brad sherman will take your calls about u.s. strategy in afghanistan and pakistan in the aftermath of the killing of some of bin laden. we will focus on the future of guantanamo bay with a new york times' national security correspondent. "washington journal" is next. host: debate continues in the halls of congress and the papers this morning about a strategy in afghanistan and pakistan in the wake of the death of osama bin laden. congress is also moving on to domestic issues with the debates over spending and deficit, and "the washington post" reports that the gang of six senators are working on a bipartisan compromise, that the group will not reveal a deal this week but have not given up hope.

white house spokesman jay carney said that a question the doese house is weighing h is the release of osama bin laden's photographs hurt or harm our interests. "usa today's" headline on this -- some are concerned that the images are too gruesome to share. "know when he was saying it is clamoring to see them, and those who are not st. will not believe the photos anyway -- no one who is sane is clamoring to see them, and those who are now at not believeane will

them anyway." other newspapers have the story as well. inside "the wall street journal," they have this headline. "the white house is grappling with whether to release a gruesome photographs of osama bin laden, weighing the benefit of proving his debt with the possibility the image could kindle an anti-american backlash. the government said it also has photographs of the bin laden's body being buried at sea, as well as photos of his body taken after the writ." a companion story in "the wall street journal" says the conspiracy theories are starting to spend in the middle east. taliban movement

tuesday night challenge president barack obama's account, saying, 'the americans have not shown any credible evidence of sheikh osama's death. the reluctance of many people in the middle east to believe the account must be seen in the context of pervasive anti- american sentiment. about in aso much lot 10 as it is about and the u.s. -- is not so much about been locked in as it is about the u.s.'" we would go to -- we will go to debra in texas.

should they release the photos? caller: no, it has no value. anyone -- host: are you there? we are listening. sorry about that. caller: i didn't see michael jackson's dead body, but it took over the news more than bin laden. members of the committees could do the tape if they want to. i don't want to see bin laden's dead body as a profile on facebook for my 15-year-old niece. we will see a movie about this in a few years. host: montclair, virginia, you are a democrat. what you think? caller: i think we should show the photos.

with saddam hussain, they executed him, and those photos were released, the photos of his sons were released. the value of the visual. how osama claimed to have been killed limultiple times, but would never actually heard any of those reports. conspiracy theory people -- the photo would cure all. host: what about concerns of an anti-american backlash, or that the pictures are too gruesome? caller: if the pictures are too gruesome, that is obviously an issue for got as far as anti- american backlash, killing him alone is going to fuel that.

showing a photo that is not horrific, and for me, anyway, is not a problem. host: representative peter king has received briefings of his sound and he was part of our briefing yesterday -- -- he is part of a briefing yesterday of house members. here is what he had to say about the possible release of a cp hoto. >> i don't want a conspiracy theory developing that suddenly he is walking through singapore something. the media is bad enough. imagine what they do on the internet. there is no doubt that we got him, and let's not have conspiracy theories developed. from what i've heard about the pictures, they will not scare people off, they are not

offensive. host: joke, new orleans. -- joe, new orleans. caller: i spent years in the military and years and intelligence. the media is like a bunch of sharks in of the water. nothing will satisfy them, especially when it comes down to this president. it is a shame that this country is down to the needs of stupidity that they are not willing to accept what his actual fact. if bin laden was there, he is dead. if not, why didn't they send somebody like rush limbaugh or some way from fox news to see for themselves? this has to do it with hatred of the president. if we could really come to a conclusion, go back and look at george bush's record.

all they have to to it is go on and check the reports. as long as he is barack obama and a black man, this is not going to ever change. those photographs should not be released because it makes no sense. host: let me ask you about a military background. what about your experience makes you believe they should not release the photos? are you there? i think we lost him. billy joe is a republican in pennsylvania. your thoughts? caller: yes? host: you are on the air. caller: yes, i am. host: keith, democrat in washington, d.c. caller: i believe the photos should not released. they have shown enough that he is dead, and the people believe

he is alive, maybe bin laden should make a video again to prove that he is alive. i think we have proof enough that he is dead, and we should not release the photos. host: tennessee. richard is an independent. caller: months, maybe years ago -- this is just a big hoax to get obama reelected. host: what evidence do you have that he died years ago? caller: i just figured he had kidney problems and there was no way to get the ali whe -- dialysis when he was in the mountains. host: where did you hear he had kidney problems? caller: it was on c-span, cnn. host: word you remember hearing that -- when did you remember

hearing that? caller: 2002, 2003. host: do you think that is reliable evidence? caller: and they talked about. -- they talked about it. that is the reason i want to see pictures. host: who is "they"? caller: reporters on the different networks. well, abc, nbc, cnn did not talked a lot about it. you all talked about it. fox, i think, did. there was another couple stations i listened to. i don't know. host: here is "the washington post" this morning with the headline. "panetta says it photographs will probably be released. the cia director said tuesday evening that he feels the obama administration will ultimately released to the public the progress of osama bin laden taken after the al qaeda leader

was killed by u.s. forces at the compound in pakistan, but at the white house the final decision. panetta made the remarks to reporters after he left eight briefing in the capitol visitor center during which he and other administration officials briefed the senators on the mission. the white house has said it has not made a decision on whether to release the photographs to the public. senate foreign relations committee chairman john kerry said that he felt any debate over releasing the photos was premature. 'i don't think we need to make that judgment yet, frankly,' kerry said. rep. buck mckeon said that the west should probably not release the photos." here is what senator dianne

feinstein had to say about it. >> for purposes of 100% identification, there is value in doing so. that would be the only reason. >> what are your concerns about the release? to doust don't see a need it. been dispositive. people may still doubt that. there may because but i don't know -- there may because, i don't know, to release the period, which i understand may be graphic. host: should the white house released a photo of bin laden? caller: yes, of course, it is a credit to the slaughter is to let them see the mission they have been -- a credit to the soldiers to let them see the mission they been fighting for. host: houston, texas, independent.

you are next. caller: i think, yes, he should go ahead and release the photos. apparently they had cleaned the body up. it is not that gruesome. it is just a shot on his body, a shot in his eye, i guess. after cleaning the body out, they should have just gone ahead and release of the pictures. i halike obama, seriously, but i had high hopes. by now he is having to prove themselves because there are so many, i guess, questionable things that is going on with them and how he releases a lot of information. seeing on both sides, i can understand, you know, the public's way of doinviewing.

it is not looking good for him. i think he did this for the reelection, and i guess to take a public's due out of his birth certificate. i don't even believe it is serious. i really don't. host: stan, a democrat in new york. caller: as a taxpaying citizen in this country, someone who almost lost a family member on 9/11, i demand that they not only get these photographs together, but the videotapes, and they go back to the ocean and fish this clown out of the sea and bring him to this country and prove to the world beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is dead. do you realize how many people died for this? bill clinton had a chance to do this 10 times, and he messed it up. he let this guy go bird that is the reason we have 9/11 -- well, not the only reason, but a good out of the reason this was

allowed to continue on -- but i'm out of the reason this was allowed to continue on. the president of the united states owes it to the people of this country to prove to us that he did his job. we don't put our tail between our legs and run any more. we get the people who attack as, and we let the will note that wwherever that takes us, we will go there. host: residence outside the compound in abbottabad find it hard to fathom that al qaeda at's jeter lived among them. leader lived among them. "the deafening roar of helicopter blades it awoke his neighbor sunday night." also, "and the daily mail" has

this headline in their paper this morning. "local children --" local children had received bunnies from those who had lived in the compound. this is a story on the daily mail website, if you are interested in that. given details were originally released by the administration. here is politico this morning with breaking news -- osama bin laden had cash totaling 500 euros and two telephone numbers sewn into his clothing when he was killed, sure signs that he was prepared to flee his compound at a moment's notice. the resources -- three sources

confirmed the details. we were outside the briefing on the house side yesterday and we will show you a little bit of peter king after he left the briefing. if you want to watch the whole thing, go to c-span.org and our video library. this is also from the papers this morning about what went on, what happened during the raid. lots of headlines about this. "winehouse fixes record and says the target -- white house ethics his record and says the target wasn't armed. a woman was not used as a shield in a firefight at on sunday." what do you think? should the white house released the voters? ca -- release the photos? caller: yes, ma'am, i think they should i am in iraq war veteran,

and i think it would be really nice if they release its. host: what we did it mean for u.s. and iraq war veteran? -- what would it mean for you as an iraq war veteran? caller: celebrating ever since it happened on may 1. it just means a lot. we went to war, and now we have the results. host: ok, akron, ohio. donna is an independent. donna, you with us? one last call. let's move on. james, a republican in mississippi. caller: i'm not a republican. i told them i was an independent. i vote democrat primarily. but i don't think it should be released, because any little thing, as it applied to a bomb

going off in any part of the united states, a date can direct that to -- they can direct that you had the white house not released the photos, it would not have happened. whether they do or not, obama won't get credit one way or the other. thank you. host: ceci, democrat in washington, d.c. caller: i do not think they should release the photos. i think it is totally inappropriate. they have more than enough evidence from dna. we have had congressional senators, we have had elected officials reviewed the data, review the information, review the dna and everything else that they have to prove what they have done. grown americane-

tourist -- terrorist, tim mcveigh. he was put to death. it did any american demand to see his death photos when he was put to death? no, they did not. they took the word of a government that this man was prosecuted, dealt with, put to death for his actions. if they don't demand the death photos of american home grown terrorists, why in the world are you going to ask for death photos of someone else? it does not make any sense, it doesn't make us any better, it doesn't prove anything to anyone other than to satisfy their own personal morbid curiosity and, again, as so many other callers said, to make our president look bad. host: ok, got your point. "the washington post," "the new york times," and other papers of

this headline. "pakistani officials were asked in meetings with diplomatic and military personnel to provide names of witnesses who can testify about visitors to the compound. u.s. lawmakers say it defies logic that bin laden was able to hide in plain sight without official pakistani knowledge or complicity. some suggest that $3 billion in annual u.s. military and economic assistance be reconsidered, while others joined with house speaker john boehner, who said tuesday that this was no time to reconsider aid to pakistan." we will talk to representatives brad sherman, a democrat from california, who sits on the foreign affairs, at terrorism subcommittee. the headline in "the washington

post" -- lengthy piece about afghanistan. it goes on to talk about the questions that are being asked about our strategy there. it is also the debate at the senate foreign relations committee yesterday, and the chairmen, john kerry, said it will be holding a series of hearings on this issue on our strategy going forward on pakistan and afghanistan, culminating with the secretary of state hillary clinton and secretary gates testifying. we cover the hearing, and if you're interested in seeing it, go to c-span.org. it is a two-hour hearing. hawaii. caller: aloha, and welcome, everybody, to c-span. as far as osama bin laden, people should just let it go. the guy is gone.

the people in new york are happy. some of them, i believe, are sad, and my prayers go out to all of them. my prayers go out to the people in afghanistan. they are probably celebrating, too. this man has caused so much problems, and he is just a figurehead. he is just part of the problem. it is like cutting the head off of a snake. last week we had the wedding, and then with the death of this man -- three good things happening. the what should just go on and let this go. a couple more days. let it go. we have other things to worry about. host: here is the headline from

"the new york times." "security on high alert throughout the united states." that will be the topic, a security threats, of two hearings in congress. the senate governmental affairs committee will be talking about border security with the janet napolitano, secretary of homeland security, live on c- span 3. we are also talking about mass transit security as well. code to -- go to c-span.org for that. former president george w. bush and declines to join president obama at ground zero. "he appreciated the end by, but has chosen in his post- presidency to remain largely out of the spotlight. he continues to celebrate with americans this important victory

in the war on terror. the white house did not confirm that the decision on had been made, or comment on mr. bush's decision." also want to show you the front page of "the baltimore sun." "bin laden surrender was nearly impossible. that is the front page of "the baltimore sun and." michigan, david is an independent. caller: good morning. i think a woman who called a few callers ago saying that releasing a photograph only satisfy a morbid curiosity was

pretty right on. the caller from new york who demanded these photos -- he mentioned that bill clinton had flubbed catching him, and he did not like obama, but he did not mention the eight-year period where bush and cheney were in office and everybody knows they let him go at tora bora. he did not mention that at all. the dispatcher is a little bit misplaced. -- displeasure is a little bit misplaced. it does not matter, releasing the photos. i believe he is dead. they would have had any person on that ship to identify, just to keep either side from coming up with conspiracy theories. brought forth -- any type of evidence that has not been brought forth will be forthcoming in the future. people overreacting to this -- i

don't have any words to describe it. host: here is a headline in "the new york times" about speaker john boehner. "some troops should stay in iraq." this is after he visited pakistan and afghanistan. mornignng, al. go ahead. caller: i'm glad that obama did the right thing, because all the people in arizona are against obama, because it is a red state. i'm hoping that now they can change their mind. the people here do not now. obama is doing his best job he can do. but a lot of people think he is wrong. now he went over there any captured -- and he captured the

evil man that they thought, that the towers -- thought bombed the towers. now they got him, and now they are unhappy. they don't know what did they want to go left or right, or maybe it is not him that they killed or whatever. obama is trying to do his best. host: we can take your tweets and e-mails as well. and here is an e-mail from seattle. "it might be seen as a piece of in some ways. i don't think it is rational to call someone who is asking for insane."e pertroof

a vietnam vet who says -- san diego, dennis, a republican. caller: as a united states marine who participated in operation iraqi freedom, it is again to the country's production -- cigna began to the country's protection. you can watch the killing of saddam hussein online, but you won't -- [unintelligible] host: steve, go ahead. caller: you are doing is plan -- splendid work and --

host: we lost to steve. pensacola beach, florida. caller: i know for days and weeks and months, we watched americans plummet to their death from the towers. they were on it was live. it is ludicrous. to me, a free can watch the sky and the stuff on national television, i did not know why we cannot see a photograph of one man's death, supposedly the most dangerous man in the world. host: here is a graphic in "the wall street journal." digital battlefield. technology allows them to shoot full motion video of the battleground and send it back in real-time.

troops on the ground carry small portable receivers that allow them to see digital maps. 3, the digital feed can be distributed to common posts around the globe by satellite. the headline of that storage is spy planes plate indispensable role in the mission. about that seal team six, their exit strategy after the raid on the compound. they knew that the state of alert was lower at the north. the lower alert meant it would take longer for pakistan to scramble jets to respond to a incursion.

also, this is "the houston chronicle." here is "dugard thune" this morning. another meredith to change the park itself.

let's go to jeffersonville, indiana. caller: to all those doubters out there who do not necessarily believe that bin laden was killed, respect the navy seals and trust that in a few weeks or months, if they did not do the job they were sent to do on behalf of the american people, let that be known to the american people. i do not need to see the pictures. i trust our government in this respect.

trappethank you. host: next phone call. caller: as a previous police officer, as with the previous caller, we had to watch the videos of people jumping from the building for weeks. let us put a face to their side. until this senseless violence stops, let's put a face on this. host: napoli, new jersey. joe, on the democratic line. caller: i worked on obama's the administration to get him elected.

i demand to see the pictures because the whole world has already seen the pictures. these have already been released overseas. host: where have you seen them? caller: the bell. or you can search a cessation pictures of osama bin laden, or something to that affect. if you read "the bell" or look somewhere else, and these pictures were already proven to be incorrect. i joined the military after 9/11, and i demand to see them stateside. host: how do you know that those pictures released overseas

are reliable? caller: just good to the search engine. i helped put this man in office and i demand to see closure on this. host: "wall street journal." there should be more news coming out of that have mine. rockville, maryland. gale, independent. caller: i believe the photographs should be released. america was horrified on 9/11 watching people jump out of buildings, watching them come down. people need the closure to know

that this man is gone and out of our lives. host: do you believe he was killed? caller: i do. i do not care either way if they show them or do not show them, but so many americans, talk about horrified and gruesome. watching people jump from buildings would be more horrible to your psyche. host: two other pieces in the newspaper. the front page of "the new york times."

scott shane is the reporter on that story. it will be joining us later this morning to talk about guantanamo bay, what came out of there that led to the raid in pakistan. also, john yoo writes in an op- ed, similar to what he road in "the national review" about interrogation policies. next phone call. what do you think about releasing the photos? host: thank you for providing this service -- caller: thank you for providing this service and allow us to xl. i think they should release one

photo. it is the photo of him prepared for burial with the gruesome parts covered. i am sure there was some recognizable part of him. i am glad to see that osama bin laden got a bit of terror himself but we do not need to see heads blown off or whatever. and we do not need to desensitize the children. host: kansas city, missouri. carl is a democrat. caller: first of all, i am demoralized at how ridiculous population has been. remember abu ghraib? american soldiers were killed because people got enraged. there are a lot of people out

there who hold this guy up as a hero. if we do this, it will cause people to get killed. it is that simple. my last thought is, you need to get richard clark on there. when the bush administration came in there, they came in and reshuffled the effort to get the bin laden, that was just before 9/11. i am tired of hearing about all of this propaganda stuff that is going on, conspiracy theories. the media and vested interests are whipping up disrespect and doubt for the president. he is a great man. do not release these pictures. you will kill american soldiers if you do. host: "the new york times."

on tuesday, the house voted to eliminate mandatory financing to set up health benefits exchanges under the health care law. it began debate on other bills to be voted on today.

st. paul, minnesota. ben is an independent. what do you think about this, released the photo? caller: i think there should not release the voters. the world does not need to see that. our president has done so much work try to get the situation under control. i think he has been doing a great job with what he has been handed to in since the people in the world by showing we do not have the morality to report the news and not just incensed

people, it would just be incorrect for us. host: body is a republican. welcome to the conversation. caller: we should show the folks. i do not think it is right. over 3000 people died. they did not have a funeral like they should have and they gave him his muslim funeral in the water and everything. showing the total is the right thing to do. the american people need to know that he is dead. that is just how i feel. host: a couple of program notes. beginning this morning, our channel position of xm radio

will be changing to 119. also, many of the no vice- president biden is holding bipartisan meetings on how to tackle the deficit. that will be happening on thursday. this afternoon, mitch daniels, aei.ndiana gov. h is at here is a bid in "the washington post." go next to bruce, an independent in indiana was the thing? release the photos? caller: i am on the military side. if they released the photos,

yes, they would be in danger. i think they should release the post. ever since 9/11 happened, people do not trust the government. i am 22. i am not saying i do not trust -- trust the government, but certain things happen. i feel so sorry for those people who are hurting. host: would more transparency help you with the skepticism you have toward government? caller: it is not that i am skeptical towards the government, but if they show they are really willing to release these photos, it shows that the government has nothing

to hide. it is not that i do not believe they did not get osama, but not everyone is like me. host: you were 12 on september 11. caller: that is right. i did not really even believe it until a week later. it is hard to believe that something like this happened. i do not want the soldiers to get hurt, if we released the photos. one thing is clear, they got him. i think the damage is already done. host: we have to leave it there. we will return to this question of afghanistan-pakistan strategy this morning with brad sherman.

coming up next, we will be speaking to david schweikert, a republican from arizona. he will be talking about spending and deficits. we will be right back. >> this weekend on "book tv" -- he is interviewed by talk radio host and columnist armstrong williams. also this weekend, david goldfield on religion leading up to the civil war. >> you can not access our

programming and a time with the c-span radio i found -- iphone app. you can also listen to our signature programs every week. download it free from the app store. >> for over two decades, bin laden has been al qaeda's leader and symbol and has continued to plot attacks against our allies. the death of bin laden marks the most significant achievement to date in our effort to defeat al qaeda. >> watched the president's statement and reaction from the cabinet, capitol hill, and on the world, when ever you on, with the c-span library. it is washington, your way. >> now available, c-span pause congressional directory. inside, new and returning house

and senate members with contact information, including twitter addresses, district maps, and committee assignments. order online at c-span.org/shop. host: we are back with david schweikert, republican of arizona. first term in congress, representing the fifth district of arizona. sir, we want to talk about spending and deficits. part of that is this vote on whether to increase the debt ceiling. that is starting to resurface again. i want to show the viewers what tech -- treasury secretary tim geithner had to say about it recently. >> two years away from a cataclysmic and enjoy a crisis, crime based runs stronger than what crossed the great

depression, damage to our credit the melody, losses in the u.s.'s ability to manage its affairs prudently, just started to improve that. we have moved aggressively to recapitalize our financial system. we have got back most of our investments there. this will be historic reject as the most effective, least cost economic program in history. the idea that having come out of that with unemployment still at 9%, huge amount of trauma still out there, the idea that washington would court that kind of risk right now, inconceivable. people were abdicated up there. they would say that there would be leverage in there, but that

would be wrong. if they get too close, they would own responsibility for that this calculation. host: where are you on whether or not to increase the debt ceiling? guest: right now, i am a no without some pretty substantial changes. you heard what he talked about. he was first talking about the devastation that happened at the end of 2008, beginning of 2009, and was equating that with the debt ceiling discretion. first off, that is a bit disingenuous. but there is more to it. you cannot use this harem fire argument of the world is going to come to an end, unless you get this cleaned debt ceiling raised. i am having discussions with

folks who specialize in fixed income. i am blessed to sit on the financial-services committee. the comment is it is like threading a needle while jogging. if we just raise the debt ceiling, many say that we will punish u.s. sovereign debt because we do not think you are serious about dealing with the debt. on the flip side, if we can put together a package that says, here are a number of traders, if the debt continues to grow at this in same rate, these traders kick in to bend the spending kerf. some folks want to balance the budget amendment. at least that tells the financial markets that we are serious. in multiple conversations i have had with market makers, they say, if you want to keep interest rates stable, it is not enough to raise the debt

ceiling. you need to do what is necessary to deal with the explosion of u.s. sovereign debt. will we be able to put together a package that makes that happen? host: what if republicans and democrats are unable to reach a deal to include onto this debt ceiling vote? are you still know? guest: yes, and here is some of the logic that seemed to be slipping through. we have a 10-to-one dead coverage ratio. our projection is $200 billion in interest on the debt. we've taken a bit over $2 trillion a year. we have plenty of cash flow to cover our interest payments and other u.s. priorities. within that is the discussion saying, okay, today we have to borrow money to keep the

government going. but to say that to bondholders -- i used to be the treasurer of maricopa county, the third or fourth most populous county in the country. we have billions of dollars in bills, agencies. we used those dollars to hold, pay school teachers, sheriff's deputies. the fact of the matter is, we would want that interest to keep going because you cannot have that type of default, but we have plenty of cash flow. that is one of the disingenuous thing that i hear in the argument. once you hit the debt ceiling, everything falls apart, and that is not true. host: your experience means that you will be able to explain this better to viewers. guest: that is the hope.

host: here is a letter from secretary vendor to the speaker of the house on monday. he writes about a new date, august 2, instead of july 18. they had been able to reshuffle some things at the treasury. guest: wheat believe the tax revenues there were stated. host: he says -- are you concerned about this?

guest: that is the kind of debt i was speaking of. you were taking our investment capital and putting them into t- bills. what you are seeing are some of the mechanical steps. fairly logical but the political game is coming. regimen of the theater and rhetoric. how do you get congress, how do you get a washington, d.c. to look the american people in the eye and tell them the truth of how bad the financial situation is? it is one of my great frustrations. i am a freshman. i have only been here 125 days. i have been stunned at our friends who will stand in front of the camera, unlike what i am doing now, and make up numbers.

anyone watching, i would encourage, we have been putting together fairly detailed set of slides. every week we had a few others on the website, trying to focus on the real math. at some point, this needs to be less about party. it is about math now. if you do not raise the debt ceiling, all of these things will happen. first of all, that is not true. if we do not convince the markets that we are absolutely serious on bending the dead curve, i believe we will be punished. host: how big of a decision is this for you? guest: i fixate on it. i worry about the numbers, the

math. if you spend some time looking at that curve, now that we have baby boomers -- someone is turning 65 every eight seconds. washington did not do their moral obligation of setting aside those resources. we have known these people would be turning 65 for about 65 years. i remember being in my statistics class and we were building resources -- models of how much resources need to be set aside. here we are and it did not happen. host: during the process, have you ever thought, i am voting yes? guest: i have thought, what package would get me to say yes? there are a lot of things that could get me there. host: this includes balanced

budget amendment? guest: there are some. there are other that would do as much damage as good. systemically, could you put in a series of mechanical budget reforms, agreement that would pass the house and senate, and with the president's signature that said, if we hit this level of debt, these automatic spending changes kick in? somehow coming to an agreement that we are taking this seriously. host: sell my is a republican in calhoun, georgia. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. i know that we are in a bad situation with the economy and everything, but do you think -- is there any hope for us out here with unemployment? we are having a tough time. could you ask him if they could

please do something for the 99ers who still cannot find a job? i am a baby boomer but am still looking for work, but cannot find it. guest: you are hitting the single biggest issue that congress should be dealing with. with this huge debt overhang, we are doing damage to the economic growth of this country. if you are a business, if you are taking family savings and you are investing, would you do it in this environment? particularly, this environment where you are constantly worried, myhow do we creek thaty for her family, her community? this congress, and particularly the white house, seems to be more engaged in two editions of

if we tax this group more, that solves the problem. well, it does not. and i am hoping we can spend a moment on the folklore about the budget numbers i see around here. host: house leadership, are they doing enough to tackle unemployment? guest: there is an absolute fixation on dealing with regulatory items that are slowing growth down. dealing with the budget issues that i believe are suppressing economic growth. there is not a meeting that i have with the freshman of leaders of membership for jobs, job growth, economic growth isn't the first, second, or third priority. host: sarah and maryland is next. caller: i have one comment and two questions. i think maybe the plan is to

keep on printing money, because timothy geithner and fund for baben bernanke o we say they wat a strong dollar, but the action is opposite they're taking, which is printing more money. mr. byrd yankee is one of the bernanke rful -- mr. been an as one of the most powerful jobs in the world. he was repeatedly interviewed in 2006 where independent economists had talked about the debt bubble, the credit expansion, the crisis that is , and every timehos he was asked about that, he said there is no problem. and even if the housing market would dip a little bit, it is something they could address

easily. here is my first question, why is somebody who did not even see this crisis coming when it was pointed out to him be reappointed and reconfirmed by the president and congress of the united states? my second question has to do with -- host: who are you referring to? renominated? ernanke's termrdick was up and reappointed to be head of the butter reserves, even though he had failed miserably. maybe that is why i am saying is job is to keep printing money. host: we have a tweet here -- what do you think about this concept? a couplet's touch on

of her comments. maybe because i am from the phoenix area, wonderful area, very well educated. but even when i was county treasurer we were very nervous with the growth of mortgage debt, so we would not even put the county tax dollars into mortgage-backed securities. i think a lot of the economists out there had no concept of what would happen if we moved from a realistic slowdown to literally collapsing in the mortgage- backed markets and the cascading effect of that would have. part of the argument and discussion here is look at interest rates right now. they are artificially low, and they are that because the federal reserve is buying huge amounts of treasurys. what are some of the numbers?

85% of the u.s. have learned that that is being sold is actually being purchased by the federal reserve. you would die right now have no idea what the real interest rates -- you and i have no idea right now what the real interest rates would be because we have this intervention over here. this circulates back into the discussion about the debt limit. if we do not convince the world market that we're taking seriously, what happens when qe2 starts to wind out of the market? what happens when japan, which holds 20% of the foreign debt, starts to pay for their own infrastructure. do they start to liquidate their u.s. sovereign debt? what happens if china continues to take more of the u.s. dollar holdings and put some into commodities instead of bombs? -- bonds? we need to convince everyone else around us that we have acted other and keep interest

rates low. we are ready project today, in 2011 we expect to spend $206 billion in interest. 2016, and that is four budget cycles a way, we expect to pay 562 billion justin interest. think of that. and for five years we're starting to pay as much on interest as we are on defense. the scale of this borders on almost terrifying. i see so many of the talking heads talk around it because it is uncomfortable. this may sound to mean, but i am often concerned because many of the members of the political class care more about being reelected than doing the tough thing by looking the american

people in the eye and telling them the truth. host: does that mean you would be in favor of tax increases? otherwise observers say the map does not add up. -- math does not add up. guest: actually a lot of the discussion about tax increases is partly disingenuous. these are the slides i am very proud of, because i am finding a way to make them digestible. in march we borrowed 6.1 billion every single day. we borrowed 6.1 billion every single day in march. that particular slide is the tax extensions that were done last december's. this president and the previous congress extended them. if we got rid of those tax expenditures, not just for the

rich, but for everyone, for every class, i have seen people around this place talk and say if we just did not have the tax cuts we would be fine. in march we borrow 6.1 billion every single day. without those tax cuts, assuming you do not slow down the economy, but every time comes in as revenue, 92 billion per day. that by issue about 2.5 minutes of borrowing. the same thing. when you hear some of these folks discuss about the subsidies for fossil fuels, the depletion allowances and the sorts of tax cuts, which is one of the other pages here, you start to realize it is political theater. it is talking points, because the math is nowhere near what many of our friends say it is.

year, allyou in and yea those things we count as subsidies, it is 2.77 per year. the entire fossil fuel subsidy does not even buy you half a day of borrowing. here is where the scale of disingenuous is. we need to tax the rich more. ok, you just bought yourself half a day. if we did not let the big oil have these things -- you can see on the numbers it doesn't even by you half a day of borrowing. -- buy you even half a day of borrowing. it is about spending.

but talking about spending is so much more painful. continue with the conversation. steve is a democrat in indiana. thank you for waiting. go ahead. caller: in my book you are just full of lies and stuff. number one, if you would get people back to work, you would have tax money. if you tax the rich back to where they were suppose to be, we would have more money. guest: let's talk about this. caller: no, it is my turn to talk. you people do not care about the middle-class. you do not care at all about the middle class. all you care about is sending more money to all these rich people out there.

did you do not care one bit about the middle class. all you would like to do is -- host: i think we got your point there. let's get a response. guest: what you're hearing is a beautiful case of the political theater. it has been setting up times that the republicans and the tax policy are for the rich, but we can see on the actual math that is not true. how you reach out to our friends like steve who is a democrat and move something that is almost like a religious belief to saying let's all pretend you are not a democrat, i am not a republican, which just say we are mathematicians. say we arest mathematicians. when you realize it does not theou an hour at

current rate of borrowing, maybe you can have a conversation. he did hit the number-one obligation we need to do, backing off the regulatory a obligations. of these too some prett achieve pretty good economic growth. a lot of the discussion right now, and this is one of the happy moments in the discussion, because i see independents willing to discuss things. saying we need to go to a much broader base. we need to lower the marginal rate, but we also need to do with the lobbyist-driven special exemptions.

when you do that, there will be a lot of folks who have site load out special tax breaks or special subsidies. a lot of those need to go away. the reality, in the ryan budget, a lot of the things you and i would have defined as corporate welfare are gone. i am hoping as we start to drill down into the details, the american people understand there really is about trying to create economic growth, but they need to understand the folklore that we keep getting. just as last phone call, if we tax the rich -- well, it is a drop in the bucket. host: go ahead, catherine. caller: i am so glad to see you on the air. the united states has to understand we do not have a budget problem, we have a spending problem.

we need to get our hands around this, because if we do not se solve our problems, than the imf will come and solve the problem. the other nations are doing everything like taking people's 401k's and using it to pay down the budget. if americans want that to happen, then go ahead. there are lots of other scary things going on in this country. you have boeing in south carolina cannot open the plants because congress is telling businesses where you can and cannot open businesses. ost: let's hear from loretta first. caller: good morning. i am so florida about what i am hearing. -- floored by what i am hearing.

if you were representing me, after the show i would be out collecting signatures. i cannot believe you would come on that air and say we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem, and tax cuts for the rich is just half a day. what is health care? what is education? is that five minutes of the budget? you have no problem cutting that. guest: actually, if you would hand me back the slide -- loretta, i love your accent. you have a couple bits of reality we have to deal with. one of the interesting things you are hearing in the phone calls, and you could start to hear the divide between republicans and democrats across tax thentry is attacked th

rich. you just saw less than an hour a borrowing per day. what you tend to do with the other 23 hours of borrowing that happens every day? at some point it does become about the map. -- about the math. here is where we are in 2011. what you see in the blue and purple is mandatory spending. that is the drivers of the debt. this red over here, all of this is defense, all discretionary. when you fold the page in move and see 2016, look at how that has grown. and just basically four or five

budget years you move from the previous life, which is 63% of the spending is mandatory. now you're into the mid-'70s. we have to deal with this demographic reality. baby boomers turn 65 every eight seconds. honeste not going to be about it -- loretta, i know she would be out recalling me, but the about that, she would be are we calling because i told her the truth about the math. there you are seeing the classic problem in washington. washington has not told the truth to the american people, and when someone gets in front of a camera and starts talking about the numbers and the reality, the first reaction is i am greg to punish you politically. host: you have read republican

ryan's budget. guest: correct. host: some others have said this about the budget -- saxby is absolutely correct. there is a whole bunch of discussion in the paul ryan budget. how do you rebuild the tax system? how do you in the future deal with the explosion in the entitlement cost? are there ways to protect something like medicare, so that it exists in continues. this is not a game when standard and poor's put this on credit watch. when a private rating agency said yesterday if they were doing straight outscoring, you

with sovereign debt would be a c in the reading. we need our brothers and sisters out there to be willing to pull out a calculator, remove the partisan labels, and deal with the reality of the math. host: harold, a republican in harrisonburg, virginia. caller: i hate to say this, but to get back to the birth certificate, the other one is another purchase a ticket he has. we want to save 2.9 trillion dollars. host: i am going to get a response from him. guest: this is one of the things that drives me absolutely crazy. this is a good example of folks calling on the conservative side avoid dealing with the

math. if we could have a discussion about the birth certificate or these sorts of things, you are avoiding the painful conversation of how do we save the country? when we have the secretary of state come in general, experts around the world saying the single greatest threat to the united states is our deatbt. let's talk about the debt. i have one side who says if we tax the rich. it does not really give you anything, but it may make you feel better. the other side is saying the president is not legitimate because of this. come on, people. the single greatest issue is right in front of you, but it is tough to deal with and digest. i know members were there are 12 zeros on it is hard. -- numbers where there are 12 zeros on it is hard.

if we did not have the tax extension that happened last december, it would have bought 2.4 minutes, assuming all of it came in revenues. now what do you intend to do with the other 1435 minutes in the day? it is time to step up and deal with this reality. i hear this all the time. we do town halls. we go through 66 slides. by the end of it you are either medically depressed or you understand what congress has to what it needs tond do do. caller: we could easily eliminate the debt if we just got rid of tax credits and deductions.

our military is taking a tough ent to wars. some two war guest: these are both very interesting. first off, if you are speaking of the tarp bailout, most of that has already been paid back. if you had to guess, and you went through the entire tax system and all tax credits would be removed -- caller: all tax credits and deductions. guest: how much revenue do you think that would be, assuming it all comes in? caller: if i got a college student credit that would be $200 billion. guest: you raising $200 billion in new revenue. here is the problem. in march we borrowed 6.1 billion

every single day. $200 billion,as it does not get you anywhere close. " even if we did an annualized average. -- even if we did an annualized average, you have only covered a couple of months with that come into probably dramatically slow down the u.s. economy. i appreciate you thinking it through mathematically. it is real important to understand the scale. caller: i am still there. they pay taxes that 30 percent side, that would be a massive chunk of change. i do not think it is necessarily tax rates that created permanent job growth. i think it is the cold war

ending in creating new markets for us. both sides talking tax rates does not really add up. guest: you have to get branded credit, he was trying to come up was something creative, and they did not my calculator on that one, but let's say his theory is $200 billion, if you are running 1.5 trillion in the year, it did not come close to dealing with the scale that we have to deal with. this is one of my favorite slides we have been dealing with. this starts to deal with the tax folklore. this is marginal tax rates. this is gdp in revenues. it is a fascinating thing. this is important for even the last discussion. when we had very high marginal tax rates our revenues are about 18.2% of gdp.

when we had very low marginal tax rates our revenue is about 18.2% of gdp. the discussion is not about raising marginal tax rates. it's about let's adopt tax rates that grow gdp. we can demonstrate this is a normalizing affected the economy. i do not know if it is because people change the way they are compensated. when we have had very low, the work more hours, but this is normalizing affect that comes in around 18.2% of gdp yo. we have lots of data points on this. host: let me return to the callers. guest: i appreciate the comment, but that does not reach down into the math.

here is one of my favorite facts. as of last week, we did a checking in our office, and the total cost of libya, afghanistan, iraq, for the entire decade we believe is about 1.2 trillion. ok, if we are at 4.3 trillion -- 14.3 trillion in total debt, 1.2 from the cost of the war's over 10 years, that is 8.3% of the debt. that is assuming every penny of the military action was far road. 8.3% of the total debt. have had multiple town halls were a hand goes up and said if we just did not have the wars, we would balance the budget year did you would deal with 8.3% of the debt. that is a challenge with the

folklore. they have been told this with pi by their politicians. i have been on television and the person i am doing it with says if we just did not have the wars, we would not have the debt. that is 8%. how can that be the solution? then they walked off the set. there are millions of people around the country to just sort of congress woman say that, but it is not based on reality. host: robert in california. go ahead. caller: he makes a lot of sense, find outntil you where they are making their ofey from it makes a lot sense. who put them in office is what you need to know first before you start to believe any of these guys. guest: in my case a big portion

came from my wife and i. we put a big portion of our own money into this race. this was one of those occasions where it was a passion. we want to save this country. if you look also at my donations -- it is a fair comment. lots of small donations, i am very proud of that. maybe that is just true in the entire political system, but go on something like opensecrets.org, and where the resources from the election have all come from are on there. to the friends in california, let's say i paid for every dime of my election or a raise every dime in his great state of california, it does not make the math not true.

there seems to be this constant attempt in the political theater to do anything except to bear down and deal with the scale of the debt in how you unwind it. host: 1 last phone call in florida. sharon, republican. caller: good morning. i would love to find out from him, if he keeps talking about spending is a problem, not tax cuts for the rich. given the rich tax cuts, isn't that spending? don't we have to pay for it? host: let's get an answer, because we're running out of time. guest: two points. let's say you take certain, whether it be business or individual tax rates, and you raise taxes. will the consumption in the economy, investment, economic growth that they generate slow

down? we actually have some really interesting data points over the years were certain types of taxes have been erased, and revenues from those come in less. a good example is a luxury tax in the early 1990's were you finally add up the cost from the job destruction, it did not make a dime and created a lot of havoc out thereeven then, if we what if we took those tax breaks that happened, tax extenders' that happened in december, and got rid of them for everyone, it only buys you 2.4 minutes of borrowing. that means the entire

discussion about taxing the rich ends up being this wonderful political out liar coz it is good politics, but it is not good math. host: thank you for talking to our viewers. coming up next, u.s. strategy in afghanistan and pakistan with brad sherman. first, a news update from c-span radio. >> mike rogers, chairman of the house intelligence committee, says the discovery of a osama bin laden in a sealed off compound near a pakistani military base is embarrassing to pakistan and cautioned any quick moves to cut off aid to that country. he said he believes institutional entities in pakistan, like the army, intelligence service, did not know about his present, although some individuals may have known.

he asked as well, are they the best partners we have ever had? no. meanwhile, jake tapper says that the president is increasingly doubtful on the reasons to release eight photograph of osama bin laden's death. some believe that it could cause more harm than good. meanwhile, military officials say the navy seal team that killed bin laden will likely be honored in such a way that a covert group can be, in private, with only their commanders and those people. the names of those people will not be revealed for their personal safety. >> congratulations to all the winners of this year's studentcam competition.

you can view the entries any time at studentcam.org. if you want a start on next year's theme, it is the u.s. constitution. look for new details in our new web site, starting august 1. >> the c-span that works. we provide coverage of public affairs, nonfiction books, and history. find our content any time through the c-span video library. and we take c-span on the road with our digital bus and local content vehicle. host: congressman brad sherman, a democrat from california,

represents the 27th district. he is here to talk about strategy in afghanistan, pakistan. let us begin with the briefing that you and others received in the capitol yesterday from leon panetta. what did you learn? guest: not much more than one is in the papers. i expressed concern that we had been repeatedly saying that pakistan did not know that we were going in. now, that could be true, but it does not mean you have to say it. my concern is, why were we rubbing the noses of pakistani citizens in the notion that their sovereignty was violated and that their military could not do anything about it? i do not think the answer was classified, but it was not remarkable. host: in generalities? guest: i do not think a lot of

thought went into how to deal with the obvious question. i think, on the emotional side, there is some anger towards pakistan in the upper reaches of american government, which is justifiable, but not giving which to predict what would have been the alternative, which is ambiguity, a refusal of state. host: given that many people inside the government, members of congress say that it defies logic that they would not know, do you share that sentiment? guest: i think there is a spelling mistake in these newspapers. pakistan is not a singular entity. it is a schizophrenic nuclear power. any time you have those two

words next to each other, you have a problem. there were elements of pakistan that i am sure new, alamance that i am sure did not. why would -- knew, elements that i am sure did not. why would bin laden build his come down there? he must have been told that this would be a safe place to cocoon next to the military. host: what should that mean for our partnership with pakistan? continue?ford to g guest: this is one area where the budgetary situation should not be guiding. you have a nuclear power that is schizophrenic, alamance -- elements in it, while not al

qaeda, could be al qaeda- sympathetic. host: the figure ranges from $18 billion over the years that we have given to pakistan. what have we gotten for our money? guest: on the plus side, no use of pakistani nuclear weapons since they were developed more than 20 years ago. we have had some exchange of information. young people have come up with this word in front of me, and i did not know what it meant, because i am not on facebook. my press secretary has one and i am not part of the generation. now i understand, we are talking

about frenemies. host: what kind of ties should be placed on this money? you say that it should be carefully distributed? guest: alamance by element. -- element by elemebt. any economic aid needs to be published. any emergency aid, economic aid, are so concerned about helping people -- that is what they should do -- that they will not put the flag on the back. if you are distributing food, they do not put an american flag on it. yes, that may meet the needs today of the treating the food, today, doing the economic development project. but instead, even if it poses typical to for the economic

project, everything we do has to be well-publicized. host: you are on the foreign affairs terrorism committee. what did you hear about heightened threats coming overseas? guest: what concerns me now is the lone wolf. frankly, that is always a risk that we have had, but someone who may not have done something on their own six months from now may try to do it within the next few days. so we have heightened alert. on balance, this makes us safer, even if we do not feel safe for this week. host: if you are concerned about the lone wolves, what does that mean for the patriot act extension? guest: we are always concerned about lone wolves, the franchise operations of the al qaeda itself.

the heightened concern is a matter of weeks. so i do not think this is going to affect patriot act extension. host: what do you think the ramifications are of the death of osama bin laden? guest: it is going to help us roll up al qaeda, craig fishers in that organization. -- create fissures in that organization. it is not really an organization so much as it is a franchise. it boosts our stock worldwide. we accomplished something militarily that no other country could have done, both in terms of the intelligence, and the raid itself. it makes us look like a superpower. host: the front page story in

"the washington post." some say that this puts us in a better negotiation place with the taliban. guest: and it does put us in a better negotiation place because we are viewed as stronger. and some of the loyalties in the middle east are not to ideology, organization, but personal. the relationship between the afghan taliban and al qaeda are now less strong. obviously, when we first went into afghanistan, the idea that we would see a coalition government between karzai and the taliban, we were aiming higher. now negotiations for elements of the taliban makes sense. host: first phone call for brad sherman from north carolina. go ahead. we are listening.

you have to turn the television down. caller: as i understand it, we were paying pakistan $12 billion a year to help us fight. people get blowed up every day. you would think they would want to protect their own country. why should we have to pay them to help us fight this? guest: the amount of aid is closer to $4.3 billion. less than half of that is economic aid, the other is security aid. if pakistan was doing the right things, the fact that they were doing them for themselves, as well as us, which fully justified the aid, motivated its

own desire. the current president is the widower of benazir bhutto, killed by terrorists. so you are right, they should be doing all of the anti-terrorism work for their own reasons, but helping them with this money makes sense. there are elements in the government that are very cooperative. there are elements that want to build a moderate anti-terrorist pakistan. those elements deserve our aid. but you cannot just throw money at the pakistani government and hope it gets to the right places. host: manhattan. evelyn is a democrat. caller: my question is about the congressman's opinion. good morning. a couple of years ago, i read a wonderful article in a foreign policy magazine predicting that

pakistan is a terrorist state. they have nuclear weapons. do we consider them a threat? i do not know the specific amount in aid, but what we are giving them is not working to our advantage. we had to do a covert operation -- host: it is something that we have been talking about, so what is your question for the congressman? caller: should we continue our aid for pakistan? guest: i would not call pakistan a terrorist state. there are a wide range of opinion within the governing circle. some of which would border on pro-terrorist.

as i have said before, aid that goes to the right people in pakistan, or that motivates the right people to do the right thing, with a specific deliverable. right now, the onus is on the pakistani government to let us talk to bin laden's in august wife, who was involved in the incident, and pakistani custody. here is a woman who may have spent many years with bin laden and could be a good source of information, but the pakistani government is denying us access. there are specific things be one from pakistan, and we can judge each element of the government separately, based on the behavior of that element. host: do you expect to get a readout from officials and what they find from the computers, the other data sources that they were able to bring with them

after the raid? guest: i would be surprised if those details were shared with many members of congress. anything close to operational is may be shared with four members of the house, senate. they say if you want to tell a secret, do not tell anybody. eight is plenty. i am engaged in thinking about what our policy response should be. so knowing how many zips bin laden had on his computer, i will leave that to others. host: next phone call. stephen. caller: good morning, representative sherman, and lady. classification is the priority here. it will give ambassador crocker, who i think is one of the finest diplomats said this country has produced, more leverage. we have a john glenn moment, and

neil armstrong moment, and we are going to hide these heroes? guest: we certainly need to hide the heroes involved in this raid. what you do not want is to make the brother, cousin, child of one of those courageous seals a target for any kind of assassination or terrorist act. everything possible should be done to conceal their identities. to some extent, every american is a little bit of a terrorist target, but we should not make anyone more of a target just because they are related to one of these men. we do have to -- i think we have made an awful lot available. the next issue is whether to

publish the picture of bin laden. i do not think there is much of a downside, not much of an upside. i have not seen the picture. i am sure it is gruesome. there have been several photoshop pictures with a bullet wound. frankly, almost anyone with a computer can produce these images. i would like to see it first. i think that would be something that we would declassify, but there are a lot of things about this raid. it shows our techniques. what kind of explosives were used? what kind of communications system was used? those are things that our enemy does not deserve to know. host: big rapids, michigan. you are next. caller: i would like to know why you are not telling the american

people that bin laden was in our own cia during the afghanistan engagement, and that is likely how we got his dna. host: what evidence do you have of that? caller: well, it is public knowledge, first of all host: but where did you hear that? caller: on a world link tv. host: why do you think that is reliable? caller: i think it is more reliable than the general news we are watching. host: skeptical thought about the news. guest: we were on the same side but people have exaggerated how closely we were. he has over 50 siblings, and

many of those siblings resided in the united states up until 9/11. i believe one came back for medical treatment even after 9/11. whether the samples were drawn in saudi arabia or the united states, testing of siblings -- and a full sibling has a similar genetic closeness as a father to a child, mother to a child. so where genetic material is 50% connected, as it is with full siblings and children, you can do a very accurate test. i have not heard anything classified on this, but from press reports, i think we had dna from several of his siblings, half siblings. as to cooperation with bin

laden, he was fighting on the same side, he was done on the cia payroll. did not need to be coming from one of the richest saudi arabian family at the time. the effort of pushing russia out of afghanistan was popular in saudi arabia, presumably with the bin laden family, popular with other donors, popular with the saudi royal family. i do not think he needed american dollars. there were others fighting on the same side all try to push russia out of afghanistan that were being aided by the united states. it is easy to go back now and say, in the 1980's we should not have been worried about the soviet union, we should have been worried about bin laden. that would have taken more foresight. in fact, the soviet union, and

its capacity to destroy the world, calamity with the united states, was far more dangerous. we dealt with that, in part, in afghanistan. i would rather have our problems today than the security problems we faced in the 1980's. host: let me turn to afghanistan and pakistan. turning to a piece this morning. what is your reaction to that? elements there.alamanc it does make sense to wage war

against the taliban if we are trying to build a stable afghanistan. nation-building in afghanistan is unlikely to be successful and we should be carrying on an anti-terrorism, rather than a nation-building approach. we should be waging war against the taliban, and at the same time negotiating. in fact, in many of our boards, we have carried out military operations as if there were no peace talks, and at the same time, having back room peace talks. and the other element -- host: given that paragraph i just read, what do you think negotiations should be like with pakistan, given the fears they

have? guest: i think we made a major strategic mistake when we installed karzai in afghanistan without consulting the pakistanis. there was no reason the new government in kabul had to be tilting toward india and against pakistan. there was no reason for pakistan to feel like it was under attack from two directions. and there was no reason why we should care whether the afghan government was with india or pakistan on the issue of kashmir, the other bilateral issue between those countries. we now have a difficult circumstance of trying to have a government and, -- in kabul that is relatively secure, and is not seen as a terrorist

organization. the large embassy that india has and kabul scarce some of the pakistanis. if you have had wars with a country with nuclear weapons and a billion people, there is a lot of planning that goes into that. host: do you believe the taliban needs to renounce al qaeda, and ordered to be brought into some sort of government deal between the taliban and karzai's government? guest: i hope we are only bringing in elements of the taliban, not the organization, omar, etc. we could have a different approach to afghanistan, one that i have advocated, where we simply maintain bases there to fight terrorism, but we are not focused on, are we bringing good

government to afghanistan? but if we are going to have 100,000 troops, the engaged in nation-building, you will have to see only anti-al qaeda elements. host: are you advocating the same in pakistan, where you can just go in and fight terrorism as well? guest: we do not have bases in pakistan. a lot of people have viewed pakistan -- pakistan is important, it is next to afghanistan. i view it the other way around. pakistan is the schizophrenic nuclear power. pakistan turns out to be the place that bin laden was hiding. having bases in afghanistan to deal with terrorists in afghanistan and pakistan is going to be helpful.

host: diane in indiana. thank you for waiting. caller: thank you, brad sherman from california, for the job you are doing, the knowledge you are importing to the american people. my question is, can we expect to see more photos of top al qaeda, taliban, other people that people around the world need to be on alert for? on the photograph of a osama bin laden, i vote no. could we see more reports on the pakistani government and problems with them? host: we will leave it there. guest: well, the internet is filled with pictures of those affiliated with al qaeda, the taliban, including ayman al- zawahri, who has now taken over

al qaeda. every newspaper is filled with analysis of pakistan. we may not have security, a balanced budget, but we have a lot of reading material. host: the fbi has, on their website, pictures of the most wanted terrorists. gainesville, florida. stephen, go ahead. caller: i have a few quick points. personally, i do not need to see the picture of osama bin laden, however, if it will put it behind us, we should just put it out there. we have spent a lot of time this morning talking about this and it will continue until we really know what pakistan new. as far as foreign aid is concerned, i am for cutting off aid completely and changing our foreign policy and falling more

in line with what ron paul suggests, even though i am a democrat. this is my question to the representative. we continue to hear people say that there would be strings attached. i personally think that is a fallacy. it is like the idea of giving handouts and dollars, but you groceries with it.th roch having these strings attached to foreign aid is ridiculous. guest: strings do not just mean that we use that money to buy things that we need. this money is going to pakistan, only if pakistan does x, y, or z. whether that is a thorough investigation of who in the pakistani military and

intelligence service newcomer should have known, who is it that is responsible for building a million dollars, down a couple of hundred yards away from the front gate of the pakistani military academy? we need to see that kind of investigation. this is how you spend the money, rather this money is made available to you if you engage in the kind of behavior that we want to see. as to the isolation approach of ron paul, i do not think that we can hide or escape. we are going to be the biggest free country in the world, the most prominent free country in the world. even if we had some kind of low profile foreign policy, 9/11 still would have occurred. there are smaller countries. if this was a belgian c-span, we

could talk about whether or not belgium could have such a low profile foreign-policy. but we are the united states. people are going to notice us. if they are al qaeda style terrorists, we will have to fight them. >> tony, your next. >> good morning. no one has brought to attention, to the attention of the people, that the mission was to kill him and not to capture him. i am a firm believer that killing him was to shut up any information that he knew. i think it goes back to 1993, when madeleine albright squealed in said that we were going to bomb his sight. people believe quite readily that bill clinton had a deal with osama bin laden. they want to hide that to make sure that that information never gets out.

i would like an answer as to why we could not capture this man who has unbelievable information to give us. >> an attempt was made to capture hamper -- an attempt certainly should have been made to capture him. i do not by the conspiracy theory. we certainly took every bit of information that could be taken. i do not think that our cia found information in their, of the explosive types, and that it would remain concealed under this it -- this administration and every subsequent administration. the prior administration, for eight years, it did not reveal any secret bin laden bill clinton detente.

if there is evidence of that that the caller is aware of, i am sure that the george bush national security team was aware of that as well and chose not to disclose it. i assure you that there was enough animosity in that administration towards president clinton that if they had had that information, that would have revealed it. >> one official is -- host: one official said depth he would have had to be naked for a surrender to work, there was always a fear of eight bomb trap. kansas city, democratic caller, you are out next. caller:. good morning. can you hear me? host: we can. caller: good morning, rep. i will be quick. my battery is low.

the reason that i am calling, i disagree with you, representative. the reason being, you said something about people with mental disabilities. my point is that people do things whether they have disabilities are not. my phone number is 913-233-0953. please make note of this number. guest: are you sure that you want to give out those numbers? first of all, my name is brad sherman from california. host: schizophrenia is what she was talking about. guest: it has a precise meaning

in psychiatry, i am using it in the colloquial and diplomatic sense, a split personality in the pakistani government. i am not analogizing that government to the detailed, highly sophisticated definition in the psychiatric profession, rather the colloquial -- this is a split personality. host: another headline in "the washington post" this morning. would you support the idea of giving the libyan rebels money? guest: if we are going to give them monday, we are going to give them libyas money. we can give them the money that khaddafi left here for the united states. that money has been frozen and it is outrageous that it has not been used to fund the operations we have conducted so far.

these operations have cost less than $1 billion. in libya is billions of dollars that should not be paid for by the u.s. taxpayer. it should be paid for by these assets. the rebels shot already have been asked to, on their own, direct us to use that money. 25 million, which is a small amount of economic aid, going to the rebels. if they need $25 million, it should come from these assets. it is simply outrageous that taxpayer money is being kept and used for these purposes. the state department response is that this $33 billion should be held for the benefit of the libyan people. by god, if there is anything we are doing all in libya that is not for the benefit of the libyan people, we should stop doing it.

if it is for the libyan people, it should be these assets that pay for it. whether it be the billions of dollars that we may or may not choose to provide them. the other thing, the manning of the been gauzy rebel council, not only is it a direct and authorize providing of political cover, this $33 billion of colonel gaddafi money, being used to pay our funds, they also need to discourage people like [unintelligible] and others that have american blood on their hands as fighting in the rebel cause. we need to be tougher in how we relate these actions in libya. >> plymouth, maryland. now well, republican. >> good morning, congressman.

first, to c-span, i appreciate your bringing people, the congressman, two congressmen this morning on c-span. congressman that spoke very clearly. going back to pakistan for congressman sherman, i agree with his schizophrenic analysis. i believe that ambassador crocker has a big job to make sure that the money that we give to pakistan, i believe that we still have to -- that it falls in the right hands. that is all. host:: manassas, virginia. michael. caller: first, i would like to thank c-span for the job your doing. by would like to thank representative sherman for the

job that he does. by m. a psychiatric nurse. coincidentally. schizophrenia does not necessarily mean a split personality. it is more of a delusional process. hallucinations and a feeling of dread guest: as i said before, i am using in the most colloquial sense. caller: i appreciate that. which also leads me to this whole thing about this bloodbath that is going on. i grew up in the 1960's, so i have this naive attitude of we are all focusing on the differences that we have and not the commonalities that we have. i am sure that you are aware of that in the work that you do. i do not hear anything about the commonalities of the different countries. also, i wanted to comment, i

believe that she made a comment about pakistan not ending in an end as it ends in s. i think that'd pop was very insightful. all of the time you hear about other countries and our country, the talk is constant of the more well-known people and sometimes we seem to forget the everyday people. host: we get your point, michael. guest: we have a lot of commonality with people in pakistan. these are people who have put their lines on the line against terrorism. whether it is benazir bhutto, who went back knowing that she could be subject to assassination, or several high- ranking members of the

pakistani government, state governments, that have called for a change in the blasphemy laws that say that execution is the penalty, allegedly, for defaming islam. very often, just a person claims that a christian or hindu happens to be living in pakistan and there is no particular proof, saying something adverse to islam or the profit of islam. subject to possible execution. those that spoke out against this blasphemy law have themselves been assassinated. in one case by the victim's own bodyguards. so, there are those on the front line in pakistan taking risks beyond that of what we take here in america to fight a level of

extremism that we do not have commonality with. host: virginia, john, republican line. caller: it is a pleasure to speak with you. i wanted to ask, the one thing that this made me think of, i was very pleased to hear that we got osama bin laden. the one thing that i was rather curious about, should the government have actually been a bit quiet about this for a while? tried to let down some of the intelligence that they gathered at his home? host: congressman? guest: i think that al qaeda would have been aware of this raid. there are a lot of things that you want to try to keep quiet, but certainly if you start with the belief that there are at least a few elements in the

pakistani intelligence service that were aware of this compound, certainly they would have been aware of the raid on the compound. i think that maybe we could have concealed it for an additional power -- an additional hour or two, but this was going to get out. host: connie, welcome to the conversation. caller: i have three things i would like to ask you. now that we have got bin laden, do you think that because of the death we will start bringing some of our soldiers home? and the ones around the world that are not needed, like in germany and places like that, i know that we still need them in saudi arabia and korea. another thing i wanted to ask you, the congressman that was

there before you said that we only spent $1.50 trillion on the war. but if i am not mistaken, before obama came, we had already spent $3 trillion. another thing that i wanted to ask you, we take in $2.50 trillion per year. if that is the case, we have given in tax breaks for the rich and tax subsidies around everyone, like the breaks that we get for mortgages and for our children, stuff like, we have just put our tax money away, which was supposed to pay down our debt.

guest: i will be only able to respond to some of the questions. first, it is possible that there will be more effort to withdraw from afghanistan now that bin laden has been killed. if you want to disbelieve the comments coming from our administration that no one in pakistan tipped us off about this or knew that the raid was coming, there are at least a few in pakistan who very much want us out of afghanistan. a few of them might have realized that bin laden's death may have caused dust in that direction. whether those people did anything to help us get bin laden is something that we will find out when the secret files are published decades from now. host: what about the war spending that she referred to? the previous congressman said

that about $1.50 trillion, and i think he was talking about iraq, afghanistan, and libya combined. she was wondering if that number includes the spending on wars being not part of the budget. guest: the one thing that we do not do very well is cost accounting for these wars. the smallest of them being libya. the announcement from the is mint -- from the administration that it has cost less than $1 billion is absurd. they are doing a better job keeping track of afghanistan and iraq. they are saying that the salary being paid to the pilot does not count as the cost. we pay them in the air force, but the fact is that if you use marginal cost accounting, you come up with a small number for these wars. if you look at the full cost,

you come up with a much larger number. conservatively, i am sure that it is more than 1.5 trillion dollars -- $1.50 trillion for all of these wars. host: what about guantanamo bay? what is the answer for you? guest: no one has come up with a good dancer. we had a president who was in favor of what we were doing in guantanamo. we now have a president that was opposed. both of them wound up doing the same thing because no real alternative has arisen. frankly, if i had a great answer, i would be over there doing a press conference about it. host: congressman brad sherman, we appreciate your time. guest: thank you. >> 17 minutes past eastern time,

it -- 9:00, celebrating the death of osama bin laden in somalia. the people in somalia blame bin laden for the turned to suicide attacks in the country. the militant groups there are pledging allegiance to al qaeda and threatening attacks in retaliation for bin laden's that. more reaction from the afghan government today. a defense ministry spokesman says that a country with week intelligence would have known if osama bin laden. in their midst, and pakistan had strong intelligence gathering committees -- communities. in the aftermath of the killing, u.s. intelligence agencies believe that his second in command, and other al qaeda leaders, may try to accelerate

plots in the work to prove that the network is still potent. intelligence officials say that they know of no specific plots, but the u.s. has but embassies on heightened alert. these are the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> you can access our programming any time with the c- span radio iphone ap. you can listen to our signature interviews each week available round-the-clock, wherever you are. download it for free from ap store. >> now available, c-span's congressional directory. inside, new and returning house and senate members, with contact information, district maps, and committee assignments, as well as information on the white house, supreme court justices, and governors. order online at c-span.org/shop.

>> al qaeda has continued to plot attacks against our country's, and friends and allies. the death of bin laden marks the most significant achievement to date in our efforts to defeat al qaeda. let's watch the president's remarks and reactions from capitol hill and around the world in the c-span library. washington, your way. >> "washington journal" continues. host: scott shane is the national security correspondent for "the new york times." this is his front-page story this morning. "harsh methods of questioning debated again." leon panetta was asked about waterboarding yesterday during an interview with brian williams. >> you are denying that

waterboarding was in part amongst the tactics used to get the intelligence that led to this successful mission? >> some of the detainee is, clearly they use these enhanced techniques against some of these detainees. i am also saying that the debate about whether we would have gotten the same information through other approaches is always going to be an open question. >> one final time, and hands interrogation techniques, always a handy euphemism in these post-911 note years, include waterboarding? >> correct. >> what did you and your colleagues find out? host: did the information that led to the compound in pakistan include waterboarding? guest: these interrogations' remain highly classified. we are able to talk to current intelligence officials that have

knowledge of these interrogations'. our overall conclusion has to be somewhat tentative given our incomplete knowledge, but it is that these harsh techniques, these so-called enhanced techniques actually played a very modest role at most in obtaining the information about this career that led the cia to the compound. >> was this courier at guantanamo bay? >> -- guest: know. he was active in pakistan. host: i am sorry, the information on this career, did it come from a detainee at guantanamo bay? guest: mostly it did not. some detainees may have mentioned him, but most of the information came from these secret prisons run by the cia overseas. host: what did you look at here? you go in depth on this debate.

guest: basically, the courier, whose nickname was [unintelligible] was first mentioned by detainee's that did not have complete information about him. eventually in 2004 they caught a man that gave a more full description. they declared how important he was to bin laden, muhammed, and other top figures in al qaeda. they also said that he had -- this particular detainee said that the courier had been missing in action recently, leading people to believe that he might be hiding with bin laden. subsequently, they asked khalid sheikh mohammed in libya, after they caught him, about this courier that they have learned was very close to him. both of these men, despite the very harsh treatment, khalid

sheikh mohammed was water boarded 183 times. he said that he remembered the man, but he was not very important. they made up a different name and said that he had this other name and the cia determined that that was a fabrication. despite the harsh treatment, especially for khalid sheikh mohammed, which was well- documented, he was able to mislead the doubt -- the investigators. host: why was it documented and how do you know about that? guest: in the controversy over what many critics of the bush administration called torture, eventually documents came to light and were made public that showed the details of the treatment of some of these guys. the cia said that they had water boarded three people and khalid sheikh mohammed was the one that was water boarded the most extensively.

host: you wrote about the memorandums about the interrogation practices from the bush administration. here is the op-ed page from " washington journal -- from "the wall street journal." what does this mean for the future of guantanamo bay? guest: i am not sure that the death of osama bin laden has an effect one way or the other on the future of guantanamo. we got some classified documents that we spent a couple of weeks looking at and wrote a series of stories on. what they made clear is that this prison, which was set up in a hurry in 2002, after 9/11, they looked for a place of sort of put these people. i think that no one really expected to be going on with it this long. now that they have 72 people left there, there is very little

chance of getting rid of the evidence, so it has become a permanent part of the american approach to terrorism. host: what has happened to the others that were there? guest out as many as 800 people have passed through their at one time or another. about 600 were sent to other countries other -- under the bush administration. some of them were sent home. others resettled in third countries because there was fear if they were sent home, they would be mistreated and tortured. congress has recently put handcuffs on the obama administration, very difficult to move other countries, making it basically impossible to anyone to this country, even for the purpose of trial. host: 80 are expected to face trial by military commission.

80 of those remaining are able to be prosecuted? guest: those numbers are a bit in flux. but there is a significant pool that is likely to face these military trials. there is another group that is described as too dangerous to release, but for whom there is inadequate evidence to put on trial. another group has been cleared for release, most of them from yemen. but given the instability and other factors in yemen, there is little evidence that they will get there in time. host: two dozen have been charged, six convicted and sentenced, 38 have been moved by the obama administration. yemen, 90 of their citizens, making it the largest group of gitmo detainees. how much does this facility cost them up since 9/11, what does that look like down there?

guest: you might have better numbers than me. i do not know the exact cost, they have spent a lot of money to build a lot of facilities there. to improve them over time, obviously there was controversy over the treatment of these folks early on. those famous pictures with detainee's in orange jumpsuits, becoming a symbol for much of the world of american excesses' in the war on terror. they actually tried to turn the place into a showcase prison. now there are very few complaints about treatment, and has been very costly. host: numbers from this it -- from different stories -- sources are varied, this is from amnesty international. 90 million to $118 million cost to operate the place.

and then the expeditionary legal complex for the military commission. bryan, democrat a caller, future of guantanamo bay, go ahead. caller: myself, i think that they should close it down. i have a comment on an earlier caller that was blaming clinton for not getting bin laden before. this all started in 1980 when ronald reagan took office. he swapped arms for hostages. it was in iraq and iran. host: i am going to let you talk more, but we have to stick to the topic. the likelihood of that happening now, closing it down? guest: it is highly unlikely that that will happen in the next few years. congress has made it impossible for anyone to bring anyone else

to the united states for trial. there is a group of people that the obama administration agrees that cannot be tried and cannot be released. host: remind people of the controversy of closing it down and having the trials in the united states. guest: there have been more than 100 accused terrorists tried in federal court since 9/11. many of them are serving life sentences in federal prisons. but there was this sort of political uproar that i think confused people a tiny number of people, six, have undergone military commission trials. some of them were released. one was a driver for osama bin laden. he is back to driving a taxi cab in yemen. mostly these folks that had

federal trials are still serving their sentences. but because of the political opposition to moving these folks to the united states for trials, including khalid sheikh mohammed, who was originally going to be tried for the 9/11 attacks in new york city, congress stopped that, forbade the administration for bringing those folks here. so, they will have to stay and that military commissions by and cuba. host: the attorney general was on the hill yesterday, testifying about a number of things, but part of it was about guantanamo bay. if you want to watch that, you can look at our video library apple c-span.org. go ahead, james. guest: ipod -- caller: i think you have pretty much answer my

question about why it was not close. my question for you, are we taking more people in to guantanamo bay? we are not, correct? guest: that is right. the obama administration has, so far, been very resistant to the idea of adding new prisoners. the pri -- the president came in pledging to close it and it is still his stated goal. it raises the question of what to do with terrorist suspects the to catch. there has been some suggestion that the military has put towards killing people rather than capturing in part because of the difficulties of knowing where to take them. quite a few people in the afghan war code to bagram, but there is uncertainty in some cases about

where captured people should be held. host: antony, your next. bakersfield. caller: we do not know if more people are being interred. killing as the only option bellpull -- as the only option? guantanamo exists because democrats and republicans are to blame. it is the mentality of american citizens, murder is an option. we are not safe anymore. it is dangerous for american citizens to travel in the world anymore. host: bob, granger, indiana. caller: i think it's fine to leave it where it is. there is nothing wrong with that. i have very little faith in the american media today. especially "the new york times." let's say that rupert murdoch was put in the bush

administration and was given some tarp money or something like that, do you suppose the media would be quiet about that? host: bob, you are taking it in a different direction. let's stick with guantanamo bay. host: those the taint -- guest: they do have the right of habeas corpus. many of them have filed with attorneys these petitions, which essentially just forces the government to explain why they are being held and what the grounds are. judges have ruled on a number of these cases. in fact, for the majority, judges have ruled in favor of the detainees and said they must be released. many of those are now on appeal.

some people have been released at the order courts in washington. host: here is a clear message from james. -- which are message from james. -- twitter message from james. guest: there is a controversy over whether you to treat terrorism as a crime or an act of war. so, these guys are being treated, essentially, as prisoners of war, as opposed to being charged with specific crimes and taken to federal court. host: independent caller, danny, welcome to the conversation. caller: looking at this secrecy, they do not want the truth coming out to the american public running afghan policy. the uprisings in libya, north

africa, and the middle east, the government has committed to supporting tyrants. in the past, during the cold war and so forth. we also have the israeli consideration. this goes back to george bush sr., when he took out noriega and tried him in total secrecy so that they could not reveal the details of the drug deals in the iran-contra. george jr. took a page from his father's book, keeping the secret so that the american people would not know. so that the terrorists cannot voice their reasons for attacking us. host: any response? guest of these military commission files are not actually secret. there is a press corps that covers them. but there have been a lot of

tussles over the restrictions on the press down there. some reporters were actually banned after revealing the name of an interrogator whose name was technically classified but was in fact wide public and had been reported. there have been clashes between the government in the media over secrecy. it is not fair to say the trials are secret. host: have you been there? guest: i have not. host: brett, republican line. caller: why is this taking so long, after all of these years? these so-called terrorists the detainee's. is there anyone overseeing what is going on down there? in senate or the congress? guest: a great question. why is it taking so long. the real answer to that is that

this was a jury rig set up created in a hurry after 9/11. the rules were invented in that the time they had to pass legislation to eventually create these military commissions and create the rules for them. the outcome is that here we are, almost 10 years later and you have only had a handful of military commissions. they are expected to accelerate a bit, but it has been an extremely slow process. as i mentioned, there are several dozen people that the obama administration said that they would hang on to end not try. host: madison, wisconsin, you are up. caller: thank you for taking my call. about the enhance interrogation techniques, you showed a clip from brian williams. it is a moral issue if you

continue talking about it. but even if it works once, should we not leave it up to the people in charge, depending on the person? host: where do you think the debate goes from here? guest: the obama administration, when he came into office, he banned the use of these so- called enhanced techniques. he closed the secret prisons being run by the cia. for the moment it is off the table, more of a historical debate. some people, like michael hayden, have said that he thinks it is a bad idea to take entirely off the table, that you never know what will happen in the future. others, particularly the folks at the fbi, who have had the opportunity to question al qaeda people in the past has said that these methods give no advantage. many people, certainly human

rights advocates, said that torture is the illegal and should never be used and that the debate over whether it works or not is irrelevant. host: philadelphia, jerry, democratic caller. host: we are listening. caller: what would happen if we turned this from and imprisonment to a banishment? maybe they would be allowed to grow their own food? take some of the stuff out where the government explains anything like their imprisonment, changing their mind as to why they are being incarcerated. what do you think about that? guest: is a creative idea. the former vice president, dick cheney, used to talk about the clock -- the tropical setting down there. so, you could grow a lot of things down there. i am not sure that people like

khalid sheikh mohammed, a planner of 9/11, i do not think people want to see him growing mangoes, but it would save the taxpayers some money. host of this letter asks whether they are treated better in guantanamo than federal citizens? guest: early on some of them were subjected to extremely harsh treatment. recently they have been treated quite well. there have been cases in which folks that spend time there and up in a federal prison. probably worse, though not in every case. >> tony, west virginia, independent mind.

what is brigid caller: what is meant by enhanced? to me it seems brutal and a way to skirt the issue. guest: @ "the new york times" we have found that a struggle to find the proper language to use these -- regarding these techniques. for a time we said harsh. when more about these treatments became clear, i began to use the word brutal. the problem with calling it torture is that there is a legal definition of torture and the justice department wrote a series of opinions saying that these methods were not torture. certainly, historically, methods like waterboarding have been used as a torture method. traded for many years in world war ii and after that. the word and hence, i agree, is

a kind of career -- bureaucratic term. host: robert, next phone call. good morning. caller: gitmo is not going to be closed because president obama has found out that you will not be able to hold them host: -- cold them. host: what is the reality on the ground? guest: so many of the obama supporters wanted him to close it and it is a pledge that he is not able to keep. he assigned a task force to go over the remaining prisoners. it was his own team of defense,

justice officials, that looked at these people and decided that some of them were too dangerous to let go. he did revise his own thinking. again, congress made it difficult to remove people anyways. partially through his own task force decisions are why the place remains open. host: miami, go ahead. caller: i realize the guantanamo bay, either way it is right or wrong. there are no more campaign talks. this is a necessity. just like major county prisons, whatever is going on from california to florida, the little cases and the big cases, you need these leads. regardless of how long it takes. i understand habeas corpus, but

there are some things written on books and some things that do not apply to real life. some of these people may be innocent, which is a travesty. guest: certainly the entire purpose of guantanamo has to been -- has been to gain intelligence and from reading those documents, i would say that at times in never has -- have to ask them about anything and their own information is quite out of date. for example, there was one person whose main the knowledge

of where he is hiding has been made irrelevant. host: here is the time line from "the washington post." the first 20 detainee's a arrived at the camper x-ray. those high-value detainees they have such a lower value on the guianese. what went to the region in the it they were the ones held that these overseas prisons, thailand

and other places. the bush at the station got to fight about whether it was acceptable to continue to hold people at these secret sites. president bush ordered them moved and made an announcement that if we tell them, from then on they would be openly acknowledged that the guantanamo prison. of course, they had been questioned for years that these sites. they have been questioned at guantanamo as well. but, i think it is fair to say that most of the information that they gave up, they gave up with the cia. host: what about how high-value detainees are treated? guest: somewhat identical. they are no longer subjected to these and hence interrogation methods, so-called. they are given the same kinds of cells and access that other

inmates have. host: what impact did the wikileaks documents have on guantanamo? guest: i think that what we've learned, these documents came out in early 2009, somewhat out of date, coming out before the review of the remaining detainee's. my impression is that you get a sense of how difficult it was for the analysts to figure out who these guys were, what they had done in the past, and the risks they might pose in the future. people with four or five different aliases. it was often a struggle to determine who they were. people have been held there for years, they have been questioned for years. this is by intelligence officers from other countries. in the united states they are not certain who they are.

host: why are other countries allowed to come to the detention center where they have interviewed the state senate -- detainees guest: at least one dozen countries -- detainees? guest: i think that the united states allowed these delegations because we wanted to know who these guys were. in some cases from russia, china, libya, saudi arabia, we were hoping that they would be able to tell us something more. host: minnesota, cindy, republican. good morning. caller: i have a question for the reporter. you are a journalist? guest: i am. caller: i have watched c-span for years and i have noticed that everything is about obama.

are you campaigning for him? it is unreal. host: hold on. caller: no, he is making it sound like he is ok that obama is keeping guantanamo bay open, but he campaigned against. i remember a c-span having people on, but you did not have a reporter that i believe is funded by george soros. that is all you have been talking about. host: let's get a response. guest: by which we were funded by george soros. "the new york times" has been -- i wish we were funded by george soros. "the new york times" has been struggling, like most newspapers. she is absolutely right that president obama has broken his promise to close guantanamo and

his most ardent liberal supporters are unhappy with that. host: could this be a political issue for him in 2012? guest: i expect it will not the large compared to the economy and other issues, but it may dampen the enthusiasm of his liberal supporters in 2008. host: let's get the democratic line in brooklyn. caller: good morning. how're you doing, it red? host: just fine. -- how are you doing? host: just fine. caller: i have a couple of comments. i think that the way that you hang up on people, it is rude. saying that other callers have to get through, you could be more polite. make it short. whenever. host: i understand.

caller: cutting people off, calling it a mistake, it happens too much. in a c-span junkie. host: your comments? caller: i want to get to guantanamo bay. i think it is inhumane the way those people have been held. i am for humanity first. just because something is legal and on the books does not make it right. the legal tyranny in this country should be talked about. many callers address this matter with the local governmental killing of military killings, capital punishment in this country. nothing is inhumane about waterboarding. i do not know -- nothing is humane about waterboarding. i do not know what the debate is. host: we have to go now. jackson, mississippi.

independent mind. your question or comment? caller: scott said that they are prisoners, right? guest: yes, they are technically -- they are sort of a hybrid category a prisoner. they are not exactly analogous to the german and japanese prisoners we held during world war ii, but they are also not criminal defendants in a traditional sense. caller: my point is that we had senator mccain -- you know, our own people had been prisoners of war for years, treated so harshly that they come back ruined. just horrible. the conditions they are living in in guantanamo bay, obviously they seem to be much better than what our men have to deal with.

host: do they live within the geneva convention rules in guantanamo bay? guest: at this point, it is fair to say they are treated, it has been the president's announced policy, to treat them within the geneva convention. host: houston, go ahead. caller: i want to let you know the guantanamo bay is a necessity. maybe if we did more waterboarding before 9/11, we could have stopped 9/11. these are our enemies. they had no sympathy with a chop off daniel pearls head and put it on television. when they paraded our dead troops around the street. why are we showing humanity to the people that are killing us? these people's own government tortures' them. they are killing our soldiers,

our citizens. these are our enemies. that is what to believe -- host: that is what you believe. what does the other side say? guest: many people would sympathize with her on an emotional level. one caller mentioned senator mccain, who was tortured in vietnam. he has often said that the way that we treat these prisoners is not so much about them, it is really about us. many americans would think that we would want to hold ourselves to higher standards than the terrorists hold themselves. host: dallas, texas, in the pantomime. caller: -- dallas, texas, independent line. caller: is the wrong question. it is about getting out of

guantanamo. we have an illegal occupation of 40 square miles of a sovereign nation. i do not support castro or his regime, but cuba is a sovereign nation and we have no business there. guest: it is a peculiar situation that there is this u.s. military territory down there on the island of cuba. we do pay a nominal rent, which the castro government, i believe, refuses each year. it is a ritual. we give them a check and they'd tear it up. many cubans would likely agree with this caller, that the u.s. should turn that landover. host: we have a few minutes left. i want to talk about what was taken from the compound in pakistan. forgive me, "the wall street journal" front page this

morning, hard drives, computers, storage devices. what are you learning about what is expected to come out of this intelligence? guest: it is fascinating that they had so much data storage there. it makes you curious to know whether or not bin laden was, as many thought, strictly a symbolic figure, but perhaps have more of a hands-on role in directing this sort of terrorist network. they did not have internet or phone connections to his compound. but he did have courier's coming and going. some of what they took were these little thumb drives, they can store huge amounts of information. presumably couriers were carrying those in and out. what we hope, as we learn more detail, what the cia analysts

hope is that they will be able to track down the second in command about qaeda and go after them. -- second in command of al qaeda and go after them. host: next caller. caller: are any of these guantanamo detainees representative of other entities? guest: one thing that has arisen under bush and obama is that some of the prisoners that are caught are turned over to weather services, other intelligence services. it is sometimes referred to as rendition. in those cases, some of those prisoners have been tortured. there is at least the accusation that the united states in the past has outsourced these harsh interrogation for others. host: shelby township, michigan,

republican line. caller: a couple of questions for you. i just wondered, eric holder, was his law firm behind trying these detainee's in new york? also, i wondered, scott, if you were behind the report when general petraeus came out and "the new york times" had on their front page, general betray us. thank you. guest: what that was was an ad taken out by a left-wing group that made a play on words. that was a political advocacy group, it did not have anything to do with "the new york