it's a function of signing off that if you're going to bankrupt the cum country for fifty years there should be a vote ninety percent of the people of opposed to what the social democratic government is doing because they didn't want to all be plunged into the bankruptcy that you've just described she tried to do it all over again and again was rejected now this is in a nutshell what happens with the a central bank because you're told in europe the big lie that a central independent central bank is the whole market but markets the independent something nobody votes for its control by the i'll make our case it means drop your democracy let's have an oligarchy that's what an independent central bank means in the long as he will have some probiotic run by right wing bankers who will say we want to bring in an anti labor economist like the lady in france instead of the i.m.f. . and we want to be anti-democratic anti-labor and you say that's the whole market democracy then how on earth are you ever going to have

a civilized jeffords democracy in the euro is it a toxic mix very much so i mean essentially we're dealing with the neil version of plato's republic being played out in central banks i mean it's absolutely terrible there's no democracy to just follow up on a point that you made you know i could argue that there is a real structural dimension to this crisis not to respond nationalization is starved of the real economy of capital and entrepreneurial energies that would have gone into innovation previously and as a consequence of that we're not seeing the deployment of as many innovative technologies as we perhaps would have in the past nor the development of the i think you're right to a certain extent it's a false crisis but on a deeper level there is some real dimension to it as well doing the job and i don't know why but i mean i agree i mean to your general global problem about our financially dominant you know financial services about back to the banking sector you know but i mean that's that's true of a block about what i said and i got a year at the year i was a currency you know it's. it's kind of it's kind of cry so much of the way you know

the sort of ha ha ha ha ha they don't stand a v. i mean i think he's was working maybe imposed you know severely deflationary policies on countries that could survive it but i do think that's a separate issue like what do you hate anglo merkel so much i don't hate her it's the fact that you indeed interrupt all the all the other the programs she has bought the banking myth she says we have to give money to the banks and make them solvent if they lose all the money in the bad debt make them good you've used the word financialization she doesn't she thinks that the economy needs bankers to run it in to make it work but the bankers product is depth and the reason we're in a crisis is that the debt crisis because the bankers have created that irresponsibly she says it's nothing government to tell banks to be productive the parasitic that's the free market rip us off pay that's the free market our job is to give the bankers enough money so that when they make bad loans they can do everything they get paid and we're willing to sacrifice the economy year after year

we're willing to sell so merkel is an american politician she can deliver her constituency to her campaign contributors and if that's the kind of politics you have and europe then the american the american system the writers of the eurozone in referring to old europe the way he says are going to rouse the wild one point which is that i thought she was scared of the losses of the european banks which would suffer if you know for example i mean it's obvious to anyone that greece should default or instead be yet one hundred seventy disparate g.d.p. as economy contracts you said said yeah there's absolutely no way to begin to repay is that eventually if you talk if you talk to people who are now in the balance are most likely to hedge funds of the day they know they're going to be paid out to said i'm going to say on the year i know that i've been lucky to get fifty cents on the year and i bet it settles on the bad but that's a scared of the loss of its value of a subset of b.m.p. and the bank of the rest of it that allowed it to happen that it would be much better for everyone if they allowed the peripherals. trees to default and then if

they need to rescue. you could have a debate about afterwards if you think. they've been rescued i would have to be. at least through it i'm sure where you where everything is above board and everyone can see the figures be much better and we have the same issue with sweden and lots of course the swedish banks were terrified as was the swedish government latvians we default and i think you're absolutely right matthew we need to get right on we have to stop maintaining this fiction that these debts are retail they're not but just to just take a huge haircut everybody will know when i came so all right just cancel the public would actually benefit from this so the banks would take a haircut but just to get back to the point michael made i mean i think what he was describing was a kind of a functional outcome of the system i mean michael has used an analogy or metaphor before they're rather like and that is of a parasite that actually convinces its host to act in ways that it wants and so we have this ideology that's present and that's how the system runs in a very parasitic fashion you have a clone of those who actually control intellectual production and politicians pick

up on that i think many of them think they actually are acting in the public interest so we're jeff and i disagree with the europeans is that we're free marketers we believe in what adam smith said adam smith said that no government has ever repaid it and he was right and we believe that. the pretense that governments can repay the debts the banks know very well that they can't repay their debts what they want is no foreclosure time is a arrived oh you can't pay give us the parthenon give us your water supply give us your tourist land this is the big gray up and that's finances now doing what military wasn't that kind of faith in smith even give you the last word i kind of like kind of finance destroying the real economy. well i said this sentiment in the u.s. i mean the insistence that peripheral countries can be about that is he's absolutely catastrophic for these and for these economies i mean i think you know people just need to look at the figures of what's happening in places like greece about just the most extreme example say things happen if you lay a portugal and spain you know we've seen recessions in the u.k. the united states but this is

a nine hundred thirty style just well the session that's been your face on these countries and it's it's completely crazy right it's really i don't have all ended on a very pessimistic note always happens when we discuss the euro i want to thank my guests here i think in the global policy forum here in the us lobby thank you very much and thanks to our viewers for watching us here arche see you next time and remember cross talk rules. take. well when one deals with wall for us to realize that this tremendous amounts of damage that are done not just human damage but damage to the physical environment in which the battlefield takes place tremendous amount of damage done by aerial bombs by napalm boy chemicals that whether it's on

a sonic boom say factory mammals or it's the burning oil fields on the rock or gets destroyed. in the search for planning purposes the list just goes on and on the geneva conventions just nineteen forty nine states that terror shall be taken in the war to protect one's life against widespread long term and severe damage the united states although it is accepted almost all of the provisions of protocol one has taken exception to that. free. free. free. free. free. free. free

blog. for your. c.e.o. gondar cheap. broken the law to show how get the real headlines with none of them or see if you live in washington d.c. now tonight we're going to ask if it tastes ever realize i'm still not allowed we're talking about nine eleven in our country's response to it paul krugman called post nine eleven shameful don rumsfeld of all people called kirkman's remarks repugnant and even counsel business groups into the new york times so why are we back to this then some say the chance of a greek default or up to ninety eight percent of our investors are suffering from a relying on bailout mentality and i'm sure we've heard a lot about the evils of illegal immigration that's night's republican tea party

debate but what about legal immigration let's talk about this important group of job creation we have all that and more for you tonight including a dose of happy hour but first let's take a look at what the mainstream media has decided to miss. now over the weekend we saw a violent attack take place in afghanistan that injured seventy seven u.s. soldiers so in response the mainstream media once again decided to remember that hey we're at war. telegrams claiming responsibility for massive explosion that injured seventy seven u.s. troops a suicide truck bomber attempts to kill as many american troops as possible a massive truck bomb rocked the u.s. military base in afghanistan over the weekend the insurgents the taliban were trying to send a message on the eve of the nine eleven anniversary taliban a suicide bomber brought a truck full of explosives to the current of a combat outpost. and now not only is

a sign of the continued bad state of the war in afghanistan despite the fact that we've been there for almost ten years now and have a troop presence of one hundred thousand it's also one of those pathetic reminders and the mainstream media doesn't care about it unless there is a big shock in our story such as this when suddenly it's worth of reporters on the ground to actually take time out of the partisan bickering in washington and who are in conflict violence and to report on real world effects of our war on terror but he's you and i both know that happens oh it's so rarely what is the percentage of coverage of the media devoted to the war in afghanistan last year oh yeah i'm easily four percent but here's what really gets me is that even when they do decide to turn their glance to the wars again they still act surprise surprise at the war still going on the momentum that our military officials talk about isn't real and of course they might throw in a few lines pandering to the military industrial complex about how this they guess must justify the endless war on terror because the threat of terrorism is so so

real and well then they move on but they forget of course is that the war in afghanistan is on winnable ok forget is that this war isn't just an afghanistan the pakistan is a major part and of course our own actions affected as well our own continuous occupation of countries our own drone strikes that take civilian lives and turn populations against us and so let's put this little tidbit of information that we all know the cia has an ever expanding drone program they just don't talk about it we talked about the fact of the cia has in fact become a killing machine instead of. an intelligence gathering agency but the mainstream media conveniently ignored that story too so what a shock but they also ignored a ruling from a federal judge last friday and the cia gets to continue not having to release any records related to its use of drones to kill in afghanistan pakistan and elsewhere and the a.c.l.u. brought this lawsuit but the judge there rejected the notion that lethal drones are really involved in acquiring intelligence too so if there's some intelligence

acquiring going on then the cia gets to stay out of the reach of all scrutiny all legal bounds who cares if they're killing people it's for intelligence so more money spent more drone strikes are launched more lives are taken all without anybody anybody able to hold the cia accountable and that's actually thinks now for the courts in this country but that's of the mainstream media chooses to miss because they'd rather keep getting surprised that there are wars going on out there . and yesterday was a day of mourning and more realisation for americans remembering the three thousand victims of the attacks on september eleventh of two thousand and one we heard a lot of heartfelt stories a lot of inspiring words but we also saw some journalists pundits public personalities take the time to reflect on the negative poor reactions that we've had as a country and the exploitation of the by some politicians but apparently the latter that's not allowed take for example paul krugman from the new york times he wrote

what happened after nine eleven and i think even people on the right know this whether they admit it or not was deeply shameful the atrocity should have been a unifying event but instead it became a great issue heroes like bernie kerik rudy giuliani and yes george w. bush raced to cash in on the whore and then the attack was used to justify an unrelated war the neo cons want to fight for all the wrong reasons now when i say that that type of rhetoric isn't allowed i mean that every right wing news website and blog went ballistic today over that statement. even former secretary of defense donald rumsfeld had something to say he tweeted this morning after reading crewman's repugnant piece on nine eleven i cancelled my subscription to the new york times. so i really thought the point or perhaps returning to us were real isn't isn't allowed and any any critique is labelled as unpatriotic or discuss this with me is jim hansen retired special operations master sergeant and military blogger. it should thanks so much for being here tonight pleasure now for starters

i will get into the reactions but let's get your take on what it is that crew wrote today do you think that there is some shame in the way that people reacted afterwards in the way that some politicians happy lives on in the way that nine eleven was used to get us into a war in iraq that really had nothing to do with nine eleven ok let's go with the first half i think there was definite shame involved with the reaction some people had in sea west bank of palestine where they were dancing in the streets over those deaths and i think there was some shimon what group krugman said because he is a repugnant individual i was stunned that rumsfeld's who had a subscription to the new york times that. has critique the new york times so many times over the years for reporting on some of the atrocities that were committed during the bush administration and he even considered it treasonous for the new york times to report on these things so why you still had a subscription kind of blog everybody comedy relief because i recognize there have been some ads in post nine eleven america that i think honestly are kind of shameful and i think that the fake i think

a new york times releasing this and i presume it's part of that well let's get to the yes or no do you accept that using nine eleven as one of the justifications to go to. the main reason i thought he was it we can do we were convinced that they had every was convinced if you close. that was tenuous at best and was used as most tangential what was the number one reason for going to war in iraq was that saddam hussein refused to show that he had gotten rid of his weapons . besse destruction and the programs that support he wouldn't let us do proper inspections and consequently when the guy standing there who shot his neighbor he says no i threw my gun away but he said it was our behind his back i think it's reasonable to question whether it was on the get rid of if you think it's completely reasonable though to launch a war based on false information when really it was just a call that a mistake there's a huge difference you keep people who say well you know you launch a war if you're not one hundred percent sure of the information who wasn't sure

look at the british look at the french look at all our friends everybody agree the democrats republicans everybody agree that saddam was a threat everybody agreed that it was horrible and now even. we have forgotten my situation the usual saying that it was wrong and they wish they hadn't done that because they hear stick with it but that's not you and i are doing is we're having a debate people get things wrong and people get to debate so why do we hear this outrage now this is very much like what we saw leading up to the war in iraq right because there was a lot of opposition and if you dare oppose going into war in iraq then that was considered treasonous things you weren't a patriot and now we have the exact same thing if people want to be realistic about nine eleven post nine eleven america if they want to critique them then move that everyone's made like kirkman suddenly that's totally not allowed either let that happen i one hundred percent report support polk ruben's right to be an idiot on the cases in new york times and he did it now he's paying the price just because someone says i'm not going to write him any at work late by does he have to pay a price because what he said was an idiotic and false and repugnant i think that's

a great word repugnant it was heinous it was agreed to be is the wonderful world to describe donald rumsfeld himself so so interesting to tell you that if you go as long as we put krugman on the same side of whatever repugnancy the guy first of all i don't know why they gave him a nobel prize among economists but i know paul krugman knows less than anybody i can think of about foreign policy so to take his opinion and value it more than say one of their theater critics are right there are other up it's the new york times is old. pretty partisan too about politicians like rudy giuliani that definitely did use the nine eleven momentum for all that it was worth but i also want to talk about something that the president said yesterday because of course we had a lot of speeches a lot of commemoration going on and some inspiring words but some words that i think deserve a little bit of critique let's take a listen. curved or as a nation has not trick our faith in god

and each other that is not a trick these past ten years of showing that america does not give in to fear. i one hundred percent disagree that america does not give in to fear what would you call the last ten years and some of the responses including some of the wars including the assault on our civil liberties t.s.a. scanners the fact that now we can't even try people we have to indefinitely detain them because we're too afraid to actually have be counted for our torture is that we can bring them into court with all the social disorder but now we can't bring detainees from guantanamo bay on to u.s. soil because what we learned is that i have get more for not going to try people there that's why we do european countries of terrorism excuse me terrorism trials on their soil has been no problem we've had trials on our own soil there's been no problem that is here there is a. i don't want a ghost of johnny cochran come down and saying oh it's you know who the scarf

doesn't fit we must acquit but i don't think that's a good idea i think the president's critics we haven't let fear define is the last ten years i would disagree with the word paybacks america all right he started it the bad guys took a beating though i think whether or not we've achieved the goal of killing al qaeda that's the question is a difficult game with this organization but what we have done is dealt them some pretty deadly blows and other people bomb a credit he said it himself in that same speech he said we've killed the leaders in the past two years with them cia drones from that killing machine and bravo stack them like cordwood that's what the terrorists are best used for but meantime do you think that everything else that goes along with what you call payback has been absolutely worth it and like i said again the erosion of civil liberties now we have but fifteen thousand every i and what i mean what are monitoring muslim communities muslim mosques muslim cafes where the terrorist threat is coming from i mean if you could identify were terrorists migrant communities how do we how many a lot of been arrested who were plotting in america who were muslim who'd been caught

by informants whether they were local p.d. or f.b.i. there's a wait and there's a way to do it legally without having to step on the civil liberties of the resident american population is you know lawrence you don't. go and spy on everybody i don't know i'm pretty sure they're going to be here i know you're not a fan of life no they're not to identify with war received reports of the cia's been working with the n.y.p.d. also they're not supposed to do the cia isn't allowed to spy on americans either they're not spying they're just giving advice to the n.y.p.d. who's doing what we want them to do which is catch the bad guys before they blow something they're teaching them how to spy them do it better to begin with he's one supposed to do it and the cia can train him to do it better more power to what about islamophobia has that been a reaction of. i'm not particularly scared of the idea there was one of the things that was supposed to happen after nine eleven is all these horrible things that happen to muslims you know what increased attacks against jews have increased in the ten years since nine eleven attacks against muslims are so minimal and in fact testable that they're hardly trackable it hasn't happened but what about the fact

that we have a banning of sharia law something that's completely nonexistent in america now that we now are going through state legislature is good and it's sad to see it's been banned in alabama it doesn't exist that is a theory a lot of those realities it doesn't exist here in the u.s. there's been no jack lawless here nobody low you. know to be very exact has really decided to put it i really course are trying to put in parallel banking systems and if they want to make that binding by law that's wrong if they want to voluntarily again there is no creeping sharia fraggle let's get to one last thing here israel says those of frank gaffney and i'm not going to bring that name into the studio. last week president obama announced or at least his release to that obviously we know we will be keeping troops in iraq that number's going down to three thousand not the ten thousand that some people had asked for and john mccain had a few words to say about that. i try to support the question is for much as i can these from very important issues but there was no military person in anywhere that

recommended that these would take place before the second fighting season there is no military person that doesn't believe we need to reseed you will force in iraq far in excess. the size that apparently has been planned. actually not true if you think about general ray odierno who used to be in charge in iraq who recently took over as army chief of staff said the larger the force we leave behind the more comments the occupation force to remain and then we have to think of why are there continuing to develop iraq we don't want to be called an occupation force so we have to consider the fact that we need to remember down get the numbers down ok last person the world wants to argue with it was one of the few people who actually scares me i put the bottom line is we're if we're there in more than three you can call this an occupying force the problem is can you accomplish the mission you're there to do with the numbers you're leaving if you leave three thousand people we can barely conduct a training mission and we have absolutely no chance to conduct this

a curative mission if so you know i don't know the oil rich region of course cook blows up when the kurds decide to see because there's nobody there to stop them or there's nobody there to intervene if the iraqis decide to take back or theory means decide to move some more revolutionary guards in there's any number of things that could go wrong that we stop merely by our presence so garrison somebody there who felt like your old forever and that your. as been a war there lately you know been troops there since the last war and this is why we broke the country jim thanks so much for joining us. now still to come tonight as we continue to mark the anniversary of attacks on nine eleven we'll look at stocks they are money as the u.s. spent on homeland security and asked for investments of prop then words on on the street is that there is now a ninety eight percent chance of a great faith off our investors still banking on a bailout from god and that topic interest in the. internet only military mechanisms if you don't work to bring justice or

accountability. i have every right to know what my government should do if you want to know why i pay taxes. well i would characterize obama as a charismatic version of american exceptionalism. you know sometimes you see a story and it seems so poorly sleep is if you understand it and then when something else here's some other part of it and realize that everything is ok you don't know i'm sorry blog is a big issue. let's not forget that we had an apartheid regime right here.

i think. either one well. we have the government says there are they keep him safe get ready because you give them their freedom.

on friday we crunched some numbers on how he was five minutes divided up its federal spending in our post nine eleven society and we explained the u.s. has spent six hundred thirty five billion dollars since two thousand and one on the department of homeland security alone and i think pretty stunning amount of money now a recent slate article questions if our country really needed to spend that kind of money at all john mueller marks you are right about cost effectiveness saying the security measure is cost effective when the benefit of the measure outweighs the cost of providing those security measures and they compare the cost of security measures with the benefits is tallied and lives saved and damages averted now as we said earlier the u.s. has spent six hundred and thirty five billion dollars since two thousand and one on the department of homeland security alone so let's see how many terror attacks they compute would need to have been prevented or foiled each year to justify that spending now they look at three main factors to calculate the cost effectiveness

the possibility of a successful attack the losses sustained in a successful attack and the reduction in risk furnished by security measures now those factors in mind they argue for the amount of money spent on v.h.s. the u.s. would need to put a halt on approximately one thousand six hundred and sixty seven attacks each year or approximately four attacks per day now there have been thirty three legitimate terror plots exposed since nine eleven clearly nowhere near the fifteen hundred a year mark and co-authors also go on to explain why the most important elements of protecting our country since the nine eleven attacks were actually in place before the twin towers fell ten years ago if you combine those original efforts with an uptick in civilian vigilance over the past decade it looks as if many of our post nine eleven efforts like the t.s.a. body scanners and those things that were unnecessary and in fact mueller and stewart go on to say to the best way to avoid overspending on counterterrorism efforts it's a stop over reacting so now that it's been ten years since nine eleven is it time

to go back and completely reform his spending habits now i'm not arguing that oh my security should be demolished completely but when you crunch numbers the way that mueller and stuart have it's just dropping to realize just how much money has been wasted and not used for real protection. i'm nervous about the eurozone are going on friday the whispers of the greek default coming over the weekend were everywhere it's monday obviously that hasn't happened yet but the signs are still pointing in negative direction despite an announcement of two billion euros worth of fresh austerity measures and a countrywide real estate tax in greece germany has stepped up its rhetoric the german economy minister is saying that an orderly default for greece and no longer be considered taboo bloomberg has even reported that greece's chances of a default have now soared to ninety eight percent yeah that fears of downgrades of the french banking sector and everybody is expecting the markets to run wild but i think it's not responding to some argue that perhaps we have a culture of expected bailouts that's at the investor mentality so what happens if

that mentality is wrong joining me to discuss this is edward harrison a founder of the blog write down every thanks so much for joining us tonight now do you think that at this point it's inevitable explain this ninety eight percent chance that people are saying of agreeing to a thought you know they have these derivatives credit default swaps and. you know people bet on the board they buy them. that basically default with there's no is the numbers stack up to be within the next five years as a percent share. which there would be only a forty percent of the cold reach of the of the do you buy that would you bet on that. that's why it's said i think it's going to within five years definitely the question is not if it's going to happen when it's good or five years seems like kind of a long time at least at the rate of things have been going you know and now we have the german economy minister saying that we can.