captions by: caption colorado, llc (800) 775-7838 comments@captioncolorado.com from washington, "the mclaughlin group," the american original. for over two decades, the sharpest minds, best for the "i life. issue the department of defense is releasing the nuclear posture review. a report that outlines a balanced, comprehensive approach to dealing with the role of nuclear weapons and america's national security. >> the nuke liar posture review. the review focuses on three types of weapons of mass

destruction. nuclear, biological, chemical. first nuclear. if a country uses a nuclear weapon against the u.s., a u.s. retaliatory nuclear strike is an active option. second, biological, chemical weapons of mass destruction. if a country were to attack the u.s. with a biological or chemical weapon, a u.s. nuclear strike is off the table. if two conditions are both met. one, the nation attacking the u.s. with germs or chemicals has no nukes. two, the same nation attacking the u.s. with germs or chemicals was ostensibly abiding by nuclear nonprolifera commitment. secretary of defense gates outlined the u.s. nonnuclear response to a biological or bot

conditions are memet. >> if any state eligible for this assurance were to use chemical or biological weapons against the united states for its allies or partners, it would face the pros secretary of a devastating conventional military response. >> reporter: secretary gates also isolated north korea and iran as exempt from the assurance of a nonnuclear response. >> we essentially carve out states like iran and north korea that are not in compliance with mpt and basically, all options are on the table when it comes to countries in that category. >> question. how much of a policy shift is this, pat buchanan? >> it is a major shift and foolish lawyerly shift. before the iraq war, "desert storm," james baker called outta reek aziz and says if you use biological or chemical

weapons on our troops, we will use everything on you, and they didn't use those particular weapons. secondly, eisenhower, 1953 sent word to the chinese, you stop the war in korea or we take the lid off the weapons we use. we got a truce in six months. third, 1958, war in the taiwan strait, eisenhower says shut it down or it's gonna go up the stairs. in other words, threatening the possible use of atomic weapons, and he made peace all three times. these subtle or hidden threats worked, and he's given up our ambiguity. >> you get the point about ambiguity? he surrendered ambiguity and that's a strategic ambiguity. >> we live in a different world. we don't live in a bipolar world where we worry about some soviet general launching a weapon from mining.

we're waried about some terrorist group. what this president is looking for is more certainty, clearer rules, more engagement with countries around the world. that is what this posture review is telegraphing. the purpose of nuclear weapons in today's world do not make the u.s. or indeed russia safer. they are an incentive for secondary players and rather rogue nations to accumulate them. he's trying to reverse that. you do find some bipartisan pressure now towards his goal of a nuclear-free world. >> monica? >> this change is another piece of efs that this president -- evidence that this president considers a problem of the world rather then a solution. you do not telegraph what you are prepared to do and what you are not prepared to do. this is commander in chief 101. you set out to keep your enemies off balance, constantly making strategic what your

commander in chief will do to you. there is a reason why the united states was able to keep the peace for all of the decades of the cold war because our ennies knew that the commander in chief just might nuke 'em. this goes all the way back to harry truman who brought that wore to a close. you do not strip the united states of our superiority, which he's also trying to do through the start agreement and you also don't strip the american super power of its ability to keep peace in the world. that's wht special exemptions for iran and north korea. that's smart but it sounds very familiar. it sounds like the axis of evil, another peace of evidence that bush was right. >> any situation where you would envision the u.s. using a nuclear weapon? >> eleanor, it doesn't matter. you don't take any option off the table. >> okay, ladies, hold on. mort? >> it's certainly going to create a lot of intent for people who develop biological and chemical weapons because

that's going to be, shall we say, the weapons du jour. i actually happen to be in favor of reduction of nuclear capabilities than weaponry. a lot of them are old weapons, old rockets. i'm not sure they serve quite the same purpose. >> we're doing that. >> but it's -- >> not only that, but when bush, who favored some of this reduction as well, i might add, but he had three exceptions. one is for biological and chemical agents and for a very major conventional attack. so you keep at least that option. so in a sense, not understanding that gates was opposed to that elimination of that. >> the ambiguity? >> yeah. >> do you think that this is gonna be an inducement of any kind for iran to come around in view of the fact that we're not forbidding them with a nuclear

attack from using germ weapons against us? >> i don't think this is gonna change any piece of iran's policy. >> okay. cheney's world. >> u.s. conventional military firepower is so overwhelming in the world that any attack on us could be answered. any biological attack could be answered by that. >> we're talking about deterrents let's remember that treaty or no treaty, there exists a super-vennining authority that only the president holds. only he or she holds that if the united states is attacked with a nuclear bomb or a nuclear warhead. >> when you take the oath of office on january 20th of 2001 as we did, and you take the oath to support and defend and protect the constitution of the united states against all enemies, foreign and domestic, the president of the united states now for 50 years is

followed at tall times 24 hours a day by a military aide care rig a football that contains the nuclear codes that he would use and be authorized to use in the event of a nuclear attack on the united states. he could launch kind of a devastating attack the world's never seen. he doesn't have to check with anybody. he doesn't have to call the congress. he doesn't have to check with thhat authority because of the nature of the world we live in. >> question, is former vice president chabny correct namely that the president has the authority to respond to a nuclear attack on the u.s. with a retaliatory attack. i ask you, pat? >> that's what jack kennedy told the soviet union he would do if nuclear missiles were fired against any city in the western hemisphere. there would be a full response by the soviet union which he alone -- >> the commander in chief doesn't have to go to anybody else in order to make that judgment and call for the reaction. >> i think the president does have the power to do this initially to retaliate, but i do think once the first

exchange goes, i think you've got to go with the congress to get the authority to wage continual war under the constitution. >> suppose there is a matter of time involved? >> then the president acts. >> this is a very tender question. let me hear from you. >> i think the president has that four and b because of the world we live in -- >> meaning what? >> you have the capacity for a devastating nuclear attack. >> we have to be able to respond absolutely quickly. >> so we can do it on his own authority? >> what if you do this while most of the missiles are in the air? >> you can call up norad and say okay, go with it? >> that was more apropos when there were two super powers and we were living on trigger's edge. what we live with now are terrorists and the likelihood of nonstate actions where you don't know who is launching whatever and the proper response is not a president acting on his own and showering

a bond. this is a scenario not likely to happen where many other scenarios are likely. [ all talking at once ] >> let her in. >> the founding fathers deliberately vested the commander in chief with that power so that he could act with dispatch in a immediate crisis situation. >> do awe prove -- >> yes, of course. >> that's an enormous power. >> of course it is, but deliberately so and appropriately so. but both's hole approach here -- >> okay, all right. exit question. in the case of a nuclear attack on the u.s. by another country, would president and commander in chief barack obama push the button in retaliation or would he shrink from using the retaliatory nuclear weapons? pat? >> i hope he would use the weapons if he used them against their forces and not their cities. i don't know whether obama would do it. my guess would be he would have to. he would sit down, he would have to do it.

>> this is not the scenario we're gonna face. this is political gimmickry to make president obama look somehow weak because he's trying to lessen our reliance on nuclear weapons. the danger is from loose nukes and unsecured materials. there will be a summit in washington early next week where over 40 heads of state will be here talking about trying to rid us of this really frankenstein of history. >> john -- >> let her in very quickly. >> the big issue on the summit mort and i were talking about is netanyahu because the trap is being laid by egypt and turkey. iran doesn't have nuclear weapons. it allows inspections. israel does the same and they ask barack obama are you for a nuclear-free middle east? will you join us in this? >> we know -- >> i'm sorry, monica didn't get a chance to respond. >> first of all, you have to

respond israel has a bomb. it's an accepted charade. can you tell us anything about de many. 0. na? >> it's a very well known name in israel. >> you mean because of the nuclear resurgence? >> yeah. >> there is no doubt israel has the bomb. >> there is always a constructive ambiguity for all kinds of good reasons. >> do you think that you recall it ambiguity but you're the only one who sees it as ambiguity. i mean, can you pretend -- >> i didn't say it was just ambiguity. i said it was constructive ambiguity. >> do you think it's bm become, however, a term of derision and describing israel because it is a -- an obvious -- not an illicit, but an obviously kind of a shar raid some. >> there -- charade? >> there are 7 million people in a sea of hostility. they want to make sure everyone understands there is a possibility -- >> why not present that case to

the world. i think on many levels they've tried to. >> have they signed? >> no, they have not. >> south africa had a secret bomb, also. >> would you recommend that they sign it? >> the purpose of that is international pressure to disarm israel. to answer your epic question, if i could just get in very quickly, the potential scenario, god forbid,that iran or north korea or any other rogue state, there are a lot of them seeking nuclear weapons like venezuela or syria that they either launch against the united states or pass off materials. >> we're talking about the psychology of barack obama. does anyone on this set feel that given the attack by a nuclear power on the united states with the bomb that barack obama is psychologically deficient in being able to say i will nuke that nation -- >> no, i believe he will because otherwise we suffer -- >> you believe? >> first, what nation is this

bomb coming from? >> a first -- [ all talking at once ] >> what nation is this bomb coming from? >> presumably its attack on us is an enemy nation. >> let's get down to reality. >> he knows definitively that the bomb is coming from this nation is a hostile bomb. >> iran, pakistan. pakistan is overrun. >> by the time north korea, i think she's declining to answer the question. >> he would be impeached. >> he would obliterate the country that attacked us one way or another. >> i think we all agree except eleanor -- >> new york the nuclear posture review says he would respond to an enmy nation. >> that's not the question. >> that's the one i'm answering. >> he is a dealmaker and thank god he is a good dealmaker. i think he also -- they always think that the deal should be paid. >> you have -- no president can with stand a first strike

capability. >> we all believe he would take the action of any commander in chief under those circumstances. he would retaliate in kind. when we come back, the census, is it a civil q & a or a big brother snoop? somewhere in america... there's a home by the sea powered by the wind on the plains. there's a hospital where technology has a healing touch. there's a factory giving old industries new life.

and there's a train that got a whole city moving again. somewhere in america, the toughest questions are answered every day. because somewhere in america, more than sixty thousand people spend every day answering them. siemens. answers. the risk-takers. the visionaries. the entrepreneurs... who put it all on the line to build and run their own businesses. at at&t, we know something

about that. our company started out in a small lab, with not much more than a dream. and today, we know it's small businesses that can create the jobs america needs. that's why at&t is investing billions to upgrade and build out our wired and wireless networks. making them faster, smarter, and more secure. connecting small businesses to markets across the country, and around the world. we invest now, because we know it will pay off... with new jobs, new growth, from a new generation, putting their belief in the future on the line. now is the time for investment and innovation. the future is waiting. and the future has always the future is waiting. and the future has always been our business. at&t. somewhere in america... there's a home by the sea powered by the wind on the plains. there's a hospital where technology has a healing touch. there's a factory giving old industries new life.

and there's a train that got a whole city moving again. somewhere in america, the toughest questions are answered every day. because somewhere in america, more than sixty thousand people spend every day answering them. siemens. answers. is counted. >> 48 years old, old man. >> the u.s. census is in full census mode. the census profiles the population of the country. census forms have been sent to 120 million households. the bureau wants americans and legal residents to give their most personal information, name address, marital status, income, date of birth, race. even illegal aliens are encouraged to fill out a

confidential census form, and they have been given the assurance that their anonymity will not be disturbed by the census taking. census information will be used to determine where federal funds should go and whether states should continue to have the same number of congressional districts or gain some or lose some. the federal government is a custodian of personal information of every resident in the nation. so should we be concerned about our privacy? >> one of the proudest things i think we can say is we have a set of laws that protect the confidentiality of your answers to the enth degree. that's a good thing for us. >> reporter: not everyone is convinced. >> we don't have any reason to think they would keep this kind of thing secret. there's never been any success in any government effort to keep this information secret. >> the professor may have history on his side. item, world world war ii, the

federal government usedand jap- americans. post 9/11 terrorist attack. the census bureau in 2004 gave information on arab-americans to the department of homeland security. that history may be why nearly half of all americans are not confident that the federal government will keep their personal information confidential. in fact, 49% doubt it. question. the census bureau has a track record on safeguarding data. how good are the safeguards, monica? >> well, you just laid out some pretty difficult examples here for the census. look, i think by and large over the years, they have done a good job of keeping the material confidential. the problem is, if you think there are worries here about the census keeping your information confidential, wait till the federal government gets ahold of your health records. there is a lot of potential for

fraud. there was a big story last week about the census sending out duplicate forms. i filled out my sennous and i believe everybody should. it's all about the allocation of funds and redrawing congressional districts. i didn't find the questions particularly intrucive. i did think it was a little race-obsessedp. >> a little what? >> race-obsessed. i don't think they need all of that information about your race, but setting that aside, the potential for fraud after i mailed in my census, two days later, i got a second form. it was a story last week about how they made a mistake and sent out duplicate forms to millions of people. >> mort? >> i had the same experience, actually. i do think it's perfectly okay. you know, we need this kind of information for all kinds of purposes. it's the only place to get it. no other agency is able to do this on a national basis. it's one of the complications of living in a modern state. >> have you heard of choice

point? >> no. >> choice point? you can get all kinds of data there. >> there are many places to get data. your credit cards, all of that information gets distributed. this is much less in many ways -- >> credit bureaus do this all the time. >> a lot of life is about tradeoffs. actually there's a lot of good that the census does and the risk of losing valuable information is quite minimal. the same thing is true of the health care guarantees that we're gonna get as a society. >> privacy is gone. privacy doesn't exist. the computer has made that perfectly clear if any additional was needed. then you have choice points that collected. you have credit bureaus. >> you're exactly right. >> that's the american way. >> i filled out the census form. i didn't find it intrusive is all. >> do you think privacy is gone. ? is it a happy surrender?

>> the younger generation says what distinction does it make? >> your tax returns under there forever. it's all out there. >> no i don't feel it's gone. i've never felt my privacy. the only thing i was worried about with pat was whether or not he had enough faith to get his income into it. that's what i worry about. [ laughter ] >> his income? what about mine? is it still 2, 2 1/2? >> he dropped. i'm sure he dropped. >> exit question. which is more likely to compromise your privacy, the data your doctor will soon put into electronic or the data the census bureau collects every ten years? >> no question, the doctor's data. >> but the doctor's data can save from you taking medications that contradict each other. like i said, life is a tradeoff. >> you can call from hong kong and say i've got a seizure or heart attack. you can get it immediately and can save your life.

>> and now under obama care, your medical records will be available to the secretary of health and human services and the millions in that bureaucracy as well as the irs, john. >> mort? >> i think there's no doubt the medical records are much more of a risk in many ways. >> i don't think there's a risk on either side. we'll be right back with predictions. when planning for retirement these days, the forecast is full of ifs. if i'm too exposed to downturns. if i'll go through my savings too fast. to help you feel more confident consider putting a portion of your savings in a metlife variable annuity. when the market goes up, it gives your assets a potential to grow. while protecting you if the market goes down with a steady stream of income. let america's number one annuity provider help you stay on course with guarantees for the if in life. get answers about annuities at metlife.com. somewhere in america...

the slightest breeze harbors immense power. the tallest buildings leave the lightest footprints. a fifty-ton train makes barely a mark on the environment. and a country facing climate change finds climate solutions. somewhere in america, we've already answered some of the nation's toughest questions. and the over sixty thousand people of siemens are ready to do it again. siemens. answers.

siemens.

how many opportunities will president obama have to appoint supreme court justices before the end of his term? >> he's got stevens, he may get one more. >> he may get a second. >> i agree, a grand total of three. >> three. >> he will have three before his term is