layer of cyber defense. what is your assessment of how far along the u.s. is in deciding on its policies of what is deterrence in cyberspace, what is an act of war in cyberspace? some of these things are probably need to be clear if you are really going to make use of those sorts of policy tools? >> guest: the obama administration effects and made a lot of good progress i think we are we are further along than sometimes might be the public appearance. in deterrence, pretty good idea, we have something called cross domain deterrence which is you do cyber and i do a missile and that is a good idea. the issue with deterrence is there are some things that are not deterrable through military force and that gets into the definition of the attack. espionage, crime don't usually justify a military response. we are really good at deterring military attacks. we aren't deterring espionage or crime and that is because the definition that people are revolving around has not been formally accepted yet around the world but

in the terms of what we're doing on the defensive side, you can never do enough defensively, and there's no such thing as perfect security. so there'll be a movement, and i think there is, to think off of the defensive side and start thinking more offensively. and we're talking at a nation-state level. so international engagement becomes critically important. >> host: can you give an example of what you mean by offense? >> guest: so it is very much tied to the defense, and they're technologically related as well as the policy and legal are interconnected. and part of doing defense well is knowing the offensive capabilities and actually using them. so if you know that your security is not ever going to be 100%, one then it's logical to come to the conclusion -- and many have -- that you will start seeing what is sometimes referred to as more, a more aggressive defense. so as we get into the area of more aggressive defense whether from the government or private sector, and this is an important aspect of the role of the private sector, that is, in effect, offensive work. but some have terme

there's the prospect of defense cuts, possibility of defense cuts, there's even the threat of defense cuts, but that doesn't matter when the rubber meets the road. this is all part of a very long pattern of the sides claiming to have big savings from cutting defense or getting out of the wars iraq and afghanistan to portray an image of savings that doesn't force the pentagon to make hard choices about rolls, admission, things wrong in budget and it's a lot of smoke and mirrors and what it's resulted in is beginning the discussion about defense cuts, which is not resulting in actual cuts and the details do not exist. it's really amazing. >> i think that's the most interesting thing to me about this is that what they are sort of setting up in washington is an opportunity to think about it, if not fight about it. i think the concept is that we're not yet ready to fight about defense cuts as a party. neither party is ready to have that as an argument, and the big cuts that would go into effect if that trigger is pulled, again, months if not years down the road, those would be cuts that wo

white defense spending should be cut. -- why defense spending should be cut. he writes -- we spend more on defense than the remaining countries put together. us.ums it all up for guest: virtually everybody that can be deployed has been. that is how america has funded its defense. you have to significantly ramp up spending during wartime because you cut it so deeply during peacetime. so, the budget growth that we have seen post 9/11 needed to happen because you are using your military at a breakneck pace. this was not an investment in the future. it was a much different defense budget growth. in terms of america's defense spending relative to the rest of the world, you also have to look at defense spending by other metrics, a percentage of the federal budget and how it has gone up in real dollars, and then as a percentage of the overall american economy. defense spending is at an historic low. right about at 5% of our gdp spend on defense and military. during the cold war, it was significantly higher. i would argue in terms of the size of our economy, america i

national missile defense.we have spent more on that project than on the entire apollo space program that the man on the moon. now presently the success rate for the ground intercept system is eight out of 15 limited. so a man on the new inverses not that reassuring success rate. but more importantly, if it does become successful it still is a system that is inadequate to stop the missiles that actually can reach us from russia or china and may be enough to reach the missiles that don't yet reach us bucket under the current budget the budget is supposed to increase. or another example, the nuclear weapons complex, which we only looked at through the lens of negotiations with the nation that lost the cold war. that is we need to look a nuclear weapons, not just through what can we give up in negotiations in other words we need to ask ourselves if you cut 200 or 500 warheads from the 5500 that you have, what is the tree of? what is the national securities all you? the protection that you are getting from that, 5,

spending still i can tell you one person who hates the idea of cutting defense the new secretary of defense leon panetta he spoke today about the broad and growing range of challenges our military must be prepared for he also spoke about the dangers if congress fails to enact other measures to reduce the deficit if it did happen it would result in a further round very dangerous cuts across the board. the stance cuts that i believe would do real damage to our security our troops and their families and our military's ability to protect the nation and this is a really important topic and joining me now to talk more about this is lawrence korb senior fellow at the center for american progress consequent thanks for being here you served as assistant secretary of defense under president reagan you know a great deal about this i want to get your take on what we heard today from secretary of defense panetta well the secretary of defense panetta is trying to basically keep the spirits up of the organization he took over but his former director of o.m.b. he knows that the defense budget now e

national missile defense. we have spent more on that project than on the entire apollo space program that the man on the moon. now presently the success rate for the ground intercept system is eight out of 15 limited. so a man on the new inverses not that reassuring success rate. but more importantly, if it does become successful it still is a system that is inadequate to stop the missiles that actually can reach us from russia or china and may be enough to reach the missiles that don't yet reach us bucket under the current budget the budget is supposed to increase. or another example, the nuclear weapons complex, which we only looked at through the lens of negotiations with the nation that lost the cold war. that is we need to look a nuclear weapons, not just through what can we give up in negotiations in other words we need to ask ourselves if you cut 200 or 500 warheads from the 5500 that you have, what is the tree of? what is the national securities all you? the protection that you are getting from that, 5

the defense mission. i hope leon panetta will have the same attitude and we start making trade-offs between defense and non-defense security spending. i would hope that in some instances we may cut defense and add some money on the non-defense side. >> not just the numbers of how much we should cut and how we can take a knife or a scalpel or an axe to the defense budget, but the process by which we should think about the cuts and to make sure in this rapid-fire process of cutting quickly we do not cut on wisely. can you say some words on some guidelines that the community keep in mind? >> many echo your comments about the honor of being up on stage with two american leaders. the numbers we are talking about are of such a scale that they're almost shocking. we have to figure out how to cut between $400 billion and %1.15 trillion, most of which will come out of the defense. there are different ways to think about those numbers. empire state buildings they equal. two chinese military annual budgets or seven

in terms of what we're doing on the defensive side, you can never do enough defensively. there is no such thing as perfect security. there will be a movement to be on the defensive side and start thinking more offensively. we are talking at a nation state level. national engagement becomes critically ill important. >> is tied to the defense, and they are technologically related as well as policy legal being interconnected. part of that is knowing the offensive capabilities. security is not going to be 100%. we have come to the logical conclusion that you'll start seeing more aggressive defense. it is an important aspect in the role of the private sector. it is offensive work. some have turned into more aggressive defense, more aggressive security. in threats.elieve i think what you have is a remarkably in secure infrastructure built that way, insecure and the way the internet works now. eventually, maybe we will see terrorists. there is no penalty for doing bad things. and it is probably not fixable. when i look at it, what do we need to change to make this a safer enviro

mind you, these cuts in defense were not the result of careful planning and analysis. they were just arbitrary percentages thrown out in negotiations, totally unconnected to actual defense requirements. worse, the cuts that would be triggered if the committee recommendations failed were intentionally designed to be so large, so unimaginable, so irresponsible that congress would be inseptemberred to -- incented to approve the committee recommendses. the phrase "armageddon" was used to characterize this scheme. can you imagine anything more irresponsible than for the commander in chief of the military to promote, not just promote but insist on the knowing destruction of the u.s. military as a means to threaten congress? the theory was the consequences of inaction by congress must be so severe that no responsible senator or representative could dare allow the result, that we would be forced to accept the select committee's recommendations on pain of seeing the u.s. military decimated. this should never have been agreed to by members of congress. but most of all, should ne

>> the twinkie defense. >> the phrase twinkie defense was made up by paul crestor, who is a satirist. paul was also the trial. he was, quote, covering it for playboy. he once won a slow bicycle race, so that's not surprising. [laughter] but you know, one of the psychiatry -- one of the points that the psychiatrists and psychologists were making when the defense picked up on was that dan white, who had been very concerned with his good health and he was a very strong athletic kind of guy he abandoned his usual good dietary habits and was gorging on drunk food and feeling sorry for himself and moping around the house and was so on and so forth. and one of the psychiatrists, martin blinder, he is available for hire if anybody wants him, mentioned that he had eaten some twinkies and so it got seized upon. it was a throwaway line in a piece of garbage testimony that had almost nothing to do with the trial but it became the phrase by which the trial is known and was treated in a very peculiar ways. stagger was very critical where dan reloaded. >> incredibly important and again, the prosecut

there's cuts in defense spending and cuts in domestic spending. the hardest issues are entitlement reform and tax reform. they have to reform something by thanksgiving or there's an enforcement mechanism that goes into place. we're vft confident this that committee will consider tax reform and will put together a package that includes revenues. >> six democrats, six republican, there's nothing requiring them to raise taxes. >> if they're going to meet the threshold in this deal, they're going to have to include revenues in that. at the end of 2012, the bush tax cuts will expire. the president said he will not extend any tax cuts to the wealthiest. so we're going to change the tax code in 2011 or it will be forced upon us in 2012. >> you're saying by 2012-2013 there will be an increase in taxes? >> for the wealthiest americans. for the 98% that makeless than $250,000, they have tax cuts under this president and we'll further cut their taxes. >> that's assuming the president is re-elected, though? >> i do assume that, wolf. >> you're getting a lot o

obama met with our nation's defense secretary, leon panetta, why the defense secretary, why today of all days? because under this debt ceiling deal, defense seems to be the biggest item slated for cuts, at least maybe for cuts both in terms of the short-term and in terms of the cuts that would come into play if congress doesn't agree on big generic spending reductions, thus triggering automatic deep cuts, those could account to 10% of the pentagon's annual budget. when president obama chose leon panetta to be his new secretary of defense, not just the cia director, did the president make that choice of mr. panetta in part because he saw changes coming at the pentagon? could we actually be changing course on the single biggest thing in american politics that never really gets debated? the single largest chunk of money in american politics and government, the single biggest thing in american government that affects all of our lives and every single thing about the way america is seen around the world but is usually off limits for political debate at home? could we be changing course on

dollars in defense cuts. we heard some testimony earlier this week on capitol hill from general dempsey, the incoming chairman of the joint chiefs of staff who said they're having a hard time finding 400 billion cuts and believe it would be risky to go further. that's where the sticking point came from republicans today. >> bret, i've got to tell you my contacts on capitol hill and conservatives i've spoken to throughout the day are telling me the same thing, if in fact, the number earlier in the day. the defense cuts. in joint committee. that's a deal killer for them for a lot of reasons. it's a deal killer for tea party conservatives and the other issue is there was concern about the real language of the balanced budget amendment would have to take place between october 1st of this year and the end of the year. soo we have any updates of whether or not the 50 percent mark on defense cuts have in fact been lowered do we know if the budget takes place or will harry reid table that? >> it is part of the deal t

diminished capacity defense. they did pass bills that were intended to do that although it's still possible to conduct the state of mind defense. you have to frame it a little differently, but those same kind of defenses are still being put forward. and, but of all the consequences, um, of his act, probably the one that he least intended was this one. the biggest change dan white wrought was unintended. the acceptance of gay people here and in many other places across the country was inspired in part by the martyrdom of harvey milk. in fact, within a couple of months of harvey's assassination a hundred thousand people showed up in washington for a gay rights march, and most -- many of them were carrying placards that invoked the memory of harvey milk. in death, his influence grew far greater than had he lived. harvey's life and death became the subject of an opera, an academy award-winning documentary, and a 2008 movie, "milk," which earned sean penn an oscar for his portrayal of harvey. it's a testament to unint

what will deficit reduction mean for defense companies and communities that rely on defense spending? darren gersh looks at the size and scope of those cuts, and finds different answers. >> reporter: depending on how you look at it, defense spending will either be frozen for the next couple years, or it will be slashed dramatically, or it will go up. let's look at the cuts first. next year and the year after defense spending, not including afghanistan and iraq, is essentially frozen, give or take a few billion dollars, at $530 billion. that would require the pentagon to trim some spending, not a hard thing to do. >> instead of building two submarines a year, i build one. that's $2.5 billion right there. >> reporter: now you may have heard defense spending will be cut by $350 billion over the next ten years. that's right, and it sounds like a lot, except the new debt limit law allows the next president and congress to change the formula for defense spending in 2014. another uncertainty is what happens if congress fails to enact a second round of promised deficit cuts. if that happens,

the defense says no. >> i challenge anybody to show me.pay them a million dollars if they can do it. >> if they can do that in the time allotted? >> can't happen, didn't happen. >> when "unfinished business" continues. five chicken breasts individually wrapped, so you can use what you want and put the rest in the refrigerator. and the best part is it only takes 10 minutes. it's my go-to meal. matter which position i am in i wake up feeling good. it fits you so perfectly... it fits you. you wake up and you're revived and rejuvenated. it's just like wow! tempur-pedic the most highly recommended bed in america. tempur-pedic is rated #1 in comfort. sleep satisfaction. and back support. it fits the curvature of your body but you don't sink in and it is firm. proprietary tempur material suppresses motion transfer. this means that when you get in or out of bed, you won't disturb your partner. that's amazing. that's amazing. tempur-pedic, the most highly recommended bed in america. call the number on your screen. or will soon, you're starting a wh

bomber anders pray they can her latest post for his plane why in a moment and could there actually be defense cuts in the debt deal but explain why the neo cons are freaking out when we speak with lieutenant colonel anthony shaffer director. for the we've gone to. the biggest issues get a human voice face to face with the news makers. the house of representatives has approved a bill to increase the u.s. debt limit paving the way for the senate to buzz on the plan to default but i did say even if the build process for congress months of political bickering has severely damaged america's reputation worldwide. also the u.s. and b you step out that push for more sanctions against syria after the latest crackdown on protesters reportedly leaves more than one hundred people dead but most who condemning violence from both sides. troops clashed with protesters in cairo security forces moving to break up a rally by a protest is demanding faster political china demonstrators have been camping out in tahrir square weeks calling for us with to reforms up to february seventh if. there's the headlines up n

up, defense spending is down.m as equivalent is comparing apples and oranges. defense spending is not just another wasteful government program. alisyn: gotcha. ambassador john bolton, thank you for coming in. bill: we are waiting on the senate session at 10:30. will we see a vote later today? maybe. 3,000 votes in 45 minutes on our show page. alisyn: a day at the beach almost turned deadly for one mother just trying to catch some rays. >> she was on her stomach, we turned her on her side. let me tell you about a very important phone call i made. when i got my medicare card, i realized i needed an aarp... medicare supplement insurance card, too. medicare is one of the great things about turning 65, but it doesn't cover everything. in fact, it only pays up to 80% of your part b expenses. if you're already on or eligible for medicare, call now to find out how an aarp... medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company, helps cover some of the medical expenses... not paid by medicare p

as secretary of defense. let me begin by saying how important i think these briefings are and regular engagement with all of you, and i intend to continue this on a regular basis, as did my predecessor, bob case. as you know, just completed my first month as secretary. during that time, i had a chance to travel to the war zones, meet with the troops and commanders there. i had a chance to consult with a number of ministers of defense and hosted four of my counterparts at the pentagon. i have also begun visiting some of the key commands out there. i've visited northcom last friday, and i will be visiting others monday. i will continue to do that on a regular basis. i have also had the privilege of visiting walter reed and meeting with our wounded warriors. finally, i have established, i think regular dialogue with congressional leaders on the hill and have built a very close working relationship with the service chiefs and service secretaries, and meet with them on a weekly basis. i've been truly impressed wit

white defense spending should be cut. -- why defense spending should be cut. he writes -- .end more on defense than the remaining countries put together. us.ums it all up for guest: virtually everybody that can be deployed has been. that is how america has funded its defense. you have to significantly ramp up spending during wartime because you cut it so deeply during peacetime. so, the budget growth that we have seen post 9/11 needed to happen because you are using your military at a breakneck pace. this was not an investment in the future. it was a much different defense budget growth. in terms of america's defense spending relative to the rest of the world, you also have to look at defense spending by other metrics, a percentage of the federal budget and how it has gone up in real dollars, and then as a percentage of the overall american economy. defense spending is at an historic low. right about at 5% of our gdp spend on defense and military. during the cold war, it was significantly higher. i would argue in terms of the size of our economy, america is in the 20s. that

all areas of the defense budget. all areas of the defense budget. the service chiefs are looking at all of those areas and will ultimately make a recommendation as part of this comprehensive review. my goal is to be able to use that comprehensive review to inform the strategies we will have to make. that is going to be key in the areas we look to for savings. >> from the standpoint of troop presence in iraq, afghanistan, and around the world, i do not think there is a decision now that is not one to take cost into consideration. we have to do that. our budget has doubled. a significant part of that has been the investment in our people and families over the course of the last 10 years because of who they are and what we have asked them to do in fighting these wars, and the stress they are under. i would argue with the strategic comprehensive umbrella the secretary described that a balanced approach looking at operational costs, investment in our people, and in programs -- where the service chiefs are is recommending

now on the topic of defense spending we've dedicated ourselves to reporting to you the latest in that wasteful military spending just recently we told you how the entire fleet of f. thirty five an f. twenty two fighter jets have been grounded due to a slew of serious mechanical problems and now an audit from the inspector general shows that questions are being raised over five million pieces of body armor that the army has used in both iraq and afghanistan for the past ten years. the pentagon report questions the reliability of five million pieces of body armor safety tests were conducted with the wrong place they were inconsistent and two designs were approved without any testing. approving body armor they didn't even bother to test can't really say i'm not surprised now the audit gave in-depth information about seven military contracts all for armor plates known as ballistic inserts and in the report the inspector general wrote consequently the army cannot be sure of the ballistic inserts meet requirements as a result the army lacks assurance that five point one million ballistic in

and and they're going to have to take back you know the the actual defense of this country because the government can't defend america. on this policy the general federal government they suck thank you. nic let me ask you this because we hear i think a lot of ron paul's views that were once considered prayer weren't really talked about you know who who cared about the federal reserve several years ago well now you know that's part of the mainstream consciousness is questioning if i should be audited what should you know be more controlled what kind of control they have and that you know many would say ron paul had a large part to deal with and i'm curious about how much his foreign policy views have really moved forward into this debate and i want to play a bit of what he said about cuba to give us an example of how the difference in his opinion compared to g.o.p. establishment. i mean this whole idea of sanctions all these put pretium free traders they're the ones who put on these trade sanctions this is why we still don't have trade relationship with cuba it's about time we talk to c

it doesn't all come out of the defense fnks.even though it will be a big hit. >> let me bring up a point about the tea party. one of the things that we've seen in this debate is the tea party is not a monolith. it's easy to talk about as a group folks coming in to cut and cut and cut. a significant number of so-called tea party members just voted for this thing. as a matter of fact, a lot of tea party members were on board for boehner's first plan. >> we got the two-minute warning on the president going to make a statement in the rose garden. very quickly, it does seem as if some of these tea party members took an incremental victory. they said, this is the step and they voted that way. >> absolutely. that goes to reed's point. i know a lot of my friends on the left want to paint this one size fits all. this is not the tea party. they come from different perspectives and bring a different energy. i think we want to go back to the beginning on this whole debt discussion. all of this could have been avoided if harry reid did what

dollars in defense cuts. we heard some testimony earlier this week on capitol hill from general dempsey, the incoming chairman of the joint chiefs of staff who said they're having a hard time finding 400 billion cuts and believe it would be risky to go further. that's where the sticking point came from republicans today. >> bret, i've got to tell you my contacts on capitol hill and conservatives i've spoken to throughout the day are telling me the same thing, if in fact, the number earlier in the day. the defense cuts. in joint committee. that's a deal killer for them for a lot of reasons. it's a deal killer for tea party conservatives and the other issue is there was concern about the real language of the balanced budget amendment would have to take place between october 1st of this year and the end of the year. so do we have any updates of whether or not the 50 percent mark on defense cuts have in fact been lowered do we know if the budget takes place or will harry reid table that? >> it is part of the deal

defense. >> under this agreement, it will be. >> greta: as you say, but there's been no history -- >> how much money do we spend on defense at the federal level? defense. under this agreement, if the joint committee doesn't produce a product, 50% of the cuts come out of the defense department. i believe the number one obligation of the federal government is to defend the nation. you should start with a defense budget, get it right, then go to other things. >> greta: this is an interesting piece of information. i realize that you were not the -- you're not in the house, but the chairman of the house armed services committee, which is congressman mccann back in -- on august 1st, 2011, made a statement -- >> today. >> greta: today, made a statement, said our senior military commanders have been unanimous in their concerns that deeper cuts could break the force, and he voted yes. >> all i can tell you, he further says that the second part of the proposal would create a national security crisis rat

[laughing] now, sheldon, you've written books about a fictional defense attorney. the stories that you tell really get into, i think, the issues and stories of our time. and that's why your books have been so popular. first of all, you know, how did you become a writer? why did you become a writer? and how did you end up writing did a criminal defense attorney in san francisco, of all places? >> i was not told i would follow tony serra. i need to go back and prepare a little more. [laughing] i learned something, too. i guess i better stand up. [laughing] i'm really honored to be here. i'm the toy department. i write novels about the types of cases that lawyers like tony handle. in the daytime i work for a big law firm of the type that tony probably would not hold in the highest of esteem, but i'm delighted to be here. you know, i think if you talked to most authors, they will tell you that there is something hot-wired into our system that says we need to try to tell a story. there is nothing at all in my background. i am an absolutely accidental writer. there is no

isn't it but in all reality this is kind of a big deal that suddenly defense is being threatened and it may be a serious way to do we see this is a real threat or is it just a line intended to keep the military industrial complex going on forever and this guy says if we have lieutenant colonel anthony shaffer senior fellow at the center for advanced defense studies and he's also still serving as a reserve lieutenant colonel tony thanks so much for being here today rather than ok so a lot of this is speculation of course they haven't voted on it yet hopefully we won't do you call this is going to go through and you know you know as well as anyone else that i fundamentally believe that we need to cut defense spending but defense spending does not equal half of our budget exactly so it's kind of a big deal that if this trigger would be unleashed defense spending and domestic spending would be treated as it's. back to the same thing do you think that's fair why i think it's not practical i don't think it's ever going to happen i think it's a gimmick and let's be totally honest with each

if this trigger would be unleashed defense spending and investment spending would be treated as a. back to that same thing do you think that's fair why i think it's not practical i don't think it's ever going to happen i think it's a good pick let's be totally honest with each other here they are trying to accomplish this by the twenty third of november and the whole idea is that they will make hard decisions between now and then and i'm going to happen one of the things that's notable is that when you look at the defense budget matter how you feel about it there's a huge process q.t.r. the quadrennial review process the g j roc process which looks that threats versus resources and something called the g eight work up process now i've involve myself in all of these back when i was inside as a planner these are complex processes which take years to accomplish and no politician is going to do something to make a decision that would cut the budget and so any substantial way even if it's a backstop even if it's arbitrary because no one either side wants to be held accountable for makin

all of which the defense contended added up to reasonable doubt for a jury. approached, jennifer's family braced for the possibility her reputation would be tarnished in the courtroom. but they said they weren't concerned about the e-mails. >> she was exceptionally lonely. she just wanted -- >> a friend. >> -- somebody. and she had had a marriage that was void for years. he was having an affair. she just was dying for some companionship, and she found someone that listened to her. and somehow it gave her comfort. >>> coming up, as the trial begins, the prosecution makes a surprise announcement. >> it's a bombshell in the case. >> when "death and the dentist" continues. mine was earned over the south pacific in 1943. vietnam, 1967. i got mine in iraq, 2003. u.s.a.a. auto insurance is often handed down from generation to generation, because it offers a superior level of protection and because u.s.a.a.'s commitment to serve the military, veterans, and their families is without equal. begin your legacy. get an auto insurance quote. u.s.a.a. we know what it means

leadership of leon panetta so yesterday in his first press conference as secretary of defense panetta warns of a four hundred billion dollars in defense cuts over ten years that are part of round one of the debt deal those are going to be tough enough now to fear that round two is going to result in a stalemate in the congressional supercommittee that would in effect lead to six hundred billion cuts and more be that trigger effect and i don't want to start calling that a dooms day mechanism doomsday are you kidding me if we already spend more than the rest of the world combined on our military the military budget is more than doubled and in fact increased seventy percent by some statistics since two thousand and one i get burned terrible abuse it have you seen the economy lately mr panetta have you seen a number of people that are unemployed we now have the highest number of people on food stamps on record the fact that people can't put food on their tables or afford a roof over their heads is more disastrous to the well being of this country the loss of a few costly weapons programs

department was supposedly a new defense department might i add under the new. the leadership of leon panetta yesterday in his first press conference as secretary of defense panetta warns of a four hundred billion dollars in defense cuts over ten years that are part of round one of the debt deal those are going to be tough enough now to fear around she was going to result in a stalemate in the congressional supercommittee that would in effect lead to six hundred billion cuts and more that trigger effect panetta went to far as calling that a dooms day making as a doomsday are you kidding me we already spend more than the rest of the world combined on our military the military budget is more than doubled and in fact increased seventy percent by some statistics since two thousand and one we're in trouble if you say have you seen the economy lately mr panetta have you seen the number of people that are unemployed that we now have the highest number of people on food stamps on record the fact that people can't put food on their tables or afford a roof over their head

defense cuts were applied across the board and force as a result was hollowed out. underfunded relative to the missions and responsibilities that this country must fulfill. and that approach would be particularly harmful because we are a nation at war. we face a broad and growing range of security threats and challenges that our military would be prepared to confront. from terrorist networks to rogue nations that are making efforts to obtain a nuclear capability to dealing with rising powers that always look at us to determine whether or not we will, in fact, maintain a strong defense here and throughout the world. it is that multitude of security challenges that makes me particularly concerned about the sequester mechanism that was contained in the debt ceiling agreement. this mechanism, this kind of doomsday mechanism that was built into the agreement is designed so that it would only take effect if congress fails to enact further measures to reduce the deficit. but if it happened -- and god willing that would not be the case -- but if it did happen, it would resu

clinton appeared at a meeting of the national defense university in washington on tuesday with defensesecretary leon panetta. clinton voiced concerns over the growing demand for big cuts in military spending. she said the united states is a pacific power and needs to maintain its presence in the region. >> we can't be abruptly pulling back or pulling out when we know we face some long-term challenges about how we're going to cope with what the rise of china means. >> panetta also warned against defense spending cuts saying they would result in a hollowing out of u.s. forces and weaken the country's ability to respond to threats in the world. earlier this month the u.s. congress enacted a law that allows the government to raise the debt limit in order to avoid default. in line with the law the u.s. defense department may have to cut its budget by up to $1 trillion over the next decade. >>> at the same meeting panetta talked about libya saying the government under moammar al gadhafi was living on borrowed time. >> i think the sense is that gadhafi's days are numbered. >> panetta said ant

i'm talking about the proposed cuts to the defense department.e congressional supercommission can't agree on ways to reduce the debt by about $1.5 trillion over ten years, that pulls the trigger. and half those cuts automatically come from expenditures on national security. i say let the guillotine fall. it's about time. the defense department's budget has risen now for 13 consecutive years which is unprecedented in american history. in the last decade, overall defense spending has risen to about $700 billion which is a 70% increase. if you include the spending on iraq and afghanistan, we now spend $250 billion more than average defense budgets during the cold war. that was a time when the soviet, the chinese and all east european militaries were a raid against the united states and its allies. today with no serious adversaries in the world, the united states spends more than all other countries on the planet combined. even as a percentage of gdp, the number of countries that spend more than us is very small. iraq, saudi arabia, they're either wa

secretary of state and defense. i cannot think of a more propitious time for this conversation with the world watching this country going to the budget gyrations, i think is the right word, with a world so uneasy and wars ongoing. some of what we can talk about today and we will incorporate your questions into this conversation will be, is america wounded colossus? are these war is winnable? where and how do these two big departments work together? i want to thank national defense university and the admiral for your gracious welcome today. welcome to both of you. >> thank you, frank. thanks for doing this. >> let's start with the budget. your idea of a good time. [laughter] the world has watched with bated breath as to whether we would default, whether american troops would not get their paychecks, which is an incredible thing. as you face the prospect of budget cuts and the reality of this, secretary panetta, what's at stake for you? >> i think this is about the national security of the country. our national securi

what exactly was his defense since it was so brief?, first of all, randi, i would say this is the single strangest day i've ever spent in a courtroom in my career. warren jeffs' defense is that this is a violation of religious principles. not saying anything about the sex, not denying it, but he says his religion is being tampered with. called one witness to the standier. the witness continued today, a fellow member of his church and they talked about the book of mormon and the religion together, and it sounded like a sunday school class and then he rested. time for closing arguments, and that was the weirdest part of this trial which just happened. the prosecution gave 22 minutes of closing arguments. said this is not a case against religion but a case against warren jeffs and warren jeffs was asked to give his closing argument, randi, and he stood up and didn't talk and five minutes went by and he didn't talk. he was silent. everyone in the courtroom, 200 people in there totally quiet. you could hear a pin drop as they say in that pr