and neither i nor leon panetta was invited to those meetings. i would have liked to have been there but we had gotten the intelligence picture -- >> why didn't they want you there at that stage? one more person would not have done any damage, i would assume? >> they had the idea that the intelligence-- the intelligence picture is separate from the policy decisions, and once the intelligence has been conveyed, time over to the policy people. >> rose: did you feel like you not only ought to offer them intelligence but also because you were there and because of the information that you had and analyzed, you ought to be engaged in recommending policy? >> i-- i think i had a responsibility right up to the end to ensure that the policy decisions were made on good intelligence grounds in terms of what the adversaries in other countries might do, what would be the effect of actions that we would take. i think you need to be in the room to do that. so i think it would have been better had i been there. >> rose: and at the same time to recommend policy is

in 1994, you had dick morris, you had leon panetta. >> i left in the spring of 1995. >> right. is that something that is important either symbolically or either actuallily? >> i don't want to speak to it but i'm sure -- i mean, every president, you know, has a change at this point with this kind of election, there are changes. i don't know, you know, what they will be, a new chief of staff possibilities, there's whole range of things. >> matthew is itching to say something. >> i think the president is in a very, very different spot than bill clinton was in 1994. and a much more problematic spot which is the -- his ability to control his destiny. bill clinton's ability to control his destiny was much in his hands. much, much in his own hands because what brought him the failures that happened in the '94 re-election was not the disastrous economy because the economy going in the '94 election was actually rising and done very well but he lost because the public thought he had gone off in the wrong track and he had mismanaged so he corrected a bunch of communication problems, broug

after 1994, you had dick morris, leon panetta, mike -- is that something that is important, either symbolically or actually? >> i do not want to speak to it, but i am sure every president has a change at this point. with this kind of election, there are changes. i do not know what they will be. there is a new chief of staff possibility. a whole range of things. >> mackey is itching to say something. >> the president is in a very different spot than president clinton was in 1994 and a much more problematic spot, which is his ability to control his destiny. bill clinton's destiny was much more in his hands. the 1994 reelection was not a disastrous economy pity economy was actually rising and beginning to do very well. he lost because the public thought he had gone off on the wrong track and mismanaged. he corrected a bunch of communication problems. he brought in people. he did the health care thing. when he corrected things, the economy was on the rise and he got rewarded for that. barack obama could make a whole bunch of personal choices and make a london different speeches and say he is doing

we know that, at least in the case of the new york stock exchange and leon panetta, we have evince that the franc was used. we look at how we will proceed on this motion, this summary judgment or however you want to phrase it. while it is not specifically within the rules, what is the precedent for a motion like this being offered in lieu of an adjudicatory meeting? >> the way the motion is the style that is not in lieu of a hearing. it would be more in lieu of taking live testimony. in terms of not taking live, public testimony, i think there is ample precedent before the committee. this is the hearing. this is offered at the hearing. the evidence is admitted at the hearing. we are, essentially, having a hearing. the motion simply states that based on the record before you that you can decide. you can decide today. you can go back and talk about this case. you can deliberate and argue or greed. , breyer can right now get to a vote based on what you have before you. >> said it is your opinion of chief counsel that this is sufficient with the evidence being admitted along with the argume

leon panetta said 50 al qaeda members left in afghanistan. >> you know my view, joe, look, one of thegood enough. >> right. >> and what is good enough is us being able to guarantee our own security by making sure the taliban continues to be degraded, cannot come back and occupy afghanistan. secondly, that the afghan government is stable enough that it is able to maintain while it's going through this whole reintegration progress with the taliban, its ability to stay in power. and, thirdly, for us to be in a position where we are able to ultimately not be spending the kind of money and have the number of troops we have there, and the sooner that happens, the better. >> i think people would like to hear a little bit about the s.t.a.r.t. treaty, and i'm going to read from the president's piece in the "international herald tribune." just as the united states and russia have reset our relationship, so, too, can nato and russia. in lisbon we can make it clear that nate though sees prussiaan. we can deepen the ties, and by moving ahead with cooperation on missile defense, we can turn a sourc

you think it's valid or not is a small group of people advising him after 1994 you have morris, leon panetta, mike mccurry -- is that something that is important even symbolically or actually? >> i don't want to speak to it, but i'm sure every president has a change at this point with this kind of election and i don't know which one they will be, a whole range of things. >> i think the president is in a very different spot than bill clinton was in 1994 and a much more problematic spot which is his ability to control the destiny. bill clinton's ability to control his destiny was much in his hands, much of his own hands because what brought him the barriers that have been denied before the election wasn't a disaster is economy because the economy going into the '94 election was rising and beginning to do very well but he lost because the public thought he'd gone off on the wrong track and mismanaged so he corrected a bunch of communications problems, brought people. the health care thing he had done and when he corrected those of the economy was on the rise and he got rewarded for that. i thin

current member of leon panetta's advisory board. he represents entities that we are discussing, including congressional investigation and prosecution. to his right, eric lieberman, vice-president of the general counsel. before that, a litigator at the firm of williams and connally. before that, a staff to senator kennedy on capitol hill. quite a group to begin the conversation. i think we have to begin with the fundamental premise. the fundamental premise, it seems, to me is what is the role of the media fundamentally in the formulation of foreign and domestic information? what is the starting role? is it to be a member, watchdog, and after the fact watcher? walter, what is the role of the media in providing, becoming part of the sausage making process of the formulation of foreign policy? >> it is a little bit of both. i think when we are operating the way we should, we should be covering people who are involved in the dialogue. public officials, hearings on the hill. we ought to report what is going on. but we also have a responsi