and the much larger bet that the obama administration has placed -- or higher priority the obama administration has placed on winning the war in afghanistan. and, therefore, the role the russians play in providing supply and transit of materials both lethal and nonlethal to our troops in theater. and the third is, of course, the nuclear security agenda, which without making progress with russia is impossible to move forward on. i think there's no question as we look at, you know, the 15 months or 14 months since the obama administration has taken power that the u.s./russian relationship has improved considerably. it improved from a very low point. it's a very low bar. in fact, if the relationship had not improved, which it was basically frozen at the end of the bush administration after the war in georgia, there was the danger literally of a new cold war. amongst the achievements one of them which is not talked about so much and maybe i should knock on wood when i talk about this is the fact that there has not been another war in georgia in the last year and a half since the war in august of 20

also in other areas it seems to me the obama administration was taking the term that was much more in accord with our interest than what the previous administrations had. for example in the middle east where i think it is clear that israel will not be able to achieve security unless they stop the settlements and began real negotiations and clearly that has been an issue that the obama administration has taken on. >> host: you were prominent foreign policy positions and the two republican presidents ronald reagan and george bush. it's also clear from your book that you admire ronald reagan. how did it happen that you became his foreign policy assistant adviser? the reason i am asking is you were a career for an officer. you were known as a pragmatist. you were registered a democrat and the image of reagan was here was an ideologue. why did he turn to you to hold this important position? >> guest: first of all my being registered democrat was irrelevant because i never considered foreign policy a partisan issue. yes i was considered a very strong hardliner dealing with the soviet union,

of course chris dodd up to his the obama administration in particular f you look at the numbers, i gotere in front of me, is obama going to tainted goldman sachs donation -- >> goldman sachs was his largest donors other than professors at the university of california. let me say this about the in 2010 we reveal there will be a new housing crisis, caused by subprime loans, being made by obama's fha. the fha has dispatched s.w.a.t. teams they call them, to banks to try to expedite subprime mortgage lending to low income people. precisely the same thing that caused this crisis if you want to read about the new subprime crisis look under fha in our book. >> sean: you think there's a winning strategy out there. i'm one of these guys, i don't like to count your chickens before they hatch. i think there is any one or two events that could happen that could change this election on a dime. i don't think republicans should get overconfident. like any election you have to work like crazy. you layout a prime strategy, -- >> i used to work for the other side. democrats understand that people mostly

will not, according to the obama administration, let me make by points here -- weaken its commitment to nato, with from military from europe, agree to any revision of the continent's into blocks or spears and influence, four, close the door to further nato enlargements, and five, make any grand bargains with moscow over the heads of former soviet satellites in central eastern europe. . >> what commitments are made to mutual defense and the nato role of the coming decade. is it a global nato? is it back to basics or how can they be combined? there are different views on how this should be structured the concourse of the new missile defense system. i remember president obama canceled the bush version but has talked about his own version to which several countries have already quickly signed on to. the question there is exactly how this will be an integrated nato system, how russia will be included and if there will be included. it is worth remembering in this context that one of the reasons warsaw and prague initially signed on to the bush version was not so much defense against iran i

i also think the russians viewed that they have leverage with the obama administration. they viewed that the agreement was more important for it obama than for moscow, and that led them to press hard in the negotiations, and they never quite got beyond 97%. number three, and maybe the most important, this agreement like any other agreement between moscow and washington, it brings into the debate the whole relationship itself. i want to remind you that for the russians, they are still operating under a military doctrine which identifies that principally the united states and nato is the number one risk or a threat to their security. our strategic outlook are quite different. the united states -- i think that we have really moved on from the cold war and we're looking at a different threat environment. the russians are not quite the same and that is a problem. it is clear that some political forces and military forces were obstructing the agreement at the tail end. but we got it. the other point i would make is that the role of nuclear weapons is asymmetry for washington a

we're talking about the obama administration and its nuclear arms policy. nebraska, brian, good morning. caller: good morning. host: what is on your mind this morning? caller: i do not know. i think president obama should turn iran into a sheet of glass. host: why is that? caller: because it is either them or us. host: indiana, frances. caller: oh, president obama, i am so proud of you, but what i want to tell you is that i heard a senator say on the senate floor when the bidding the farm bill that only six farmers in indiana got almost all the money from 55,000 -- now i want senator luger to stand at obama's side and tell the truth about these gigantic weapons that russia and the u.s. have, and 10,000 or more each host: what is the truth? caller: the truth is that we have weapons that are 1,000 tons > those used during the second world war, and all these weapons just sitting there. russia and the u.s. -- if they can agree to reduce those and make the world a little safer, i mean, we are so imperial lustis. at least we have been very much so in the past. hos

a month ago, the obama administration issued national intelligence estimate all of a sudden it revisedthe assessment and said the old one in the bush administration was too alarmist, this is not going to happen until the second half of the decade, 2015 to 2020. and it was that rationale of the administration used. the president then used when he unilaterally and abruptly canceled the agreement we had with the pols and the czeches to build a missile defense system that would precisely be designed to shoot down intercontinental rocket from iran headed over to the united states. so that rationale now collapses. it looks as if the iranians are on a faster track. and the rocket test you show, the one in february where iran put up a rocket and satellite in space, that had a mouse on it. you remember at the time, i pointed out that iran is not exactly the leader in rodent research. it was showing its reach in being able to hit any country on earth. that was a two-stage rockrocket. intercontinental you need a three stage to hit the united states. but that is coming. we know it's coming. why th

the paper of wall street. >> the post is trying to say they haven't learned the lesson the obama administrationing they would learn, which is bay-pay on long-term performance, not short-term g e gain. >> what the administration is trying to do is shift the incentives, give shareholders a greater say and not have circumstances where people are rewarded for taking huge leverage and risk in the short term that might pay off in one quarter what caused big problems for the economy in the long run. and, look, people on wall street go to wall street for a reason -- they care about money. they want to make money. they're going to try to get around these things if they can. it's sort of like people get eternally surprised that journalists have a certain set of interests or people going into any sort of field have a certain set of interests. wall street wants to make money and the obama administration is going to try to regulate them and they think they've got a good issue. >> speaking of folks that have gotten around regulation, hedge fund managers and people making a good deal, we had a story on the "t

counter terrorism in the obama administration, tactics and strategy. and our speaker could not be more authority tative. he is ambassador daniel benjamin, the state department's coordinator. it's a position he has held since may of last year. prior to his appointment as the state department's counter terrorism coordinator, dan benjamin was a -- served as a senior fellow and a research director both at brookings institution and the center for strategic and international studies. prior to that during the clinton administration, he was a foreign policy speech writer for several years and then went on to become a director in the office of transnational threats on the national security council staff. prior to entering government service in the 1990s he had been the foreign correspondent for time magazine and the "wall street journal." after leaving government during his think tank years, he co-wrote two important books on terrorism. the age of sacred terror, and the other was the next attack, the failure of the war on terror and the strategy for getting it

variables beyond the scope of non-proliferation. >> the congressman seems very critical of the obama administrationtion. >> he has been. that is not a universal feeling. the feelings in congress are all across the spectrum, whether they think that obama has been right on the money or whether they would do different things. then threw in 46 countries and you understand how complicated it is. >> i think that the white house is trying to look at this as an opportunity to score some points on the board and have a couple of incremental agreements on how to enrich uranium and trying to do with that particular and smaller issues and build on what he already accomplished with the agreement with russia, hoping to get that through the senate. they want to score some points on this nuclear issue. the problem is that some of the bigger and tractable issues, whether it is israel or iran or pakistan or north korea, there really has not been a whole lot of progress. the administration keeps talking about how they will try to have a coalition of sanctions against iran, but people are looking at it and say, "where'

policy variables. >> the congressman, a democrat from california, sounds very critical of the obama administration's position. >> well, he has been. that's not a universal feeling. the feelings in congress are all across the spectrum in terms of whether thing president obama has been right on the money or whether they do different things. and you see how hard it is to get consensus just in the united states. throw in 46, 47 countries and you understand truly how complicated it is. >> i think the white house is trying to look at this as an opportunity, the conference is an opportunity to make a couple -- score some points on the board, have a couple incremental agreements, things like he was talking about, the medical facilities, and trying to deal with that particular smaller issue. and build on what he accomplished with this agreement with russia, you know, hoping to get that through the senate. and to start scoring some points on this nuclear issue. the problem is that some of the bigger intract cable issues, whether it be israel and iran or pakistan or north korea, there really hasn't been a whol

successful they are going to be with the sanctions on iran, i did not think anybody in the obama administration is under the illusion that would avert sanctions are leveled on the iranians are going to solve the problems. we're going to have to wait and see. >> could you follow up just a bit? what are we likely to see? will there be developments in the coming week on sanctions in iran and how would that become evident? >> in a lot of ways, we are in the same place we have always been on sanctions with iran. over the past few years, we have tried to target sanctions so that they did not effect the iranian people as a whole all the while knowing that the kinds of things which would relate get their attention are the kinds of things that hurt -- restrictions on refined petroleum products into iran. they heard the iranian people and iran's trading partners. it is easy for the u.s. to talk about sanctions. we cannot have a big trading relationship with them. it is a lot harder with russia and china, particularly china. the effort right now, since iran has really refused to comply with u.n. security

will not according to the obama administration -- let me make five points here. one, weaken its commitments to nato security guarantees. two, withdraw militarily from europe. three, agree to any redivision of the continent into blocs or spheres of influence. the continent is the old continent of europe. four, close the door to further nato enlargement east wards and five make any grand bargains with moscow over the heads of former satellites in central eastern europe. however, i would say the very fact that such reassurances need to be emphasized indicates that several capitals in the region remain troubled. not just about russia's aspirations in the neighborhood but about u.s. and nato policy towards russia. for this reason, there are several landmark developments ahead that will prove significant for the new allies and i think these are going to be discussed at the dinner. countries that are seeking not only reassurance but an upgrade of nato's security commitments. let me mention three. first of all, the framing of nato's new strategic concept which is in the

i said one of the obama administration's administration's time-consuming as it is is a comprehensive peace in the middle east, comprehensive peace in the middle east has to conclude a peace agreement between israel and syria. if the israelis and the syrians believe that turkish mitigation will help restore the negotiation we are all for it. >> [inaudible] >> it looks difficult at this point. we have talked a lot to the syrians -- he said recently in an interview he traveled and met with the turkish officials, talks a lot with turkish foreign minister. it's not that easy right now to restore peace negotiations but we believe they must be restarted the some point and to some extent the parties would rich to rely again on turkey's good offices again we would be supportive. sprick what a british high to keep comments brief because we do have the significant number of questions. >> thank you for organizing the conference. it is good to see you. i think you should be feeling good about what you and the administration has shared with iraq. today iraq and democracy is moving forward. iraq ha

what are some alternatives you would suggest to the obama administration? >> i think the clearest, most logical alternative is to keep guantanamo bay open. it is not like when we, the bush administration, found itself in possession of the terrorist captured in afghanistan and around the world, it is not like we rushed to the conclusion that we were going to bring them to guantanamo. it was a real hard question of what we were going to do with them. guantanamo was appealing because our lawyers felt that the constitution and interference by civilian courts would not apply. also was not in afghanistan or another country where we would not have clear control and jurisdiction over the people. but, that is not to say that anybody was enthusiastic about guantanamo bay. nor were they enthusiastic about the idea that some of these terrorists would have to be held indefinitely. as close as you can come to analogizing the geneva convention, under the geneva convention, a real prisoners of war can be held for the duration of the conflict. there were not alternatives. ma

he talked about the obama administration's approach to security and terrorist threats. the woodrow wilson center international security studies hosted this even here in washington. it's about one hour. [inaudible conversations] .. today's meeting is cosponsored by the international security studies program and by our middle east program. the coseries of georgetown professor bruce hoffman sends regrets. he's unfortunately enable to be with us today. i'd like to extend a particular welcome to those who is viewing's today meeting on c-span. i welcome those who are attending in person. and the usual format after this meeting is over in one hour we will adjourn to a reception in the adjacent room. today's topic could not be more topical counter terrorism in the obama administration tactics and strategy and our speaker could not be more authoritative daniel benjamin a position held since me of last year. prior to his the placement as the state department counterterrorism coordinator can benjamin was a senior fellow and a research from the brookings is a tuition and room durin

the obama administration's that we stand ready to fight last week. could he do that and would russia even be open to that? >> could i

. -- it is hard to know how the obama administration will handle it. whether they will make a big issue or pull back. the papers are saying today that because the leader of china is coming in applied -- implies the obama administration will take a softer approach. for workers around the country, if china moves its currency, it does not mean that detroit will see more factories the next day. most of the factories that are in china will move to india or other regions around the world. he cannot -- the economics is just not simple. host: greg robb is our guest from marketwatch.com. christina rummer, this is her statement today. -- christina romer. interpret that for us. guest: for the administration, it is cautious optimism. they are cautiously optimistic things are getting better. but they are not declaring victory. some people i talk to think they should be better cheerleaders' than they are. but the obama administration has this sort of realistic cautious approach to things. they are saying, things are looking good, but let us wait for a couple of more

also, in other areas, it seemed to me that the obama administration was taking a turn that was much more in accord with our interest than what the previous administrations had. for example, in the middle east, where i think it is very clear that israel will not be able to achieve security and less they stop the settlements, and begin real negotiations. and clearly, that has been an issue also that the obama administration has taken on. >> host: you were a democrat but almost prominent on other two republican presidents, ronald reagan and george bush. it's also very clear from your book that you really admire ronald reagan. >> guest: absolutely. >> host: how did it happen you begin his foreign policy assistant advisor on all matters russian? the reason i'm asking is that you were career foreign service officer. you were known as a pragmatist you are registered democrat, and ronald reagan was, well, he was an ideologue. the ultimate cold war or. why did you turn to you to have this important position? >> guest: first of all my being a registered democrat was irrelevant because i never cons

the problem is that the obama administration has left no uncertainty.sted in this. that's why you have got the gates memo. you have got to be interested. even if it's only a bluff. even if it's only a way to reinforce negotiations. >> bill: absolutely. now say you were president. president charles krauthammer. we have a big military expenditure in iraq and a big military expenditure in afghanistan. simply don't have the forces to invade on the ground. that would be horrible anyway. so what would you do? what kind of a military plan b would be realistic enough to get the iranians' attention? >> well, the one that would be obvious would be an air attack. but it wouldn't be a one shot unone-day deal. it would be a series of attacks like a two-week campaign, the kind that we had in a much easier situation, of course, in serbia. but, if you unleash the u.s. air force carriers, you unleash our cruise missiles, and you unleash our capacities from the bases nearby, you can do a lot of damage. and you return, as we did in iraq, as we attacked in the early days o

the obama administration recently authorized the assassination of an american, anwar awlaki.a court battle with the u.s. government to try to force it to release information on the secret i have program. now, late last month, state department legal adviser harold koh, a very distinguished liberal, usually on the same side as the aclu, provided a spirited defense of the predator. he says the use of predators complies with all applicable law, domestic and international. his basic argument boils down to this. on 9/11, the united states went to war with al qaeda and the taliban and koh says the u.s. government therefore has the authority and responsibility to defend itself, including targeting terrorists from afar. how do i feel about the predators? on balance, i agree with koh and with the administration. fighting al qaeda this way seems legitimate. but i worry a lot about the precedent. imagine, for example, if russia were to announce that there were chechen terrorists in georgia and were start lobbying missiles into that country. how would we feel? now, pakistan, which has bee

-soviet to -- the obama administration said we will pursue multilateral arms control so the question ill be at what point can you bring in those other players. >> two follow-up on that i think for the administration the most important thing is that we get the tree down, with the expiration of the start treaty in december would lose the entire verification of monitoring regime that went along with add so i think for the obama folks being able to replace the treaty and maintain a significant degree of that verification and monetary regime is probably the most important achievement from the standpoint of u.s. national security with the treaty. but for the russians the numbers are -- the russians -- talking over the last decade or so in nuclear circles with the russians, you often, they can talk about getting down to a thousand weapons and i think as soon see be a relatively reasonable proposition for them. kind of interesting how that is over this negotiation and this seems to been getting to where we are this treaty harder than some expected and i think again getting the next step will

as we look at the 14 months since the obama administration has taken power, the u.s. best russian relationship has improved. it was a local bar. if it had not improved -- it was basically frozen after the war in georgia -- there was the danger of literally a new cold war. one of the achievements is the fact that there has not been another war in georgia in the last year and a half. i know my colleagues in the defense department and state department spent a lot of time on this issue and assuring this does not happen. when they received a call about the tragedy on the bombing of the moscow subway, they were thinking there might be another war. this is a significant achievement. the relationship has been broadened with the establishment of the commission between secretary of state clinton and the working groups. this is important. most importantly, aside from no war in georgia, is there has been progress on the key security drivers. we have modest expectations about what we can get out of the relationship with russia. we're more likely to be not disappointed. when you lo

i take it you don't think that the obama administration is doing the right thing there? >> i'm not too happy about a delay. if we get something specific from the chinese, okay. but what we are looking at for the national interests along help on sanctions against iran, let the nation pay for it instead of one specific industry. we have a real problem with the chinese. they are very shrewd and customarily outmaneuver us. they take our jobs and money and then lend it back to us and own a big part of america. let's watch exactly what is happening. if we get something concrete, a delay might be okay but we can't stand back and let them manipulate the currency and run us ragged on the economy. >> chris: senator kyl, the president and democrats are talking about even now that healthcare passed an ambitious agenda for the rest of this year during the healthcare debate when the democrats talked about and eventually ended up using reconciliation to pass healthcare reform you and a lott of other republicans said that might kill cooperation on financial reform, immigration reform, e

but in policy-makers -- the obama administration and congress -- will start turning their attention to this the longer it goes on. host: 162,000 total jobs created -- is a jobs created klezmer guest: jobs created. host: it looks like almost 50,000 were government. guest: what is going on now, like everybody knows, is the senses is being conducted and the government is hiring workers temporarily to help complete the census. that went up by 48,000 this month. but wall street takes away the numbers because they are temporary and will not last. host: they don't really matter. so, today, at 9:30 a.m. when the stock market opens in eight minutes, will go up for down given what you heard here, your own prediction? guest: my own prediction -- i don't know. host: the stock market cares about this stuff. guest: the stock market cares about it, the bond market. they are market -- market moving. the bond market, what i was told, had continued reaction. it was kind of an line with expectations. -- although it is good news, it is not super strong so not as much reaction. i think the stock market mig

i think the obama administration a popular choice. i think on policy grounds, it was the wrong choice. in my view, the health care program he has just signed will actually increase spending and may cost more difficult to control. there are a number of provisions that are alleged to control costs. when you look at them, they are tokens. it is my thought that they will not succeed. host: republican line. caller: good morning to you. and not of the hyperbole coming out to washington is due -- a lot of the hyperbole coming out of washington is due to the information coming out. the way i see this country, it is on its knees in every direction. i believe in taking care of the people who cannot help themselves. that is the problem. if you get the slow pace the obama administration is walking on, it will fundamentally change this country. the constitution has been shredded. if you look at everything this country was built on, we are going the opposite direction. it is pushing this country towards socialism. if you do not believe that, you se

and other things, but the early results are not good. >>> so is it possible karen that the obama administrationich is all about diversity, and is doing a worse job than the bush administration which took more of a color blind approach, color blind gender blind approach to hiring is doing worse in the term of hiring women civil servants? >> the, number of reasons why women in particular won't consider, can't get in that type line for it. number one it takes a lot of time to train in those candidate forums. nobody has got the money to do it. most agency money is sent directly to the states, by formulas sent by congress. the first thing that goes when you have a tight budget is the training dollars. and third, every administration puts their senior executives through a lot of anguish that a lot of women won't put themselves in the firing line because of the -- >> bonnie: what kind of anguish? what do you mean? >> every administration, republican and dreat democrat that comes in -- >> bonnie: these are not political appointments. >> i know that. >> bonnie: theories civil service. the president does

our local partner is karzai and relations between him and the obama administration are bad.he administration has privately and at times publicly criticized him for corruption, vote rigging and general ineffectiveness. it threatened to withdraw a white house invitation to him and even now it suggests he's being monitored for his comments. for his part, karzai has been attacking the united states vigorously over the last ten days amid reports that his private behavior is erratic and sometimes just plain weird. all in all, a bad situation. my own view which is somewhat contrarian, is that the obama administration should grow up and face the facts -- it has no alternative to hamid karzai, so it should support him rather than undermining him. karzai is a pashtun, the dominant ethnic group group and he seems willing to work with washington. he's had troops in his country for eight years. he has significant support in the country. certainly more support than any other political figure in the country at this point. and finally, there is no path to replacing him short of a military c

. >> lehrer: then, jeffrey brown gets two views on the obama administration's call for new limits on nuclear weapons. >> this review describes how the united states will reduce the role and numbers of nuclear weapons with a long-term goal of nuclear free world. >> ifill: paul solman explores small community banks versus institutions deemed too big to fail. >> size does matter but you don't need to be a large institution in order to be successful as a financial institution today. >> lehrer: and we get an update on the deadly wave of bombings in iraq from rod nordland of the "new york times" in baghdad. that's all ahead on tonight's newshour. major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by:

i would very much fear that's the obama administration's real plan b.ey know their effort at u.n. sanctions isn't going to stop iran. they are prepared to acquiesce iran with nuclear weapons i think that is a miss tack. >> greta: in terms of -- that is a mistake. >> greta: in terms of a nuclear bomb. how far down the road of development do you get to until you have a bomb? when you put the final screw in the device and can send it off and fire or earlier when you have the technology and ability to put it together? >> that's a signal in the story that either the reporters or their source don't understand the nonproliferation treaty. commitments that the nonnuclear weapon states make among other things are not to manufacture or receive assistance to manufacturer nuclear weapons. manufacturing doesn't mean turning the last screw it means a lot beforehand weaponization and that sort of thing that's why i think it is clear iran is plain fully violation of the nonproliferation treaty and why all of the steps we have taken against them are appropriate >> greta

the obama administration the first 60 days in office sent the civil rights office after me. it has been a year and a half they have been investigating me and nothing has happened. i feel comfortable that this law will pass muster. just gives me another tool to get the job done and law enforcement. >> geraldo: be that as it may

at the end of this year, americans will face the obama administration's tax increase. it will be the largest in history. as if that was not enough, others, including speaker nancy pelosi and obama economic adviser paul volcker, support a european-style value-added tax. higher

whether or not the obama administration is prepared to defend that is a question. host: they have also been holding this olive branch, talking about developing a new nuclear defense program with the russians. is that just talk? guest: hard to say. there have been planned to put radars on line near russia, in russian territory. i doubt that we would ever want to, at this point, move forward with that type of project. who knows? it could happen. host: patrick from arizona. independent line. callerpatrick, on a going to puu on hold. just a reminder. turn your television down. elizabethtown, north carolina. caller: yes, my question is, do you think russia will support sanctions against iran? do you think the u.s. will never attack iran if they break this treaty? guest: those are fantastic questions. iran is the 800 pound gorilla in the room at this nuclear summit. my sources tell me that the p5 members + 1 are approaching a solution to slow down the nuclear program. whether or not those program will bhave any attraction is unclear. but russia will sign on eventually. c

a higher priority again in the obama administration? >> well, it's certainly high priority in, i don't really have any news that i can share here and now on that one. in terms of the capabilities of al qaeda, i think that director panetta in his various statements has captured quite well. the group really is, certainly its senior leadership is under the worst pressure it has experienced in quite a long time. certainly since the 2001-2002 period. however, this is an enormously capable and innovative opponent that is always looking for new ways to achieve its ends. i don't think that we should write off their ability to direct complicated logistically challenging operations that could strike u.s. interests abroad or at home and, i think the other thing to note is that the threat in some ways, as i noted about al qaeda of the arabian peninsula is a bit more distributed than it was before and a lot of these groups are capable, a lot of these groups, al qaeda in arabian peninsula certainly and other groups aspirationally are able to conceive

i don't know the idea that the obama administration raised his profile. journalists at the "new york times" did a good job in fe ferreting this out. >> to be fair, the fact is in the news cycles and the way they operate, it's going to get out. if we make this step and we essentially put this guy on the kill list, it's going to get out. reporters in january, reuters has been on this story for months. i think we're not thinking as clearly as we might be thinking as to how the united states can stick to their principles and there are certain things we cannot do. i think frafrpgly we're now with al awlaki. >> fred, i'll give you 4r5the l word. >> you still have to find him. you lack the human intelligence to be able to find him. >> thank you very much, guys. appreciate your time. we're going to take a quick break. >>> in minnesota today, a coming together of two conservative mega stars, sarah palin and michele bachmann. at sharp, our goal is to reproduce every color in the world on tv. introducing quattron quad pixel technology. it adds a fourth color, yellow

if you were asked on the hill to testify, not on the basis of what the obama administration would argue, but on terms of what you would argue in the interest of the united states to skeptical democrats and republicans, what would you say? >> i think that russia has to be much more constructive on the subject of joint ballistic missile attacks. up to now, russia has proposed some agreements. e some agreements but there is a widespread impression that this group assessment of threats and whatever is done in joint ballistic missiles has, for russia, lever to put the brakes on an american program. i think it is time to come out with new proposals. maybe you think what vladimir putin proposed on on the joint data center on mitchell -- missile launchers but also move forward whe. vladimir putin and president medvedev proposed that we have to have joint missile defense with the united sates and the european union. how about the russian people living in asia. ? are they entitled to protection or not? many people are going away from that but still, if we are to have ballistic missile defense cov

administration. as a result, out of the 3,000 presidential appointees that obama has made, only 24 were registered lobbyistscompare that with the hundreds and hundreds that have been brought in by the bush administration, by the clinton administration, and every administration beforehand to senior administration post business the way, too. however, having praised what obama is doing, obama has appropriately addressed the revolving door issue for the executive branch, this is not the case when it comes to congress. when it comes to congress, the restrictions are very meager and easily evaded and as woor seeing currently in the whole financial services debate just completely out of control. host: we're talking with craig holman of public citizen, their legislative representative about the revolving door in the financial services industry. people working in congress and then go work in the private sector. we want to get your thoughts. the numbers are on the bottom of your screen. our first call, cheryl on the line for independents. caller: good morning. i'm a little nervous. i haven't called in a while. my que

. >> the obama administration is announcing a new crime fighting tool the likes of which the commandern chief promised back in january. >> in the days ahead i will announce better integration of information and enhanced passenger screening for air travel. >> reporter: the no fly and watch list contains specific names, now airlines will be told for instance to also look for anyone with a passport stamp from a particular country. if z for it's intelligence based inst offed name based. policymakers looking to strike a delegate balance for air travelers. >> the weighing of security and liberty and privacy convenience or business operations. >> reporter: the findings of a separate city city that took a year and looked at security from ground transportation, will be released today. more than 8 years after nine 11, this is not functioning properly as part of the airline security initiative automatic second screenings for passengers from 14 countrys considered state sponsors of terror or countrys of interest will no longer be in affect. >>> massive flooding in rhode island is turning ordinary

whether or not the obama administration is prepared to defend that is a question. host: they have also been holding this olive branch, talking about developing a new nuclear defense program with the russians. is that just talk? guest: hard to say. there have been planned to put radars on line near russia, in russian territory. i doubt that we would ever want to, at this point, move forward with that type of project. who knows? it could happen. host: patrick from arizona. independent line. callerpatrick, on a going to puu on hold. just a reminder. turn your television down. elizabethtown, north carolina. caller: yes, my question is, do you think russia will support sanctions against iran? do you think the u.s. will never attack iran if they break this treaty? guest: those are fantastic questions. iran is the 800 pound gorilla in the room at this nuclear summit. my sources tell me that the p5 members + 1 are approaching a solution to slow down the nuclear program. whether or not those program will bhave any attraction is unclear. but russia will sign on eventually. c

this says that under the obama administration's own plan, we're still want to have a very high debt. with all the compromising that goes on in congress, it is not want to get better. it is likely to be worse than what we're seeing here today. host: some of the numbers provided by the cbo show that public debt projections under president obama's budget by the end of 2009, $7.50 trillion or 53% of gdp. the 2020 projection, $20.30 trillion or 90% of gdp. deficit projections, $132 billion will be added to the deficit this fiscal year. total by the end of the fiscal year will be $1.50 trillion or 10.3% of gdp. we will continue our discussion of that. if you want to get involved in our conversation, the numbers -- it and also send us a message our first call comes from coral on the democrat line. i think our problem, as a country, we have to recognize the fact that over the last 30 years or so, we would to a conservative economic philosophy. -- we went to conservative economic philosophy. it has been failing us. they say we should cut spending and not to anything about taxes. we have a bus

this dates back to before the obama administration. there is a desire in arizona for the border to be strengthened. host: there is a large number of people who oppose this effort within arizona. guest: 70% of likely voters in arizona approve it. it crosses over some of this party lines, surprisingly. politicians are going to listen when 70% of people support something. there's a lot of concern over civil rights and possible racial profiling. >> our failure to act responsibly at the federal level will only open the doors to irresponsibility by others. that includes, for example, the recent efforts in arizona which threaten to undermine basic notions of fairness. as well as a trust between police and their communities that is so crucial to keeping a safe. i have instructed members of my administration to closely monitor the situation. if we continue to fail to act as a federal level, we will continue to see a misguided efforts opening up around the country. as a nation, as a people, we can choose a different future, a future that keeps f

these of the small steps that the obama administration is looking for as a result of this summit hearing. what can each country due to secure or get rid of highly enriched uranium or plutonium? iran will of course remain the subtext of the summit. of course, there will be the final communique, in which the obama administration will want to be as positive as possible. >> you can get more details on that summit, issues behind it, and participating countries on our website, bbc.com/news. with news of an ultimatum for the ousted president of kurdistan and the rest of today's headlines. >> they say that if he does not voluntarily surrender, he will be arrested. in the south of the country thousands of supporters had gathered to suppress -- expres'' their loyalty. >> one week ago he ran this country. now the ousted president is facing increasing pressure to resign. today thousands of supporters came out to see him in the south of the country. despite the ultimatum to surrender, a defiant message from the man that ruled for five years, toppled in a single day. >> this is not legitimate. i was e

back to the phones and our discussion on the obama administration nuclear arms policy. next up is melissa on the line for republicans in new york. caller: good morning. first of all, thank you for taking my call. secondly, i cannot believe that at 29 i need to be the voice of reason for the republican party. i completely disagree with what someone said earlier to the previous caller before them that they should be annihilated. that is not the language we should be having. we should be able to have debate on issues. the one issue i find interesting is that in 2001 in june george bush laid out a framework for nuclear. he did reduce the nuclear arsenal during his presidency. it was not the republicans who were criticizing him back then, but democrats to discuss the urgency of reducing those, and then 9/11 happen. now it has become a partisan issue and it has flipped. we need to stop being partisan about things and focus on the facts and look back on history. if obama is doing these things now, let's see if the previous presidents have done it before. what happened in those

but we have to realize the obama administration uses young people as shields and sheep to promote their radical socialist agenda and that's why it's important to stand up to obama zombie. >> host: "obama zombie" is his first book. you're rica, california. -- eureka, california. >> caller: i voted for obama and i'm a little disappointed in him. if we were to put mr. mccain in there, we'd be bombing iran right now, you know? you know, i think when you look at the lesser of two evils, i would have never put mr. mccain in there. especially with sarah palin as vice president. if he would have died and he's old enough to die >> host: one quick question you voted for president obama. what's the one area where he's disappointed you most? >> caller: i think the first thing he should have done after the banks is jobs. you know, i think -- personally i think if we start making our solar power and wind power that we can -- we can stop this dependency on --. >> host: let's hear what jason mattera has to say. >> guest: wind and solar power is a fantasy. most of our energy is oil, coal. and we should

government and there's little point president karzai is ready to do any of the things the obama administration laid out would be necessary. it could put the president in a position a year from now of having to begin to withdraw without achieving his major objective of being able to tra transfer >> schieffer: you're saying the whole afghanistan project is in trouble. >> it's in jeopardy and we had a fascinating story of what's happening in marja where the nato initiative began two weeks ago and the taliban are coming back in and quietly intimidating or executing people who have taken money from marines and helped them out in a way and we're a long way way from the declaration from commanders we had a government in a box ready do come into afghanistan and there's a similar problem next door in pakistan where for years president bush and now president obama have been trying to get a pakistani government to have the same enthusiasm about pursuing the taliban and al-qaida and pakistan improved some. >> schieffer: if i understood the reason we went to afghanistan is because it posed a threat to the

to state whether or not the obama administration believes that currency is being manipulated. that report we learned this weekend will be delayed. is it going to be delayed because the obama administration needs china's cooperation on other things such as sanctions against iran? >> no. >> that's not the reason. >> it's being delayed because that's part of our international economic dialogue which is directed at supporting a crucial issue for jobs creation, doubling our level of exports and that depends on what other countries do. we've got three major meetings, a meeting of the g-20 finance ministers, our strategic dialogue that takes place every year with china and then the president's meeting building on the form he created in london, in pittsburgh last year of the g-20 countries. those are opportunities to engage with china to engage with other countries that have large trade surpluses, other countries who think they can continue to rely on the united states as an importer of last resort and secretary geithner's judgment and i think it was the right one was that we could re

but banks fiercely oppose the change and is even facing criticism from the obama administration. some analysts are also skeptical. >> the concern with regulating derivatives too strenuously is that it can stifle the risk taking that some people say is at the heart of american economic activity. >> reporter: it's unclear whether the provision will be enough to sway republicans, but even if it isn't, senate democrats are vowing to keep the pressure on until they push financial reform through. but today if there's no deal with democrats, senate republican leader mitch mcconnell says all 41 republicans will vote against proceeding with the legislation. the house, by the way, has already passed its version of financial reform. michelle? >> randall pinkston in washington. thanks. >>> it's reported this morning that would-be new york city subway bomber najibullah zazi was passed through a checkpoint as he traveled into the city carrying two pounds of explosives. the "wall street journal" says police were told by the fbi to stop zazi's car last september as he drove up to the george wash

. >> lehrer: then, jeffrey brown gets two views on the obama administration's call for new limits on nuclear weapons. >> this review describes how the united states will reduce the role and numbers of nuclear weapons with a long-term goal of nuclear free world. >> ifill: paul solman explores small community banks versus institutions deemed too big to fail. >> size does matter but you don't need to be a large institution in order to be successful as a financial institution today. >> lehrer: and we get an update on the deadly wave of bombings in iraq from rod nordland of the "new york times" in baghdad. that's all ahead on tonight's newshour. major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: >> 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. >> ifill: officials don't kn