all as a public service of private industry. we are c-span, created by the cable tv industry 35 years ago. hd, like us on facebook, and follow us on twitter. >> this week on "q&a," our guest is emmy award winning journalist and investigative reporter lisa myers, who discusses her career, state of media and her further plans. she recently left nbc news after more than 30 years at the network. >> lisa myers, over 30 years with nbc news, how would you define journalism today? >> think journalism is at its best is holding powerful people

and institutions accountable and exposing injustice. i feel we are not doing that enough we are too driven by social media which is important but it has come to dominate a lot of decisions about coverage when we ought to spend more time digging and providing new information to the viewers. >> why did you leave the business? >> it had been more than 30 years and i think change is a good thing. it was really a matter of i either change now if i were going to make a change or continue probably through the next election. i decided i wanted to take a pause and spend a little time playing golf, making a few speeches and then decide what i want to do next. >> have you come to any conclusion of what you might want to do next? >> no.

i was in the process of moving and ending 33 years at nbc, and i want to take time when i really am not under any pressure and particular out what might be out there. my decisions about projects will be determined by the principles i mentioned earlier. i care about holding people and institutions accountable and exposing injustice. but i'm open to doing something entirely fresh that i may not have thought of. >> what was life like growing up in joplin, missouri? >> it was a little like the cleaver family. we had a wonderful life. it was webb city, 6,700 people next to joplin. i have four very smart younger sisters. my dad was a lawyer. my mom graduated in journalism but gave it up to raise the five of us which was more than a

full-time job. we had an ideal childhood. we went to a pretty good school. we were encouraged to do whatever we wanted to do. i went to the university of missouri to college. i think i had a pretty happy, pretty normal childhood. >> you started in print journalism where? >> b and a publications. when i went to college my dad wanted me to take a broadcasting course because i was in news ed and i refused, i said no, i'm going to be a serious journalist. so i went to washington, i was determined to get my first job in washington, d.c. you can imagine all the ohs that say come back when you get experience. i found b. and a and they hired me to report on their daily reporter executives and daily

tax report. i had one hour in economics and never seen a tax return. but i managed to persuade them i would be perfect for the job and they hired me. that is how i learned washington was covering taxes an economics. >> i think the first time i met you you were with the washington star. it was from there to nbc. how did that happen? >> i think that the reason it happened was that there was a news conference during the carter-reagan presidential race in september of 1980. and i asked a somewhat sassy question at the end of the news conference and the president basically tried it blow me off. and just instinctively i stood there and reasked the question at which point president carter denied he had ever said what he had said and had said on tape.

that question led the evening news that night and after that is when the networks became interested. >> what was your first job with nbc? >> when the washington star folded nbc hired me in spite of my audition. i was a glorified mic stand. they called me a correspondent but i really didn't know much about tv so they had to teach me to do the packages. i was so bad that when my spot came on the air i didn't want to be in the same room with anyone because i had enough sense to know that my work was not as good, as professional, as everyone else's and i didn't want people telling me i had done a good job when i had not. fortunately they assigned me a lot of great producers who taught me how to do television. the attitude then was it was easier to take a strong print reporter and teach them broadcasting than it was to take a local reporter who was a great

broadcaster and try to teach them good journalism on a national level. >> we had you on a program here in 1990 the first available video we could find. what is that, 24 years ago. here you are talking about voters' lack of choices. [video clip] >> i think one reason voters were not able to more fully vent their anger on a congressional level they were not presented with real choices. as was said again and again, on a congressional level we do not have real elections any more. 85% or 86% of house members and half of senators running for re-election either had no opponent or who had an opponent who was so miserably under financed he didn't have a prayer so you have options between choosing between someone they are frustrated with or somebody

they never heard of or was a joke chose not to vote or stick with the incumbent. >> anything changed? >> not much. i think that is what a lot of incumbents are hoping this year. there are not real choices because it is so much a matter of funding as the redistricting where house districts increasingly are either republican or safely democratic and there are very few swing districts. >> what do you most remember covering congress? >> [laughing] >> and is there a change? >> i think there is. when i started you had russell long, wilbur mills, dan rostenkowski, howard baker. people who were giants in their

own way. a couple of them got themselves into trouble. but overall these were all very intelligent and they knew how to craft legislation and how to do a deal and they all worked with whoever the president was. whether it was their party or the other party. yes, there were politics but they found a way to come together and make decisions for the good of the country. today you just don't see that. first of all, i think the quality of members of congress, house and senate, in terms of intelligence and work ethic, has diminished. there are still great people and i shouldn't malign -- there are wonderful members but they are a minority. increasingly people are driven by the politics and their own self-survival. i think that the hardest work they do is raising money. they are not crafting deals, it

is making speeches and positioning themselves to get re-elected. >> we you were on capitol hill -- how many years did you spend up there by the way? >> i would say at least 15 overall. >> who gave you the hardest time? >> who gave me the hardest time? i actually don't remember one. jay rockefeller gave me a hard time during hillary's health care bill because he was the point person for healthcare when the clintons were trying to get their health care plan through congress. and, as you know, hillary clinton was taking the lead on that. so, he was in -- he was the point person covering that and it was my job basically to punch holes, to ask provocative

questions and he at times would be annoyed by that. since then i should say i worked with senator rockefeller on any number of investigations. but i think at that point he was probably the one who was most irritated with me. the person who probably disliked me the most was robert tortella. >> why? >> there were these finance hearings and he made this grand opening statement about he could remember likening this to some previous, i think -- i can't remember which set of hearings but he could remember the tv from the previous hearings that people were unfairly maligned. it turned out that he was about four days old when the other hearings were held so away interviewed a pediatrician to

find out how much memory a child of that age would have and he didn't appreciate that. over the years we did stories about his corruption, which is what caused him to leave the senate. >> when somebody has not liked your reporting, how have you felt it? >> sometimes they are direct about it. sometimes they call my bosses. sometimes they scream and yell. >> your reaction to any of that? were you intimidated ever? >> i haven't been. it is always nerve-racking when you put a spot on the air, i always worry about the question i failed it ask. that is why in the most important spots i work with great producers and on all the conversations i make sure both the producer and i are having the same conversation, are hearing the same conversation and if there are key sources we go over them to make sure we

don't make a mistake. but every time i put a big story on the i worry about the question i fail to ask or the implication i left in the piece that might not be accurate. >> here you are in 1992. [video clip] >> the networks no longer control what people in america see on television news of presidential campaigns. i thought bill clinton's problems with the coverage of the jennifer flowers allegations was a classic case. he would not have had to go on "60 minutes" if the networks' treatment of that issue controlled what the american people saw. what happened is because of technology. all of this stuff is getting fed bulk all around the country. our news channel operation routinely fed commercials out of new hampshire all over the

country, it got incorporated in local spots. whether we like it or not, the people -- a lot of people around the country were seeing some of these ads. >> that is 22 years ago. you set the networks no longer control the message that went out. should they have controlled it? >> i don't think they should able to control it but i think the question was prompted that why did we provide such coverage or why do we cover an issue. a lot of times these days if an issue is big enough it is not a matter of whether you do or don't. it is out there. so, if it is false i feel like we almost have a responsibility to go on the air to say this story you are seeing all over the country is false like we did when the issue arose about whether the president was actually born in hawaii. at some point it was so out there that we did a story basically fact checking it and taking apart the arguments.

i think that it is true even more today that the networks didn't control the news flow, and certainly this white house has gone to great lengths to -- every president tries to work around the media and to go directly to the people. but this white house, i think, has been even more sophisticated about it in their control of the pictures and interviews the president grants. they have relevance done, from their point of view, a successful job of in many cases circumventing the filter. >> how well is the public informed today compared to we you started this business? >> i think the public is much less informed. when i started in the business away basically had three broadcast networks and many more

newspapers. and a huge portion of the country watched the evening news. so, there was a common experience. there was information. i would also say the newscasts in those days tended to be more substantive or fact filled. it focused more -- there were fewer features and it was more about the big news of the day. also at that time the public didn't have all of these other things competing for their attention. you have the internet, most women now are working, not home any more. so when they do get home people don't have the kind of disposable time they used to have to inform themselves. so, a person who wants to be informed, the technology is out there, whether the internet, tv,

newspapers, it is there. but i think that before the common experience of watching the evening news, it was part of the daily routine for families. and, therefore, just through that as a whole they got more information. >> let me show you an excerpt from brian williams show you were on, this is in february and just want to show you the early part of it and we will talk about it and ask you what is going on here this particular subject over five minutes was devoted to on the evening news show. [video clip] >> later tonight following your late local news in fact a new era will begin at 30 rock in new york where lucky members of the audience filed in for the taping of episode one of "the tonight show" starring jimmy fallon. after a hugely successful run in los angeles jay leno has passed the baton to jimmy and before we left new york jimmy sat down with us in his old studio to

talk about the debut, what it means and what those of us in the audience can expect to see. >> i'm excited and it is like it is all starting to sink in and becoming really. it is going to happen. >> what would that story have been 30 years ago on nbc? would that have made it? >> i think so, actually. "the tonight show" is an institution and jay leno had been there decades over time and it is a big deal. i think it is a bigger deal now because truthfully there is more self-promotion of our own networks by the news division. we call it synchronicity. but i think that would have gotten coverage. >> should it? >> sure. at the end of the broadcast that

is a legitimate story, i think. a lot of people watch the evening news. "the tonight show" has been an american institution and therefore it is entirely legitimate to do that story. it is a matter of placement and how much time you give it. >> can you remember when an editor said go do this story and you said not a chance? >> there have been times i probably would not have said it that way. i probably would have gone back and done some reporting and then perhaps tried to argue my way out of a story or why we shouldn't do a story. i never absolutely refused an assignment. there were times when i encouraged people to get others to do the assignment. i'm usually a team player. one time i was given an assignment and peewee herman was getting an award at the hasty pudding club in harvard and i

have never been a peewee herman fan. >> is this before or after the incident in florida? >> i think it was before but there had been some previous rumbling about it. but i also didn't think was funny. so, i did a piece, is was somewhat snarky. i didn't want to do it but i didn't refuse it but it didn't make "the today show." >> what about the reverse where you had a piece you wanted to do, you had an investigative piece and the network said no deal? >> do you have 10 hours? it is hard to get investigations on the air. first of all, it is hard to -- you have to -- they have to be of national interest it show that there with be broad enough appeal. they take time in terms of presenting them.

a lot of important stories -- that is one of the great things about the magazine shows is most investigations that one with do fit better in a magazine show because then you can bring people in. you introduce the characters and you talk about what is going on and you can have both the emotion and facts. it is hard to compress a lot of investigations for television and that always is a challenge. and then you have to compete against breaking news. so, people may say go do it and it never gets on because of other news and because it becomes dated. it may never get on because you get 90% of the way and you can't get through the final 10%. >> what is the longest investigative report you worked on that didn't get on the air?

>> something i worked on six months, but that is because we couldn't get the last 10%. >> can you tell us what it was? >> no. >> why not? >> because it would malign someone. >> can you give us some idea what the 10% was? >> there was a lot of circumstantial evidence. there was not something that definitively connected the final dot from a source that one had enough credibility in to do that. >> can you give us an example of how much effort was put into it up to that point? did you do a lot of interviews? did you have to travel? was there a lot of expense involved? >> this did not have a lot of expense. there were some interviews but it was not a terribly expensive thing. >> here you are in 1993.

>> one of the reasons it has gotten as far as it has has been the administration's handling of it. had the administration not had to change its story along the way a number of times on foster and whitewater had there not been resistance it a special council and continued resistance to making public the document i think the documents relating to whitewater i think has raised suspicions that there is something that the president and mrs. clinton want hidden. it is horribly complex story. it involves characters of, whose credibility can be easily questioned. there are an unbelievable number of missing records, records that are key to determining what happened. and you look at this -- one thing you find if you look at it, you find a pattern of

incestuous relationships between politicians and bankers in the state of arkansas. >> what do you remember about whitewater, which is almost 21 years ago? did you cover it enough or not? >> i think we covered it enough. there were some incredible characters involved in whitewater and it was -- whitewater also became -- you know, produced stories about the rose law firm that hillary was part of and the issue came up about how she made so much money on her investment in cattle futures. during the clinton years it was like one scandal morphed into another and they kept on giving in terms in you are a investigative report there was always something to look into. >> what do you remember about the clinton administration about

the day-to-day activities? >> i don't recall the clinton administration being that helpful. >> why not? >> i was usually covering things they didn't want covered. so, i don't necessarily blame them for not providing a lot of information. i had too many people actually out and out lie to me in that administration even about whether the white house had just received a subpoena for the president to testify by the special prosecutor or the independent counsel. but it was a very combative -- anyone who covered the clinton administration will remember it was a very combative period with the press. initially not so much but you had the rotc issue early in his campaign, then you had the jennifer flowers issue early in

his campaign, which he denied any relationship but the minute you heard her on the tape you knew that was not necessarily truth. >> how did he survive it? >> isn't it amazing. it is amazing. you look now and bill clinton is the most popular political figure in the country. he has amazing personal skills. when you look back particularly with the economy the way it is now, the economy was very good during that period. when it became politically necessary he found a way to compromise with newt gingrich, of all people, and get deals done on welfare reform and balancing the budget. he promoted trade, got some trade agreements, which i think helped the economy. so you look back and put aside some issues of veracity and other really important characteristics but still his

record as a whole stands up pretty well in many cases. i think that when people see a dysfunctional washington, it makes him look better in retrospect. a lot of young people don't remember the bad. in fact, i saw tweet once about we need to elect the clintons to restore honesty in government. and for anyone over maybe 40 that might seem like an oxymoron. but for the or people they remember the clintons as in the context of his -- as a former president he has been extraordinary. and they mostly think of hillary clinton as secretary of state when she was in a less partisan role. >> what would you expect if she runs for president for her relationship to be with the media?

>> i think that she will work more at trying to cultivate the media. i think that actually there will be a lot of support in the media for her. i still think in her gut she does not trust the media and that on the people who deal with her most closely and question anything it will be frosty. >> here you are in the 1999 interview of juanita broaddrick. >> you are saying that bill clinton sexually assaulted you, that he raped you? >> yes. >> and there is no doubt in your mind that is what happened? >> no doubt whatsoever. >> while the president and his lawyer declined to be interviewed on camera, through his lawyer the president said any allegation he assaulted her is absolutely false. when asked about it today in a news conference he said he had nothing to add to that statement. it is important to note she

concedes that aside from her there are no witnesses. as far as we know, no one saw clinton enter or leave her room or even the hotel. she took no photos, kept no evidence and the hotel has no records to confirm she stayed there. >> what do you remember about that interview? did you go to her or did she come to you? >> i went to her. that interview was a year in the making. basically it began when i heard that one of the -- the monica lewinsky issue evolved from the lawsuit against the president involving paula jones and there were a number of other women named jane doe and she was jane doe number five. i learned that one of the women maintained that her contact with bill clinton was not consensual. so, i didn't have her name and i

did finally get it, it was a weird spelling and i managed to find her in fort smith, arkansas, basically because she had been in a doubles tennis tournament that. is how we found her. then i initially called her and she didn't want to talk. the way she didn't want to talk made me think there was something to the story. eventually we spoke with her son kevin and to try to get to her to have a conversation. and we went down at one point to meet with kevin and the day we were to leave we got a call saying that juanita would meet us at a restaurant for coffee. that was when i first met her. that would have been i think before impeachment ever started. in fact, it was definitely before impeachment started. i thought at one point she came close to doing an interview after kathleen willie did her

interview with "60 minutes." then when she saw what happened to kathleen wilhoite, she decided not to. at the very end of impeachment, he decided she could not stand it anymore. it was complicated for nbc, it is hard enough to do this story, but in the middle of impeachment proceedings makes it particularly explosive. one of the things -- i don't think i have ever done another story that was as meticulously reported. one of our fears was that there would be something to pop up that enabled bill clinton to say he was somewhere else that day. nbc personnel went through all the old tape, newspapers, this

had happened 25 years ago. the hotel did not exist anymore. they could not get records there. the one thing she had going for her in terms of being able to verify is she did talk to a number of people at the time it happened. particularly her roommate at the hotel. they had gone to a nursing home convention. her roommate came back afterwards and saw that she had a swollen lip and was clearly upset. there was one person who saw juanita right after the fact. there were a couple, three other people who she told the story contemporaneously. >> how did the clinton spokespeople deal with the media and you during this? were they denying these relationships? >> they did not respond on the juanita broderick story. for the longest time they would

not respond at all. finally, he we got the story you saw me read the statement from the president's lawyer. i can't say that nothing has come up since that story was reported, that in any way undercuts what one either broderick said. >> has there been anybody undercut that came forward that you know of in those times? the women that have come out and said that they had this relationship with bill clinton? >> i had not gone into the kind of detail about the other women that i did with juanita broderick. i did not report those stories as meticulously. i did not say -- i can say that nothing has happened with one either broderick's story that has undercut the stories of those who came forward. >> how long did you cover it at the white house? >> i wasn't at the white house

during that time. whenever there was a political investigative story that needed to be done, whether it was whitewater, cattle futures, travel gate -- that was just one after the other, as you recall, during those years. hillary clinton in many respects was the one who did not to agree with the special prosecutor. she is the more combative of the two when it comes to giving no quarter. as you can see on a personal level, bill clinton, i think, is more of a next revert and more charming. hillary clinton can certainly be charming and she is quite talented as a politician in her own right, but i think that she holds her cards more closely and

trust fewer people. >> amigo back to what i asked earlier. how did they do it? how did they come through all this with him being popular and she is the odds-on favorite to be the democratic candidate? how have they done it? >> it is astounding. i can't say how they did it, but it is astounding. >> let's go to another topic. this is you in 2005. it is on an msnbc documentary about the trail of terror. it is all about jihad and iraq. >> this grainy video obtained by nbc news captures on tape a dramatic incident which the u.s. military says occurred on september 14, 2000 five in east baghdad. the video shows a suicide bomber whose mission failed. he ramped a tank but his bomb did not go off. the u.s. army sends in a robot that shoots video revealing that

the man is still alive. after the bomber refuses to surrender, the robot is sent back to the car with explosives which are detonated, killing the would be bomber. his identity is not known. >> that is what we came to do. now we have done it. >> the internet is loaded with horrific video of suicide attacks which did work. killing hundreds of americans and iraqis. damage is part of a propaganda war conducted by the group, al qaeda in iraq. >> what do remember about that documentary? >> i was in the home of a family of a suicide bomber in jordan at the time that the bombings in london occurred, the two bombings. >> the buses? >> yes. it was eerie. we turned on cnn

in the family home. we had just conducted the interview, asking about his son and how he felt about this. we turned it on and the bombings had occurred in london. that night i drove to london -- i went to london to cover that. i was in london for about a month. >> suicide bombers, what did you pick up on why they do it? >> what i found interesting, it was not only the down and out people with no future. there were children of prosperous families and children of middle-class families. they seemed to be driven by a fanatic religious belief, but also a real hatred of america.

>> based on what? >> based on, i think a lot of them had to do with what they were taught. if you go into some of these areas and listen to the kind of religious sermons that are given, particularly at some of these mosques, america does not fare well. we found that there was hatred of america. we found that among some of the poor young man they thought they had nothing to lose. also, in that religion, martyrdom on behalf of your religion is really the highest calling. you go in -- for example, in palestine, you go into their territories and you have faces on the walls of the people who have done suicide bombings in israel.

they become heroes. i think in the eyes of many of these young man, what they were doing was heroic. >> msnbc at some point became a liberal network. what do you think of that idea? >> i think it was a business decision. i think what happened is executives saw it worked at fox quite successfully and thought that the best counterprogramming or best way to build an identity for msnbc was particularly in the evening, to have progressive hosts. "morning joe," i think, is fairly balanced and evenhanded.

the daytime shows like chuck todd's rundown and andrea mitchell's show, they strive to be more balanced. >> what do news correspondents think of the idea of having this? >> i think the correspondents are grateful for the opportunity to do extra reporting that you can't do on nbc. i think there is concern, particularly about the more partisan aspects to the coverage varied. >> did you ever refuse to go on anybody's program because of their known bias? >> i did manage to go through a scandal without ever having to say good evening, geraldo rivera. i didn't refuse, but i managed to avoid it. i think people try to pick and choose. some of the more controversial

host, if they are not comfortable, they try to avoid it. >> this next video may appear to be out of context and you are not involved, but i wanted to run this to ask you because people are confused about what a journalist is. you will see what i am talking about. this is the new mayor of new york a few years ago. >> i want to say something personal about mike bloomberg. you all see the strong side of mike, but you rarely see the more sensitive and emotional side. no one would take on the seemingly impossible task of reforming our school system if he were not deeply passionate about children. mike is. i think it is his dream that one day some child who seems to have no future will be standing here on this stage being sworn in

because he had an education. what a gift that would be. mike made gracie mansion the city's home and he has made himself the city's voice. nowhere is this more apparent than during the recent transit strike. the mayors morning walks across the brooklyn bridge were not just symbolic but they were inspiring. and, besides, he lost five pounds. he may will be -- may well be one of the trim rest and one of the greatest mayors this city has ever known. >> what is your reaction when you see that? >> you're crazy and i'm going to talk about barbara walters. >> why? >> she is an icon. she has special status. she does move between the worlds of politics and celebrity and journalism, but i think people know basically what role she is playing at the time she played it. she was criticized so much for her relationships between sadat

and begin. she played a fascinating role in one of the few successful efforts to negotiate some sort of peace in the middle east. >> did she have to do what she did in that particular case in order to get access to the big names? >> i would hope not. >> this is in 2006. >> added on sources tell nbc news that the u.s. army blocked a plan that might have given american troops more protection against one of the deadliest weapons used by insurgents. if the favorite weapon of insurgents in iraq and afghanistan -- it is the favorite weapon of insurgents in iraq and afghanistan, the rocket propelled grenade or rpg. cheap, easy to use, deadly. in iraq, these weapons have killed more than 132 americans,

including 21-year-old five at dennis miller. >> they were in ramadi and his tank was hit with an rpg. he never knew what hit him. >> 16 months ago, commanders in iraq began asking for help, sending the pentagon urgent request for a new system to counter rpg's. >> what you remember about that? >> these were the best pieces we ever did. >> and you want an emmy award in 2007 for this. >> this is one of the more shameful incidents that we investigate involving the pentagon, another one involved body armor. some people were taking liberties with body armor testing. here you had, basically, a system that the israelis had figured out, which was a fairly advanced stage there. the u.s. in an effort to try

these on three tanks in iraq. they were given a demonstration to just see if they would work and it was blocked by the army because they were protecting raytheon. it got to the inherent corruption in the pentagon's contracting system. sadly, it is a continuing story, either because of outlying corruption or just coziness with contractors. harnessing technology that might be cheaper is pushed aside in terms of giving contracts to the big corporations. i must say that raytheon -- i don't think they have been able to develop this capacity for -- the israelis have actually installed it on their tanks and it has been operational in the theater. >> when you know as an investigative reporter that they are about to kick back on you on this stuff? >> you can't assume they are

going to kick back on you. in fact, on this one, the army was furious. the army insisted on coming to new york and meeting with all our top brass. they came to new york and arrived at 30 rock wearing their combat fatigues. these are all people who worked at the pentagon. they are mostly pr side. they came and sat down with us and told us we were all wrong. besides, there is no document that shows that the army ever did such a thing. so, adam was sitting there with -- >> your producer. >> he had a folder of documents. he pulled out a document and handed it to the general. that was the document.

>> how many people from the army came? >> i would say a half dozen. >> you had to fly to new york to had that meeting with them? >> oh, sure. they tried to undercut our story first. o'reilly, to his credit, invited me on his show. i brought along the folder of documents and we had a good discussion. >> why would the army go to that length to stop this report? >> because it looks bad. people who cared most about the troops were furious that there was a system that was potentially already available to put on tanks to save soldiers lives, and because of cozy relationships between the pentagon bureaucracy and that they contractors, those soldiers were denied weapons that could have saved lives.

>> you mentioned the other story, we will run that right now, a little bit on the dragon scam. >> for troops in the line of fire, body armor can mean the difference between death and life. the army insists our troops have the very best. without question that armor has saved lives. in iraq and afghanistan. >> the body armor we issued to our soldiers today is the best in the world bar none. >> but is it really the best? an nbc news investigation including independent ballistics tests suggesting that there may be something better called dragon skin. some soldiers and their families have tried to buy it, believing it offers better protection. but the u.s. army banned dragon skin last year, even before formally testing it. >> that was in 2007, how did you get a tip on that? >> i don't recall exactly, but

we had been hearing about the whole body armor testing program, that the rules were not meticulously applied, that standards might have been different for favored contractors, whereas others weren't treated the same. it came up in the context of dragon skin because of some groups who were very supportive of the troops that were trying to get better body armor for the guys in iraq. an expert -- a former top official at the pentagon for weapons testing. they looked at some of the testing that had been done of dragon skin and they looked at some of the claims and what they

knew about it and some other testing that had been done on dragon skin and said what the army had found didn't add up. so we went to a lab in germany and had dragon skin tested. it held up better against the army's body armor. to protect our guys, we didn't tell anyone what penetrated our body armor that didn't penetrate dragon skin. but there was a noticeable difference in performance. subsequent to that, there was an ig investigation in which they found that the army's testing facility had been taking liberties in evaluating body armor. >> what is a motive on the part of the army? >> i don't know if it is coziness with the hope of eventually getting a job with one of these contractors, but there wasn't any evidence of

outright corruption. >> how rampant is this kind of thing? >> i worry that a lot of these things are going on in government. and you see what is happening at the v.a., i think that the same kind of culture exists in other government agencies. not in the national transportation safety board or the cdc, but there it -- but in other agencies there is a lack of accountability and an indifference at best to taxpayers. they don't care about waste or efficiency, it is a sad thing when you read the various ig reports. agency after agency with the same problem year after year after year, and nothing gets fixed. it is just my own anecdotal experience in dealing with government. it seems to me it is not just the quality of our politicians which has declined, but the

quality of government employees and the bureaucracy. we have incompetent government, we have stupid government, we have -- we may have some great federal employees, but that is not the norm. >> here is another report from 2009 somewhat along the same lines. >> some locals are up in arms about florida's stimulus project -- $128 million for a controversial bridge linking palm city and stewart. >> the bridge is not needed very at the justification is that the existing bridge which is right behind us, is overcapacity, which it is not. >> also listed as questionable, $1 billion which the bush administration deemed a waste of money. $1 million for a new guard rail for an oklahoma lake that no

longer exists. the white house says the guard rail was stopped last week. >> you mentioned the inspector general, what mark would you give them? this is more congressional pay her what mark would you give them on this stuff? >> we have some terrific ig's. they deal with iraq and afghanistan waste and fraud. neil borofsky was terrific. by and large i think most of the inspectors general have been neutered by this administration. there has been a real effort to sit on them, to appoint people who will not rock the boat. there's a story in borofsky's book where tim geithner thought

he should report to him. that is the antithesis of what an effective ig is supposed to do. >> in general, when you see books, and tim geithner has a book out right now and neil borofsky had his own book, what do you think of them when you see these reviews of an individual's time in government? >> i think some of them are interesting. by definition, they are self-serving. i think a lot of things in these books is fascinating. i think bob gates book was one of the more interesting. some of the headlines for more sensational than the book itself turned out to be, but i think that for people who have had a lot of years of experience in government, who have the perspective of having worked in both administrations is helpful.

i think borofsky made some very important points in his book about the administrations choosing the banks over the homeowners. >> one last clip. this comes from november 7, 2013. it is a clip of the president talking about health care. i want to get your view of this. >> i regret very much that what we intended to do, which was to make sure that everybody is moving into better plants because they want them, as opposed to being forced into it, that we weren't as clear as we needed to be in terms of the changes that were taking place. i want to do everything we can to make sure that people are finding themselves in a good position, a better position than they were before this law happened. >> what grade would you give the obama administration on health care? >> i do think we will know for three or four years, but where i

would fault the administration most is on the way they sold the plan. they sold this plan as something that could provide health care for millions of americans at virtually no cost to anyone but a few rich people. they sold to people where they were all winners and no losers. the clip you showed there, earlier in the week i had done a story which revealed that the it ministration had known for years that millions of americans would not be able to keep their health insurance as the president promised because of the way the law was written. even saying that he was sorry and that he wanted able to keep their insurance, the president said the grandfathering, the regulation about grandfathering people in did not work the way we thought it would. it did work exactly as it was supposed to work. at the time the regulations came

out, the administration said that basically 14 million people that had individual policies would not be able to keep their insurance, even if they liked it, under the grandfathering rules. it involved business groups and the health-insurance industry who said look, the president will not be able to keep his promise under these regulations. the administration did not change them. the administration had known for years that millions of americans would, in fact, not be able to keep their insurance even if they wanted to. the administration also promised that costs would come down. clearly they have not heard costs have gone up, not just for people with individual insurance but for some larger companies. one of the recent stories showed it has become an issue in union negotiations because he affordable care act has driven up costs for these health care

plans anywhere from 5-12%. what i would fault the administration most profoundly is that they didn't level with people. i think that is why people are so angry. >> when do you come as a reporter, ever use the word "lie"? >> i try to use other words. sometimes it is not avoidable. i try to use prevaricate. lies sounds very harsh. >> you have been in this town for a lot of years. are you going to stay here now that you have left nbc? >> no, i am actually moving to florida. >> why? >> i'm doing advanced work for the 2016 campaign. basically, i find washington has become a really toxic town. it is one thing if you need to be here for work, but otherwise,

i think the rest of the country has a lot to offer. i'm addicted to golf. i wonder what it would be like if i can actually play golf for six months if i could get any better. i hope to spend the next six months playing golf, making a few speeches, and trying to figure out what i would like to do next. >> lisa myers, thank you very much for joining us. >> you bet, thank you. >> for free transcripts, or to give us your comments about this program, visit us at q&a.org. q&a programs are also available as c-span podcasts. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014]

next, british prime minister david cameron taking questions from the house of commons. in a roundtable on the news of the week. after that, as senate hearing on the controls of materials. >> on monday, center for american progress discussion on the demographic and political changes in the south. the two years after civil rights activist traveled to mississippi to register people of color to vote. formal naacp president discusses voter suppression. we will have that live on c-span. >> cable in the 90's date have over 90% of the market. today they only have a little over 50%.

the business has matured. to keep to lower costs margins good are you have to find a new place to get them. they're attacking both of the things. attacking the revenue side, looking for new ways to lie to consumers -- if you look at comcast, if you can make video-on-demand easier to use, the interface is more delightful -- you can innovate. you can also see them taking advantage of broadband. it is a blessed source of new business opportunity for our industry. it is growing much faster. and as good economics. the rapid change and telecommunication technology advances in the future of the cable industry. monday night