that is the type of non transparency that we were really advocating in the bush should ministration, that if you want the president to get unvarnished advice from his top advisers on sensitive and controversial issues, that advice should not be disclosed to the public because it is, you are not going to get the best of fights that you can from your advisor. to answer your question i really think it remains to be seen whether at the highest level, where transparency is an issue, this administration is or is not going to be transparent because they haven't had the type of fights that we had once the government became divided in the budget ministry in. >> lisa -- by the way, we have cards in here if you want to ask questions. like the office of legal policy no one knows what the staff secretary is. explain what your main duty is, and to you have a responsibility, do you feel you have a responsibility to provide alternative views from the right to the president? he is wanting to hear from his critics as well as his supporters. how do you manage the need to give him information that is co

continue to persecute -- prosecute that war, he has a withdrawal timetable the same as the bushes ministration. guantanamo bay issue has been brought up a great deal, and yet it appears that the result will either be terrorists in the united states subject to all of our constitutional rights or the creation of something essentially the same as guantanamo bay. the surveillance techniques that were the pride so profoundly by the obama administration and by the campaign have been left in place the same way. i even heard the president say that we cannot sustain this deficit spending. it is enough to really amazed you some time. the justice department is involved in 3 court cases since the president took office. the obama administration position state secrets, makes it hard to distinguish from its predecessor. according to usa today's editorial page, quote, the obama administration's decision to embrace the bush legacy has all the elements of hypocrisy. anthony romero, executive director, has written quote back when it comes to key national security policy the obama administration is continuing alo

the obama administration is continue -- is continuing along the path that was paved by the bush of ministration. -- by the bush administration. this has not changed. this is more of the same. i just have to tell you, i am thankful that mr. obama has had an epiphany lately. i hope he accelerates this, because i think the national security of the country, and the economic future and constitutional free market is at stake. i will give mr. grossman and opportunity, the aclu said this is more of the same. i will give you a chance to agree or disagree with the ec -- aclu director. >> i agree. this is not a political matter. it is about the safety of our nation. >> that is my main point. i know i took the opportunity to express some feelings of -- that the men station has, hypocritical and some of the attacks the made in the previous administration. they have come to some realities that are always easy to ignore in a campaign. what is important here is for us to realize that truth and time travel on the same road and truth always has the last word. somehow, perhaps in this institution and campaigns, w

withdrawing certain legal opinions including one that provided legal justifications for the bush and ministrations wired taping program. -- bush administration's wiretapping program. one person says the program was not illegal and later clarified it. you said i would never see the day by allowing certain things. the president said the campaign was illegal. is there any doubt in their mind that it was illegal? >> do warless wiretapping program that existed at that time was put together without the approval of congress. as a result, it did not have all the protections, strength that it might have had. i think the concerns that i expressed no longer exists because of the ax congress has taken. >> i ask you if you considered it to be illegal. that is the implication of what you said in the court i read. and the explicit statement of the man who is president of the united states. >> i thought the action the administration had taken was inconsistent with the dictates of pfizer. as a result, i thought the policy was unwise. i think the concerns i expressed then have been remedied by the fact that congres

one big difference is they, example, support a ban on nuclear weapons testing because the bush should ministrations did. one of the president's high priorities is to ratify that treaty, that treaty would not go into force even if the u.s. ratified it. if india doesn't sign it, india is giving no indication that it will, you have a very high global objective of the administration on nuclear arms control, which india may be a major impediment to. so that, that is the difference between administrations, which has implications. it is in that very as well as the afpak area, because this administration is focusing more on afghanistan than the bush administration did and that brings in the head down. >> please identify yourself and ask the question. we can all go home. please. wait for the mike. >> i am dr. pete from indian nations. the point i would like to ask -- >> i think it is on. just speak quietly. >> can we say it will not go down further, but we continue to go out differently? or do we have -- the downside taken out, for example, the question of pakistan and terrorist relationships, there is a fe

there was a lot of money spent in iraq during the bush of ministration. at would the economy looks like today if they did not spend all this money? guest: i did not rail against the bush administration for spending and other money in iraq nor am i doing that for the obama administration. we may have spent the money in the middle east the wrong way by going into a rock. -- iraq. that does not mean the money did not need to be spent. the u.s. economy may not have looked at different if we did not spend the money. i do nothing our spending on defense is part of the problem. our policy in iraq is a different story. if we were not in iraq, we would not be spending the money -- that notion is silly. host: what else will you be looking at a month down the road where you say, that is the plan that is working? guest: we are tracking the infrastructure projects. there are some good things in the package. there is money for alternative energy which is very important. we need to correct our energy deficit. that is a good thing. we are looking for those things to creat

. >> he was approved for release by the bush a ministration. the determination was that there was not sufficient proof to bring a case against him. he is hoping to transfer to saudia arabia where he will be subject to judicial review and a re-education program that they have. >> was that based on a question evidence that cannot be utilized? military intelligence shows he was responsible for the shooting death of a diplomat, william jefferson. was there evidence that you felt was inadmissible to make this case? >> the determination we made is that there was insufficient proof to tie him to those very serious and regrettable crimes. it was not a question of the admissibility of the evidence but the insufficiently of it. >> another detainee reportedly received instructions directly from one person and is believed to be the accomplice in the al qaeda plan for a second wave of attacks after 9/11. the charges tie him to a plot to blow up high-rise apartment buildings and explode a dirty bomb in the united states. did you approve his release? >> the r

united states and abroad, is something that is a marker for not just a continuation of the bush did ministration's commitment to fighting in and trafficking and modern slavery but an intensification of the part of hillary clinton and the obama administration. that is something that those of us who worked in the field, whether in the state department, people like myself who have been federal prosecutors investigating the cases working with the ngos, that is something we have seen a lot of response to world wide. we will hopefully see an improvement in the coming year as far as the countertrafficking response. 2 things i would like to leave you with, one of which is the notion that because we are in a time of economic crisis, especially workers, foreign guest workers are particularly vulnerable, it is too often done, we see a problem in programs. a number of rankings are affected by countries having large guest worker program is who did not have any safeguards built into them. in the united states in territorial possession, which had its own guest worker, it has been overturned by congress last year

i particularly appreciate that you took this commercial approach, both the bush said ministration and obama administration want gm and chrysler to move forward, not to liquidate those companies. there seems to be a perception in this room and among some, not just in this body but elsewhere, that the employees took no hits but everybody else did, the dealers, the bondholders, the executives, the communities, and when you represent a state like i do, you see what kind of hits communities take and what kind of its workers take. there are tens of thousands of workers losing their jobs, not just in chrysler and gm bought beer one suppliers and beyond, many of them are non-union companies that pay $15 an hour or more in many cases but not more in any other case. the $7 an hour term in eaton is made, plus lost jobs, what is meant to the communities. a lot of us, and the country, appreciates that you have done this in a way that keeps these companies alive and growing in the years ahead. i appreciate your optimistic assessment. i want to talk about last year, what happened, where we are going

he, like other top officials of the bush out ministration of course never forgot that day and gave him more than anything and even greater sense of urgency than he had before that date in terms of trying and to effect change in the u.s. military. he came into the job as the defense secretary with a main assignment from george bush to transform the u.s. military and he was pushing for that before 1911 but afterwards, that whole mission gained even greater urgency >> host: we are going to take a look at one of the comments, one of the briefings donald rumsfeld held that the pentagon and this is response to the question about back when he did the kuwait troup town meeting and said basically you go to war with the army you have common of the army that you want. this was the response couple of weeks later to one of the reporters' questions. i want to get your reaction to this. >> i'm saddened by the fault anyone could have the impression of i or others year or doing anything author and working urgently to see that the lives of the fighting men and women are protected and cared for in every

the previous administration, president bush, the current and ministration, president obama, secretaries of state in secretaries of defense from both administration have reaffirmed our national commitment to get aip done. got it. loud and clear. it is going to take some money. it is going to take some time. there is an understanding that working inside the defense line will not get a defense line. properties just will fidget working of the properties will not get it done. there have to be improvements on the infrastructure. those of us who have had a pleasure of going there understand. it is 10% growth almost overnight. you cannot do that anywhere in america without some infrastructure considerations and improvement. that means money, and that takes time. there are labor cost. you have to go back to the marine corps. there are training issues attend to the transfer. the marines in okinawa still not get all the training they need to get them right there. we have to move some of them around. aip is not without challenges. previous of the stations have expressed their commitment to get it d

to be a hero for political independence, but it might end up helping him and the budget ministration -- and the bush administration, and possibly the republican base. it is impossible that something this significant will not benefit them. it is the will of washington. >> it has to, i think in terms of the denial, this is something that these documents are hung up in the current litigation. once that ends, presumably, they could be let go. >> question? >> it is started to talk on this, but i was just curious for your thoughts on the future of the republican party. there's been talk on who is going to be the new face of the republican party, possibly eri c cantor. do you see 2010 a time when they're going to be able to caption -- capture more seats, or is it going to come -- become a permanent minority for a while? >> having worked for the republican party in the house of representatives, i recall in 1964 when we had the huge landslide with linda mead

of the lasted ministration, yet when asked about reinstating the designation of a terrorist nation, the administration has appealed the decision that. made about this time last year, the bush administration, in an attempt to entice north korea back to the negotiating table, took north korea off the list of state sponsors of terrorism and that designation allowed us to freeze assets and pressure them in other ways. since then, it has been obvious the north koreans have not honored that in any way and they have expedited, expanded their development of nuclear weapons, they have tested large nuclear weapons, tested more missiles and promised to test a missile that could reach our shores. last week, 8 senators sent a letter to secretary clinton asking her to put north korea -- we have yet to receive an answer, one that we heard in the press, there's no evidence that there has been new terrorist activity since they were taken off of the list but the point is they never ceased their terrorist activities. the most recent congressional research service pointed out that north korea has, and continues, collaborate with iran and syria as far as weapons distribution, supporting terror