pakistan, pakistan, pakistan, pakistan, pakistan. it has been pakistan from the beginning. it's still pakistan. how long is it going to keep being pakistan? today on the occasion of osama bin laden's death, "the new york times" ran a big 5,000-word obituary of bin laden. it describes bin laden bragging about his american made weapons and his trainers who supported him against the soviets in the 1980 ez. the u.s. was being careful to avoid getting drawn into a hot war in afghanistan with the soviets so even though we gave that training and those weapons to bin laden in afghanistan in the 80's, we never really got it to him all that directly. instead we used a middle man. who do you think we used as a middle man? we used the pakistani intelligence service as the middle man when we wanted to arm bin laden. the whole post 9/11 idea of waging a war on terrorism was to go after terrorists themselves, right? but also go after their sponsors. you go after the countries that sponsor terrorist groups and fund them. iraq never did that. that was a red herring. that was a distraction fr

pakistan? >> pakistan is not as dependent on the u.s. funding, but pakistan has got a lot of leverage. almost all the food, medicine, the ammo we send into afghanistan goes through pakistan. and pakistanis are paid for that. there is a sense that if the united states pulls completely out of pakistan in economic terms, that the u.s. loses a window into pakistan's arsenal of 100 nuclear weapons and one -- while it's not discussed very publicly, the weapons are a lot of what this is about. it's about the concern that al qaeda could get at those weapons. it's about the concern that pakistan's arsenal is growing so quickly at a time the u.s. is funding pakistan so much. it's kind of like when people say it's not about the money, it's usually about the money. in pakistan when people say it's not about the nuclear weapons it's almost always about the nuclear weapons. >> given that, where is the discussion about u.s. aid going to pakistan? i know there is a lot of outrage that the united states spent $20 billion in aid to pakistan but doesn't seem like we've got our investment back, a return. >

pakistan. pakistan asked the u.s. to reduce the number of military personal there following the raid that killed osama bin laden. hillary clinton said the u.s. can't solve pakistan problems. >> pakistan should understand that anti-americanism and conspiracy theories will not make problems disappears. >>> president obama is wrapping up a trip to europe. he arrived in warsaw and attended a ceremony for holocaust victims. his trip took him to island, england and france. he had several meetings and a news conference tomorrow. >>> the president could get a bill from the mayor of london. he wants president obama to pay the city's congestion charges for his limo use earlier this week. the charged with be $16 for each car in the president's motorcade. >>> man could face two years in jail after three dui arrests in three days. once in custody police realized he was arrested two other times in the past days. he is a recovering alcoholic who relapsed because of a death in the family. >>> changes you could face this weekend. first up, bay bring, eastbound lanes will be closed overnight. it pushes people to veer to the right. it will allow crews to work on completing the lan

pakistan earlier? definitely. but was it malice on theart of e state of pakistan or the government of pakistan ooze a whole or the institution or th-- >> charlie: how aboutthe leadership. >> i think the president of pakistan does and will intend to ask everyone. he will ask the leadership to o a complete inquiry and find out what happened who dropped the ball where. and was it just a dropping of the ball and not reading the right sign. >> charlie: competence. >> that's competence but there's another aspect which is, do you know what, our image of threat comes from another direction. that's what we should focus on. >> charlie: but take this example. it is widely believed that omar is in pakistan. do you believe that? >> after what happened yesterday, i have no reasono doubt that if the american intelligence community believes something, it's something that needs to be taken very seriously. >> charlie they do belie that >> y, i know. and so i would, a week ago if you'd asked me that question, i would have said we have no knowledge. today i'm going to say since the american intelligence is so convinced about osama bi

them because the intel people of pakistan are also the same opinion they think this is a conspiracy against pakistan they're trying to cut off the head of the pakistan military and a headless body as you know is useless very easy to conquer so the manner in which the us s. r. rating inside pakistan is not helping any of the stakeholders in pakistan that's one thing if i don't know if i got a truce on here what do you think about that because congress is threatening to take money away from the bridge the huge age parkas that was given last year i mean again i mean is this just treating pakistan is a truant child because the sentiment in pakistan is very anti-american as was pointed out. you know i think that's a very it's a very tricky game to play i think it's absolutely correct to say that to the extent that the united states is perceived to be is acting unilaterally gloating taking a heavy hand one of the risks that is run is of alienating the palace of the pakistani opulence and trenching support within the military intelligence establishment i think this is not the goal i think the endgame in fact of the obama administration is to try and preser

and the pakistan government, but the pakistan government had always pledged to support u.s. intervention into pakistan to capture bin laden or kill him if possible, so, basically, i think they knew nothing about it until the joint intelligence of pakistan and the united states tracked down bin laden. >> can they get back on track with islamabad? it stated elsewhere in the world is slipping. >> we have to bear in mind that barack obama's principal objection -- target is to get reelected, and he feels he has the end of this year, so this is the opportunity to say mission accomplished, which is essentially what he has said, that it is served, to declare a victory and go home. i think that washington is absolutely not concerned about improving relations with pakistan at this stage, which is a very short-sighted approach to the situation because pakistan remains the only real avenue for the united states to have good access into central asia for the future, and that is now disappearing. >> briefly, if you could, what does the u.s. then need to do to improve the security in the region. >> welcome in has to

pakistan. and to -- a neutral observer, it does appear that you part -- country, pakistan is going through a form of disintegration. >> i wouldn't call it disintegration. the armed forces of pakistanthe unity. and the -- and the provinces of pakistan certainly are not looking for separation. but, therefore, there's no doubt in my mind that this disintegration will not be possible. and, therefore, any -- outside world, i would like to say also that -- understands that disintegration of pakistan already harmed integrity of pakistan will be extremely dangerous for -- for the world. for the region and world. >> you understand why president obama and his administration feel pretty angry when they discover that the most wanted terrorist in american history is living right in the heart of pakistan next to a military base? i mean, it defies credibility. i'm not saying you knew anything but certainly nobody -- at any high level in pakistan had in idea that osama bin laden was there. >> i don't think anyone had an idea. i don't think so. >> you were -- you worked in that compound. you worked in the base, next to the compound. 2 1/2 years. >> yes. >> is it credible no one else in >> you unde

notion that somehow just because there's a part support network in pakistan the state, the government and the ministry of pakistan. >> pakistanre is possibly a picture of the moderns bodied being released a first stafford got that look at it this afternoon. >> still no word about with that picture will actually be released. . >> by the way it obama will travel to travel to ground zero this thursday. wgn news. >> most were

pakistan has become somewhat of a recurring theme. china is apparently planning to build two new civilian nuclear reactors in pakistan. does this kind of investment from china in pakistan trouble you from a national security standpoint? >> the growing bilateral relationship we have with china and other countries can be put to make good use in terms of helping countries like pakistan and other countries. i believe is a characteristic of our 21st century that we will have to do more along those lines of working with the wealthier nations to help the developing nations transferring to better economies, battered governments, or adherence to rule of law. and the security package. i think that close with the nature of our new world of the 21st century world. so, you know, i think that if to demonstrates that they are more with us on these kinds of issues, that is a good thing. >> thank you very much. >> gerald jones, i might say to you and others who are not here right now, this is a very important conversation that we are having. i am going to make the transcript of this hearing available to pakistani officials. they need to understand this further. i just spent two long da

pakistan's problems. that's up to pakistan. but in solving its problems, pakistaneories will not make problems disappear. >> reporter: yeah. suzanne, big problem here is that most people say the problems actually begin with the united states with the u.s. war in afghanistan has brought a blow back here that's causing pakistani lives. >> how did pakistani officials respond to secretary clinton's visit? do they seem to be open to some of her suggestions? >> well, there's a difference between what is said publicly and what's said privately. first of all, a lot of money is put into pakistan and a lot of money is needed. in fact, this is a very stretched operation here. military is very stretched, has a very deep-rooted mill tansy here who are able to strike wherever and whenever they want. so to go after it they require a lot of mrn and that has been the lifeblood of this relationship, this transaction between the u.s. and pakistan. so publicly you will get these messages that, yes, they're committed to renewing this relationship and trying to do more, but there is a p

pakistan have taken him out. if the ally for which pakistan is fighting this war, if it does not trust pakistan, where does that leave'm talking now as a citizen of pakistan. where does that leave pakistanis? what are we? are we friends or enemies? who are we giving these sacrifices for? we did not have any suicide attacks in pakistan before 2004. we had no militant taliban in pakistan. and here is a country which had 500 bomb blasts last year. where do we go from here? i as a citizen of the country ask myself the question can the country take this much longer? your point is that you think pakistan is not a trustworthy ally. i'm saying that it's about time pakistan had a government which told the americans we don't want any aid. we'll deal with it ourselves. we will ensure there's no terrorism from pakistani soil. we have a much better chance of dealing with the terrorism if it's a sovereign credible pakistani government rather than a puppet government which is a government that's not sovereign and doesn't have any credibility with the u.s. or militants. it doesn't have a chance of engaging with certain elements amon

pakistan in 1947. pakistan's humiliating defeat in its 1971 war against east pakistan continues to hant the predominantly panjabis development. is transformed into a war with india severing east pakistan from pakistan creating the independent nation of bangladesh. following the war of the soviet union in the 1908s, they used the taliban to settle old scores with india and control afghanistan. pakistan's military continuings to fear a direct confrontation with the tribes on the western border. this fear makes pakistan's relationship with the taliban volatile and perhaps unresolvable in any way ben official to the west. pakistan continues to support elements of the taliban that carry forwards its agenda and making token attack on those who do not serve their interest. pakistan's commitment is not what it seems. while we serving, it's best trained military units and high-tech weapons given to it by the united states for a potential war with india, pakistan's military sets the fully trained and poorly equipped pashtuns qens the pakistani taliban, but as the taliban cells recruit and multiply inside panjabis

strongest statement from the government of pakistan since the raid, that osama bin laden had help from inside a pakistan establishment. an official from pakistan told abc news that elements of the pakistan intelligence were involved in aiding a bedding, and sheltering the leader of al qaeda. there is no hard evidence for his assessment, but it is based with years of experience inside the government. sunday night, president obama pointed the finger is but raised note -- more suspicion about pakistan. >> we think there had to be some sort of support networks for bin laden insight of pakistan, but we do not know who or what that support network was. we do not know whether there may have been some people inside of government people outside of government and that is something that we have to investigate. >> about that raid that took out the leader of al qaeda? despite the tension in the white house last sunday night, -- >> as nervous as i was about this whole process the one thing i did not lose sleep over was the possibility of taking bin laden out. >> but the president would not condemn pakistan out right saying that they are able to carry -- kil

congressmen, everybody's blaming pakistan and that pakistan cannot be trusted, and that pakistan has betrayed u.s.a. and that pakistan has got so much aid like $26 billion so far, but the point we are missing is pakistan has relationship with united states ever since it was born. and in 1950's and 1960's, there was a lot of international or local organization organized by u.s.a. such as southeast asia treaty organization, or center, and treaty organization which included iraq, syria and pakistan and all these countries against u.s. so there was southeast asia, like pakistan, and thailand, burma, et cetera, they were included in that country. but the problem problem is, whenever pakistan needed help, america never stood with pakistan. pakistan had about four wars with india and one was in 1965, the major war. and america was supplying armaments to pakistan and to india, too, and then it stopped at that time that no armaments should be supplied to india and pakistan. india was producing its own armtaments at that time. pakistan department have anything. so they were like when they neede

and opposition, excessive red tape and direct -- pakistan, india has granted most nationstates and pakistan is not reciprocated. on the other hand, pakistan'sposition is that india's tariffs rates remain very high on a select number of goods. it turns out those are the goods that pakistan exports, agriculture, being the principle one, textiles, leather, things that pakistan normally exports and the tariffs are very high on there. transportation links, they have very poor making trade very costly. railway and road connections are inadequate, but they exist there. they are just not allowed to be used and my favorite example is the traffic that takes place between lahore and across the border at the barter post. there is a highway that runs, a road, a nice road that runs between the two countries. and trucks are employed to deliver goods on the other side of the border. what is interesting is that border, the roads open at 5:00 a.m. in the morning. why it is not open 24 hours as a security matter but they open at 5:00 a.m. in the morning but it closes at 2:00 p.m. in the afternoon. why white is a close at 2:00 p.m. in the afternoon? the reason

osama bin laden's presence in pakistan was not to pakistan's advantage. you know pakistan well, christiane. you were there immediately after 9/11. we still have many jihadi has beens from the 1980s who are still alive and well and kicking and some of them could have been helping them but they are not in the state or government of pakistan today. >> right, but let's call a spade a spade. osama bin laden, number one terrorist in the world, including against pakistan was hiding in your west point town. there are barrier, there are check, foreigners just can't go there just willy-nilly. i know that for a fact and so do others. khalid shaikh mohammed, ksm was found in a similar town in rawalpindi a few years ago. how can this happen without the tacit knowledge or involvement? >> let me proffer another explanation. >> answer the question. >> it's a state, a country with lots of people, it's a very difficult country in the sense of its capacity to deal with the problems. as the national security adviser said, a lot more people have been arrested in pakistan including al qaeda peo

pakistan have taken him out. if the ally for which pakistan is fighting this war, if it does not trust pakistan, where does that leave us? i'm talking now as a citizen of pakistan. where does that leave pakistanis? what are we? are we friends or enemies? who are we giving these sacrifices for? we did not have any suicide attacks in pakistan before 2004. we had no militant taliban in pakistan. and here is a country which had 500 bomb blasts last year. where do we go from here? i as a citizen of the country ask myself the question can the country take this much longer? your point is that you think pakistan is not a trustworthy ally. i'm saying that it's about time pakistan had a government which told the americans we don't want any aid. we'll deal with it ourselves. we will ensure there's no terrorism from pakistani soil. we have a much better chance of dealing with the terrorism if it's a sovereign credible pakistani government rather than a puppet government which is a government that's not sovereign and doesn't have any credibility with the u.s. or militants. it doesn't have a chance of engaging with certain element

pakistan would have known that osama bin laden was there? >> well, the question in pakistan is you've got the army, you've got the security services, you've got the politicians, the business class, a very divided political system. until there is unity in pakistanuntil people come together, then the attack on terrorism, the fight against terrorism, will be ineffective. and this is the real problem that we face. afghanistan is soluble if we had stability in pakistan. terrorism in pakistan needs the local government, the local people, to come together with these -- almost with nonsec tarrian politics and with the army and political services to work with them to deal with this threat. there is too much division in pakistan for the fight against terrorism to be effective. >> finally, what do you miss most about being prime minister? >> i can tell you what i don't miss. >> yeah, do that. >> well, what you don't misis the british newspapers. [ laughter ] >> of course. >> what you don't miss is your ability to, you know, travel -- you now have the ability to travel abroad without people asking lots of questions. i enjoy my time coming to america in particular. i don't miss the pomp and circumstance. i suppose i miss -- you know, we had started a big p

and pakistan. pakistan was either involved or incompetent. pakistani leaders insists they didn't know osama bin laden was living in the compound and there is no evidence. the cia and other are analyzing data from the computers that the the navy seals receive moved. and osama bin laden says the pictures of osama bin laden will not be made public. kron 4's catherine heenan has the latest. >> reporter: 56% of americans want to see the photos. the president feared they might insight further violence and there were moral considerations. >> that's not who we are. >> reporter: no pictures of the death but tonight a clearer picture of how sunday's raid unfolded. 1:00 a.m., a pair of black hawk helicopters delivered 2 dozen navy seals to the seen. as the president watched. instead of dropping them on the roof, one developed problems and crashed into a security wall. the other helicopter landed and the seals entered entered the house through the ground floor. they killed a courier and another man and then made their way to an upper floor for osama bin

años en pakistán esto qué quiere decir sobre la relación de pakistán como aliado nuestro en esta batalla contra el terrorismo. >>> envenena la relación complicada entre estados unidos y pakistániene que tener siempre una buena relación con pakistán, además, pakistán es una potencia nuclear, hay que te tener cuidado su problema que los servicio de inteligencia no son con fiebl y es la razón porque no se informó hasta que bin laden estaba muerto. >>> cuéntame carlos porque esta muerte tendrá repercución política en casa. >>> la principal repercución política josé es que esto pos skwoin al presidente obama de una manera espectacular, tremenda, es decir, ese san benito que se les ha dado a los e demócratas el partido y el presidente en particular que es débil en política exterior con esto se caen en pedazo esta ak estación ya venía posicionado el presidente y en este caso que era un uno po débil litoreralmee está cerrando el candado wle e ganoed en una situación de privilegio a esta campaña. >>> vamos a ver si se enfocas en los temas prioritarios para nuestra comunidad a nivela de nivel doméstico, carlos gracias por tu e perspectiva, las embajadas y aeropuertos del mundo está en

pakistan, and toward that end i'd like to make three points, three related point. the first is that the stage relationship with pakistan has predominantly been in relationship with pakistan military and pakistan intelligence agency. whether it's been intentional or not, the fact is that u.s. government supported strengthen institutions of coercion in pakistan, and weakened institutions that promote rule of law. as the report notes, quote, top western civilian leaders, especially from washington, d.c., continue to meet with top military commanders in pakistan and one on one meetings without the involvement of officials in pakistan's ministry of defense. end of quote. in another example the supreme court justice insisted that security agencies act in accordance with the constitution of pakistan, some years ago, by producing people for the security agencies have in their custody. and for that he was dismissed from office. it was convenient for the dingy the united states government, that general musharraf got rid of the supreme court justice. the u.s. government was then more concerned with pressing the war on terror in pakistan than in promoting the rule of law in pakistan

pakistan in 1947. pakistan's humiliating defeat in the 1971 war against east pakistan continues to hant pan stack's predominantly panjabis establishment. the conflict transformed into a war with india verved them and created the independent nation of bangladesh. following the soviet war in the 1980s, pakistan used the taliban to settle old scores with india and control afghanistan, but pakistan's military continues to fear a direct ethnic con confrontation with the pashtun tribes on the western border. this fear makes pakistan's relationship with the taliban volatile and perhaps unresolvable in any way beneficial to the west. pakistan continues to support elements of the taliban and carry forward the agenda while make making attacks on those who do not serve it's interest. the commitment is not what it seems. while mostly reserving, it's best trained military units and expensive high-tech weapons, given to it by the united states, for a potential war with india, pakistan's military sets the fully trained and poorly equip against the pakistani taliban, but as the taliban recruits and multiplies setting up control

needs to reset its relationship with pakistan, after bin laden was found living in that compound near islamabad, not far from the pakistancritical about harsh interrogation tactics and whether they actually led to useful information. "news nation" is just minutes away. [ airplane engine whines ] [ grunts ] [ dog barking ] gah! [ children shouting ] [ grunts ] [ whacking piñata ] [ whacking piñata, grunting ] the new blackberry playbook. [ whacking piñata ] it runs all this at the same time. ♪ why can't every tablet do that? >>> right now on "news nation," braking news -- >> this is how conspiracy theories develop. they're not ghoulish, they're not going to scare people off, they're not offensive. >> my initial opinion, it's not necessary to do so. i think there's ample proof that this was osama bin laden. >> a senior white house official says, there will be no pictures released of a dead osama bin lan. we'll go live to the white house for the latest on the president's decision. >>> plus, senators mike udall and kay hagan will join us live to discuss the president's move not to release the bin laden photos. >>> plus,

pakistan would you say that the bush slash obama war on terror as it can be called a success by any any dimension whatsoever. i think you just have to look at the situation in pakistan today and compare it to what it was before the before the occupation of afghanistan began and now today we have insurgencies in different provinces in pakistan we have daily terror attacks in which. you know hundreds of thousands of thousands of civilians have to some numbers have put up to thirty thousand civilians have died in the last ten years in pakistan just from the terror attacks so i don't see this being any in any way a success even. though some of the lardons killing will probably generate more and more such attacks and if you look at the kind of success that obama is saying that this could be for a van a sunday and that doesn't make any sense either because somebody laden has been a man on the run he's got no appreciation or capabilities not been involved in in battle he's not been involved in any way in the in the liberation war in afghanistan even i was reading the papers today in pakistan. and this statement by one of the spokesman of the afghan taliban saying that they were actually surprised that osama bin laden was actually alive up to now so that gives you an idea of what they see the relevance of osama bin laden in the ac

pakistan from closer examination here? isn't it about time, some people will say, that the american state department got a little tougher on pakistan? >> well, certainly, some people would make that argument, but the united states also has other interests in pakistan that might trump justice in a case like this. pakistan's own internal stability is constantly a question, and, given the size of its nuclear arsenal and the amount of fissile material lying around the country, anything that risks destabilizing the country is going to raise questions inside the us government. this has been the dilemma of us policy towards pakistan for a long time. unfortunately, they have learned that they really are seen as too big to fail by the west, and so they can take risks. >> smith: pakistan is too big to fail? >> pakistan is too big to fail, and so they can take risks that another weak government might never take because they believe that, between their nuclear deterrent and the sort of systemic risks they pose to the rest of the world, that they'll never be fully confronted over behavior that another weak state might be overthrown for. >> coming up next on this special edition of frontline: a rare look at they men who say they will keep fighting for bin laden

pakistan. and now we have some leverage with pakistan. if they want to keep the aid flowing, which they do, there's a little more incentive to cooperate. >> exit question -- you can work in your point here, what point are we at in our relations with the muslim world? is it a pivot point, yes or no? james. >> i think more important is whether it's a pinpoint in all these countries, whether the fledgling democratic movements will loss some. i think what will happen in genuine is the chinese will come in, and that money -- that hundreds -- tens and hundreds of billions of dollars going to their mineral wells will smooth over these differences. >> the administration ought to push the oil-rich states to set up a funding bank to help countries like egypt, because tourism is dead and they're going to have trouble paying their bills. and if egypt doesn't succeed from the western point of view and from their point of view, that sets a very negative tone. >> two points in the middle east we're at a critical turning point moment. it could fall to th

pakistan is not clear. it also exaggerating afghanistan's actual and potential influence over developments in pakistan. to be sure, pakistanis a weak state. but this weakness results far more from internal divisions and poor governance than anything else. if pakistan ever fails, it less be because of insurgents coming across the border than from decay within. it is hard to imagine a more complicated bilateral relationship than one between washington and islamabad. it's about to become more complicated yet. pakistan is at most a limited partner. it is not an ally, and at times it is not even a partner. the united states should be generous in providing aide to pakistan only -- only so long as the aid is made conditional. we must accept no matter what the level of aid, there will always be differents to how the americans and afghanis see the world. let me suggest a guide to the u.s. policy. we should cooperate where and when we can, and act independently where and when we must. in the recent successful operation that killed osama bin laden is a case in point. let me turn to the last set of questions. diplomacy. the growing in