it could be much worse. if you have this kind of situation, you are destabilizing of course all of the. the other aspect is that just suggests speaking of attacks, it is putting the taliban in a very good situation because they can say okay we are fighting for the afghan nation and don't make the mistake. maybe they have been -- but they love their country. and explaining that okay we are going to organize a partition of

afghanistan, it is the perfect thing for the taliban. it is absolutely, i mean in and i do not suggest that ambassador black what is -- by the taliban but it is perfect. let's go on like that and the only representative of the afghan national would be the taliban. >> we at the question here and that i have four questions and we are going to end with ambassador pickering. may i suggest if we could move thickly through the questions? >> i am an american citizen who was born in india and i would like to address this comment and question to our friend from pakistan. i don't know whether -- he is not obviously representing the pakistani government but i do want to defend you against that comments that came that pakistanis and in the business of terrorism. if pakistan has been thanks to the united united states, whichy got introduced to the cia during

the soviet presidency in afghanistan so if pakistan had to enter the terrorism business thanks to cia, which was terrorism business and continues to be in state terrorism business even to this day. so you are no different. the question on this table should be what the united states should do in the near future, and to me it seems the united states should not have gone in in afghanistan. i was opposed to it when mr. bush made that move. i thought that was a pretty dumb move and since then, after he has gotten us tangled into afghanistan and even our democratic resident mr. obama has gotten into it and it is a shame that he has. it is time for the united states to withdraw and let all the ethnic cleansing that should take place in afghanistan after

u.s. moves as this gentleman has pointed out, let afghanistan achieved its equilibrium among its own different ethnic groups and hopefully, and hopefully pakistan and india will not interfere in that process. therefore, afghanistan will survive. .. >> last night's news indicated that there was a tree with a

warlord. for a million dollars, they will not grow poppies. what do you think of this method of controlling drugs and afghanistan and eliminating it? they are willing to do so. >> i think it's a start. because at least, you know, as long as the >> i think it is a start. s the money doesn't go to the taliban. i think basically what i suggested we followed was alternative crops which are brought up. which are brought over. so that the farmers knows whatever he's going to produce is going to be brought over. that would be a better way of going about it. at the same time, i think at least it's a start. at least you are not growing poppy and the poppy is not going to laboratories. one of the things that occurs to

me, you know, all of these players which are there in kabul today, they all have houses and links in dubai. and they all want money in dubai. they don't want to stick around and wait for the taliban to take over the country. they are going to take off. not the same north lands that we knew in the massuod. >> i don't know the deal. so i comment marginally. we put the taliban in a difficult place from our states

-- i mean the individuals from businessmen in pakistan and the international works and international aid which is the main source of money. so opium is not that ridiculous. and if it's not a very expensive insurgency that people are fighting for resolution. and arms are everywhere. so that's the first thing. maybe it's going to work, maybe not. but it's not going to affect the long term strategic perspective. the second is that we should be careful about local solution for drugs, you know. it never worked. it's structural. why? because you have a great project and i think the british were

mentioning that sort of thing in the 1890s. you have a great project in one aspect. you are buying the drugs or doing whatever. so it's working. you have a great report. and at the same time, the people are moving. i mean just the opportunity of the respect. so local solution up, never, never worked in afghanistan. the example -- in north banshi. you have that everywhere. member the family was trying to make a deal with the american ambassador in istanbul at that time just to buy a solution. so, no, it's not going to do anything. if it's a local man, going out

to expand the poor. expect that is not going to change the system. >> you have a brief comment? >> i think it was a lot faster. i have to disagree about the local solution. i think in afghanistan, what you'd have to do, you'd have to have local solution into trying with each other. because it's such a diverse tribal society, you would have to have local solutions. i think that's a start. i think you'll have to try matters like that. and if you look at it, there are local -- there are local local solutions in place or when it was massoud. that was how they managed to control the thing by having

solutions. i think arguably, that's what they have tried if nothing else. >> okay. good question here. >> please wait for the microphone. >> i have a quick question for mr. sehgal and shuja. you both talked about india's. diplomacy on p5, but not pakistan. i was just curious as we look at 2011. >> would you like to go first? >> i think basically, i'm one of those who admires what india has done. i think what one would like to do is indian, you know, take on the responsibility of the power in that area; right? and each out to his neighbors; right? and not repeat, you know, -- or

belabor or beat box where this thing is at. i think pakistan definitely realized there is need to engage with india. i think pakistan is looking forward to that. i think every time something comes up, the leadership has taken on. i think perhaps india and diplomacy there has been lacking. india diplomacy has not shown the maturity. if you remember, i talked about china. china has a lot of problems. you know, et cetera, et cetera, it is an active order problem. but yet it came. and obviously here's the stories about the united states, you know, propping up india for china. yet it moved to establish those economic links between the

limited transfer. i think that is what we expect from india. if india engages with us. i want to feel that, you know, an agreement or it's not going to be possible in two or three lifetimes. but i think an arrangement is possible. you know, as opposed to an agreement. i think if we have been an arrangement, individuals heading in the direction, i think that goes along with what we said. >> i'll just respond by saying the answer is in economics. i think pakistan has a shrinking economic buy and india has a growing economic buy. pakistan doesn't have an economic approach. there's a divide between the civilians and military. the best and only way that's currently available is trade with india. there's some resistance among

the establishment which is the code word in pakistan for the military to this approach. but there is now growing support among civil society on both sides of the border. the question now is how quickly they can move on. 2010 was a year of missed opportunities. i think the fact this matter was left to the mandarins in the foreign office in both india and pakistan meant that it was going to die a slow death. there needs to be an effort at the highest level. in pakistan's case, it means the military. very much so the way they have been in dialogue with the united states. once that starts happening, there have been responsibilities. >> once the last -- i think we are maybe running short of time. if i don't mind, i'll give you a

couple of seconds for winding up. two more questions please. >> you mentioned three or four times negotiating the scenario. you mentioned a little bit more lipically than you you'ded, -- than you'd like, the taliban will be back in charge. what will help karzai and the others. you mentioned you got 37,000 troops in north war -- waziristan, what are you going to do about it? absolutely nothing. or make a deal, or drive them back into afghanistan? what are your choices? what direction do you go? >> okay. very quickly under the

negotiation, i want to move the microphone towards you, thanks. >> i think two questions that shouldn't be exonerated. the political and social forces. if you just consider the political forces, you have the taliban and not much else. when i say social forces, it means so-called society, and the shiite and such. also businessman or so. i mean kind of political deals. maybe a new constitution. but it should be between afghans with outer in the outside as it goes between. it's the 2001 process again.

with the taliban. we should let them do most of the job. and behind when you have to push it forward, you went further to the negotiation at the end of the process. and there's the second that's quite different. the international security which where you work in india, you work the united states, and in the country, and everybody is in charge and it's clear they should be also out of the process. where? we say we can spend the reason if they should be asked and clearly, the afghan government is not going to stop us.

because it's a right, it's the united nations. and it's the corrective difference. and in this kind of agreement, you can say, okay, some troops could be in afghanistan on that spot of the negotiation. and also you have to go in details. is there a schedule? if there is, what are we going to do? you need a commission to do that, and so on and so on. so i think this is -- this kind of negotiation is unique. and so it's two different things. of course, it's impossible to to do just one. you have to do both. you have to be distinguished. two different tables. same people are not invited in two different ones. >> i believe we should not have gone in 2003 and into waziristan without adequate forces. without adequate forces, we will come -- we don't have such

agreements. we are responding to every attack. we have to have the adequate forces, and we have to have the adequate government. that includes a lot. because we have the mobility, we can deal with the problem. but you cannot have these treaties within the iran borders with people like this. this is absolutely asking for trouble. >> we could just extend to the last question at the back because i don't want to disappoint the gentleman. >> media, has the media coverage about what has been happening economically in south asia been sufficient and mostly accurate. is there anything more any of you think should have been gotten more attention than it has particularly in the united states? >> let me see if i can respond

quickly to that, trying to wrap it up too at same time. i think the media attention on india has been quite adequate and extremely well represented in the sense of recognizing the changes that have occurred on the landscape in india and globally. the attention on pakistan's economy has been much less than it should have been. and this, i think, has taken the emphasis away from the economy and it's affects on politics in pakistan to the military aspects of the relationship between the u.s. and pakistan, particularly focused on the western bordered. i think that has created a kind of distortion. and when elections take place inside pakistan, people vote on economic issues. the way they vote on economic issues in the united states. and so, i think there is a risk if the media doesn't recognize the importance of economics in the region as much as they ought

to. >> with that i'm wonder if you would like to sum up your view of 2011 in a sentence of two? what you expect? >> two sentences? >> yes. >> okay. so i think 2011 is -- i mean the center of 2011 would be in the key moment for the reassessment of the strategy in the afghanistan. if nothing is done at this point, 2011, if we wait, it will be impossible if we wait because it will be underground. >> thank you. how do you see 2011?

>> i think -- i think 2011 in the sense that i think if we are more responsible, mature policy from india and pakistan's engagement in india will help us becoming more and dealing with the iran situation. at the moment we seem to lock over our back. the second thing that we must -- and i think we are already on the way to having -- dealing with the insurgency to an extent. we still have something left. we need to have a force to deal with the problem in pakistan. shuja talked about it. the terrorists and affiliates throughout the country scare me far more than the president. the pakistan army cannot leave it. it has to be a separate force dedicated. >> thank you.

>> i think that's a good point to segue into my last comments. which is just today the gallop international released it's poll on what they call the global barometer on net hope. looking at our region, it's very interesting. they don't see pakistan very favorable this year. in 2011, 13% of pakistanis only see 2011 as a likely of the property -- prosperity. much larger, giving it a negative score of minus 31% of net hope. afghanistan on the net hope score of plus 21%, in iraq plus 17%. and in india, there's a net hope of plus 24%. in previous years, it's interesting to note that india scored lower than pakistan on

these measures. and even though the per capita income is fairly close in the two countries. in india it's $3,067, in india, $2010. not a great way in which to end this discussion. but i have to remind you that secretary of state george schultz once said hope is not a policy. we have to wait for the policymakers coming up with practical solutions to the problems. i thank you all for coming. i want to thank you for

>> the census bureau director is on "washington journal" they look at the economic forecast with an economist of the international council of shopping centers. "washington journal" begins live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> is a three-day holiday weekend on the book-tv. the latest non-affection titles and authors including jimmy carter and others. james smiley on the man who changed of the world, though few

have heard of him. the man who invented the computer. find the holiday schedule at book-tv.org. the cspan networks, we provide coverage of politics, public affairs, nonfiction books, and american history all available on television, radio, online, and on social media networking sites and find our confect -- content any time through the cspan video library. we take cspan on the road with our local content of vehicles bringing our resources to your community. it is washington your way, cspan available in more than 1 million homes. >> at the year and white house news conference yesterday, president obama said his biggest disappointment of the lame-duck session was the failure to pass the dream act the immigration bill. he said congress had not passed the tax cuts and unemployment

bill, the u.s. economy would probably have begun to contract next year. this news conference came before congress adjourned for the year. this is 35 minutes. >> i know everybody is itching to get out of here for the holidays. i want to say a few words about the progress we have made on some important issues over these last few weeks. a lot of folks in this town predicted that after the midterm elections washington would be headed for more partisanship and more gridlock. instead, this has been a season of progress for the american people. that progress is reflected -- is a reflection of the message the voters sent in november, a message that said it is time to

find common ground on challenges facing our country. that is a message that i will take to heart in the new year. i hope might democratic and republican friends will do the same period first of all, i am glad the democrats and republicans came together to approve the top national security program, the new start treaty. this is the most significant arms control agreement in nearly two decades and will make us safer and reduce our nuclear arsenal along with russia. with this treaty, our inspectors will also be back on the ground at russian nuclear bases. we will be able to trust and verify. we will continue to advance and our relationship with russia. we will enforce strong sanctions on iraq and prevent nuclear weapons from falling into the hands of terrorists. this treaty will enhance our leadership to stop the spread of

nuclear weapons and seek a piece of a world without them. a strong bipartisan vote in the senate sends a powerful signal to the world that republicans and democrats stand together on behalf of our security. i especially want to thank the outstanding work done by vice president joe biden, the chairman of the foreign relations committee, senator john kerry, and the ranking republican senator richard lugar for their extraordinary efforts. i just got off the phone with dick lugar and reminded him that the first trip i ever took as center, the first foreign trip was with dick lugar to russia to look at nuclear facilities there. i told him how much i appreciate the work he had done and there was a direct line between that trip we took together when i was a first-year senator and the result of the vote today on the floor. this allstate to a tradition of bipartisan support for strong american leadership around the

world which is a tradition that was reinforced by the fact that the new start treaty won the backing of our military and our allies abroad. in the last few weeks, we also came together across party lines to pass a package of tax cuts in unemployment insurance that will spur jobs, and growth. this package includes a payroll tax cut that means nearly every american family would get an average tax cut next year of about $1,000 delivered in their paychecks. it will make a difference for millions of students, parents, and workers and people still looking for work. it has led economists across the political spectrum to predict the economy will grow faster than they originally thought next year. in our ongoing struggle to perfect our union, we also overturned a 17-year-old law and a long standing injustice by finally ending "don't ask,

don't tell. this is the right thing to do. we can across party lines to pass a food safety bill. i hope the house will soon join the senate in passing a 9/11 health bill that will help cover the health care costs of police officers, firefighters, rescue workers, and residents who in held toxic air near the world trade center on that terrible morning and the days that followed. i think it is fair to say that this has been the most productive post-election period we have had in decades and it comes on the heels of the most productive two years we have had in generations. that does not mean that our business is finished. i am very disappointed congress was not able to pass the dream act so we can stop punishing kids for the acts of their parents and allow them to serve in the military and contrary to their talents into the country they grew up in. i am disappointed we could not

come together around a budget to fund our government over the long term but i expect we'll have a robust debate about this when we return from the holidays. it will a debate that will have to enter an increasingly urgent question -- how we cut spending that we don't need while still making investments that we do need. investment in education, research and development, innovation, and the things that are essential to grow our economy over the long run, create jobs, and compete with every other nation and the world. i look forward to hearing from folks on both sides of the aisle about how we can accomplish that goal. if there is any lesson to draw from these past few weeks, it is that we are not doomed to endless gridlock. we have shown in the wake of the november elections that we have the capacity not only to make progress but to make progress together. i am. naive. i know there will be tough fights ahead.

we can continue to heed the message of the american people and hold to a spirit of common purpose in 2011 and beyond. if we do that, i am convinced we will lift up our middle-class, rebuild our economy, and we will make our contribution to america's greatness. finally, before i take questions, i want to send a message to all those americans who are spending christmas serving our nation in harm's way. as i said in afghanistan earlier this month, the american people stand united in our support and admiration for you. in this holiday season, i would ask the american people to keep our troops in your prayers and land and to those military families who have an empty seat at the table. with that, i will take some questions. >> thank you, mr. president. you racked up a lot of wins the

last few weeks that many people thought would be difficult to come by. are you ready to call yourself the comeback kid? as you look 290 -- as you look to 2011, will bipartisan agreement be harder to reach on tax reform and other issues? >> as i said after the midterm elections, we took a shellacking. i take responsibility for that. but, i think what has happened over the last several weeks is not a victory for me, it is a victory for the american people. the lesson i hope that everybody takes from this is that it is possible for democrats and republicans to have principle the disagreements, to have lent -- like the arguments, but ultimately to find common ground to move the country forward. that is what we did with taxes. those arguments have not gone

away. i still believe that it does not make sense for us to provide tax cuts to people like myself who don't need them when our deficit and debt are growing breed that is a debate that will continue into 2011 and i know republicans feel just as strongly on the other side of that. i think we will still have disagreement in terms of spending priorities. it is vital for us to make investments in education and research and development. all the things that create an innovative economy while at the same time cutting those programs that just are not working very there will be debates between the parties on those issues. what we have shown is that we don't have to agree 100% to get things done that enhance the lives of families across america. if we can sustain that spirit and regardless how the politics

play out in 2012, the american people will be better for it and that is my ultimate goal. >> merry christmas. i have a couple of questions about "don't ask, don't tell." first of all, congratulations. what was your conversation like with the marine commandant when he expressed his concerns yet he said he would abide by whatever the ruling was. can you understand why he had the position he did? on the other hand, is it intellectually consistent to say that gay and lesbians should be able to fight and die for these countr -- this country but they should not be able to marry? >> i don't want to go into detail about conversations in the oval office with my service chiefs. jim amos expressed the same

concerns to me privately that he expressed publicly. he said there could be destruction because of the consequence of this. what i said to him was that i was confident looking at the history of the military with respect to racial integration and the inclusion of women in our armed forces that that could be managed and that was confirmed by the attitudinal studies that were done prior to this vote. what he assured me of and what all the service chiefs have assured me of is that regardless of their concerns about disruptions, they were confident they could implement this policy without it's affecting our military cohesion and good discipline and ready ness. i take them at their word and i have spoken to them since the

first -- the vote took place and they have all said that we will implement this smartly and swiftly and they are confident that it will not have an effect on our military effectiveness. i am very heartened by that. i want to give bob gates and admiral mullen enormous credits for having guided this process through in a way that preserves our primary responsibility to keep america safe at the same time allows us to live up to our values. with respect to the issue of whether gays and lesbians should be able to get married, i have spoken about this recently. as i have said to my feelings about this are constantly evolving. i struggle with this. i have friends and people who work for me who are in powerful and strong, long-lasting gay or lesbian unions.

they are extraordinary people. this is something that means a lot to them and they care deeply about. at this point, i have said that my baseline is a strong civil union that provides them the protections and the millerites that married -- and the legal rights that married couples have and that is the right thing to do. i recognize that it is not enough from their perspective and this is something we will continue to debate and i will personally continue wrestling with this going forward. as i said, this will be an issue that is not unique to the military. this is an issue that extends to all of our society. i think we will all have to have a conversation about this. >> happy holidays. can you give us an update as to

where it is today? what kind of highway will it be driving on in 2011? who will be behind the wheel given the new makeup in congress and what do you think republicans will be saying next year? [laughter] >> you give some thought to that question, didn't you? i think the car is on level ground for the car is the economy. i think we're past the crisis point in the economy but we now have to pay debt and focus on jobs and growth. my single focus over the next two years is not rescuing the economy from potential disaster but rather, it jump starting the economy so that we actually start making a dent in the unemployment rate and we are

equipping ourselves so that we can compete in the 21st century. that means we have to focus on education and research and development and innovation. we have to make sure that, in every sector from manufacturing to clean energy to high-tech, to buy -- to biotech, that we recognize the private sector will be the driving force and what the government can do is make sure we are a good partner and we are a facilitator and in some cases we are a catalyst when it is a fledgling industry. look atns we've got to some of our old dogmas and we need to think about what works. if there are regulations that are in place that are competing regulation, let's get rid of those regulations. also make sure that we are protecting consumers and protecting the environment and

protecting workers in the process. let's find ways to do business that helps business. people were doubtful about the approach we took to the auto industry. that was an example where there may be occasions during a crisis for a timely intervention that is limited and restricted can end up making a difference. i think democrats, republicans, house, senate, the white house, all of us have to be in a conversation with the private sector about what will insure that we can export and sell our products instead of buying exports from somewhere else. how can we make sure that green technology of the future is made in america? how do we get all of these profits the companies have been making since the economy recovered into productive investment and hiring? that is a conversation i had

eo's who 20 c.l.' who came here. the american people are driving the car. they are the ones who will be making an assessment as to whether we are putting in place policies that are working for them. both parties will be held accountable and i will be held accountable if we take a wrong turn on that front. [laughter] you know, my sense is the republicans recognize that with greater power will come greater responsibility. some of the progress and i think we saw in the lame-duck session was a recognition on their part that people will be paying attention to what they are doing as well as what i am doing and what the democrats in congress are doing. >> can you? blend the anger and outrage --

can you explain the anger and out rage on the extended tax cuts for the wealthy and middle- class tax is that a device that you may be contributing to when you end up vice-president talk about morley inappropriate tax cuts to the wealthy? >> look, the frustration that people felt about that was frustration i shared. i have said that before. i will probably say it again. i don't think that, over the long run, we can afford a series of tax breaks for people who are doing very well and don't need it. but they were doing well when bill clinton was in office. they were still read to them. they will still be rich if those

tax cuts went away. this will be a debate we will have over the next couple of years because, i guarantee you, as soon as the new congress is sworn in, we will have to have a conversation about how we start balancing our budget or get to a point that is sustainable when it comes to our deficit and debt. that will require us cutting programs that don't work, but it also requires us to be honest about paying for the things we think are important. if we think it is important to make sure that our veterans are getting the care they need when they come back home from fighting in afghanistan or iraq, we can't just salute and wish them well and have a veterans day parade. we have to make sure there are doctors and nurses and facilities for post-traumatic

stress disorder and that costs money. if we say that education will be the single most important determinant for our children's success in this country, success in the 21st century, we can't have schools that are laying off so many teachers that they start going to four days per week as they have done in hawaii, for example. we have to make sure that young people can afford to go to college. if we want to keep our competitive edge in innovation, we have to invest in basic research, the same basic research that resulted in the internet, the same basic research that resulted in gps. all those things originated in research funded by the government. we are going to have to compare the option of maintaining the tax cuts for the wealthy permanently vs spending on these

things we think are important and that is a debate that i welcome but i completely understand, not just democrats but some republicans, might think that that part of the tax package, we could have done without. having said that, i want to repeat -- compromise, by definition, means taking some things you don't like and the overall package was the right one to insure that this economy has the best possible chance to grow and create jobs. there is no better anti-poverty program than an economy that is growing. there is no better deficit- reduction program than an economy that is growing. the economy would have started contracting and then the choices would have been tougher. >> is there a divide between the

middle class and most americans? >> middle-class folks would confirm what the statistics say is that they have not seen a role in cress -- increase in their incomes in a decade while their costs have skyrocketed. that is just a fact. was also a fact is that people in the top 1%, people and the top 1/10 of 1% have a larger share of income and wealth that any time since the 1920's. those are just facts. that is not a feeling on the part of democrats. those are facts. something that has always been the greatest strength of america is a thriving, booming middle- class. where everybody has a shot at the american dream and that should be our goal. that should be what we are

focused on. how are we creating opportunity for everybody? so that we celebrate wealth, we celebrate somebody like steve jobs who has created two or three different revolutionary product really expect that person to be rich and that is a good thing. we want that incentive. that is part of the free market and we want to make sure that those of us who have been extraordinarily fortunate, that we are contributing to the larger american community so that a whole bunch of other kids coming up are doing well and that means schools that work, infrastructure like roads and airports that function, it means colleges and universities that teacher and aren't restricted to just people who can afford it but are open to anybody with talent and a willingness to work.

that will be part of the conversation we have to have over the next couple of years. >> feliz navidad. you have been able to fulfill many of your promises but immigration reform is not one of them. the dream act failed. how are you going to keep your promise when republicans controlled the house when you have an been able to do so with democrats controlling the house and republicans want to focus on border security before the focus and immigration? >> let me say that there are a number of things that i want to get a compass that we did not get accomplished. for example, collective bargaining for firefighters and public safety workers was something i thought was important. we did not get it done and i am disappointed in that. i think we will still have to figure out how we will work on

energy. that is an area that i want to immediately engage with the republicans to figure out. i will tell you that maybe my biggest disappointment was this a dream act of votes. . i get letters from kids all across the country who came here when they were five, came here theirhere were eight, parents were on documented and the kids did not know. the kids are going to school like any other american kids, growing up, playing football, they are going to class, they are dreaming about college, and suddenly, they reach 18 or 19 years old and they realize that even though i feel american, i am an american, the law does not

recognize me as an american. i am willing to serve my country and fight for this country, i want to go to college and better myself, and i am at risk for deportation. it is heartbreaking. that can't be who we are. , to have our kids, classmates of our children who are suddenly under this shadow of fear through no fault of their own. they did not break a lot. they were kids. my hope and expectation is that, first of all, everybody understands that i am determined of this administration is determined to get immigration reform done, it

is the right thing to do. i think it involves securing our borders and my administration has done more on border security than any administration in recent years. we have more of everything i,ce, border patrol, surveillance, you name it. we take border security seriously. we take a going after employers for exploiting and using undocumented workers, we take that seriously. but, we need to reform this immigration system so we are a nation of laws and immigrants. at minimum, we should be able to get the dream act done. i will go back at it. i will engage republicans who, i think some of them, know in their heart of hearts is the

right thing to do but they think the politics comes first. that may mean we have to change the policy. others have to spend time talking to the american people because i think of the american people knew any of these kids, they probably do, they may not know their status, they would say, of course we want you. that is who we are. that is the better angels of our nature. one thing i hope people have seen during this lame-duck session is that i am persistent. i am persistence. if i believe in something strongly, i stay on it. i believe strongly in this. i am happy to engage with the republicans if they have ideas on border security, i am happy

to have that conversation. i think it is absolutely appropriate for the american people to expect that we don't have porous borders and people can come in here any time. that is legitimate. i also think about those kids. i want to do right by them. i think the country is going to want to do right by them, as well. >> merry christmas. guantanamo, sir. i understand the draft of an executive order is being prepared but i don't expect you to comment on it. it makes me wonder where you are on the two-year mark on guantanamo and closing it was one of your initial priorities. >> obviously, we have not gotten a biit closed.

the reason for closing it was because the number one priority is keeping the american people safe. one of the most powerful tools is not providing health jihadi sts tools for fledgling terrorists and guantanamo is probably the number-one recruitment tool that is used by these organizations. we see it in the website debate put up. we see it in the messages they deliver. i believe -- my belief is that we can keep the american people say and go after those who would engage in terrorism, and my administration has been as aggressive in going after al- qaida as administration out there. we have seen progress, as i have noted during the afghan review.

every intelligence report we see shows al-qaida is more hunkered down than they have been since the original invasion of afghanistan in 2001. they have reduced financing combatants -- capacity and operational capacity. it is much more difficult for their top folks to communicate and many of those top folks cannot communicate because they are on the ground now. but it is important for us even as we go aggressively after the bad guys to make sure that we are also living up to our values and ideals and principles and that is what closing guantanamo is about. it is not because i think the people who are running guantanamo are doing a bad job. it is rather because we can do just as good of a job housing them somewhere else. the issue you had about the review -- you are right, i want,

right now under review i have not received yet. i can tell you that over the last two years despite not having closed at guantanamo, we have been trying to put our battle against terrorists within a legal structure that is consistent with their history of rule old law and we have exceeded on a number of fronts. one of the toughest problems is what to do with people that we know are dangerous, that we know have engaged in terrorist activities, are proclaimed enemies of the united states but because of the manner in which they were originally captured, circumstances after 9/11 in which they were interrogated, it becomes difficult to try them whether in an article 3 court or in military commission. releasing them at this stage

could potentially create greater danger for the american people. how we manage that? -- how do we manage that? that is what this team has been looking at. can we make sure that these folks have lawyers and the opportunity to challenge their detention? at the same time, we have to make sure that we are thus not simply releasing folks that can do is grievous harm and have shown a capacity and willingness to engage in brutal attacks. when i get that report, i am sure that i will have more comments on it. the bottom line is that striking this balance between our security and making sure that we are consistent with our values and our constitution is not an easy test but ultimately, that is what is required for practical reasons.

the more people are reminded of what makes america special is the fact that we stand for something beyond just our economic power or military might. we have these core ideals that we observe even when it is hard for that is one of our most powerful weapons. i want to make sure that we don't lose that weapon in what is a serious struggle. with that, everybody, want to wish you all a merry christmas, happy holidays, have a. new year see you in 2011. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> this weekend, we visit the museum of the confederacy in richmond, virginia and find that many of the christmas traditions of today began during the civil

war. also from the nixon presidential library oral history project, astronaut frank borman and the early space program. reveals the politics, controversies and the controversy of the former first lady. see that complete schedules online. you can have our schedulese emaild to you. >> it should not take a constitutional crisis, a terrorist attack, or a financial calamity to summon from each of us and each of us collectively, that which we are capable nor can america afford to wait them the search for farewell speeches and hear from retiring senators on the cspan video library with every cspan program since 1987. more than 160,000 hours on