james the same. length. welcome to the learn a show or get the real headlines with none of the mercy of the washington d.c. now tonight we're going to host our monday panel taking a look at apac and obama's meeting with netanyahu the prospects of war with iran calls for u.s. air strikes in syria and russian and iranian elections then last year was the first year in decades where no new banks were created in the u.s. so could this be thanks to the consolidation of power in are too big to fail banks that have only gotten bigger and

a new group aims to be the central point for collecting donations for the occupy movement but is that going against the occupy movement stance we're going to all that and more for you tonight including a dose of happy hour but first let's take a look at the mainstream media has decided to miss. well the day has finally come but a bit i've been waiting for i know where attorney general eric holder would give a speech outlining when and why this is ministration believes that it has the right to target u.s. citizens without any due process and the speech given in northwestern university in chicago holder made it very clear that this administration firmly believes that this gross violation of the constitution is a ok so let me just break it down for you in a few details stressing on the point that we live in very dangerous times in times of war holder said the u.s. government has the right to order the killing of u.s. citizens abroad if they are senior al qaeda operatives who pose an imminent threat

and cannot reasonably be captured gave us entire speech without even mentioning a lot here which is completely absurd considering that he's the first american citizen that we know that the administration has actually done this to him and of course the other american who was killed in the same drone strike and a sixteen year old son was killed and another strike in yemen shortly after i was also important to mention considering that this administration still hasn't made public the secret legal memo specifically detailing why they considered it legally . justifiable to do in a locked case specifically so just a massive gap sink in for you a speech given by the attorney general justifying the government's ability to kill american citizens without due process without mentioning the american citizens that they've already killed without due process now here's another kicker holder said the administration doesn't have to get the approval of a judge to carry out this kind of assassination a word that he called loaded and misplaced he claims that the constitution

guarantees due process but not judicial process and there are not one of the same when it comes to cases of national security so once again we see the argument being made that our courts don't have a say in the matter because it's a matter of national security so we should just leave it up to the president to expand his own powers in an incredibly scary way and make these decisions on his own and that's his great if this is the road that we're heading down permanently why even have courts or an executive place judge jury and executioner all in one and now the last point i want to make tonight was a holder also use the argument that we're fighting a stateless enemy so once again the entire world is our battlefield so used to the us government can go after whoever they want without going to the courts and providing evidence wherever they want because we're in a state of never ending armed conflict that we've deemed global and also whenever they want holder also said the constitution doesn't require the president to delay the action until some quote theoretical end stage of planning when the precise time

place and manner of attack become clear so if they think that you might be planning an attack they can preemptively strike and kill you that's a lot to take in it's not entirely shocking considering the way this is ministration has handled this issue up until now but why now the grodd powers of they've given themselves are truly outrageous and unfortunately the mainstream media they really think that this was that big of a deal today fox news was the only channel that spent a few minutes on it from a we saw and the liberal m s n b c that would have probably been outrage if this were the bush administration's attorney general speaking they were conspicuously silent. the white house is set to make a major announcement sixty today attorney general eric holder forced to justify the obama administration's so-called target kill program the attorney general eric holder will lay out a legal framework to justify the targeted killing of u.s. citizens overseas it's a summary of what the attorney general believes is the law but on the basis of that

summary the president can be judge jury and executioner for any american anywhere if the president has decided the evidence of guilt is overwhelming and walk he was the first american on the cia's capture or kill list that's when they use deadly force against american terrorists overseas. so only fox news only the politan are actually having an issue with this as a sad sick day think they will have an untelevised speech where no questions were allowed given at a university where the attorney general says the government can kill its own and it's not available and the mainstream media which has been apathetic at best with this issue up until now well they continue to give it a quick glance and they pass and that is a massive. all right time for our monday hangover panel where you realize that despite the weekend your had already heard on monday morning thanks to events beaches calls toward the

don't take saturday and sunday are so they will take a good hard look at the apac conference and president obama's speech where he continued with the ritual of american presidents declaring their fealty to israel. but as you examine i commit you don't just have to count on my words to look at my deeds. because over the last three years as president of the united states i keep my commitments to the state of israel. to show. the road. for israel every single time. but the president also played both sides when talking about the prospects for military action against iran urging diplomacy and yet saying that all options are on the table we also saw today senator john mccain call for u.s. airstrikes in syria and we're going to ask how the russian election and iranian

elections well thank you politics in the years to come so have your water your pain pills for monday hangover. so here to discuss this with us tonight is lawrence korb senior fellow at the american progress action fund and former assistant secretary fence also joining us is retired lieutenant colonel anthony shaffer senior fellow for the center for advanced defense studies and back to america also author of the book operation dark heart and thank you so much for joining us tonight you have a lot to cover let's just start with apac in of itself this point that i made earlier we showed you know president obama obviously talking about his commitment to israel but is there something a little odd about this ritual where i know they do it every single year but every single year the president has to. make sure that israel above every other nation in

the rest of the world know that we are dedicated to them is a kind of weird you know i don't think so i think one of the reasons he had to do with it as you mentioned other presidents had there has been concern because he has basically try to get the government to stop the settlements and i think people took that as a conservative we were concerned about the security of israel and i think that was the. the reason why he felt you have to do it is almost like an apology well. larry my vision is that i think it was a political speech for a political year this is a reelection year for him he's been trailing i believe in the perception at least by the jewish voters that he's been doing everything he can to support the israelis with that said if he really meant his words what he said yesterday he should have actually said three years ago and then acted on it the idea of trying to dissuade the iranians at this point time from doing what they've already been doing what the guy has admitted they're doing is beyond repair i just don't think going to stop at this point in time well let's take

a listen you know more specifically to that point in iran their nuclear program and we'll look at the position yes you can say i have different ways in which i approach this song on the same speech. i've said that when it comes to preventing iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon i will take no options off the table and i mean what i say that includes all elements of american power a political effort aimed at isolating iran a diplomatic effort to sustain our coalition ensure that the iranian program is monitored an economic effort that imposes crippling sanctions and yes a military effort to be prepared for any contingency resolute is should understand that i do not have a policy of containment i have a policy to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon already there's too much talk of war for last few weeks such talk has only benefited the iranian government by driving

up the price of oil which they depend on to fund their nuclear program for the sake of israel's security america's security and the peace and security of the world i was not the time for bluster. ok so we hear in my opinion some good things like no loose talk of war and now is not the time to blast through but at the same time by saying that his policy is to prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon does he has he committed us to a military conflict at some point in the future again i think if you look at deterrence theory you have to get the other side to think you don't take any options off the table i think he's also trying to send the message that the sanctions have just gotten international support so let's see if they can work before we you know rush into something i just point to people talking about a war the last thing you want to do right now is to let the reigning in government

which is having all kinds of problems think the problems are being caused by you know people. in the united states and its allies so i think that that was very important because time is on our side you have the election in iran you know they mean a job is out the ayatollah khomeini has done well and so they're having all kinds of internal problems tell you what do you think i agree with is the test of policy of deterrence though i mean because you know much of it is just rhetoric turn much of it is saying i'm going to this is going to be a preventive preventive war well let me say a couple thing i agree with his assessment of the leadership they are not monolithic they have a lot of internal problems we should focus on that encourage them with that said we are fools to think the iranians have not already dealt with the north koreans look the north koreans are short on cash the iranians are high ok they want to nuclear weapons to think that we they have not exchanged information about nuclear weapons is insane i do believe another cold service is reporting the fact that there's

a likelihood that the north koreans have shared nuclear technology do klute weapons of some sort the problem is delivery and panetta he cannot has said they don't know how to deliver i agree with that so what we need to do now is look at what comes next we need to look at the larger issue of a growing potential for a sunni shia cold war. regarding nuclear weapons so i think we've got to accept the fact that the radius may well established have a weapon but what do we do is bombing them the right answer i don't believe so at this point let me read you actually a statement and it kind of think of it as a speech when he said he ran a nation has never pursued and will never pursue nuclear weapons there is no doubt that the decision makers in the countries opposing us know well that iran is not after a nuclear weapons because the islamic republic logically religiously and theoretically considers the possession of nuclear weapons and great sit and believe the proliferation of such weapons is senseless destructive and dangerous so do you not believe that well i think what the rainy and sort of trying to do is have the best of all possible worlds because if people think you're moving in that direction it

gives you impact and the fact of the matter is if you don't you don't have to spend the money and that's why we had inspectors come in they don't allow them to go all of the places that they might like but we saw the same thing with saddam hussein he didn't have them what he wouldn't let the inspectors in to verify i thought that would weaken them and i think it's important to keep it not the same thing with iraq where we when we actually know what you're going to hear and go that was wrong notion about how it happens and i asked if that was what was wrong and that's why nobody our intelligence people who are very clear ok i would not like to use really sort of general clapper general petraeus when they testified before congress that they don't have nuclear weapons i mean they've been very very clear about that and they've given estimates about how long it will take them to get them i disagree completely on this estimate let me be very clear i was an operative in the ninety's when i watched the north the slow motion north koreans achieve a nuclear weapon let me be very clear on this we knew five years before we

announced the fact the north koreans had a nuclear device so i don't always believe or intelligent based on having been there and seen the fact that we will not share certain things we know for the purpose of trying to achieve certain genetic objectives with that said i think we have to be much more realistic about the fact they if they don't have it they can have it dealt with folks who do have it and think that somehow they're not. going to be willing to actually do what's necessary to have it available to them at some point time i think would be the same thing to do but if they are let's say that iran were to get a nuclear weapon in the future isn't there a way to contain a nuclear war i mean they would still be here when they want to talk about israel and a comparison right of who is still militarily is superior there is by no means is nonsense iran an existential threat to israel if israel is the one that maybe has one hundred warheads and i think you know what happened after nine eleven people over we got rid of all the traditional foreign policy doctrines containment work during the cold war in the sixty's when china was about to get a clear weapon the soviet union came through the united states and said now it's

crazy we can't but i'm going to have to you know have to do something what we would try and i don't forget i mean people talk about iran and how horrible that your chinese mostly chunk kill tens of millions of people strong would kill twenty million and yet we got along with you know the soviets you know twenty thirty thousand nuclear weapons and i tend to agree i think the iranians much like the north koreans have one primary thing and regime survival they have plenty of play the north korean book very well against this brinkmanship both both the north koreans and i arranged to bring it in doing this but i think you know where the line is frankly i think we'd be better off to find better where that line really is the israelis may not recognize that i'm like we do so this is one of those things that i think we have to look at deterrence and containment is the primary path forward because we cannot engage if we only want ten dollar a gallon gas if we proceed with the idea of being aggressive and actually opening up a military front how do we view you know international relationships in this regard

to you spoke about iranian elections and there's a lot of internal conflict there right now russia obviously just had their elections yesterday a lot of their putin is president again in the u.s. here i think you could say it looks like it's heading down the path where obama looks likely to be reelected because the g.o.p. is having a crisis. out of politics and so in that sense is at least you know if you look at russia's policies there are definitely are not policies of i guess you could call that intervention and i have a feeling that war with iran is not going to be on the top list there hopefully the obama administration is actually serious when they say that they're biting for time so does that give up hope that there's not going to be another conflict in that sense and i think it's very critical that the russians have joined with the international community in putting sanctions on iran and its role the russians decided not to give the air defense system which they already bought and paid for something very significant and if you take a look around the world the europeans in this summer will stop or oil the chinese

will cut back on the amount of oil they're buying and the iranian economy is not you know i think the right to have a lot of money but it's getting worse that is ok. and their main ally syria is having problems the people in hamas are complaining you know they can't get any more money from iran and of a with the banks having problems they're having to water to get food into the into the country so i think that it is time and i think that's the point president obama was trying to make look you know i may in the end not take anything off the table it was let's give things time to work because time is on our side i think we need to look at a larger route with this with the russians i think that we have a lot more in common with the russian republican than differences and i think this is an area which we should be both focusing like a laser on how can we do diffuse this because the moment we have a shooting conflict everybody loses the whole globe loses so we've got to look at what's best for the globe how do we work together i think the russians are very

much you know they do have access we should actually you know work to get it expanded access that way we can have a positive outcome. lastly john mccain today who first was calling for arming the syrian opposition now is saying that that's not going to do well enough because there china is just running out so now he wants the u.s. to launch air strikes within syria. i tell you before you go to war in a war of choice i mean it's not a war of necessity you have to look at the cost of benefits would there be certain benefits you have got about the costs we just don't know we're not quite sure who the rebels are who we would be would be be protecting. you know what you are it's one thing to say ok let's send you your probable you willing to send you know ground troops to follow up and on my question we'd be the ones that are sending airpower if they're going to be national i think it should have you got actual community i mean and this is not an american problem it's a problem that impacts the arab league and other countries in europe so i think

libya was a model for the way to do it if other people are concerned we can play a port but i don't think we're there yet at all when i go. you know grenada because it's closer and we go take care of the didn't you just want to take it over with that said seriously though one of the reason the chinese and the russians won't support a similar. lucian is libya because we exceeded the west exceeded our charter immediately upon that no fly zone coming in and taking sides so it became regime change immediately so i think that's why you'll never get that resolution through for syria with that said i got to be very careful of what we choose to do i don't believe the libyan outcome is what we really wanted and i think the chaos there speaks for itself regarding the output about polls a lot of jokes about this is what would happen if mccain were president aren't you happy if he didn't get a lot of. you know if a lot happening in the world political parties even if you're a senator or thing where you don't have the responsibility it's much tougher when you're in the white house right and simon thanks so much for joining us here.

clothing that's no new banks were created last year same time five state banks continue to grow so what does that all mean for the economy and ask friends after the break. people calling like you said for free and fair elections. and we're still reporting from the. as you can hear behind me a little out of solutions. i mean. they gave. a.

you know how sometimes you see a story and it seems so for life you think you understand it and then you glimpse something else and you hear or see some other part of it and realize that everything is ok if you don't know i'm charming welcome to the big picture.

well here's an interesting tidbit coming from the f.b.i. and two thousand and eleven there were no new banks created in the u.s. making the first year in decades of the country's gone without the establishment of a single start up lender that's according to financial times so how do you look at it as a good sign here people are trying to get in the business just to make money or does it just highlight the problem that still hasn't gone away for the banks we do have just took over failed banks and too big to fail has only bigger take a look at this new video from public citizen calling on the day to break up.

so what are the chances that we'd ever see b. of a or any of the five largest banks in the country really break up to one of our studio in los angeles is senior fellow at demos and author of the latest book black tuesday and we thank so much for joining us tonight and i guess first starters first time in decades that we have not had a new bank created in the us a good thing bad thing what do you say. it's just indicative of the fact that the bigger banks have been able to purchase failed banks or banks that were on the brink of failure at cheap levels and in often cases f.d.i.c help and federal guarantees are financing sort of behind the scenes and that's really how the banking system in general has become more consolidated amongst the more powerful

bigger banks we of course know about the big five but even the sort of mid tear banks along the way have been able to take advantage of failed banks and acquiring them the only three banks created last year so it's really the fact that there's zero this year which is really the same trend is going to continue there's there's no demand for banks right now at the small level because the community banks are really at the there at the behest of the larger banks who are in there who are able to afford every single corner an a.t.m. machine or a little office out little or something like that at a smaller bank just deepening the capital to begin to present itself within smaller communities so there's not even opportunity for anybody and a little guy out there to try to break into the current says david so what do you think of some of these calls that we have the very cute catchy video that we just watched calling for breaking up break ups of the big banks or specifically parody

of a. i think every big bank should be great enough number one and number two what we have seen come out of the legislative and regulatory rules in washington is that this won't happen what's been debated what has been passed indicates that there will not be breaking up of these big banks and what that means is that these banks remain too big to fail and more risky than they were before the crisis if you take a look at the bank of america the insides of bank of america what is it done in the last three years it's increased its derivatives its most risky types of deals i thirty five percent thirty five percent since two thousand and eight since it was bailed out by the government since it has increased its fees on its own customers since it's been involved in numerous lawsuits and settlements regarding the fraudulent types of mortgages that it has either purchased from countrywide or that it has had on its own books and it hasn't extended to its own customers before

having takeover countrywide so we're subsidizing these merged banks that are more dangerous to us now than they were and there's no talk at the fed the treasury department in washington to break these things up i think that video is fantastic because it just shows so clearly what the problems are a lot we should break up these banks but it's not going to happen. well i have thought about something that is happening and this one really i just as if we needed more lists to tell us about how rich certain people are in this world of course forbes like as you can say is one of the most popular but now there's a new bloomberg billionaires index and basically what this is going to do is every day at five thirty pm they're going to list how much the richest are worth depending on market prices that day so today for example it was carlos slim who top the list and bill gates was second but i just can't get why we need something like

this who would be interested in is a matter the matter of obsession to mean you know if these are already the richest people on the planet why do we need to know how much they're worth every single day . we don't but that's way too much information overload forbes says how that list fortune has a list the forbes list of the most rich people in the country started after world war one and it was idea that these people were contributing to the country and building it up in post-war times and all of that now we have people that are debatable whether they actually help the country or they were obviously of enriching themselves at the same time now we have people that are doing the same thing and to have a daily reminder of the difference between the most wealthy individuals in the world and in the country when so many people are a paycheck away from poverty when our poverty rate is at near historical highs when our household income continues to drop when the cost of living continues to

increase it's really gall it's really embarrassing that someone agreed to the idea of having a minute by minute update on the wealth of these people. are turning to our homes our which is different. yeah but i guess i was going from bloomberg so i guess surprise surprise you know another bad stat out there too if you look at a figure it turns out that in two thousand and ten the top one percent actually captured ninety three percent of all income gains and so you know to you when you look at that because obviously growing income or income inequality is an issue that a lot americans have a problem with this is why we've seen occupy movement rise up but if this was still happening in two thousand and ten does that mean that we're only seeing this trend continue to grow it is only continuing to grow those figures are celebrating the median income is dropping more quickly amongst households the wealth of the richest is increasing only more quickly at the top so the figures that we're seeing

are getting worse and worse not just showing the disparity but the pace of that disparity and a lot of that had to do with the last few years because the people that had enough money a lot of money to begin with were buffered when this economy took a plunge and the people that didn't have that buffer that are looking at homes that are third underwater or more than that that are trying to make payments they have had in their face an increase in education costs and health costs and in food costs in energy costs have had to bear that brunch with the potential of less jobs less money and more money going to the top where this this can be afforded and where it isn't among most of the population and unfortunately you know it seems like every week we have a new report or some kind of statistics that come out and just point this out to us all the more clearly don't we think so much for joining us tonight thank you. are taking a quick break well we come back he said as i read it and it's occupy wall street getting sponsored.