weekends and podcasts of our regularly scheduled programs like q&a and news makers. the c-span radio app, free at the itunes app store or blackberry app world. >> welcome back. you're listening to washington today on c-span radio. heard coast to coast on xm channel 119. we're streamed on the web and in the washington baltimore area, we're 90.1 fm wcsp. the date line is afghanistan. the reporting of the telegraph newspaper, six british soldiers believed to have been killed after an explosion hit their armored vehicle. that confirmation from the uk defense ministry today. the soldiers, they were on patrol in the helman province at the time took place last night. the military did not explain why they were unable to confirm whether the soldiers were killed f confirmed, however, it would be the biggest loss of life for british forces in the country since a plane crash back in 2006. it is wednesday which means it's

prime minister's questions. this issue coming up as well as prime minister david cameron's visit next week to washington, d.c. >> for questions to the prime minister. number one, sir. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i hope you'll permit answering questions, mr. speaker, to make the following announcement. yesterday, a warrior armored fighting vehicle near the eastern border of helman province was struck by an explosion. it is with great sadness that six soldiers are missing, believed killed. five soldiers are from the third battalion and one from the first battalion. our thoughts are with the family and friends of these brave servicemen. this will be the largest loss of life in a single incident in afghanistan since 2006. it takes the overall number of casualties that we have suffered in afghanistan to over 400. every death and every injury reminds us of that human cost

paid by our arms forces to keep our country safe. i have spoken this morning to the chief of the defense staff, chief of the general staff and commanding officer of third battalion and they each stressed the commitment of our troops to the mission and to getting the job done. but i know everyone will want a message of support and backing for our troops and their families to go out from this house today. >> here. >> this morning i had meetings with colleagues and others and i shall have further such meetings later today. >> mr. nick boles? >> thaushgs mr. chairman. may i echo the tribute to the fallen. their service and their sacrifice humbles us all. with this terrible news in mind, will my right honorable friend use his meetings next week with president obama to coordinate a prudent drawdown of allied forces in afghanistan and to insure that afghan forces get the training and equipment they need to take over? >> well, i thank my honorable

friend for his question. i think next week is an opportunity to make sure that britain and america is the two largest contributors to the mission in afghanistan are absolutely in lock step about the importance of training up the afghan army, training up the afghan police and making sure that all nato partners have a properly coordinated process for transition in that country so that the afghans can take responsibility for the secure of their own country and bring our forces home. >> mr. speaker, can i join the prime minister in expressing profound sadness at the terrible news of our six soldiers missing, feared dead. today is a day we are reminded of the on going commitment and sag fis that our service personnel make on our behalf. by putting themselves in harms way for our benefit, they demonstrate the upt most service and courage. we owe them and all of those who lost their lives in afghanistan an immense debt of gratitude.

our thoughts are with their family, friends, and colleagues at this terrible time. mr. speaker, at moments like this, does the prime minister agree with me we should restate clearly the reasons for our mission in afghanistan? a more stable self-governing afghanistan to produce more stable outcomes in that region and to insure greater safety for our citizens here at home? >> i thank the rightful gentleman for his words. he is absolutely right. our mission in afghanistan does remain vital to our national security. we're there to prevent that country from being a safe haven to al qaeda, from where they might plan attacks on the uk or our allies. our task is simple, to quit the afghan government and the forces of afghanistan with the capability and the capacity to take care of their own national security without the need for foreign troops on their soil. that is our aim. we are making progress in terms of afghan national army, it stands at 184,000 on target for

195,000 by the end of this year. the afghan national police standing at 145,000 on target for 157,000 at the end of this year. that we are making progress. this is absolutely essential for bringing our troops home. i agree with him, we need to restate clearly why we're there, why it's in our national interest and to make sure as both the commander of the battalion said to me today, his men have high morale. they know they're doing an important mission for the future of this country for the future of the world and they want our support as they go about it. >> from today's prime minister's questions and british prime minister. the fatalities of those six british soldiers now brings the death toll for british soldiers in afghanistan to 400. the story is online tonight at telegraph.co.uk. joining us with some perspective is peter foster. he is the u.s. editor and washington bureau chief for the

telegraph newspaper and the website. thanks very much for being with us. >> good evening. >> we want to talk you to not only about the death of these six soldiers but also this is an issue that more than likely will come up next week when wh british prime minister david cameron comes to washington for an official visit on tuesday and wednesday. set the agenda what we can expect. >> yeah, i think anything in afghanistan is going to go to one of the few real policy topics during the visit. there will be lots of business done in the background. but certainly, you know, it's very much ceremonial. you may remember that gordon brown, the last visit didn't go down terribly well. i think that downing street, the british prime minister is absolutely determined to get the optics of the visit right. that said, one of the few diplomatic friction points i think is over afghanistan at the moment. i think the british, there are concerns in various parts of the

british diplomatic establishment that america might be, you know, for political reasons looking to get out rather quicker than some of the british advice thinks is sense inl. and, of course, in getting out, you know, if you advertise your intentions to clear, you can expose your forces, our forces to dangers that you perhaps would rather not. and certainly in britain, you know, britain is a bit like america. they're tired of the afghan adventure some time ago. at the same time, they want to leave in an orderly fashion. >> so what can we expect in terms of the dynamics next week? there is a very close relationshipen with the u.s. and great britain. you pointed out the different type of meeting that gordon brown face wld he came to the white house meeting with a newly elected president obama. and there was the long standing friendships and relationships, fdr and winston churchill, thatcher and reagan.

tony blair and bill clinton. >> yeah. i mean, from the british press corps, you always have this side questioning about the special relationship when good in values. but of course obama writes being an asia pacific president. the world is changing. the plates are moving and obviously we look at china now for who's going to be america's co-partner as it were in the big nation of the country. so somewhere in the background there is always this sense that britain is america's great second world war and cold war partner. it's signalling that is across america and is looking the other way. so all of that said, there will be lots of -- lots of attempts to enforce the fact that this relationship is strong. i understand that the obamas were very pleased with the

reception they got in london. they got an enormous state visit from the queen and downing street is very keen to speaking to a colleague of mine in london. they're very excited that mr. cameron is now head of state and is really getting the full treatment in this as far as he could do and also british celebrities there. i think the policy aside, this is really going to be about showing the old anglo-saxon is probably strong and that if there was any thought perhaps that the obama administration is much more asia pacific and britain would be somewhat snubbed, they're behind us. of course, how much of that really correlates to reality is a different question. >> instead of a 21-gun salute, a 19 gun salute. it's not a state visit. it's an official visit. but peter foster will have all the trappings of a state dirn like vent. of course, we'll be covering it here on c-span.

as a reporter from a british perspective looking at what will happen, what are the story lines? what else are you looking for? >> well, i think -- i mean i think there will be talk of trade. europe is clearly going ton an issue. britain wants to see that we are still america's point man in europe. although clearly downing street, someone is also worried that practice deals are being done between france and germany and between america and again, you know, britain is i wouldn't say insecure but it's interesting that they're excited that it's getting the full reception which in some ways is a slight indication of the fact that britain to some degree needs

reassurance by the world. >> and we should point out you are pivoting pretty significantly coming back from ohio covering something that is very american, presidential politics and super tuesday to a state visit next week by your prime minister. >> yeah. and i recent lay rifd from china where i've been for the last three years. very much the obama administration's race with china and obama's administration focusing on the asia pacific and seemingly a chill wind from a british per inspect whaf that meant for us. so, you know, certainly -- it's certainly all changed. americans always understand the way way brits feel and trying to explain the american politics to britain is never earsy either. >> we can appreciate that. quick question since you spent time in china, what about the currency issue and concerns by the u.s. that china continues to devalue the currency hurting trade by american companies over

there? >> well, they're moving in the right direction. the chinese are not going to move their currency any faster. trade with china is going. both sides, you know, probably fighting more than they have in the past. but at the end of the day, from a chinese perspective, what the chinese are doing is exactly what the brits did and what the americans did when they were industrializing building their economy. that kind of capitalism, they're following our model and therefore the chinese with a wry smile on the more political aspects, it's note worthy that the obama administration has shyed away from targeting kin as a country. honestly, both sides can throw equal amounts of mustard at each

other. what we need to do is get the kind of working relationship that leaves trade between america and china. global trade is not a zero sum game. so that means giving the ipr situation sorted, calling on both sides in the long run is going to damage both of the america and china and the global economy. and that's not what interest is interested in. >> pooter foster, the u.s. editor washington bureau chief for the telegraph up into. the website is telegraph.co.uk. thank you very much for being with us on c-span television and c-span radio. >> thank you. >> let's turn our attention to syria. any u.s. military action against syria will come with a lot of risk. that was the warning today from leon panetta as he received along with the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, general martin dempsey before a senate panel speaking about syria's sophisticated air defenses and extensive stockpile of chemical weapons. this coming a couple days after

senator john mccain on the senate floor indicating that air strikes are necessary for humanitarian assistance in the country. joining him in supporting the issue of air strikes, his colleague from connecticut, joe lieberman. >> you hear all the time syrian armed position is we're not sure who they are. they have no single coordinating person at the top. again, i agree. but that was true in libya as well. the militias formed and were not connected and in some sense hostile to each other. you can see that playing out in some ways in libya today. but whether the international community came in, it gave strength and military assistance. it gave strength to the transitional national council there. they worked together with our assistance to bring about the change that occurred. and finally, the statement that the military intervention might not -- would not prevent civil war but could expedite it, i

know secretary clinton said shg to that effect, obviously there is a civil war going on now. and recent history shows that foreign military intervention in bosnia, kosovo and libya has actually been critical in ending civil wars in those countries and the absence of foreign military intervention in countries like wand rwanda and congo has caused them to run in extensive civil wars. the clock is running and people are being killed in great numbers every day. if we don't get the international community together in a coalition of the willing soon, we're going to look back and say we not only didn't do the right thing morally to stop innocence from being killed, we missed an extraordinary strategic opportunity to strengthen our position and the position of free people in the

middle east. i want to give you an opportunity to respond if you will without asking if you want to, without asking a specific question. >> no. senator, i guess i want to make a point that the concerns that senator mccain and you and others have expressed are exactly the concerns of the administration. we're not divided here. and we are not holding back. this administration has led in iraq, we led in afghanistan, we've led in the war on terrorism, we led in libya, and we're leading in syria. we are working with those elements to try to bring them together. if the agreement here is that we ought not to simply just go in unilaterally, then we have to build a multi-lateral coalition. we've got to be able to work at that. it's not that easy to deal with some of the concerns that are out there. but nevertheless, we are working at it. secretary clinton is working at it every day. there are diplomats that are engaged on this issue.

we are trying to engage with nato. we are trying to gain with these other countries. there are other countries that are interested in trying to provide provisions. we are working with them. we are talking with them. and we are looking at every option to try to put that in place. can it happen today? can it happen now? no. it's going to take some work, it's going to take some time. but when we do it, we'll do it right. we will not do it in a way that will make the situation worse. that's what we have to be careful of. >> well, i thank you for the statement. i'm encouraged by it. all i can do is plead with you and other nations that we're reaching out to, to move as quickly as possible. because people are dying every day. and strategic opportunities are being lost. the fact is that we have an opportunity here. and it's also a responsibility.

and i think it's critically important that we exercise it. i'd say finally that i know some people continue to hope that a way can be found for president assad to leave the country and usher in the democratic process of transformation that we've talked about. from everything i hear, everything i see, he will only do that if he thinks his life, his regime, is really in jeopardy. and right now, i think he thinks he's dominant and has the kind of momentum, physical momentum, that general dempsey spoke about today. so the sooner we put international military pressure on the assad regime, the sooner we have a chance to end this peacefully. thank you. >> independent from connecticut. a hearing before the senate arms committee questioning defense

secretary leon panetta. this is washington today on c-span radio. >> the president has reportedly narrowed his list for a new head of the world bank to replace robert zelic who steps down at the end of june. joining us is white house correspondent hans nichols of bloomberg news. >> thanks for having me. >> who is on the short list? what is the time line for the president to make an announce snment. >> the short list is larry summers and there could be other names on this list. what i know to be larry summers, susan rice and then john kerry. there are other late breaking and this afternoon kerry, his communications director e-mailed and said he's not interested in the position. so we can scratch kerry off our list. >> what kind of a process is the white house going through to vet through the names? >> well, i guess i would describe it as in three tiers, three stages. they had initial sort of okay who do we want for this? and there are names like bill gates on that.

they were thinking pretty wide and broad. unclear to me whether or not how formal the process was at that stage. but then they get a core list. and then the president wanted to expand that list. and in part because he -- there is concern that the white house that is the nominee a candidate who may not be the stronge eses candidate or may have slid through in another environment. this time it wouldn't happen because the developing countries, the emerging democracies could put up a fight against it. you kind of saw a prelude to that with the head of the imf. so what they want is they want to have someone that can be immune from a challenge from a third world wacandidate. they they started thinking of the pepsi co-chairman, simmons, president of brown university. and then without a real strong candidate emerging, yet from the

develop willing world, they're going back to that initial core list. >> you've been learning more about the world bank. what it is its mission statement? what is the objective the world bank? >> i think they want to provide -- they want to provide capital for development projects to alleviate poverty in the developing world. so, you know, those are loans. the people contribute to the bank. and sometimes they get paid back and sometimes they aren't. but there is a bridge that needs to be put on the river and they'll do feasibility studies. okay, this bridge is going to generate electricity. what are they charge are for kilowatt? so it's public financing for places where there might not be private money. and i think poverty alleviation and just general economic growth is the charge. >> and based on what you've been able to uncover over the last couple days, what do you think

the white house will make an announcement and how will they do it? >> wow, i really wish i knew the answer to that question. i wouldn't tell you on your show as much as i like it. the deadline is march 23. we have no idea how close they're going to skate to that deadline. i don't have a preferred method for how they're going get it out there. >> the reporting of hans nichols, he covers the white house. thanks very much for being with us. >> thanks, steve, appreciate it. >> this is washington today on c-span radio. >> north carolina is a key battleground state. it is a state where the democrats will hold their convention in early september and it's a state where the president was back today talking about gas and energy issues. he did so to talk about oil as the fuel of the past as gas prices continue to rise becoming a key issue in this campaign. the president again argued that using less oil is an important part of the solution. he traveled to a truck plant owned by daimler in north carolina. the president also announcing some new incentives to encourage

consumers to buy alternative energy cars calling on congress to increase and expand the current tax credit for purchasing advanced vehicles. increasing that from the current rate of 7500 to $10,000 and the president announcing a new $1 billion challenge to spur communities to invest in clean vehicle infrastructure such as charging stations. here's more from the president in north carolina earlier in the day. so we're making progress, mt. holly, but at the end of the day, it doesn't matter how much natural gas or flex fuel or electric vehicles you have, if there's no place to charge them up or fill them up. so that's why i'm announcing today a program that will put our communities on the cutting edge of what clean energy can do. to cities and towns all across the country, what we're going to say is, if you make a commitment to buy more advanced vehicles for your community, whether they run on electricity or biofuels

or natural gas, we'll help you cut through the red tape and build fueling stations nearby. and we'll offer tax breaks to family who is buy these cars, companies that buy alternative fuel trucks, like the ones that are made right here in mt. holly. so we're going to give communities across the country more of an incentive to make the shift to more energy-efficient cars. in fact, when i was up in new hampshire, in nashua, they had already converted all their dump trucks, they were in the process, because of this program, they were converting it to natural gas-driven trucks. this is something that we did in education. we called it, race to the top. we said, we'll put in more money, but we want you to reform. we're going to give you an incentive to do things in a different way.

and if we do the same thing with clean energy, we can save consumers money and we can make sure the economy is more secure. so we've got to keep investing in american-made energy, and we've got to keep investing in the vehicles that run on it. that's where our future is. and in order to continue this the progress, we're going to have to make a choice. we've got to decide where our priorities are as a country. and that's up to all of you. and i'll give you an example. right now, $4 billion of your tax dollars goes straight to the oil industry, every year. $4 billion in subsidies that other companies don't get. now, keep in mind, these are some of the same companies that are making record profits every time you fill up where are gas tank. we're giving them extra billions of dollars on top of near-record profits that they're already making. anybody think that's a good

idea? >> no! >> me neither. it doesn't make any sense. the american people have subsidized the oil industries long enough. they don't need the subsidies. it's time to end that and invest in clean energy, that's never been more promising. soy called on congress, eliminate these subsidies right away. there's no excuse to wait any longer. and we should put every member of congress on record. they can stand up for the oil companies or they can stand up for the american people and this new energy future. we can place our bets on the fuel of the past or we can place our bets on american know-how and american ingenuity, and american workers like the ones here at daimler. that's the choice we face. that's what's at stake right now.

>> the president in mt. holly, north carolina, as he talk about energy issues and saying that country needs an all of the above approach. of course, he's getting criticism from newt gingrich who says he can bring gas prices down to $2.50 a gallon as well as other republican candidates. one side note, a university poll showing that 48% of north carolina voters disapprove of the way the president is handling the job. 45% approve. the president winning north carolina narrowly in 2008. it is a battleground state in 2012. well this is one of those side notes. we thought you might be interested in. the hill newspaper reporting on some video that recently unearthed from an event back in 1991. the speaker, barack obama. he traveled to harvard university to talk about a prominent harvard professor derek bell who was protesting the issue of diversity or the lack of diversity at harvard university. professor bell was the first black tenured harvard law school

professor. he garnered attention for his fight against the university's hiring practices. he gave up his professorship in 1992 in protest. the civil rights advocate pass add way in october of 2011. so from 1991, in case you're interested, a much younger, without the gray hair, barack obama wearing khaki pants and a sweater speaking to students at harvard university. >> i remember that the black law xunts had organized an orientation for the first year students. and one of the persons who spoke at that orientation was professor bell. i remember him coming to the front and not giving us a lecture but engaging us in a conversation. and speaking the truth and telling us that he has to learn at this place that i carried with me ever since. now how did this one man do all this? how has he accomplished all

this? he hasn't done it simply by his good looks and easy charm. although he has both in the aforementioned. he hasn't done it simply because of the excellence of his scholarship. although his scholarship opened up new horizons and changed the standards. >> president obama back in 1991 as barack obama, citizen activist. he is a graduate of harvard law school, served as the editor of harvard law review in the 1980s. he returned to harvard in 1991 to protest the hiring practices by harvard university. if you want to read more on this story, go to wgbh in boston and read the story online at thehill.com." we continue the conversation here on c-span