the catholic church and what the political implications of this could be? >> this policy dwiz sided on based on the merits, a balance between religious beliefs on the one hand and the need for broad access to health care for women across the country. it is not a decision about politics and i think it's important also to note that there are a lot of folks out there who support this policy for the very reasons that we

have put it forward, which is that this provides an important preventative service for women across the country. and it is not in any way in violation of the conscience laws, it's not in any way require any individual to provide or prescribe contraception and it exempts, unlike some significantly sized states in this country, it exempts houses of worship and churches from having to abide by the policy. does the president have his own graph where he wants to see unemployment by november? well, he's not an economist and he leads predictions about what those numbers will look like to the economists. he is focused on what we can through legislative work with congress and through executive

initiative to move this economy forward, to keep it growing, to keep the recovery moving forward, making sure that it's covering jobs. and it's making process. and as we take a step back and look at this, as we will be doing this year, at the context of what has happened since president obama has been in office, and i think you will see, again, as that chaert i keep describing shows, a pretty dramatic change from the situation that the economy was in when the president took office and the direction he wants to keep that graph moving in the direction it's been in the last 10 quarters and 22 months. >> do you think the president's housing policy he made reference to that it's not the main thing to do to just let the market hit bottom and it was widely seen as

a contrast to mitt romney who said that's tough, that you have to let it hit bottom. when the president was talking in the prayer breakfast today, about the poor and shared responsibility, was there anything that milt romney had to say? i think if there's any more appropriate place than a player breakfast with people of faith to talk about how to take a care of the least among us, it's there. we individually and as a nation and as a portland need to take care of those who need it most, need help the most, and i think that was the context in which the president was speaking this morning. >> he went on to say he would be willing to give us tax breaks since he's healthy and it maks s sense but it also coincides