in the war in afghanistan maybe many people feel they didn't want to be led into that war you know cameron has launched an inquiry today that looks at how you know british security intelligence officials might have been you know might have colluded with other intelligence officials into the torture of terrorist suspects british terror suspects you know you know britain went into afghanistan and when the soldiers went in they were plagued by a lack of equipment i mean what i'm saying is that since two thousand and one in the british public's mind that did the war if it has been hampered by in all sorts of ways and i think that at this time of financial insecurity in the u.k. it feels like many people don't want to be in this war and you know whatever whatever the politicians are saying i think that does seem to be deafening a british retreat from afghanistan are ten months all the time we have it thank you so much for being here definitely was a pleasure restrepo as the new documentary and we all can't wait to see still to come on the best of the a lot of show from two thousand and ten more coverage on the war in afghanistan

after general david petraeus took over the war he started giving us mixed messages about president obama's plan troop withdrawal in two thousand and eleven so what discuss if the plan to exit next year is really going to happen.

the crew to feel. the oil. of the international community for trying to interfere in the case of. the west.

with. palestinians say they're still living in a state of seas with a little access to aid after israel blockaded the strip. my colleague josh will be heard about thirty minutes with a full look at your news but right now it's back to washington and for the second part of the early on to show. you the latest. from. the future.

just days after being tapped to lead the war in afghanistan general david petraeus hit the t.v. talk show circuit but some of his comments about president obama's plan to begin withdrawing troops in two thousand and eleven left many wondering if there was already a conflict brewing between the white house and the general here's my interview with james carafano from the heritage foundation about who's really in charge in afghanistan and if the troops really might start coming home in two thousand and eleven general david petraeus went on a media blitz this past weekend in what we can assume was an attempt to reassure the public that we aren't fighting a pointless war in his words he said we are here so that afghanistan does not once again become a sanctuary for transnational extremists the way that it was when al qaeda planned the nine eleven attacks in the khandahar area but in order to make sure that happens general petraeus could have promised the public that the withdraw all will

be can next year quite the opposite he said that it's too premature to say and the hill give obama his best professional military advice before the deadline happens but will his professional military advice clash with what's political what's politically viable will he try to strong arm obama into backing away from his promises here to discuss it with me is dr james carafano the senior defense policy analyst at the heritage foundation dr co-founder thanks so much for being here and i have to ask you you're do you see a conflict of leadership going on with do the train coming out saying that i can't promise this deadline date will still happen while as robert gates obama are still pushing for it no i don't think so first of all. the general never would have been permitted to come in the united states and go on a media tour if the president didn't want him to so we should be really clear about that so obviously everything you say is really ok with the president otherwise he wouldn't be here. but how could we have robert gates saying exactly the opposite to

the media that yes this withdrawal. this deadline for the beginning of withdrawal does stand as we stated and first to start july two thousand and eleven you know i mean the i mean the deadlines it was really meaningless right the administration came up with a timeline for withdrawal for what reason which it was it was helpful the for the president politically in terms of domestic politics to kind of signal to his supporters some of which include people who don't want to support the war that look by two thousand and twelve this will be off the table as a presidential issue that was a promise and putting that deadline in two thousand and eleven was part of that now as soon as he was meaningless how is that meeting because this isn't because perhaps sway the american people who are not supporting this war anymore a new n.b.c. and washington post poll actually said that seven out of ten americans don't think this could end successfully so how is it meaningless to say hey we're going to start planning goes wrong when you proceed ministration and what that really means it all you know looks like cotton candy and starts to disappear gets very fuzzy does that mean all the troops throughout most of the troops are out there and the

answer is it's meaningless right and the president discovered this because as soon as he said the deadline everybody started interpreted as meaning exactly what he wanted his political leaders that america's going to start to pull out by twenty love unfortunately that's what the taliban that's what the government believes that's what the pakistanis believe unless what the indians believes are honestly by announcing that timeline he actually made his job a lot harder because people started out america's war credibility so he's been kind of walking away from every other way other than he never so just by saying that a withdrawal deadline is set to begin the withdrawal he never said how many people you're right in that sense that you know they didn't say that this was going to mean that we're going to up and leave i don't think anybody believes that but now general david petraeus has just completely flipped the tables and essentially i think to a lot of americans it looks like in their eyes like he perhaps is going against the u.s. president all know because even the president said this is everything is he even said you know the vents on the ground will drive what really happens what general

petraeus said he goes when we get there in the. well look at events on the ground we're going to get it it's been a nine year war well you know it's been nine one year wars i mean it hasn't been one nine year war was a very significant it's a different strategy it's a different force structure it's a different set of commanders so it's all over you i get tired of hearing the saying is you know when do we quit well first of all you should only fight wars if you're in their vital national interest so if you believe they're in the right national interest you ought to fight them until you win as long as you can and with your resources and capabilities think if there's a way for us to win in afghanistan what is what is it exactly that is going to secure our success in our victory well i think it looks much like iraq which everybody admits is not the land of milk and honey but what do you have in iraq is a situation where the government can stand and have the capacity to exercise its sovereignty and defend itself that's kind of the end state that you know afghanistan and the the prerequisite for a significant withdrawal of american forces a lot of people would argue with that and say that the government in iraq is

nowhere near stable and will general david petraeus and strategy still hold there i mean just last week we had a new report saying that al qaeda is still being back and they're taking the sons of iraq which petraeus first used as you know the success story and there is just starting to simply pay them more than the three hundred dollars a month that they get currently from the iraqi government so they're going back to al qaida so now that we're actually leaving iraq it looks like everything's going back to well i mean this is the easy button version of history which is i want all my problems to be solved and everything to be over and that's not the reality of what happens on the ground is iraq perfect no did anybody ever promise it was before you know you know is iraq still a coherent country yes i mean you know look let's look at what europe looked like after world war two when we won ok all of western europe was completely destroyed and half of western europe was occupied by the soviet army. nobody complained they said well you know what do you expect you just for the big war and so my argument would be what do you expect iraq to look like and what it iraq is going to mean the

horrible thing about it is iraq's probably going to fall back into war it's going on that's the result of a war and the you know i list my notes and think that's a presumption and i don't know you know first of all we know where everyone is the reception but you know if that wasn't the case then why wouldn't we have our top commanders saying that we're still going to have to have civil you know security forces stay there after the combat troops leave and we did right i mean there's and they're going to our combat arriving and i only left and there probably won't be even we'll probably have a u.s. presence there for some time because of all the u.s. troops left iraq probably would fail even with the number of troops we have there it's going to be a struggle but when you're want to take odds i mean iraq is a bad i mean let's flash but i don't know let's let's go let's go now let's just get a real let's just flashback for seven to two thousand and five two thousand and seven when people said iraq was impossible the country divided the genocide it was you could not resurrect this if nobody if you said look this is what iraq look like in two thousand and ten people said oh my god if you could promise me that i'd take

that so i mean come on let's not pretend that iraq is some big huge failure because it's not ever going to college big huge success i don't know that i don't have it all but let's go back to afghanistan that is really where i would like to lay our focus here because that is the currently the larger the longest war that the u.s. is not involved in now it seems like dave petraeus is telling us that it's going to last even longer and even he's right but how is going to get the public to support that while the public doesn't have to support it and the american war is a problem or two where if there is there are going to be fighting there and dying of marijuana because american morris has never been popular if you look at every american work going back to the american revolution we've only had one war that didn't get a popular over time and that was world war two in every other war we've had from the american revolution the spanish-american war and every war or start out way popular. and as they drag on they get less and less popular if you look at the emergence of the lower floors also aside from were world war two is perhaps the prime example of a war where there is actually an end date and

a success and you know that you beat the enemy but if we don't you know we didn't win another war is like you know we're actually running out of time here but i just have a quick question for you too is do you think that the people of afghanistan want us there oh you bet and here is more important is you know why don't you can we secure our interests and do they like the taliban to tell most horribly unpopular what's going to happen when the u.s. leaves the taliban is going to come back so i think that question answers itself and the taliban already just stoned a couple to death this past week something which hasn't happened since two thousand and seven which makes the argument that this is not people that you want back in charge will this strategy work i believe the strategy will work given time i thought the timeline for a significant withdrawal in two thousand that was completely unrealistic i think america can help stand up afghanistan i don't think it'll be easy. but i do think it's in our vital national but i just don't know whether the afghanistan that stands up as you say is going to be one that america likes and will want to accept after that will have better than the one run by the table thank you. to tonight's

fireside for. this friday i'd like to for a moment set our sights on to one of the highest deficits in europe at the moment they just like everyone else are looking for ways to cut down unlike here in washington where defense spending is just completely untouchable all the brits actually have the guts to put it on the chopping block there won't be an official review until late october but the cuts aren't looking outlandish some are expecting maybe a ten to twenty percent reduction something that seems reasonable in a world where everyone is reeling from a global financial crisis but washington meaning the obama administration military officials and advisers whole day. just in shock cut defense by ten to twenty percent are you crazy how are we going to depend on you as an ally even though we

the u.s. already spend more money on the military than the rest of the world combined well i have news for you why don't you wake up washington maybe we should actually look to the brits our partner in a special relationship as an example you know the fact that republicans released a pledge to america yesterday focused on reducing the size of government and the deficit and they didn't even touch the pentagon well that's just sickening the fact that robert gates our defense secretary came up with a plan to make our defense spending grow by just one percent instead of seven every year and look at that growth as an achievement that's just pathetic for once can we take our heads out of our asses for long enough to see that our policies don't make sense and that for once maybe someone else has a better plan. still

to come using the war in afghanistan as a pretext to place american citizens on in this us a nation list it's happening right now here in america my interview was along the glenn greenwald the subject is coming up in just a few minutes. what's really happening to the global economy. headlines kaiser report.

which became a. nineteenth century. the war in afghanistan was launched after the september eleventh terrorist attacks and since that time politicians have told the us and the world the world war with the terrorist network but in the fight to keep the country safe should the u.s. government really be able to place american citizens on the sasa nation list a muslim cleric who was born in new mexico is now on that list and just in case they can't kill him the government is also decided that they also bring him to court before he's captured i know it sounds confusing so here's my interview with salaams glenn greenwald to explain how this january we learned thanks to the former

director of national intelligence dennis blair that the u.s. has no problem placing u.s. citizens on an assassination list without any due process they reserve the right to find someone and just killed plain and simple and. the u.s. and yemeni citizen born in new mexico is on that list and the muslim cleric is considered to be a radical who's inspired a wave of attempted attacks against the u.s. and who serves as a leading english speaking voice for reciting and motivating motivating excuse me terrorists now according to counterterrorism officials he's also become a key operational figure who selects targets and gives orders although these officials have failed to really offer any specifics or proof of that but now comes a new twist to the story the obama administration is considering filing criminal charges against the cleric in case the cia fails to kill him but he really offered to give someone a fair trial after you've already put them on the sas nation list or earlier i

caught up with glenn greenwald from salon dot com now in a piece on this topic he used alice in wonderland is a perfect analogy of offering a sentence first and giving a verdict afterward so i ask glenn what he thought the administration was thinking here by making this move and whether we could consider it backtracking. bad. i think what they're doing is trying to protect themselves against one of two circumstances the first is that the a.c.l.u. and the son of constitutional rights just sued the obama administration last month seeking a court order in joining the president from essentially murdering this u.s. citizen without due process and so by bringing criminal charges against him and seeking an indictment i think that's a way for the court to for the administration to convince the court that the obama administration really does have some evidence of criminality and that they are not completely operating outside of the law that at least they are now pursuing

sanctions within the sphere of the judicial system and then i think the other aspect of it is that one of the concerns that the obama administration has is that at the many government succeeds in detaining and finding and then detaining all aki they've essentially already said that because the law is a you many citizen he's also with us today and he has dual citizenship that the men he's don't intend to turn him over to the united states and so by criminally charging him and indicting him that i think they they think bolsters their hand to seek extradition from the him any government and demand that he be sent to the united states the reality is that they're still trying to kill him this is not in lieu of trying to kill these criminal charges just in addition to as they continue to search for him in order to drop a drone missile on asserted yeah that's what i love is they're like just in case the cia fails only dell actually get to murder the guy then maybe they will take it

to court but you know i you say that you know this is a way of them have been able to prove that perhaps he is a bigger threat and they have information here but you know they they don't really reveal any specifics of that so if they then do choose to take this to court are they going to be able to keep those secret as are those going to be state secret privileges that they'll then invoke and say at this you know matters under the guise of national secure. thirty and still get away with giving him a death sentence. no i mean the state secret privilege essentially allows the government if they are sued to tell the court that the court should not hear the lawsuit against the government because in order to defend themselves they would have to use documents and that would arrest the disclosure of state secrets but the government could never at least never before. prosecute somebody and then claim that because the evidence against them is secret they shouldn't have to use it in essentially they should be able to imprison the person anyway there

are the resources of the court as in instruments that the court can invoke in order to keep certain proceeding secret if there is really a compelling reason to do so so if the government wants to introduce evidence in this trial that the government convinces the judge to be kept secret the court can order the proceedings closed and that part of the transcript sealed that's done fairly routinely but if the government wants to prosecute him they're going to have to put forth all their evidence that will convince a jury of his peers that he's actually guilty beyond a reasonable doubt now why do you think that we don't hear more critique of the obama administration for doing this why is there not more anger from the people that say that the government has too much power all of a sudden when so much power is placed into the executive who can put people on an assassination list there's just silence there's crickets why is that. one of the things that happened was during the one nine hundred ninety s. when the clinton administration was in power the right wing in the united states

the conservative movement was extremely vocal about objecting to all sorts of powers that the president was exerting not just with regard to domestic policy but in terms of terrorism as well they were petrified over eavesdropping powers that the bill clinton wanted to increase in the wake of the oklahoma city bombing they were concerned about the pfizer court granting warrants to eavesdrop on. people's conversations in secret and even people like john ashcroft led the way in terms of demanding that americans privacy and civil liberties be protected of course once the republicans got into office that all change in the conservatives were no longer interested in limited and presidential power they were interested in expanding it in the very people who were leading the way in the ninety's became the most aggressive in terms of expanding government power like john ashcroft very much the same thing has happened to the democrats during the bush years democrats and progressives were outraged over the kinds of assertions of executive power that we see here of this is our nation program they go big claim that bush was

a fascist was after sizing monarchical power was shredding the constitution and now suddenly that there is a democrat in office though the democrats just like happened to the republicans when they got into power are no longer interested in concerns about access to presidential power they're they're you they're willing to acquiesce to it meekly or they're all for it and then when you combine the fact that republicans bent the last ten years cheering for every power to be vested in the president the name of terrorism it's very hard for the republicans to object as well even if there's a democrat in the white house and so you basically have this bipartisan consensus that sits by and more of us silently has as presidential power exceeds beyond the worst nightmares of the founders and why isn't that just fabulous now let's look at this there's also another option if they do go through with this trial that they might only be able to charge him with it with supporting terrorism something the only carries a fifteen year sentence so and that case do you think that you know that would be

a little embarrassing for the administration that people would finally pick up on the fact that they already put a death you know that they decided this guy deserves to die and yet they can only give him fifteen years in jail. well that's you know part of the irony of the discussion now that that they may charge him with a crime i mean the only things that we know that he has done are give sermons that are fairly extremist in nature and he advocates the idea that muslims have a duty in response to american aggression in the muslim world to engage in aggression back in the united states and he's mostly confined his statements to advocating that the attacks be on military bases and facilities the way nidal hasan attacked the fort hood military base but the supreme court has said for many decades that even advocating the bio limbs or revolution or attacks on the government are perfectly protected by the first amendment you can stand up and say i think united states government so we have all that it's now justifiable to engage

in violence against and that is protected speech and so that is one of the really big questions too is if all they really have on him is that he's basically advocating on behalf of jihadism a violent form of jihadism and saying that because americans are engaging in violence against muslims muslims can and should engage in violence against the united states we know he's saying that it's hard to argue that that's even criminal at all because the first amendment free speech cause allows you to express those views and if they are criminal if it crosses some laws that i'm not aware of that as you said that the worst that it is is lending support to terrorism which has a maximum had only fifteen years in prison and that leads to the question of well if the only crime that you can really prove were even argue that he's committed is one that the law says you can be put in jail for a maximum of fifteen years for why are you trying to kill him then you know i was in the death penalty on a crime that only fifteen years in prison well it does look like at this is becoming a sticky legal situation for the obama administration now that american citizens

are you know are involved in the war on terror glenn thanks so much for joining us . my pleasure thank you yesterday i want. d.c. showed the country once again just how disconnected they are from the american people in a rare show of bipartisan might the democratic house overwhelmingly approved fifty nine billion dollars in funding for the war in afghanistan all of this fall a majority of the american people disagree with that war and it's pretty damn obvious to the naked eye that we're losing that war and that there is no chance of winning that war but here's what made the news that one hundred and fourteen brave representatives voted against the bill most of whom only voted against it because certain social spending provisions got cut out of this the last time the house voted for war funding thirty two democrats voted against the bill that was last year this time around three times as many one hundred into democrats voted to

defund the war but you're right it was a tough battle because a lot of the president's fellow democrats in the house didn't want to sign on to this some of them already anti-war but even. you see what should have made headlines are the only one hundred fourteen members have the guts to stand up to this losing war when will washington get it in their heads that it's time to plan the way out and in time i mean now stop funding the war without a winning strategy and stop sending our soldiers to this and less war we can't afford it we can't win so how long until washington starts to get it. to tonight's fireside fridays be fewer. cops. is friday i'd like to return to what is by now become a household name the infamous blackwater you know that private security firm with

such a nasty reputation that they tried changing their name to the same firm whose founder has since run off to hide and dobby to avoid all of the lawsuits that are pending against him anyway you might ask why am i bringing them up again. that's just because according to wired's danger and they've managed to get more money from our government that's right thanks to a joint venture there which they've been able to completely conceal in all documentation that they are in fact involved in which they've hidden behind a name called international development solutions so they didn't even have to submit an independent bid thanks to all that they have no one in nice little piece of a ten billion dollar deal does anyone else out there find that disturbing let me remind you that this was the firm that was involved in a shootout in baghdad in two thousand and seven where seventeen civilians were killed and after which the iraqi government banned them from doing business in the country oh yeah they.