top story smarty at ten pm moscow time moscow says piling new sanctions on north korea is not the way forward as the united nations denounces pyongyang's controversial rocket launch that longevity in failure is a rocket plummeted into the sea just moments after takeoff also from us the u.n. is set to send more observers into syria as a draft resolution is laid out before the security council envoy kofi annan says forces in the country have not yet fully complied with the terms of the peace deal as reports emerge of clashes near the turkish border and we're reporting tonight the world's most famous whistleblowers bringing his new highly anticipated show to

us starts next tuesday julian his sons will be talking to the news to make his other opinion formers some of whom have never appeared on the english language t.v. i'm kevin owen here it out of moscow thanks for your company next back to our studios in washington d.c. for the unknown to show. welcome to the london show where we get the real headlines with none of the mersey going to live in washington d.c. now can i we're going to take a look at the announcement that afghanistan is going to cut its security forces i one third and that's after the nato mission ends in two thousand and fourteen but it's not the wrong time to be cutting it in that case why did we spend all of that money and all the time training a larger force and it turns out of the treasury department is only used three

percent of the funds in a program created to help states with the hardest hit homeowners it's part of tart so we have to ask why the banks got bailed out but struggling homeowners aren't a priority when all of that morphy tonight including a dose of happy hour but first let's take a look at the mainstream media has decided to miss. all today has been a day of days for the mainstream media and by that i mean we have seen an all out media firestorm erupt over made by democratic strategists named hillary rosen. the push and pull over women's issues is only getting started conservative blogs problem a comment made by democratic strategist d.n.c. adviser and our friend the rosen. about romney's wife and we rose and told our anderson cooper last night that ann romney mitt romney's wife had never worked a day at her life and romney is the target and president obama's top advisers

aren't too happy about it democratic strategist criticizes ann romney for being out of touch with the working women the obama campaign isn't itself immediately mitt romney's wife has gotten pulled into a bit of a political skirmish and now she's speaking out she said i made a choice to stay at home and raise five boys believe me it was hard work she said that ann romney quote never worked a day in a life so she can't advise her husband about issues that are facing women and the economy it's a mistake to attack and romney and romney is a is a very. admirable woman and has a lot of support she's the best thing that romney has going for him on the whole women's issues. all right i will give you a quick gist of this story in case you missed it but if you're watching the mainstream media all day any point would have been close to impossible to actually missed it but so we've seen mitt romney use his wife let's admit as

a lot more charisma than he does so we've seen him try to use her as a tool to bridge that gigantic gender gap that he's facing and it claims that his wife is by two women problems and romney's take is that women care about the economy so this democratic strategist named hilary rosen said and romney knows nothing about the economy because she has never worked and instead raised her kids so the romney campaign tried to claim that rosen was related to the obama campaign which she's not and ended up in a massive back and forth with even michelle obama getting in there and commenting hilary rosen apologizing and the twitter sphere the blogs out there the t.v. pundits have all tried their hardest to turn this into a left versus. right scenario the truth is that's not the case hillary rosen by no means speaks for all liberals and it's laughable that c.n.n. even considers her a liberal considering that she used to head the r a a and now does p.r. for corporations but the truth is that this is an issue that all women should be able to support each other on raising children being a mom that is worth and it's not anyone's place to judge and call it less worthy

but the even bigger truth here is that this is another mainstream media distraction technique and see the real issue is something iran himself said when he was trying to prove that he cares and knows so much more about women than the president does take a listen. i was disappointed in listening to the president as he's saying for trouble consider waging a war on women. the real here on women is being waged by the president still the comet ninety two point three percent of all the jobs lost during the obama years have been lost by women ninety two point three percent. but that seems like a crazy number right more than ninety two percent of jobs lost and that amongst women well the thing is the number is right in a sense when the recession really began well president bush was still president about three point three million men lost their jobs and that's all recessions typically work men are hit the hardest and they're hit first thanks to areas like

construction or manufacturing going down first and overall more women than women have lost their jobs in the last couple of years hence of being called a man session but if you look at the last twenty six months u.s. payrolls shrunk by seven hundred forty thousand jobs out of those six hundred eighty three thousand belong to women and all that is according to the bureau of labor statistics and so this trend is in large part thanks to a massive public sector job cuts in states across the u.s. about two thirds of the women laid off during those last twenty six months were all laid off from government jobs and we've also seen a lot of women laid off thanks to cousin education but what's so ironic about it was just plain ms guy did about this is that mitt romney is trying to call out president obama for women losing so many jobs well guess what mitt women have lost so many jobs because states that are facing budget shortfalls and republican legislatures have chosen to cut those government jobs already point five percent of all state local government losses have happened in states where republicans won

control in two thousand and ten thirty one percent vanished in texas alone and in my whole thing with small government i don't preach small government and then turn around and blame the president that you say likes big government for the loss of so many women strawbs. but that's just mitt romney being complete hypocrite which the mainstream media decided to gloss over because a war of words between women just makes for better t.v. right they love the drama but they choose to skip on the facts but the thing is and they've been doing this for a long time and we've mentioned it many times here on this show month after month the media reports on jobs numbers private sector hiring and they just couldn't figure out why the private sector was hiring but the unemployment rate wasn't seeing drastic shifts and that's because hundreds of thousands of public sector jobs are being shed and so that difference was not being made up but surprise surprise right all of this was once again what the mainstream media chose to miss and today's women centric t.v. debates.

we got a lot of news coming out about the war in afghanistan this week spoke about the agreement on night raids believe a lot of loopholes and now a new poll from a.b.c. in the washington post shows that for the first time a majority of republicans say that the war in afghanistan has not been worth fighting on top of that an all time low for only thirty percent of respondents said that they thought that this war was worth it but then it raises yet another question you see afghanistan's defense minister general abdul rahim wardak said an agreement had been reached in principle with the international coalition the afghan security forces would undergo a significant reduction from a peak of three hundred fifty two thousand to two hundred and thirty thousand and that would happen after the nato mission ends in two thousand and fourteen and i just put this into perspective for you according to some estimates out there it's cost six billion dollars annually this is state and train the afghan national army

and police post two thousand and fourteen the price tag would still be about four billion but if the forces are going to be reduced after the nato mission ends after the troop withdrawal we have to ask if it was worth the money and the build up all along or discuss with me is michael o'brien our department of defense contractor and author of america's failure in iraq intervention to withdraw all one thousand nine hundred twenty ten michael thanks for joining us tonight thanks for having us so what do you say right it's ten years of war here we've been spending a lot of money on building up the afghan security forces right the national army and the police and this is supposed to be kind of our exit strategy is that we can finally handed over to afghan control and everything will be ok in the country and now when we're supposed to be handing off the majority the responsibility to them and twenty fourteen they're going to be shrinking the force so was what with all. this. sixty four thousand dollar question. and frankly it was it was

a pipe dream. and you know i you if you look back at our involvement in afghanistan after nine eleven i personally think it made sense for us to go over there that's where our qaida was holed out as the welcome guest of the taliban and you know it was ten eleven years ago with things were going well things were going very well we had special operators in that country really really kicking some will some tail. the joker in the deck was the war in iraq and. all these forces were pulled out of afghanistan to support the war in iraq of course we don't have a draft so we're fighting two wars at the same time we don't have the draft we don't have enough troops to do it so we reduce the forces in our forces in afghanistan and it took just a couple years and it started when right down the drain and started going right back the world was before we ever showed up and then we you know we surge the

surges of thirty thirty three thousand soldiers but that's not a lot thirty thirty three thousand troops and when you think about it what's the percentage of them that are actual combat troops carrying. you know carrying a rifle you know it's a fraction of them it's not all of them it's just it's just it's like probably one third or one one party at most one third so it's not a lot of contact troops that are going over there and the war in afghanistan is not working out very well or. afghanistan is a very very backward country and they're living you know by. based on our standards in the stone age and in the fact is that when we do if you play an employee reducing your troops. there is a report in today's news that we usually the part of the head of the commander of our special forces for storing the riyadh more material i believe his name is a play and so on really making this a war of special operators navy seals forming bill to force an army special forces

which really is the way to fight this war it's an unconventional war you need to fight in conventional but i'm curious about here and i mean i guess you could say that maybe thirty three thousand troops isn't all that large of a surge but still we have almost one hundred thousand troops were you know there was a peak on the ground in afghanistan but still quite a massive force to be dedicating to something like this you know whether it whether you want to say that it's a lot or not but the problem is that the more troops we sent in there we didn't see things get better and quite the opposite you only saw the violence skyrocket you only saw more troop deaths and and so it shows you that numbers were not really really not part of the equation here they were not something that made the war effort more successful but what i want to ask you is that on one hand they want to make this more of a special ops smaller teams type of operation but what's happening right now is they're trying to agree on this strategic forces agreement right this is why we needed the agreement on night raids and they want to have this time before the nato meeting in may of this year what's going to be part of that agreement is that

afghanistan wants a ten year long commitment from the u.s. and that's not a combat troop level right that's in terms of reconstruction it's in terms of a lot of money it's still training i vising in assisting but do you think that we're going to see more room for contractors if there is this kind of ten year commitment if there is still so much money being pumped into it well absolutely i mean fall of the money as the saying goes if if i need tours i wants. troops out but you want your money to stay that only me you know if it's going to have to be spent so you know again the military. industrial complex in the end will win the day. but i do have to say though that you know if you want to fight a war conventionally you have to fight it with overwhelming force and one hundred thousand troops in a country the size of afghanistan is not overwhelming force and you have to you know you are going to quarter of a million troops if you want to win that war fighting you conventionally and you have to but how can you times of tension a war when it's

a war that supposedly based on what honor insurgency and winning hearts and minds in the other the other people are when i'm going to serve and i was allowing you out when you don't want to war by building schools you want war by killing the enemy counterinsurgency david david petraeus is p.v. is a flop it doesn't work you don't you don't you know we don't war by building schools and handing out crayons so you are going to dislike you only want to become obvious now right and even if you look at the polling especially the last couple of months you really see public opinion start to shift and now it seems like the american public even republicans are done with it they're over it they don't think that this war was worth fighting and so the question is going to happen are the question is what's going to happen once we leave right let's say that this twenty fourteen it with raul goes as planned now you have president hamid karzai saying that he's toying with the idea of leaving office one year early because he doesn't want chaos to break out in twenty four eighteen while withdrawal is going on and won election is happening at the same time you have their forces being reduced by

a third as are going to senator kay also going to is that what it's asking for of course it's true there were other you know in the taliban's on its way back you know al qaida is is around you know what whatever conclusion can anybody come to and it's because we didn't you know we didn't wipe out the threat we slapped around a little bit but we didn't wipe out the threat and how do you wipe it out it takes a lot of force a lot of manpower and if you do it on conventionally which is what we were doing in the beginning before we went into iraq we. we're being pretty successful with the technology that we have we're fighting our wars now with rules ok with drones and special operators to call them intel from n.s.a. and. we can really accomplish a lot and then bring in conventional forces to really do the job the reason why the american people are fed up with it is for the same reasons they were fed up with vietnam we waffled we went down the middle of that we when we want to around and

around that argument because they don't really know what we're accomplishing anymore i mean if the goal was to get rid of al qaeda then al qaeda is not in afghanistan anymore that the saying these days is that maybe there's a couple thousand out there who will speak a word of the taliban to the taliban was al qaeda so still revere and we had got rid of them we wanted to get rid of the taliban regime we were that was what we were and that's what we were doing when we first went over now and we were going with the taliban exactly because there were no i think if you keep going to the right i mean this is that is a civil very complicated issue that's part of afghanistan's history itself it will probably go to you know i just want to ask you terms of honey cars saying that supposedly he might leave power i mean who would even take his place there any names the standout for you barack obama was a. rock obama all right mike i want to rock you soon i want to thank you so much for joining us tonight you bet. i had time for our first break but when we get back

and tell you how government attacked on whistleblowers probably to the depth of the thinking of journalism in america. is that so much that you consider. it more serious eerie silence at least for now at this moment the one sponsored peace plan for syria has gotten mixed reviews. sigrid laboratory kirby was able to build the world's most sophisticated robot which doesn't give a darn about anything james mission to teach creation why it should care about humans. this is why you should care only on the algae dot com. i did time for our show and tell on tonight's program earlier this week we spoke

about political flip flops all the mainstream media was focusing all on mitt romney we are minded you about the obama administration's flip flops especially when it comes to the war on terror so i want to know why you think of the president's team change their views on those tough issues once they got into the white house got a producer for treason to send you to find out what you had to say. on the streets of d.c. to tell people in the nation's capital what our viewers had to say on twitter facebook and you tube and see which comments which they keep orderly and. why do you think so many administration officials change your views once they get into power a mirror wrote in to say because politicians were corrupt before they had power we need someone who is incorruptible if you want to keep it originally that they're all a little corrupt so i keep it if you want to keep it or delete it i'm a slave to lead i think everyone's corrupt but i definitely think that money we're

persuading people. because there are some honest people in the world i mean a lot of people get into politics just for themselves and their egos but there are some people that are in it for the country shine said they are smiling faces that life through their teeth corporate money is more important to them than the respect of people do you want to keep it or delete it as a leader. i don't necessarily feel that that's the case i feel that sometimes. the powers that be don't allow you to make the decisions that you would make before you're in office all clued in on facebook so they tell the people what they want to hear to get elected and do what their largest campaign contributors tell them to do when they take office we the people are the votes but the corporations are the ones that hold politicians paychecks do you want to keep it or delete it oh i absolutely agree that i thought was my thoughts exactly the question to me i think in trying to get into office is the first they need to get over and once there it does seem like their policies and things they talked about change. i think

a lot of them are being bought a lot of people who rode in a lot of people that we talked to out here can both agree that politicians will say whatever they need to say to get elected but we did run into a few people who will beg to differ. all right thanks for your responses and here's our next question for you so earlier in the show we spoke about the controversy surrounding hilary rosen's comments about stay at home moms so we wondered if you thought that stay at home moms are looked down upon today or if it's just a controversy was there anything on facebook twitter and you tube and you know as a response it just might make your hair. now you know that tarp the troubled asset relief program wasn't just about bailing out the big banks everywhere of two thousand and ten the treasury department established an initiative called the hardest hit fund this was a seven point six billion dollars program aimed at helping families in states hit

hardest by the housing market and where unemployment rates are the highest well turns out the only three per cent of that budget has been used in the last two years since the program's creation this is according to a new report by the special inspector general for the troubled asset relief program the report found that at the end of two thousand and eleven the hardest hit funded spent only twenty one two hundred seventeen point four million dollars out of the seven point six billion dollars budget provided and only thirty thousand six hundred forty homeowners have been helped so is this just another failure for yet another government program was aimed at helping homeowners hit by the financial crisis joining me from our studio in los angeles is david day and blogger at firedoglake david i want to thank you for joining us tonight and first of all i mean you write about this all the time you and i have spoken about it and you know if you're if you pay attention and you read the news all the time that maybe the scenario is a little different or do you think that for average americans when they think of tarp they only think of bailing out the big banks they don't think of any programs

are actually meant to help americans themselves. i do think they only think about bailing out the big banks that's traditionally what is seen as tarp and a lot of defenders of the program the show the fact that a lot of these banks have paid back their funds or there's less losses on the tarp than expected to prove the the postulate that tarp worked but in fact as christie remember of the special inspector general for tarp said today tarp was not just conceived as a program to reward or you know help fund banks through their tough troubles. explicitly in side the language around tarp was that a good chunk of the money needed to go to help homeowners and whether you're talking about the hardest hit fund or you're talking about hamp or any of the other programs that came through tarp all of them have been generally

a failure let's talk about this specific find here the hardest hit fund when we find out only three percent of the entire budget more than seven billion dollars has been used in the last few years one of the report attribute that you know by who do they blame it on whether they blame it on. they largely blamed it on the treasury department and what they said is that treasury had if they did not provide the leadership or the planning to get these programs started and get the money out the door hardest hit fund was basically a kind of a partnership with the states that were affected and qualified for the program so you know so i think some people the treasury would would claim that it's the states . but he probably the best program of the bunch put out about sixteen percent of the money so far and that's in oregon so if your star pupil is getting

a sixteen percent a problem is not the students it's a test at treasury have the ability to get the servicers and the government sponsored enterprises that fannie mae and freddie mac. to participate in the program certainly more of an ability to do that than the states which just have less bargaining power over these large banks and d.g.'s east and treasury just didn't do it i mean they allowed. states who are operating at a significant disadvantage to try to bargain with these banks and the g.s.t. zoo at their discretion could decide to participate or not participate in the program and without much of a surprise they didn't have the treasury department fired back or trying to defend themselves and say that you know what you're only looking at the data from the very beginning of this program and if you look at the last couple of months we've seen a great increase and you know what do you think of their defense their. yes just

phone with statistics i mean you're coming from such a low bottom the idea that it's ramped up forty percent from the previous quarter well forty percent from zero. over the life of the program you're talking two years you have three percent of the funds getting disbursed even in these boom years or this boom time it's still a lower percentage than what was promised with this program and really this mirrors many of the other programs that come out of tarp particularly ham i mean right around the same time as you know the two year period. which is the home affordable modification program was also putting out maybe two percent in terms of the dispersement and the big problem here is that the money when you're talking about money that was your mark for the program the money goes in incentive payments to the banks to you know create these relief programs and

forgive principal or or for bear or whatever it is for the homeowner the programs do not give money directly to the homeowner so they can help resolve their their struggles with their mortgage payments and ultimately that's a problem because it puts it at completely at the discretion of the banks and so any time you design a program like that the public interest is going to get subsumed by the interest through cheri interest of these big banks and we've seen the consequences but what kind of message is that's that's the send to average americans to the taxpayers right i mean obviously you can tell that the mood is still blind and angry especially if you look at wall street and a lot of taxpayers still feel the system is incredibly unfair that everything is bailed out on their backs if it looks like the treasury department made shared with mediately bail out the banks because we had to act fast because this was an emergency you know keep the economy from completely flying off

a cliff and send us into another depression but the homeowners are just kind of last last in line. you always hear in these homeowner programs that it just takes time to get ramped up and we're having trouble getting the money out the door to the people who need it what you never hear is that it takes time and it's just trouble getting money out the door to the banks who need it you never hear anything like that coming out of these programs some how the money they get zero marks for banks has no problem getting to the target whereas these these kind of jerry rigged programs to help homeowners there's always a delay and. difficulty of designing things like that so i think i think the public should take a pretty clear message from. and you know i was talking about this many times before you know like you said the ham program is also

a massive failure in interest seems like every program of the government tries to put forward it doesn't get it right even this giant foreclosure fraud settlement doesn't get it right at the end of the day of the banks that won out and this is one of the key elements you know when it comes to why our economy isn't recovering when it comes to what the housing bubble really did you know in the environment that it created after this crash but you write a lot about how you think that the media affects the way that you know that this is covered or paid or maybe why it's not being sought you know what you have to say that. well i do think that you know in some sense we get the housing policy we deserve when we have members of the media who don't really know how to more how mortgage works when they give reports like the recent one on a.b.c. excoriating fannie mae and freddie mac. for mowen their lawns out in front of properties that they own which is the only way they will get sold and the only way you would prevent plight which is against

the law in many municipalities i think there's a huge lack of understanding about what is going on in in administration housing policy and that works to the detriment of homeowners ultimately because it's easily demagogued you have an administration that's still afraid of rick's intelli and what he did very early on. which was seen to be the rise of the tea party to create the rise of the tea party which was about housing policy and not being a you know the administration should pay off the losers mortgages they've been spooked by exactly need to be anything we just asked him are going to have happened because we have to take a break but thanks for joining us tonight. right.