this summer, one launched 63 startups in one day. even hollywood is seeing stars. actor ashton kutcher was in the audience looking to invest. recently leonardo dicaprio and his supermodel ex-girlfriend have made investments in tech startups. to some, when investing in startups becomes fashionable it might mean there's a bubble. >> i do worry there is sort of a an overcrowding effect. >> reporter: raid rauch is the san francisco editor for ex-economy. a network of sites that cover innovation and entrepreneurship. he's covered startups for 15 years and says the internet startup frenzy is back because the cost of technology keeps dropping. >> back in the '90s, a typical startup had to go out and raise millions of dollars. $5, $10, $15 or $20 so they could buy the servers they would need to host their applications so that people could come and find their services on the web. it's now possible to raise

$100,000 or $200,000. and if you're willing to eat ramen, as they say, for a couple years, that's enough money to make real progress. >> reporter: in a shared house in california filled with founders working on startups of their own is black box ventures. their project, called the startup genome, aims to turn the prediction of startup success from toort science. >> startups are failing primarily because of self-destruction rather than competition and we think that's a big insight. >> reporter: they already know a few things that are bound to lead to failure. a part time founder, a solo founder, not having the right team mix, not listening to customers, and the biggest reason for 70% of all failures is what they call premature scaling. >> a company increases their risk profile by effectively executing the unnecessary. which means that they do things which they have not validated

before with the customers. >> reporter: black box's founder has gained these insights by gathering day from more than 15 startups around the world. the company also realize it is world is catching up when it comes to startup culture. this entrepreneur turned academic researches american competitiveness. >> what's happening now that other countries like india and china are learning our secrets. kids in beijing and bangalore have friends in silicon valley and north carolina on facebook and twitter. they interact, exchange ideas. they think like each other. >> reporter: he says accelerator programs are important because they decrease the cost of starting and failing at a business. >> in america, failure is considered to be okay. in silicon valley, the more you fail, the more experienced you're considered to be so failure is a badge of honor.

people abroad think that's strange. >> reporter: it's still too early to tell which, if any, of these companies will be the next facebook or google but as these investors put their money behind these entrepreneurs and their ideas, one thing is certain: they'll be hiring. >> suarez: if >> brown: if you're curious about what it takes to get into one of the accelerator programs, or just want to know more about startups, we've posted six videos online to help. >> woodruff: next, to campaign politics, and what role foreign policy and national security will play in the republican nominating fight. one thing the republican candidates do agree on was clear at the last foreign policy debate on november 12 in south carolina. >> we're here to talk to the american people about why every one of us is better than barack obama. >> woodruff: the eight

contenders vying to become the next commander-in-chief say the current one has been a failure when it comes to foreign policy. but with some major successes this year-- including the covert mission that killed terrorist leader osama bin laden-- administration support of arab spring uprising that brought down the regime in egypt and toppled and killed libya's moammar qaddafi and the announcement of a drawdown of all u.s. troops from iraq by the end of this year, the american people give president obama some of his highest marks in foreign affairs. a recent poll showed 63% of those asked approved of mr. obama's handling of terrorism. another 52% were in favor of his iraq war policy that hasn't stopped the republican candidates from attacking the president on the issue and showing their own divisions in the process. the front-runner, former

massachusetts governor mitt romney outlined his position in a speech at the sit dell in september. >> america has the strongest economy and military in the world. >> reporter: followed by former utah governor jon huntsman days later. >> the world is a better place when america leads. >> reporter: but the debates have shown a range of opinions on u.s. action in afghanistan. former pennsylvania senator rick santorum. >> victory against the taliban in afghanistan is that taliban is a neutered force. they are no longer a security threat to the afghan people or to our country. >> reporter: to the plan to pull all u.s. troops from iraq, criticized by most candidates. huntsman and texas congressman ron paul support the complete iraq withdrawal and a withdrawal from afghanistan. on preventing iran's nuclear

ambitions... >> congressman paul, let me follow up with you for 30 seonds. it is worth going to war to prevent a nuclear weapon in iran? >> no, it isn't worthwhile. >> reporter: but others support a more muscular approach. >> after all of the work we've done there's nothing else we can do besides take military action then of course you take military action. it's unacceptable for iran to have a nuclear weapon. >> i agree entirely with governor romney. if in the end despite all of those things the dictatorship persists you have to take whatever steps are necessary to break its kasty to have a nuclear weapon. >> woodruff: and on interrogating terror suspects. >> firn president i would be willing to use waterboarding. i think it was very effective. (cheers and applause) it gained information for our country. >> woodruff: still, some have made missteps along the way. in a september debate, texas governor rick perry when asked what he would do if he got a 3:00 a.m. call saying the taliban had gotten nuclear weapons from pakistan. >> well, obviously, before you get to that point off build a

relationship in that region. that's one of the things that this administration has not done. >> reporter: and herman cain was stumped when asked about president obama's handling of the conflict in libya. >> okay, libya. >> first of all i don't think you can take... a. >> woodruff: huntsman, a former u.s. ambassador to china, is the only contender with foreign policy experience. >> we can't just sit back and let china run all over us. people say well, you'll start a trade war. there's one going on right now, folks. >> well, the reality is a little different, as it usually is when you're on the ground. i tried figure out for 30 years in my career. >> reporter: the candidates will have another chance to discuss china and a host of other foreign policy issues for the second time tonight at a debate hosted by cnn in washington. joining us now to dig deeper into the foreign policy viewpoints of the republican

presidential field are richard norton smith, scholar in residence at george washington university, and michael gerson, a columnist for the "washington post," who also served as chief speechwriter to former president george w. bush. gentlemen, good to have you both back with us. michael gerson, let me start with you. we know they are all critical of president obama, but is there an underlying philosophy for all of these republican candidates? >> well, it's interesting. on economic issues they generally agree on tax policy, on size of government issues, but there's a division, a philosophic division among republicans on that stage tonight for some like ron paul and jon huntsman they want to be more inward looking focused on the american economy, less engaged in the world. then there are people like gingrich and romney who are more hawkish internationalists. self-consciously adopt the reagan mantle so i guess the thing that won't be very interesting is that the two front-runners share a lot of

ground as we saw on iran and other things but there are serious philosophic divisions in this group. >> warner: richard norton smith, apologies, i said you're at george washington, you're of course at george mason university. >> both great institutions. >> woodruff: both great institutions but how consistent iews of these candidates with what we saw in former president bush and president reagan. >> well, that's fascinating because on the one hand we have... one thing they have in common is trying to establish themselves as credible alternatives to barack obama. the front-runners are being perceived as somehow being tougher than the president. remember, this is an issue that has bended work in favor of republicans and the numbers you saw... you had 63% saying they approved of the president's handling of foreign policy. that's atypical. so they're operating in that context.

there's something else. they're also reacting, too. that is the last republican president and his foreign policies, particularly the idea of preemptive military action in the middle east. so the ron paul's of the world and to a lesser degree jon huntsmans, that i tier grandchildren of the old isolationists, the libertarian wing of the party but also the party uncomfortable with where george bush led them. >> woodruff: is that the main fault liven among the republicans? >> i think so. if you look at afghanistan where there's a real difference of upon among the candidates, there's a skepticism in some of the candidates of nation building. that's the fault line and it does relate to these issues. perry in the last election said we're going to win and santorum in that category. that's the context is really afghanistan. >> warner: and you see a difference then on torture and

waterboarding. we heard michele bachmann and a couple other candidates more aggressive and then... >> well, this is an issue where i don't think the criticism rings true. i mean, barack obama may have criticized waterboarding but he uses drones to kill terrorists with a great deal of regularity. he has a very robust approach to the war on terror and that's a general genuine problem for the republican field. they can have disagreements with conduct in afghanistan and iraq and other things but it's hard on the war on terror which was really the defining issue of the last ten years. obama has been very much on the right. >> pelley: and richard, as we've been suggesting here, among the two, at least at this point front-runners, romney and gingrich, they are on the more interventionist side of the... >> that's true. it's interesting. girl, who has drawn a number of lines in the sand including... i

think it's to demonstrate that there are convictions that are absolutely unchangeable. now say that if i'm elected president iran will not have a nuclear, if barack obama remains president it will. that's a defining moment and it goes this notion of demonstrating his bona fides and at the same time addressing the larger dharn a lot of people have about someone who has taken multiple positions. >> woodruff: michael gerson, how much do we know about how much republican primary voters pay attention to foreign policy, national security? >> i think it's fair. the conventional wisdom in this case is pretty true. we face an economic crisis. i think the focus of the primaries has been very much... you know, if people like perry and cain have had their moments in the sun, if the argument was about foreign policy, they would not. this was a very different kind of debate. now that said you have to say

europe is going to affect what our economy does to the candidates in the course of the campaign dealing with this. iran is a big issue, that's going to be... i think in the presidential campaign and presidents are always surprised by history. you may run on domestic policy but you're tested by the world and it's an important qualification. and i think republicans make a judgment on gravitas and that's part of the judgment. >> i was going to say the histor squall parallels that come to mind is 1992. we had george h.w. bush that was widely if not universally regarded as someone very skilled in foreign policy. >> woodruff: running for reelection. >> following a successful for what the gulf and a masterful diplomatic performance in putting together the coalition against saddam hussein. and it actually came to be a detriment.

it came to symbolize someone out of touch with the domestic concerns of a nation going through real economic hardships. >> woodruff: i'm asking about how much it matters to both of you because a couple of them have had difficulty with questions on foreign policy. how strong are they in their knowledge base. >> i think this is a genuine problem for herman cain who was on the top of the world a few weeks ago. he's made serious gaffes, particularly on libya. i thought it was interesting. he made the claim "i don't need to know about foreign policy because i'll pick the right people." and the person who criticized this last week was former secretary of state condoleezza rice who simply said "well, you don't have to be an expert on these issues but you have to be intellectually curious, you have to learn the issues in the this campaign process." so i think it's hurting cain. tonight he has to seem like he has some mystery of these issues in order to i think remain a viable candidate.

>> woodruff: is it believe that... yes the president is doing all right now. but a year from now is this president going to... is foreign policy going to mat err great deal in the election? >> in all likelihood... and, again, if you are think there are parallels of '92, demonstrated success, acknowledged success in, foreign policy and a buck and a half will get you a cup of coffee. it won't get you the electoral college. the 800-pound gloorl is yes it's important to have the debates and test the candidates for their knowledge but it's highly unlikely americans will make their vote on foreign policy. >> woodruff: but michael gerson you said these issues do matter. what happens to the euro zone. >> they do and they matter to some subgroups. so republican have generally been hostile to foreign

assistance, for example, which is not inconsistent with their ten-year history. a lot of religious voters are concerned about that, national security voters are concerned about the issues so i think even if it's not an overall issue i think there are subgroups in the lech authority pay attention to these issues closely. >> we're trying to pay attention wherever we can and we thank you both for being here. michael gerson, richard norton smith, thank you. >> thanks. >> brown: finally tonight, the man whose blueprint guided the 2008 terror attacks in mumbai, india, that killed 166 people, a pakistani-american who took the name "david coleman headley." he was both a paid informer for the u.s. drug enforcement administration and a member of the pakistani terrorist group lashkar-e-tayyiba. "frontline" and the news service pro publica have investigated how american law enforcement and intelligence agencies missed several opportunities to thwart

headley's plot, including a tip that came from one of headley's several pakistani wives, after the two fought. we start with an excerpt. the reporter is sebastian rotella. >> her anger lead to what happened next. she goes toz the u.s. embassy in islamabad and warns them about her husband's extremist activities just as the mumbai plot is gathering momentum, the reconnaissance and the preparation. >> that's right. they must have had a disagreement, she has a short fuse, she goes and mentioned that he was trained by to be, he's a... lashkar-e-tayyiba and he's a terrorist and nothing happens. >> reporter: perhaps most surprising, she revealed to u.s. embassy officials that she and headley had spent their honeymoon at the taj hotel the year before. in combination with her other

charges, that could have led investigators directly to headley's work for lashkar. alarming and detailed am sagss were piling up. >> his wife says he's involved in something. you look at him for a week or month and you can't find anything interesting. there's 72 other active investigations going on in your office. i think people are too quick in all these cases when they look at the individual case and say "hey, you should have known when in fact, you're not looking at an individual case. you're looking at 6,000 saying "i can't afford to prioritize this guy when i've got 72 other knowns that are really taking our resources and that merit further information." >> reporter: but the u.s. did collect enough intelligence to send a series of warnings in 2008 to india about a potential attack in mumbai. including on the taj hotel. >> we got warning that there was likely to be an attack on mumbai. the taj hotel was very specific but it's like any other thing.

you put an alert, people will wait for 15 days of alert 30, days of alert, nothing happens. >> reporter: this man led the department overseeing india's security agencies. he believes that david headley must have been a source of that information. but the u.s. never let on. >> if the americans had told us once look, we've got this guy coming in, we have a suspicion about this guy we'll bring them to your notice. that was not done. >> reporter: given you were getting these warnings, why do you think americans didn't tell you about the potential danger? >> i can only say that it is because the information that david headley was perhaps providing to the americans too useful enough that they were willing to overlook and keep this under wraps because he was useful to them. >> woodruff: headley is now in an undisclosed federal prison, awaiting sentencing after pleading guilty to several charges.

margaret warner takes the story from there. >> warner: and sebastian joins us now. welcome. quite a fine piece of work. remind us how crucial david headley was to the planning of these mumbai attacks. >> he's absolutely crucial because he does the key reconstance for a period of 20 months, mapping out the blueprints of the killing zone meticulously, in-depth undercover reconnaissance which he's able to do effectively because he's not just a terrorist but a spy. he's being directed by the i.s.i.-- parkinson's intelligence service, there's strong evidence of the that, in addition to lashkar-e-tayyiba. he's essentially a joint operation. so he's working for both. >> warner: and he was, as your title says, the perfect terrorist. by accident of birth he was the perfect man for the job. >> i think that's right. he's grown up with a foot in both of these worlds in the u.s. and in pakistan. he was able to sort of change shapes and change identities and function in both worlds with

remarkable effectiveness. >> warner: and he even had one of your interviewers mentioned this, one blue eye and one brown eye. >> it's sort of the classic physical symbol of that duality, yes. >> so after you spent nearly two years on this project what did your reporting lead you to nerpl n terms of what his motive sfwhuz what drove him? was it religious zeal? >> those two things play a reel but it's a cocktail of motivation. a hunger for adrenaline is one of the things people said. the religion was important and the pakistani nationalism was important but this was somebody who was very western in his outlook. who enjoyed the high life so he wasn't a dour jihadi. the one thing that seems to be driving him subpoena this adrenaline rush. >> warner: now the piece quite painfully points out at least three missed opportunities for

someone close to him or his mother reported the pakistani training committees to the federal authorities or to the f.b.i. what was your conclusion after this as to why those weren't followed up on? >> it's one of the most disturbing and puzzling aspects of the case. there's about half a dozen warnings, ones we knew about and we discovered a couple others where he's coming to the attention of the authority bus for some reason he's slip through the cracks, there's two polgts, two scenarios. one is that it's harder than it seems in hindsight to detect a terrorist in the making and that the system didn't work the way it should have, that people didn't have the benefit of the previous warnings and they were investigating the next one. >> warner: even though this was post-9/11. >> and that was exactly what we were supposed to be doing is working on those systems. the other is this question of because he has been and informant and there are sources who believe he continued to do some work for some time after he was officially deactivated by

the d.e.a. in late 2001, early 2002, there's a sense his activities or his past as an informant played a role in being detected as less than a threat. that's a difficult area. you have in india who go to the extreme of believing he was a double agent all along. people in the u.s. insisting that's nonsense and then there's some evidence that suggest there is may have been something in between. but we try to be very careful and balanced because it's a mystery still. >> pelley: briefly and i don't know if you got into this but is the system working better now? >> certainly you would think it's working better than the early warnings after 9/11. but there's still some concern because these warnings were recent and you have to wonder, one would hope so. >> warner: thank you so much. >> thank you. >> woodruff: "frontline" airs tonight on most pbs stations. >> brown: again, the major developments of the day.

egypt's military pledged to speed up the transition to civilian rule, as more than 100,000 protesters filled tahrir square. the prime minister of turkey called for syrian president bashar al assad to step down. and president obama urged congress to extend a payroll tax cut extension past the end of the year. online, we have a follow-up to a story we did la summer about american teens making a difference in the lives of girls around the world. kwame holman explains. kwame. >> holman: find out about the reunion of an illinois teen, adopted as a baby, and her vietnamese twin sister. that's on our global health page. we invite you to tweet your thanksgiving travel tales on our t.s.a. time project. tell us how long you are waiting at the airport in this busy travel week. and are economic reporters crying wolf in their coverage of the supercommittee's collapse, and what it may mean for the government's ability to borrow? find paul solman's take on our making sense page. all that and more is on our web site, newshour.pbs.org. >> woodruff: and that's the newshour for tonight.

on wednesday, we'll talk with republican presidential candidate, minnesota representative michele bachmann. i'm judy woodruff. >> brown: and i'm jeffrey brown. we'll see you online, and again here tomorrow evening. thank you, and good night. major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: >> intelligent computing technology is making its way into everything from cars to retail signs to hospitals; creating new enriching experiences. through intel's philosophy of investing for the future, we're helping to bring these new capabilities to market. we're investing billions of dollars in r&d around the globe to help create the technologies that we hope will be the heart of tomorrow's innovations. i believe that by investing today in technological advances here at intel, we can make a better tomorrow. >> and by bnsf railway.

chevron. we may have more in common than you think. >> and by the bill and melinda gates foundation. dedicated to the idea that all people deserve the chance to live a healthy, productive life. and with the ongoing support of these institutions and foundations. and... this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. captioning sponsored by macneil/lehrer productions teaptioned by acdimes cea p grswgaoubh s.wgbh.org