there are more pastuns and pakistan then there are in pakistan, so a militant ascendancy in afghanistanthink will be severely destabilizing for pakistan. >> is there any degree-- yesterday it was suggested by rory stuart but perhaps the presence of the troops in the manner of the mission in afghanistan is to some degree destabilizing pakistan and adding to the capacity coupled with the corruption of the government's. it is adding to this ability of the taliban to find recruits and make mischief. >> my experience is now somewhat dated. i left pakistan in 2007 but as of that time, i knew of no senior pakistani figure, military or civilian he was advocating a u.s. withdrawal from afghanistan. there was lots of criticism over how will we were prosecuting a mission but it was taken as a given and it might contacts there, that that mission needed to be prosecuted, perhaps some better different ways that that we needed to stay engaged there. >> i'm not suggesting-- i think just a plain withdraw would be disastrous on any number of fronts for the what we are trying to figure out is how to accom

aid to pakistan to almost $1.5 billion a year. in short the united states is on the verge of doubling down on a commitment of troops to afghanistan and pakistan. as we learned in iraq a sudden increase of conflict resources increases the likely increases the waste, fraud and abuse unfortunately, some of our programs in afghanistan and pakistan to date have been flawed and have lacked basic accountability measures. for example, last year, the subcommittee and the general government accountability office conducted major investigations of the coalition support funds program by which the united states reimburses pakistan for expenses it incurs in certain counterterrorism operations. this program has represented the bulk of united states aid to pakistan, some $6.7 billion to date. the investigations found that there were no receipts for a significant portion of the u.s. requirements to pakistan and that the program lacked basic accountability provisions. further, the reimbursement program isn't really designed to improve the pakistani

the president of pakistan. his remarks are 15 minutes. -- are about 15 minutes. >> the assembly will hear an address by the president of the islamic republic of pakistan. [inaudible] [no audio] >> on behalf of the u.s. assembly i have the honor to welcome to the un assembly the president of the islamic republic of pakistan and invite him to address the assembly. [applause] >> mr. president, mr. secretary general. i am honored to return to this chamber of hope, peace, and cooperation. i wish to convey to you the warm greetings of the people of pakistan. we are delighted to see you, mr. president, presiding over the general assembly. high ideals of the united nations have inspired our vision of the global society. the global society that this is based on peace and justice, freedom, and human rights, equality, and equal opportunities, freedom from want and hugger. -- hunger. a global society that believes in the quality of the nation's large or small. that promotes truth and reconciliation. on behalf of the people

-pakistan trade. it's a shame congress can't muster the will to lib braize trade with pakistan which will do far more for its development than development aid. finally i would like to second my colleagues' concerns about neighboring afghanistan. trends there aren't moving in our direction. it's past time for decisive action. and i thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. berman:er mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield -- mr. speaker, before i yield can i get a sense of how much time is remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california has 13 1/2 minutes remaining. and the gentlewoman from florida has 12 minutes remaining. mr. berman: mr. speaker, i yield tie minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for two minutes. mr. connolly: i thank the distinguished speaker. i rise in support of s. 1707, th

the real problem is pakistan. pakistan is a country of bombs. pakistan where mr. bin laden is probably. so we have to focus there. pakistan has the capacity to destabilize india. so we have to see this whole thing as -- in two perspective. one is regional and one is local. the strategy which i would recommend, is basically, locally, what the united states and the allied forces should do is have different strategy for different parts of afghanistan, kabul should be different from other places. and the recent strategy is obviously pakistan is the key player there. and should be engaged more pro actively, in -- in this whole affair. >> but chairman mullen has made more troops to pakistan probably -- trips to pakistan than any other military american leader. more than a dozen trips in the last year. some credit his participation to sort of get the reversal in pakistani strategy to take a much more aggressive line toward the taliban. is, however, when you look at the afghanistan part of the operation, granted that, you know, the pakistan is still developing and trust i

pakistan has lost pakistan soldiers more than the world put together. we've lost more human toll than the war put together. you've had more bomb attacks in pakistan than the world put together. how do you say pakistan is not taking it seriously? we are the ones who have done more without the sources, more than anybody else has ever done. >> as the week came to a close, pakistani forces arrested the chief spokesman of taliban militants and a commander who's led the uprising over the past two years in the norge western -- northwestern valley. the military says there was a reward of more than $120,000 on their heads. they were arrested with three other senior militants. >> now the rest of the week's news. a female sudanese journalist was freed this week after a journalist union paid a $200 fine imposed on her for wearing trousers in public. hussein had been sentenced to a many -- month in prison after refusing to pay the fine. she was one of 13 women arrested by order in july. 10 of the women were fined and flogged two days later, but hussein and two other

aid to pakistan.-- passage of a bill to triple u.s. aid to pakistan. as we have learned in iraq, however, is an increase in conflict resources exponentially increases the likelihood of waste, fraud, and abuse. unfortunately, some of our programs in afghanistan and pakistan to date have been flawed and lacked basic accountability measures. for example, last year, the subcommittee and general government accountability office conducted investigations of the coalition support program, by which the united states reimburses pakistan for expenses it incurs in surging counter- terrorism operations. this program has represented the bulk of united states aid to pakistan in the past seven years, some $6.7 billion today. the investigation has found that there were no receipts for a significant portion of u.s. reimbursements to pakistan and that the program lacked basic accountability provisions. further, the reimbursement program is not really designed to accrue the pakistan military capabilities for counter- ter

do you think that more american troops would be helpful to afghanistan and to pakistan? >> what we have done in the last one year, in our opinion, our side of the border is being far better managed today. we have the terrorists on the run. >> couric: how so? >> because today the local population and the tribal belt has risen against them. they are for the first time moving along with the troops searching for them. but there's a problem we're facing and the problem is that there's a constant flow of weapons into pakistan. where are they coming from? they're coming from across the border. >> couric: what would happen in your view if the u.s. pulled out? >> oh there'd be chaos. you know, you went in, you cannot leave without doing the job. >> couric: many countries have. it's called the graveyard of empires for a reason. >> yes. and look at the results then. look what happened. then you have 9/11s, right? and then you have these militants knocking on your door. do you want that? no. the world global economy will get affected. do we want that? no. >> couric: a recent gallop

they're in pakistan. al qaeda. to wreak taliban. (naming other groups) they're all in pakistan.why are we fighting in afghanistan? >> ifill: well? answer that question. >> because we are there in afghanistan that they have been pushed some of these groups to pakistan. were we to narrow the focus, leave afghanistan, there's no question that they would pour across the borders there. some of al qaeda is in afghanistan. no question about that as well. more will come. and besides it will be a devastating blow to our credibility for us to... i think the president is right. he ought to take his time, look at the options. i think this is a difficult situation. whatever he decides to do, take his leadership to bring the country together. but it is my judgment that however we need to for the sake of the forces we have there to send the capabilities quickly that can manage the risks that we are facing so they don't face the risks they would otherwise face. >> ifill: is time of the option and is fighting this war in pakistan even an option politically? >> well, we are fighting the war in pa

qaeda moving in there too and it will rebound on pakistan. and so, we're looking at the priority. on area where there are nuclear weapons already, many of them, and terrorists. and i didn't even mention the terrorists inside pakistan would like to provoke a nuclear war between nuclear india and nuclear pakistan and they've tried very hard to do that by terrorists outrages inside india. so here is where the real problem is. south asia. iran is a problem, but nobody expects that they are going to put a nuclear warhead on a ballistic missile and fire it towards the united states any time soon, if ever. the threat that they went is more in the region. they don't have the weapons and they don't have weaponization yet. you have to stick with priorities. host: trudy rubin, what worries you the most? guest: in the region, or overall in the world as far as security interests? host: let's limit it to afghanistan, iran, pakistan in the middle east. guest: pakistan worries me the most. it has a large arsenal, a weak civilian government. it has a military

let me begin with pakistan. our middle east regional office will conduct a review this fall of the current management control environment in anticipation of a significant increase in funding i implementation. they will assess risk associated with achieving new program objectives. our plan is to use this risk and vulnerability assessment to drill down and conduct more 40 -- more thorough investigations. as we learn from iraq programs in 2004 effective management controls are needed at the initial stages of assistance implementation. additionally, in 2008, merrill completed a review of the fulbright program. our office of inspections will conduct a full post-inspection of islamabad calendar year 2010. in august, oig and islamabad agreed to have them open a five person office to monitor progress. our auditors and analysts will be stationed in pakistan, supplemented as needed. they have used the staffing model and plans to open a similar size of this -- similar emphasis in in this the kabul. -- in an embassy kabul.

withdrawal from pakistan.as criticism how well we were prosecuting the mission, but it was taken as a given. my understanding was we needed to stay engaged there. >> i'm not suggesting, i think a plain old withdrawal would be disastrous on a number of different fronts. what we are trying to figure out is how to accomplish the mission what level of mix of military and governance improvement and nation building, et cetera, is appropriate? i think some people are very fearful that right now there is sort of this nondescript, loosey-goosey, we have to do this, do this and that, and we heard yesterday that to properly affect a counterinsurgency which has grown, the taliban are now in control of 37% of country whereas a year ago they are in control of 20%. that growth has to make you pause and say, okay, you know, the western part, the northern part haven't yet reached it, but we heard fears expressed that that may happen. therefore, to be successful, you have to begin to think about what's the real troop ratio that

there is also news from neighboring pakistan. today's "new york times" is reporting that pakistan's army may be responsible for scores of reprisal killings against suspected members of the taliban in pakistan's swat valley. in may, pakistan launched an offensive in the swat valley aimed at driving out the taliban. according to the article, the systematic nature of the deaths has led human rights groups to conclude that the pakistani military is behind many of the killings. pakistani officials deny any involvement by the military. for more on u.s. efforts to fight terrorism, we want to turn to a man who specializes in the subject. he is juan zarate, a senior adv strategic and international studies in washington, d.c. he served as deputy national security adviser for combating terrorism during the bush administration. so how significant are the killings of individual al qaeda leaders like saleh nabhan? >> this i think was a significant event. saleh nabhan was a longtime senior al qaeda lieutenant who helped to run their east africa

both from seeking refuge by moving in and out of pakistan? how does the questionable legitimacy of president karzai's status as a result of allegations of proof of election fraud impact on our ability to succeed in afghanistan? how does the illegal drug trafficking and alleged involvement of high-ranking officials in the karzai government in such drug trafficking impact on oifortses in afghanistan -- on our efforts in afghanistan? what does u.s. intelligence show has to any possible plans of al qaeda to attack the united states or anyone else? what does u.s. intelligence show as to whether india poses a real threat to attack pakistan? what does u.s. intelligence show as to whether pakistan poses a real threat to attack india? what does u.s. intelligence show as to whether pakistan could reasonably devote additional military force to assist us in the fight against the taliban? what does u.s. intelligence show as to whether the government of pakistan or influential officials in the pakistani government would consider negotiating with india for

you say he went that pakistan. how can we be sure he didn't have contact with al qaeda or another terrorist group? >> we only know what the government is telling us. they found no evidence he was associating with no known al qaeda operatives. this guy was a bit of a loser, and who he was interacting with in pakistan, we may never know fully. but in terms of the known al qaeda people we worry about, there's no reason to believe he had that interaction yet. could have he have? certainly but we haven't seen the evidence. >> and you're saying the dollar story is just an outliar. but that's just really an older story? >> it's a young guy, 19 years old. he wanted to conduct jihad on his own. the fbi, and this is a good story from a law enforcement perspective, identified him, tried to convince him that this is counter to islamic culture and tradition. he kept saying no, i want to do it. they helped put him in a position where he would conduct an act that he would ultimately be arrested for. >> i'm just down to the last 2

what might you suggest to propose further to the tensions between india and pakistan said pakistan can really continue to be engaged in the issue at hand, namely, dealing with insurgency and not becoming transfixed with the indian threat? >> i had been impressed with the ambassador pulling together the top leaders of pakistan and afghanistan to the united states. i have been privileged to participate in two of those conferences and various junctures, as we met during the week or at the embassies. it doesn't get to the indian problem, but for afghanistan and pakistan, this is the first time that most americans had ever really heard or seen these persons engaged in dialogue. my impression that it was the first time some of these leaders themselves had ever had a good chance for a meeting or pressed to give answers. i think it was important. that had the pakistani military and had a good relationship with ad mollen. having met their counterparts in afghanistan for the first time, i think they like each other but they saw each other. they had some sense of how those countries operate. that

they were aware that he went to pakistan.he was said to have gone last august and come back in january of this year. they were aware he went there, aware he came back, following his movements, watching him buy these chemicals. so it does appear that they had him very carefully under observation. >> pete, it's extraordinary detail. what tipped the government off? what started this a year ago? >> i don't think we know the answer to that question. my own suspicion is i don't think you can be a young person of his anest ri, his family came from afghanistan and go to pakistan from the u.s. without being on the hit parade. that's thing one. then i think we get into areas like the foreign intelligence surveillance act which allows the government to keep and eye and an ear on people once they leave the country. they clearly played a role. we know that. the government filed in court saying we intend to use evidence that we obtained under this law. gwen: wasn't there a dust-up with a imam that they tried to recruit to be an informant t

al qaeda is in pakistan, not in afghanistan. pakistan, of course, has a nuclear weapon. pakistan's a much larger country. it could destabilize india. afghanistan is, of course, a poor, fragile state. like somalia, like yemen, like many other countries in the world. of course, we should be doing things to try to stabilize it. but that is-- and i want to disagree respectfully with her-- not the place where the next attack is most likely to come from. >> sherr: let's talk about the politics of this a little bit. you've met with secretary clinton? >> sure. >> sherr: you've met with special envoy richard holbrooke? >> sure. >> sherr: what do you tell them? >> again, my message is: focus on what we can do. we don't have a moral obligation to do what we can't. people can get very fixed by saying, "but surely you're not saying we ought to do nothing? surely you're not saying we ought to allow the taliban to do this or that?" and i just keep saying "ought" implies "can"-- you don't have a moral obligation to do what you can't do. >> sherr: how is your advice taken? >> i think wha

we have to continually monitor what's happening in pakistan. this aid package, the lugar bill is important to develop the kind of trust that our two governments probably have let break down over time. >> thank you very much, senator robert casey of pennsylvania. >>> back to howard fineman and pat buchanan. pat, there's a real issue here about america. we're a country, too. do the american people have it in us to spend five years trying to build a modern centralized government in afghanistan with people loving us, with supporting us, with feeding them, building schools, building highways, building trains. is that our business? nation building in afghanistan? >> you're asking, do the american people have the patience and perseverance and will to put hundreds of thousands of troops into afghanistan for five years? the answer to that question, chris, is no. just because you asked the right question at the beginning, look, the question for barack obama ought to ask general mcchrystal is this. general, if i give you the 45,000 troops, can you do the

pakistan. do you believe we're on the same side? we and the pakistani government in opposing the taliban in afghanistan? do you believe that? >> i do. chris, from working on this in the foreign relations committee, i also chair the subcommittee that has both countries under it. also talking to people in pakistan and following this, i just spoke to president zardari the other day. it's very clear that this is a different approach now and candidly a much better approach from our vantage point that the pakistani government has taken with the pakistani army. the general is very serious about this. taking the fight already to the swat valley and also getting to waziristan. i think they understand the threat now or at least reacting to the threat in a much more substantial way than they were a year ago. despite the bad news we keep hearing about afghanistan, i think there's good news to report there. in pakistan, i think the effort is much more focused and effective to take the fight to the taliban i

pakistan, nuclear arms pakistan, will be severely destabilize -- destabilized. things will spread to central europe. that is simply the reality. which brings me to my third point. today, our territorial defense begins far away from our own borders. the 21st century nato needs to look and to act beyond europe and north america and in order to keep europe and north america safe. proliferation is another good example. the proliferation of missiles far away from our borders is a clear and growing menace to our populations. nonproliferation measures are important, but they are not enough. iran shows us why, and that means we must also look at deploying missile defense. the recent announcement by president obama on missile defense is important for two reasons. first, because it laid out a road map for the growing missile defense in a realistic time frame with a proven technology against invisible threat, but second, because this plant puts missile defense solidly in a nato context with participation open to all allies with protection for all allies. that is the way in

. >> pakistan has to account for the security of pakistan.he united states cannot take it upon itself the burden of protecting pakistan and protecting afghanistan and taking on iran and keeping a war going on in iraq. do we not have some things to take care of back here at home? that is exactly my point. bill, that is my point. bill: i will give you the last word. i say we give him one last shot. we give general mcchrystal what he needs. >> one of the things we cannot afford is this war. it will cost a lot more. we are never going to achieve the goal of a stable afghanistan. tons of empires have found themselves running aground in afghanistan. let's not let america become one of them. bill: thank you. we appreciate it. bill clinton mentioned the name of newt gingrich, and the speaker will apply. -- replied. -- reply. it's the probiotics. the good bacteria. that gets your colon back in balance. i'm good to go! phillips' colon health. why is dick butkus here? i hired him to speak. a lot of fortune 500 companies use him. but-- i'm your only empl

and -- >> if we take the risk of failing in afghanistan, what happens then to pakistan? >> reporter: a book being devoured right now in the west wing is "lessons in disaster," about the build-up to vietnam, written by gordon goldstein. >> the number one lesson in disaster for the president is a lesson kennedy learned in 1961, counselors advise but presidents decide. >> reporter: presidents decide meaning president obama should be prepared to say no to his commanders. the next meeting will be one week from today, charlie. >> jake tapper at the white house tonight, thanks to you. >>> and the commander of u.s. forces in iraq, general ray odierno says 4,000 troops are going to be withdrawn in october, ahead of schedule. that's going to leave 120,000 forces there, compared to the 66,000 now in afghanistan. >>> next, to the h1n1 swine flu, and growing skepticism among health care professionals about taking the vaccine. today, the california nurses association, the nation's largest, said vaccination for its members should be encouraged, but not mandatory. so, our senior medical

. >> well, you know, pakistan has to account for the security of pakistan.nited states cannot take upon itself to the burden of protecting pakistan and protecting afghanistan and taking on iran and keeping a war going in iraq. don't we have some things to take care of back here at home? aren't we forget something about what we need to take care of. >> that's exactly my point. bill: i'm going to give you the last point. i submit we give it one more shot. give mcchrystal the 40,000 he needs and see what happens. i will give you the last word. >> no. of the many things we can't afford. this war is one of them. it's already costing 7 billion a month. it's going to cost a lot more over this surge. it's never going to achieve the goal of a stable afghanistan. tons of empires have found themselves running aground in afghanistan. let's not let america be one of them. bill: thanks for the debate. next on the rundown, rudeness in politics, bill clinton spoke about it. the speaker will reply right after these messages. um bill-- why is dick butkus here? i hired him to

of course they are thriving in pakistan, then what are our goals in afghanistan? those are the questions being asked. how much can we mitigate the threat of the taliban there, and what is the danger of that weighed against what al qaeda has been able to do in pakistan. that's why the arguments from vice president biden and others about not increasing troops in afghanistan is the that we need to focus on our resources on pakistan, that's where our biggest threat lies. so, that's a complex debate with no easy answers, really both camps obviously have a very strong argument. >> it's interesting, too, when you hear people who are reluctant to commit to sending more troops in ask, to what end? what would we consider success in afghanistan? and if you look at what happened with the soviet union entering, they were there for a decade or so, it failed. their mission wasn't clear and the exit strategy just opened up a vacuum, a power vacuum that allowed to taliban to come in and really claim all of this power which then in turn led to them hiding al qaeda for so long. so i

militants launching devastating attack in northwest pakistan. security forces there say someone drove to the center of the town near the afghanistan border and set off a bomb. blowing up a two-story hotel and destroying several stores. we are told the attack killed at least 25 people. and it certainly underscores the growing violence in that region. there were hopes that violence might calm down with the death of this man. the former leader of the taliban in pakistan, killed last month in a u.s. missile strike. security forces hope that would lead to a power struggle and a fight within the group. but our sister network sky news has obtained new video of his successor. and it appears to show the taliban rallying around him. niece are the new warriors, the pakistan arm of the militants. if there was any doubt the pakistan taliban was finished, these pictures prove otherwise. the man at the wheel of the humvee is their new leader. a man with a reputation for being brutal and prepared to go to any lengths. these pictures were taken just a few weeks

in pakistan in the last few months, the army and securities services have taken on that pakistan the taliban. last week, the president told me his forces are preparing to tackle a threat because he fully recognizes that terrorism poses a serious threat to pakistan as it does the rest of the world. we also agreed stepping up action in pakistan. in afghanistan, the afghan army and police are not yet ready to take on the taliban purely by themselves. that is what the international coalition must maintain its military presence. i believe most people in britain accept this but i know they are concerned about our armed forces. they ask what success would look like in afghanistan. the answer is, we would have had succeeded when our troops are coming home because the afghan's are doing the jobs themselves. we will be able to focus our efforts on supporting be elected government on security and development and human rights. the right strategy is one that completes this job, which is to be unable the afghan's to take over from international forces and to continue the central work of denying th

the is also ne from neighborin pakistan. today's "new york mes" is repoing that pakisn's army maye responble for scores of reprisal killings agains d members of the taliban in pistan's swat valley. in may, pakistan launched an offense in e swatalley aimed at driving o the taliban. according to the ticle, the stematic nature of the dths s led hun rights groups to conclude that the pakistani military is behind manyofhe killings. pakiani officialsdeny any involvement by the military. fo more on u. effos to fight terrorism, we want to turn to a man who specializes the subjt. is juan zaate, a senior adviser at the cter for rategiand international studies in washington, d. he served as deputynational securi adser forbottom batting terrorism durg the bush admintration. soow significantrehe killings of indivial al qaeda aders like sale nabhan? >> this i think was significanevent. saleh nabhan was a senior al qaeda eutenant who helped to run teir east africa opation. in the context of his curren activi, he was r of the keyho was tryi

>> the self-proclaimed mastermind of 9/11 was captured in pakistan on march 1, 2003, by pakistan's intelligence service and handed over to the u.s. he is the biggest catch since 9/11. he is sitting at guantanamo bay. the 20th hijacker was refused a u.s. visa, or else he would have been on those planes. he was also captured in pakistan in 2002 in a gun battle. there are five co-conspirators being held at the gitmo. shepard: the top al qaeda leader has been taken of this year. >> the cia predator program, a program they neither confirm nor deny exists, has been very successful in hunting down al qaeda in the tribal areas of pakistan. they have had about one dozen big hits in the past year alone. one terrorist planned to blow up 10 airliners with liquid explosives. he was killed after pakistani court set him free. most recently, there was the head of pakistan's taliban. he reportedly ordered the assassination of benazir bhutto and blow up western hotels in pakistan. of course, 0 osama bin laden is still at large. shepard: jennifer griffin, thanks. hours after the attack, the rubble was still burni

for one reason, the in extricable linkage between afghanistan and pakistan. if our mandate is similar to that which we currently have, which allows us to look across agencies, we think that's a considerable benefit. we believe also that in spite of our relatively meager numbers right now, we could almost immediately commence some degree of oversight, of spending if afghanistan and over a period of time, with increased funding, leading to increased numbers of auditors, inspectors, and investigators, build to a more substantial effort to address this matter. we underscore the significance of oversight, which in the case of afghanistan, may have started before cgar, but not at the time at which we began to invest significantly in the reconstruction of afghanistan, so we would not like to see this happen in peacoats well. >> -- in pakistan as well. >> sir, i safe this, not to be a wise guy, but you're aware of some criticism of special inspector general's office in afghanistan. >> yes, sir. >> address that for me if you will. basically the criticism, there's a po

the repercussions are still being felt, not least on the board and afghanistan and pakistan and otherarts -- the war on militancy in afghanistan and pakistan and other parts of the world. >> 9/11 is frozen into the heart of every american. ground zero appears as if frozen in time and new yorkers and relatives of those killed in the attacks here are losing their patience. >> i think it is a national disgrace. i mean, it is eight years later. everyone is saying it would put the last column in there. it is eight years later and this is what we have done. it is horrendous. >> this is a vision of what grounds 0 should one day look like, and memorial and museum, five skyscrapers. but the project has largely remained on the drawing board amid disagreements over the side. >> the public sector will be done. the memorial will be completed. >> the owners have to remain positive, but since the credit crisis there has been a collapse in real-estate values in lower manhattan. studies predicted will take decades to fill the new office space. so, this year as every year, they will gather to remember

pakistan has increased its commitment in the fight against the taliban. a lot of people thought that would never happen. i believe that if we engaged very intensively with our pakistani friends and we did through meetings in washington and in islamabad, if we shared information, we listened to each other, that there would be a decision by the civilian and military leadership that the threat was directed at them, that it could undermine their government. in fact, it would lead to very dangerous consequences in terms of the survivability of the state in many parts of the country. so, yes, have they taken action? absolutely. >> smith: have they done enough, is the question? >> we are always working for more. i just finished saying we're not satisfied with anything. this is not a check box kind of experience where, oh, we're done with that. we're done with that. but leak at what has been accomplished... but look at what has been accomplished. i think we will continue to see a very close coordination. but it is important for americans to understand that focusi

we know that getting it right in pakistan and along the border is critical.o there's not just one decision point: number of troops. it is part of a broader understanding of what are our true goals? how best can we move toward achieving them. we have a clear and critical objective of trying to disrupt and dismantle and defeat al& qaeda and their extremist allies and prevent a return to safe haven, and every piece of this has to fit together. we don't even know yet who will be the president of afghanistan. so, it's not in any way to say that what general mcchrystal, baseded on his expertise, is presenting or asking for is not important. it's critically important. but it's a part of the overall process. there are many other considerations that we have to take into account. >> warner: in it, he goes to the point you raise about governance. >> um-hum. >> warner: he says that the karzai government, he said, given the widespread corruption-- and i'm just going to quote-- gives afghans little reason to support their government. do you see it that way? i mean you have

are we more concerned about what's happening in pakistan? is that where al qaeda and these plots, even the plot we're talking about today where they're wrapping up all these guys where they've been plotting in an area in pakistan? >> you look at iraq. you say we're getting out of the iraq. now we're in afghanistan. if you were to pull back out of afghanistan, what does that do to pakistan? you have to look at the region in an entirety. the mistake is if we say this is obama's war or america's war. it's not. it's the international community's war. we have all our allies there for the reasons we're there. to prevent a resurgence of the taliban and al qaeda that can inflict damage on us and all over the world. >> former secretary of defense, william cohen. great to see you, as always. >>> tamron, this is a big issue for the president. i guess the sense, too, that he's weighing this. it was interesting to hear a lot of his comments on the sunday shows, too. >> right. >> there may be a change in strategy is my guess. >> i think that is fair to sa

in pakistan?ave looked at this question well before this testimony. we have had a dialogue with holbrooke on this during his testimony in june. from the cigar standpoint, we want to extend our mandate to assist in pakistan. for one reason, the inextricable linkage between afghanistan and pakistan and the fact that if the extension of our mandate is similar to that, we think it is a considerable benefit. in spite of our meager numbers right now, we can almost immediately commence some degree of oversight spending in afghanistan and this could lead to an increased number of auditors and investigators which would build a more substantial effort to address this matter. which underscored the significance of oversight which indicates in afghanistan may have started before sigar and not that the climate which we began to help. would like to not see this happen in pakistan as well. >> not to be a wise guy, but you are aware of criticism from afghanistan. >> yes, sir. >> address that for me, if you will. t

and trained in pakistan. what does that tell you about the focus to send more troops into afghanistan, but at least, according to the the allegations, the heart of this man's plan and the persons he was in contact with were in pakistan. >> it's clear, pakistan and afghanistan, if you could turn that region back to the taliban and let them, again, allow al qaeda to come in and develop training cells, then to distribute worldwide jihadists trained to take supplies of civilians around the world to advance their cause. it's a global thing. it's a complex issue that president has undertaken. if the taliban controlled afghanistan, again, it would be a resting place, a training place. al qaeda would set up shop all over again. >> your comments sound in line to what the former secretary of state condoleezza rice said. if we pull out of afghanistan, we can expect another attack with al qaeda as they will get back into that country and align themselves with the taliban. >> it's clear the taliban now is set up a modest

across pakistan, these stores have been running out of stock.ugar costs twice as much as this holy time last year. pakistan is a million tons short. that's led to panic buying, rationing and hoarding. sweetmakers. snack sellers. everyone's bottom line has been affected. by the ramadan sugar crisis. >> responsible, sugar owners, sugar mill owners. >> they are just serving the pockets. they are making big bellies. >> the suspicion is that there is something deeply wrong with the sugar industry in pakistan. what these pakistanis know is that most of their country's sugar, from crop to table, is in the hands of pakistan's ruling elite and its most powerful families. >> there are many top-ranking politicians of this country who matter. they are in the business of sugar industry. so that is why people call sugar cane as particular crop and sugar industry as particular industry. >> dr. kahn advised the finance ministry. he warned imports were needed. the government decided not to, to protect growers from cheap foreign sugar. >> the higher you fix the p

in pakistan we ask pakistani friends who go back. around instructions for mo -- bombs. it is a horrible blot taking chase in our city. >> mark geragos isn't that right this is the real deal unlikely informant given lots we have seen heretofore. >> i don't know geraldo why is it that there's only one of the famous here why is this information being dribbled out. in fact it has all of the ear marks from somebody who may be cooperating and that may be the real deal, that may be why you see a false type charge that has been leveled. so far. >> attorney coulter i suspect this is an arrest. first of all i am decided to see liberals are going to continue their policy of appearing under maps, overly enthusiastic. >> let her finish. >> why wouldn't you arrest him for false at the same times if they make those sides. maybe they are going to. he made mals statements and in florida. >> ann, if it's a false statement. if there is a ding russ man you don't want to get bail. where wouldn't you want a drink. they are not obvious they were going to j

falling very near the capital of pakistan.cies and very, very committed insurgent and islamic fundamentalists groups make us nervous when nuclear weapons are involved. >> the leak, we don't know who leaked it. who benefits from this? >> the military benefits. it's not just timing. for a long period of time admiral mullen, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff has been talking about a big surge in american forces and resources committed to afghanis and they are talking about military resources and not private and civilian and not military resources. that's not a part of my report. the military benefits to some degree and when joe biden said barack obama would be tested by his rivals and his enemies in the beginning of his campaign, it seems to me the military is testing him right now. >> steve clemons, many thanks for your time and insight. >>> police always advise do not try to thwart a robber. exhibit a. he didn't get a memo about not doing that. when this gets out there could be a blowback. glenn beck tries to turn yom kippu

about pakistan. there's a fear unless you get a modern stable pakistan in place, which people feel you can't do unless you stabilize afghanistan, afghanistan will constantly feed in insurgent groups and groups. we saw recently just six months ago how vulnerable and fragile pakistan was with major towns and cities falling very near the capital of pakistan. fragile democracies and very, very committed insurgent and islamic fundamentalists groups make us nervous when nuclear weapons are involved. >> the leak, we don't know who leaked it. who benefits from this? >> the military benefits. it's not just timing. for a long period of time admiral mullen, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff has been talking about a big surge in american forces and resources committed to afghanies and they are talking about military resources and not private and civilian and not military resources. that's not a part of my report. the military benefits to some degree and when joe biden said barack obama would be tested by his

my concern is the pakistan army in the future. i mentioned earlier in the program that there are some young pakistan officers who are to date generals who were very badly treated by the united states at the end of the soviet occupation of afghanistan we started taking all sorts of sanctions against their economy and diplomatic sanctions as well. there is a lot of better feeling about that time still today in the pakistan army. what concerns me now is i am very old. very close to 80. guest: id you by three years. -- i beat you by three years. caller: i remember when wars were fought for the outcome of peace. now what really worries me is we seem to think this is the natural pace of things and you have never saw or you did not like. guest: i think war is awful. we fought in two world wars. does that mean you favor war? of course not. war is horrible. one has to release try to explain what is happening in a war and there are many complex on the horizon. host: the top u.s. commander at in afghanistan is very seriously concerned over r

the troubled northwest of pakistan has been hit by another attack.uicide bomber drove a vehicle packed with explosives. it was also the scene of a bombing on thursday. the latest killed 33. more casualties are believed still trapped under the rubble. the bbc correspondent in pakistan reports. >> the bomb went off in a busy marketplace. there were shopping ahead of the muslim holy day. many were killed. a hotel and several shops collapsed killing others. >> this man says it was about 10:00 in the morning when a car drove by with the bomber inside. there was a huge blast. many were killed. many were wounded. >> according to police, most of the dead and injured were members of the shia minority. this district of the northwest has suffered sectarian attacks in the past. it is an area where the taliban operates widely. one of the many radical groups that operate under the taliban banner says it carried out the bombing. earlier this year, the army of pakistan launched a major offensive against the taliban. an american air strike killed the leader of the gr

contribute to the destabilization of pakistan?the ground and a reasonable chain of command that allowed us to capture a lot of the al qaeda still in afghanistan at the time and we had a policy in pakistan that failed because of the ineptness of musharraf. >> mike allen, if you were to look at the original mission, protect americans interests from nuclear chemical and biological, going back to 2003. now look at the islamist tinder box that the general is just describing which now amplifies and amplifies the risk, what do you think the conversation has to be around the interests of our soldiers, our children who spent a lot of their time in these countries honestly trying not to get killed. you talk to american soldiers about how they spend their day in afghanistan and iraq, i say how do you spend your day? they say i spend it smoking cigarettes and playing backgammon and not trying to get killed. >> the president will say what is it we need to do there to contribute to the mission of us being safer. i can tell you this order in the

he traveled to pakistan to train in weapons and explosives. this is a region that al qaeda uses as a headquarters for planning jihad against the united states. he was telling other people that he was there to visit his wife. in addition to that, federal agents say that they copied his laptop when they took into custody last week and they stopped him in new york. on that laptop, they found a picture of nine pages of handwritten notes that describe in very explicit detail how to build a bomb. when he was confronted with that, he said that he had never seen that before. he said that he accidently downloaded the information. jon: the denver bus driver appears to be the guy in the middle of all of this. how did his father get involved? what about this other guy in new york? >> his father talked to federal agents for about three hours. from what we can glean from the complaint affidavit, he lied to authorities when he told them he had not talked to anyone in new york within the past week. it turns out the federal agents had a wiretap on alfazi. jon:

it was for pakistan. we didn't want talibanization there. we are progressive. we are not taliban. >> progressive does not mean pro american. how do pakistanis feel about americans? >> they don't like them, frankly, but they're not to blame. >> musharraf went on to say that after helping the u.s. defeat the soviets in afghanistan, pakistan was left high and dry, with a jihadist problem on its hands. resentment still simmers. coop pation between the two countries resumed since september 11. musharraf recalls george w. bush as a straight talker and friend. i asked him how he felt about president obama's outeach to the muslim world? >> the muslim world was very upbeat about his election. having said that, he must now deliver. he has been saying a lot, but he must deliver. >> musharraf finished that thought saying muslims expect to see the united states play an impartial role to deliver justice to the muslim world. in london, amy kellogg, fox news. bret: an advisor to candidate obama says it's time his own boss stopped the talking, and democrats say criticism of the

there is actually some progress being made in pakistan.ttacks on the terrorist leaders have had a positive effect. it has given confidence to the pakistan government to the people that they fundamentally do not like that they are no longer with us. at least some of those. there is a network in pakistan which is the current major source. that is of people that are going back and forth across that border. into waziristan. hopefully they will address the problems that caused not only to them but to us by the activities of the vote -- that network, but we are cooperating with the pakistan government and hope that we can strengthen them in their efforts, which i think now have got some hopes for success in taking on the terrorist groups that threaten their own survival. >> senator, you do not argue forcibly about a timetable for withdrawal. tried to force them to get their act together. now, senator feingold says we should have a timetable for withdrawal for afghanistan. why not? >> this situation is different. there is a whole host of differen

the supposition is it was probably someone in pakistan that he was dealing with. but where this investigation now stands is some of these folks that he was talking with and working with have been cooperating with authorities, we're told. some have been talking -- not saying everything they know, and some have been totally uncooperative. so these new charges against zazi with a maximum of life in prison if he's convicted, certainly send a signal to other people that the fbi's been trying to talk with, that they may face similar, very serious charges, and that the window is closing for them if they're going to make a deal. >> all right. nbc's pete williams, thank you very much, pete. it is incredible, norah, some of these items were sought by zazi at a beauty supply place. it sounds so trivial but the thing that's people can use for destructive purposes or allegedly in this case, is shocking. >> acetone, peroxide, all of those things. i'm just glad they're slowly piecing together this puzzle and know at least where this guy's been and that they wrapped up the other