i think he was being micro managed himself by the pentagon and that was almost his seoul focus as far as lines of reporting was concerned. >> you said before that relative not what you as his deputy within the c.p.a. was that a reflection of the formality or was it just that he just didn't want somebody in the chain of command that was not american? >> both of those things. he didn't want -- to hand over to a northern american when he left to washington. and he was -- he was not, you know, 100% that way inclined and zero inclined the other. we talked this through, and there were pros and cons for either option deputy administrator or separate member of the u.k. but i understood he wanted his senior structure to be american, to rely on a deputy who was american, to report to the pentagon in an american reporting chain, and for the u.k. to do its own thing on the side of that but to supply people for the c.p.a. as our coalition partners did, but not to the degree in which it was supported by and loyal to the american -- >> did it leave it open? >> yes. terms of the administrative capaci

but i called the pentagon not too long ago. by and doing some follow-up stories on a situation which is more shocking than some of these stories in the book. but the pentagon, i said, what have you restituted to try to o try to correct this problem. i basically was fed a lot of lines. we have this kind of training. we have sexual assault awareness week. these t-shirts. at the end of the conversation the public affairs officer i spoke with said basically what we are doing is we are asking people to watch each other's backs. so it's going to take a bit more than that, clearly. there is pushed back on that, however. another situation of want to talk about in the military address homophobia in the military. of course giving the u.s. military is arguably the most misogynist institution on the planet there is a lot of racism and homophobia. we will have a q&a session after the talk. rampant homophobia. so most people are probably familiar with don't ask don't tell where this is a policy instituted under president bill clinton that ba

all this is now run by the pentagon. it would normally be run by the state department or usaid. this is dangerous, and we see it taking place in the creation of a new command in africa. the goal is to establish bases all over africa to do this. so far, the african government has said, we do not what your bases here. the headquarters is in germany now. the headquarters for africom is in germany, and there is no sign that that will change anytime soon. but the policy of militarizing the u.s. relationship with africa through our efforts with africom is still going forward, and i think that is dangerous. host: as we start looking at facts and figures of how many barrels a day are coming from africa and, it is not deniable that this has become a strategic interest for us. but china has a big military presence there, as well. >> they have contractors. they have a huge economic presence. the question becomes, as it does in so many parts of a world, does having our soldiers present at bases that are often hated by local people, does that make us safer? i do not think so. host: him on th

there were differences of view between the pentagon and the state department. and these have all been played out as we were trying to administer a country. there were also differences of view from time to time between london and washington that had come into the records of the conversations between london and washington. >> can we now move on because you had touched earlier about the relationship between the c.p.a., baghdad and basra. how did that work in practice during your time? >> the southeast in the arrangements for iraq was regarded both by london and by washington as very much a british concern. to the extent that very little american money was going into the southeast and the basra area, which led to the british deciding that -- quite early on, that they had to bring in british money through british support for the military, to create almost an independent subadministration in that part of iraq. i inherited that situation when i arrived. i went down very early on to see my counterpart in basra. who was deputy administrator to bremer and was in the c.p.

the pentagon was planning for this in the way that they did plan on the assumption that the united statesmight be the only country executing this plan to invade iraq and get rid of saddam hussein. you remember that secretary rumsfeld said in january or february, 2003, that we will go and do this whether or not the british are with us. they were planning to do all thing, if necessary, whether or not they have allies. -- had allies. it is in the american frame of mind to do things on the basis of american decisionmaking, american resources, american self-reliance with other partners being very welcome to add things where they can but is mainly being an american enterprise -- >> if i could interrupt you. when the british government took the decision in different military options it was presented with to go for the largest, including a division level land force, a strong part of the argumentation was that this would give us a significant influence over the way the operation was conducted. do you think that london failed to appreciate that despite that decision that we were a low- quantity par

for a lot of the money, and there is no doubt about the fact that in the less money the pentagon -- money has not been well managed. the cost overruns on the weapons programs that we are building just escalated, like $400 billion in the existing programs. guest: isn't it easier just to say, no earmarks? host: one has to be careful because one person's earmarks are another person's strategic, in a sense. where would we be without the patriot missile system, which we used in the first persian gulf war? i think there are things that congress does that makes sense. where you have got to be careful is the second engine to the joint strike fighter, which makes no sense. there are a couple of companies lobbying congress. h of exxon coal, daniel, republican line. -- host: daniel, republican line. caller: good morning. there are ways we can take care of this bill. i do not know how much gas we burn every weekend in each different state, but the first thing, i do not want -- veterans should not have to pay for this because they are paying a different way. if they spent time over there, we put

what is your recommendation to the pentagon or congress about how you go about cutting programs thatean jobs in their states and that are popular programs. guest: i think this is a time for americans to sacrifice. these wars are the first words in our history, significant conflicts where we not only have not had a draft, still relying on volunteers and really overworking in a particular the ground forces but americans have not been asked to make any sacrifices. not only -- not only did would not raise taxes but cut them, and because of that we have tremendous budget deficit that in the long term will hurt americans in their pocketbook as well as national security. host: talk about the history of paying for wars verses when you served verses now. how has it evolves? guest: if you look obviously world war ii, we have war bonds, people basically let money to the government to pay for. we had rationing and higher taxes. the korean war, we have higher taxes. even in vietnam, a very unpopular war, at the height of that war, 1968, not only did we pay for it but we balanced the budget. one o

not in this army, not an hour pentagon. we hire people from all over the world to do that work.example, in afghanistan, a lot of those mercenaries or private contractors are actually afghans. they are not all foreigners. about three-quarters are afghans. they are hired to do that work on the bases. they do the cleaning, the feeling of the trucks, the cooking. then a whole gang of people brought in from low-wage countries like the philippines, like ethiopia, like bangladesh, like pakistan, even, who are brought in, hired by contractors, subcontractors, sub sub contractors, and they do the work. then the top of the pyramid are the military guys. that's the guys with guns who do the work that military people always did, that military people who would be accountable to the military chain of command. instead, you have these military contractors and that is where you have most of the americans been paid hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, 10 times more than the equivalent in the military, and they are not accountable at all to the military high command. separate set of laws. host

july 2011 comes from the pentagon and admiral mullen.the pentagon gave as part of the process to the security team a number of things including the july 2011 security date. as most recently as this morning, as the commander-in- chief, he is clear about what july 2011 mean spirit that as -- that is the point at which we will transition, and in the security responsibility for afghanistan to the afghans, understanding that as the president said all little under weeks ago at west point that the troop jet to read that that transition will happen will be based on appropriate conditions on the ground as it happened in iraq. >> why did general john say yes today -- say yesterday? general petreaus says that it is not. >> i think it is a difference -- no, no. having been in these meetings, maybe the word wrap has stripped people out. -- ramp has tripped people up. the ramp george jones was discussing, i talked to general petreaus about this on air force one, but to and from the area. the one we are all referring is from july 2011 that the presiden

and then the decision will be easy -- will be an easy one for the pentagon.er seven years of trying to recapital the tanker fleet, we know what it takes to ensure that the war fighter gets the tanker they need and the taxpayer gets the protections we need. even if a soul source award. our military and american workers shouldn't have to wait any longer for the tanker they both deserve and american tank --, an american tanker built by american workers at an american company and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from connecticut rise? without objection. ms. delauro: madam speaker, after 23 straight months of job losses we must do more to preserve and create american jobs and we must ensure a fair and level playing field for u.s. manufacturers. the w.t.o. recently found that airbus has been receiving illegal subsidies that violate global rules and stifle real competition in the aerospace industry. we should not reward these illegal trade practices. as such the penta

they attacked the pentagon. i don't think we should give a preference to military commission trial simply because the enemy attacked civilian people rather than military people. >> i think you get the idea, folks. do you believe this man is attorney general of the united states of america? god help us. is he still going? they are cutting its. my next speaker is a man who is amazing. a former federal prosecutor. he has prosecuted rahchman. he is the co-chair for the center of law and counter- terrorism. he works for the national review institute, where he is a senior fellow. his book "willful blindness" is something you must read. he is my friend. he is brilliant. and the mcy mccarthy. >> we heard the attorney general. does that make sense to everyone? we are back here because he feels it is a crime. we know that it's a war. we are back here in the spot where they declared war against us 16 years ago. when they declared war with us they were using bombs. we answered with subpoenas. they attacked. we indicted. we

all this is now run by the pentagon. it would normally be run by the state department or usaid. this is dangerous, and we see it taking place in the creation of a new command in africa. the goal is to establish bases all over africa to do this. so far, the african government has said, we do not what your bases here. the headquarters is in germany now. the headquarters for africom is in germany, and there is no sign that that will change anytime soon. but the policy of militarizing the u.s. relationship with africa through our efforts with africom is still going forward, and i think that is dangerous. host: as we start looking at facts and figures of how many barrels a day are coming from africa and, it is not deniable that this has become a strategic interest for us. but china has a big military presence there, as well. >> they have contractors. they have a huge economic presence. the question becomes, as it does in so many parts of a world, does having our soldiers present at bases that are often hated by local people, does that make us safer? i do not think so. host: him on th

senators will spend today debating the pentagon spenting bill.ure also carries short-term extensions of unemployment benefits, highway and transit funding, key pieces of the anti-terror, patriot act. and measure to save in medicare payments. the defense spending bill must go to obama no later than midnight on saturday. the house passed the bill on wednesday by a vote of 395-34. president has to request funds funds -- has yet to request funds for the iraq surge. we're taking you live to the senate floor here on c-span 2. the the senate will resume consideration of the house message with respect to h.r. 3226. the clerk: house message to accompany h.r. an act making appropriations for the department of defense ending fiscal year, december 30, 2010, and for other purposes. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the time until 12:00 noon shall be equally divided and controlled with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: mr. president, fo

. >> pentagon auditors have challenged many contracts in iraq.nse contract audit agency examined $5.9 billion in and they determined that $950 million of the costs wereñr unreasonable or lacked documentation to support them, more about that with defense and state department officials, 2:00 eastern, liveçó coverage here on c-span. also the subcommittee will hear from victims, coming live at 2:30 that will be on c-span3.Ñi now a state department briefing from earlier today,ñr including about a news report that pakistan officials are refusing to extend visas for american officials. >> welcome to the briefing, i have a couple of things to read at the top. i want to give you president obama's schedule in copenhagen. she announced that the u.s. going to work -- the secretary's announcement helped energize the copenhagen discussion today. they're meeting with prime minister gordon brown of the u.k. and other leaders, of 30 island nations. she also discussed stark issues. she secretary had discussions with the ethiopian president and the chinese premier.

i've done 20 hearings on the subject of waste in the pentagon budget.y through contracting. as you know particularly in the wars in afghanistan and iraq. we're doing a lot of contracting with companies a, and i think it's the biggest amount of waste, fraud and abuse in this country. all the hearings i've done are on the democratic policy website. it's just unbelievable. and it makes you angry when you see what has been done. and i -- what i have been pushing for as you know unsuccessfully so far is the creation of what was previously the trueman committee. at the start of the second world war overspending in the pentagon and this commee created about $15 tpwhl saviorings where a $15,000 select committee. i think it's really important that we do that. host: the f.d.a. >> guest: i'm sorry to interrupt you. no one'sal suggesting we i mean 30r9 anything from mexico. the amendment i'm pushing talks about reimportation from countries that have the identical chain custody than i do. every drug would have to have a pedigree that you can track back. batch lot nu

not in this army, not an hour pentagon. we hire people from all over the world to do that work.example, in afghanistan, a lot of those mercenaries or private contractors are actually afghans. they are not all foreigners. about three-quarters are afghans. they are hired to do that work on the bases. they do the cleaning, the feeling of the trucks, the cooking. then a whole gang of people brought in from low-wage countries like the philippines, like ethiopia, like bangladesh, like pakistan, even, who are brought in, hired by contractors, subcontractors, sub sub contractors, and they do the work. then the top of the pyramid are the military guys. that's the guys with guns who do the work that military people always did, that military people who would be accountable to the military chain of command. instead, you have these military contractors and that is where you have most of the americans been paid hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, 10 times more than the equivalent in the military, and they are not accountable at all to the military high command. separate set of laws. host

and desh ra burlington, the son of the pilot of american flight 77 that crashed into the pentagon.nd she is the co-founder of 9/11 families for a safe american. and alice ingraham, a former flight aten dant. what is your reaction to what happened on christmas day? >> it was a trishl event and i'm pleased the mission was not successful. i'm thankful for the fellow that was referred to ass the flying dutchman for leaping into action and preventing that plane from being blown up. i'm pleased with the outcome and disheartened about the fact that it happened at all. and it clearly points out from the enemy's point of view, they believe there is a war going on and it's an absolute priority. and i'm not convinced that for us, that the war is really -- has either of those. for us, it's one of the more agenda items but not one we are pursuing with real passion. >> larry: debra, do you agree? >> askpleetly agree. in some ways, he may have done usa favor. the fact that this man would try to blow out the side of an airport and that the response of this government would be to put anymore krilla

they attacked our pentagon. and i don't think we should give a preference to military commission trials simply because the enemy attacked civilian people rather than military people. >> all right, folks, i think you get the idea. can you believe that this man is attorney general of the united states of america? god help us! he's still going? oh, i'm sorry. i thought they cut it already. [laughter] >> all right. well, they are cutting it. listen, my next -- our next speaker is a man who is just amazing. he's a former federal prosecutor. he helped prosecute the blind sheik. you read him as a contributing editor with national review online. he cochairs the senate for law and counterterrorism. a joint project of fdd and the national review institute where he's also a senior fellow. his book "willful blindness: memoir of the jihad" is must-reading. he's my friend. he's brilliant. andy mccarthy. [applause] >> well, we heard the attorney general. does that make sense to everyone now? >> we're back here because he nd we

in virginia, 395 northbound still clear from duke too the pentagon. no problems there and 95 northbound triangle to springfield, all lanes are open. >>> it has been talked about for years and now the national parks service is revealing its plan to overhaul the national mall. 9 news now digital correspondent alex trevino is live on location with the new details. let's hear it, alex. >> reporter: there are a few alternatives on the table. each with a different focus but all with the common goal to restore the national mall so it may symbolize the ideals and greatness for our country. there are grand plans for the great swath of green at the national mall. one plan calls for historic landscape makeover that concentrates on education. union square would be redesigned and the mall revamped. gravel walks refurbished and improvements for pedestrian and bike circulation. under another plan, the mall memorial an landscape would be protected. the idea is to preserve the design. significant changes would be made at union square, restoring the ulysses grant memor

was at the pentagon then we said the indians had done in nuclear test but the satellites showed nothing but that is because they dug the test told by hand. maybe they did not want it to be seen that for whatever reason they dug it by hand. and something most bureaucrats wedded meyer is the minister of defense or her foreign secretary or any other national operatives that she had a nuclear weapons program until four weeks before the first test. they inspired a few years after they decided to go. pakistan number eight. that is the scary part. it was a 1971 civil war in bangladesh that was off of the mainland and that civil war was assisted and the next impetus came from a nuclear test in 1974 the pakistani program was not under way but really not anything done. and technology was stolen but not much happened until 1982. in the early '80s paying came to power and consulted china and it is very creed the effect their to me and my a co-author paying it made a conscious decision to proliferate nuclear weapons into the third world. we have 40 talked about algeria saudi arabia and other places.

to the pentagon have this very high on the agenda. that these are issues that we must address and we must address them now and then the other part of the book, which is really important if they get through that part is there really are solutions and that is what we're all about, that's what we're working on here in washington, every single day. we know what the solutions are, they're available now, we need to put them in place, and we need the help actually across america to do it, so in the end, it's a call to action. we want people across the counselry to participate with -- country to participate with us, and we want them to feel like they understand the issue, so by picking up the book, reading through it, we're hoping that they will take action and really call on their senators, on their elected officials, so finally get us on a trajectory that reduces carbon emissions, that creates a clean energy economy for this country that unleashes tremendous opportunity for american workers across the country. lisa and i were in gary, india

and it's not just money for the pentagon in this bill but a bunch of expiring programs. would continue, for example, unemployment and health care benefits that were part of the economic stimulus package that was enacted in february, so under senate rules they've agreed to limit the debate. and they expect a vote on this spending package maybe 7:30 a.m. saturday if the republicans decide to use all of the 30 hours of post closure time they are allotted. once that's done, they can try to turn back to health care, which is the elephant, you know, in the room. and basically, if senator reid that the point feels he has the votes to try to limit debate on that, he will do so and file a series of motions and pose a manager's amendment that will make some major changes to the original bill he offered in early december, and we'll see what happens. host: do you expect the senate to be in session all weekend? >> uh, yeah. guest: that's almost for sure. they have 20 dispense with this pentagon spending bill, because the funding kind of expires on midnight saturday. they could of cou

"the washington post" reports that new authority granted by the pentagon says u.s. commanders in iraq may now donate to the iraqis up to $30 million worth of equipment from each facility they leave. this includes passenger vehicles, generators and other equipment worth tens of millions of dollars. officials say the approach has trigger ited arguments in the pentagon over whether the effort is hurting the buildup in afghanistan. meanwhile, a gnat owe spokesman says the group's military representatives are meeting now in belgium on afghanistan and are depopped confirm last week's pledges made by allied nations for an additional 7,000 troops for the war. the result will be announced tomorrow following the meeting. . and update on market -- a south carolina governor, mark sanford. a state house committee meets today to give -- to consider whether he should be impeached for being out of office during a five-day trip to argentina and his use of a state aircraft. if full committee could debate the bench -- the measure next week. >> american icons, three original documentar

what struck me was -- might late friend, the pentagon spokesman, read my manuscript as it was being produced to give me some guidance and counsel on the way. he described poult as a smaller than life figure with larger- than-life ambitions. what struck me about polk, i did not understand who we was in terms of his temperament and personality -- a man so limited in so many ways could be so successful was the president. -- as president. >> you have got some good reviews. you got good reviews at pittsburgh, but did not work together at the "wall street journal?" >> we were colleagues at the wall street journal, yes. >> the major one in the "york times" book review is shaun williams. did you know him? >> no, i knew that he was one of the prodigious >> in that era. >> he said that this is a refreshing challenge to the new conventional wisdom. polk was certainly an expansionist, but in this he merely reflected the passionate desire to push the country ever westward. >> when word filtered through the country that texas annexation was a possibility, that this expansion this dream really exploded on

coming up here on c-span2, a pentagon briefing with u.s. marine corps commandant, general james conway, just back from afghanistan and iraq. in early december his briefing at 1:00 p.m. eastern and that will be live, while we wait for that to get underway in 10 minutes or some a look at items in the news and viewer phone calls from today's "washington journal.". >> democrats drop a plan to expand medicare is our discussion this morning. more from the washington post-. it says although, no final decision is expected until cbo data are in hand which could be as early as today, democrats left a 90-minute emergency caucus meeting monday night convinced of the problem of the proposal's demise. it looks like that's the case, the senate finance chairman, max baucus. it is just a matter of getting support from 60 senators. gross on to say that liberal senators took news with surprising ease. we've got to move it. the health care committee chairman tom harkin said. a champion of the public option. and senator sherrod brown, democrat of ohio, another

>> i would -- i would direct you to either my staff or the pentagon on the exact implementation of. i think you heard general petraeus discuss efforts in both iraq and now afghanistan and the president outlined last night the notion that if there are those that are willing to walk away from the type of activity they've been involved in, reintegration into society is certainly possible. >> it's only natural after walking away from the taliban? >> well, you can't be -- you can't be part of the insurgency . you either are or aren't. >> is the president -- has the president discussed upon any level any specificity of the pakistan-u.s. partnership with prime minister brown? >> let me check on that. i was -- i checked with people that were in the video conference with the prime minister on that. thanks, guys. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> the house is in recess subject to the call of the chair. when members return, and we're hearing that should be about 4:15 or 4:30 eastern time, we will expect several v

the pentagon was planning for this in the way that they did plan on the assumption that the united statesight be the only country executing this plan to invade iraq and get rid of saddam hussein. you remember that secretary rumsfeld said in january or february, 2003, that we will go and do this whether or not the british are with us. they were planning to do all thing, if necessary, whether or not they have allies. it is in the american frame of mind to do things on the basis of american decisionmaking, american resources, american self-reliance with other partners being very welcome to add things where they can but is mainly being an american enterprise -- >> if i could interrupt you. when the british government took the decision in different military options it was presented with to go for the largest, including a division level land force, a strong part of the argumentation was that this would give us a significant influence over the way the operation was conducted. do you think that london failed to appreciate that despite that decision that we were a low- quantity partner, did you th

the pentagon has invested $250 million in regenerative research aimed at helping soldiers with severeegrowing muscle and skin for burn injuries, as well as transplant technology for lost limbs. dr. steven wolf is the chief of clinical trials at the army's institute for surgical research. i would imagine that the patient group that you're dealing with are a particularly positive one. they're young, eager men who suffer these horrible losses and want to get as much of their lives together as they can. >> dr. steven wolf: absolutely. they want to go back, most of these guys do. they say, "hey, fix me up so i can go back." >> safer: beginning this month, dr. wolf is leading a clinical trial that could one day make that possible. army surgeons will implant e.c.m. in the limbs of severely injured soldiers in hopes of restoring muscle lost to roadside bombs. >> wolf: what we're doing with this project is putting this e.c.m. in there, and then hoping that it populates and then it becomes muscle. >> safer: it also, in a place like this, goes by the name of "pixie dust," correct? >> wolf: right

also debra burlingame, he was the pilot of flight 77 which crashed into the pentagon.'s the co-founder of 9/11 families for a strong and safe america and is a former flight attendant. alice hoaglung, her son mark bingham died on flight 93. alice as well is a former flight attendant. what's your reaction, david, to what happened christmas day? >> larry, it was a terrible event. i'm certainly pleased that the mission was not successful. i'm very thankful for the fellow has been referred to as the flying dutchman for leaping to action and preventing that plane from being blown up. so i'm very pleased with the outcome. and of course, disheartened about the fact that it happened at all. and it clearly points out from the enemy's point of view, they believe that there's a war going on, and for them it's an absolute passion and an absolute priority. and i'm not convinced that for us that the war is really -- has either of those. for us it seems to be one of the agenda items, but not one that we're pursuing with real passion and an absolute priority. i'm concerned about that.

one of the generals who i met in the pentagon recently had a picture of one of the local officials onl, and he was very impressed with a very strong leader who was doing very good work. i am not sure how well he would perform if everything had to be run through the national government. >> i would just add, i think that one of the keys here, in a country that is as rural and tribal as afghanistan, one of the challenges in recruiting people for the army and the police is getting them to leave their local area, and that is why i think these local security activities, if we can work with the afghans to keep have such promise, because these guys are basically protecting their own turf. >> i cannot agree more. they can be paid what for them would be a good wage, but far less than it would cost to have american soldier there. mr. secretary, i regret to have to raise the problem with the tanker competition. i noticed that northrop grumman team has announced a concern so great that they are announcing they may pullout from the competition. a number of serious changes were made in rfp, each one

the pentagon estimates that it will cost about $500,000 per soldier. independent budget analysts generally believe pentagon numbers to be more accurate. gardner, maine. independent line. back to you. go ahead. caller: i think that the situation is that yes, we have a large amount of troops there now and we will spend more of that has to happen, but there is a war right here in the united states. a lot of people out there are trying to fight for their own lives, for employment. i do not think that we should be spending so much money over there to fight a war that has pretty much died down. host: do you have a job? caller: i have been laid off and i am struggling like a lot of people in this country. host: how are you making ends meet? i hear children in the background. caller: any way possible. i go to church been a lot of people there are helping, trying to make ends meet. no, it is not easy and i have three children. host: are you collecting unemployment? caller: yes, very little. host: the white house is having a jobs summit later in the week. is tha

a senior pentagon official insisted the problem has been addressed. the senate banking committee has endorsed the nomination of federal reserve chairman ben bernanke for a second term. the vote was 16 to 7. supporters said bernanke helped stave off financial ruin, while opponents argued he should have seen the crisis coming. >> had he and others not acted, some of whom sit on this committee at a time of critical importance to our country, we'd be looking at a very, very different, and far more dire situation in our nation than is otherwise the case. i believe ben bernanke deserves substantial credit as chairman of the federal reserve for helping us navigate those waters, certainly without not with perfection, but certainly i think stepping up at a critical time in our nation's history with some very wise leadership that benefited our nation. >> many have said that changing horses in middle of stream will introduce an unacceptable level of uncertainty into the markets. on the other hand, i would argue that it could be equally damaging to our economy an

i watched the smoke rise from the pentagon. we were attacked from afghanistan. and we must.... >> and i was there too. i wanto go after al qaeda. >> lehrer: all right. we'll leave it there. thank you both on that note of disagreement. >> thank you, jim. >> thank you. >> lehrer: and now, afghan war support, take three. margaret warner reports from britain. >> warner: for 2½ years, this tranquil english village, wootton bassett, has embraced a mournful ritual. every few weeks, the townspeople close their shops and offices to stand outside as the coffins of british soldiers killed in afghanistan are driven through town from a royal air force base nearby. anne bevis helps organize the gatherings. >> our tribute is purely for what that soldier has done. he's given his life for his country so a few moments of our time is very little in comparison. >> warner: but local feelings about the afghan war are more complicated. >> it's in respect for the lads who lost their lives. >> warner: you support the troops. do you support the war in afghanistan? >> no, i don't. very st

because needlessly $3 million per day goes to the bloated pentagon budget.s one of the reasons. the other reason is because the other half goes to the wealthy 1% on wall street. host: we have got the point. general? guest: thank you very much. i understand people's position with regard to war. the only thing i would say is that if you look at the risks to our nation and national security out there, it is important to understand what the consequences of failure are. if we fail in iraq and it becomes a failed state, rather than having some element of a democracy in the least, instead you have a failed state? what are the consequences for not only the region, but the security of our country? that is a question worth looking at. to have strong economic development or generate income to pay taxes that go to those programs, we must have security. the fundamental basis in iraq for their economy is to develop their potential governments with a basis of security. that is what security forces are doing. now we are building other institutions. i think that that princip

guest: i was stationed at the pentagon went 9/11 happened. i took over the anti-terrorism unit for the navy. i have access to much material. while the interagency did not coordinate information -- i believe what occurred was not orchestrated at 9/11. i strongly believe that. the change that 9/11 brought about -- before 9/11 we like our wars over there. with 9/11, we could be damaged at home. i think the president has taken that into account. it is not about right or left. he's making this decision here regardless of political consequences, but is right for this nation. i did not agree with that in iraq because we brought al-qaeda from iraq. i believe that the leaders of the damage us is there and we must eradicate the threat. host: our next call for rep joe sestak. mark supports the president. caller: good morning. let me commend c-span for not putting party lines. on the president's decision, i'm sure he got a real long and hard. his party is questioning him now, but i do think he made the right decision. i know he opposed the war in iraq, b

, to shut down already portions of brazilian cities, they've already done a lot of damage to the pentagon, to a variety of, you know, downloading in the summer of information from secret u.s. government information's. so the internet is our friend, and the internet is our enemy. and the most dangerous thing that confronts us in terms of surviving, they can shut down a great. they can shut down hospital systems. i mean, it is a very tricky business to me, the internet. and somebody can tell you that senator mccaskill is about here i'm going to close the hearing. >> i think she is on her way. >> now, i am sorry. i can't wait. if you want to, she will pop in here and she will be worth it. because she is terrific. and she's eight, you know, prosecutor, attorney general, all this kind of stuff. and she is just wonderful. and agreed on this subject that i want to thank you all very, very much for taking the time. i agree with you, professor cox, that this will have, this hearing will have an effect. it already has. and it may be $10 or $20 a month, but it is a wrongful 10 or $20. and it is not

11 were largely civilians, though there was a very grievous and heinous act that occurred at the pentagon. but because of the fact that this was an act that occurred upon our shores, with a victim population that was largely civilian, among other things, including the admissibility and my desire to ensure certain evidence would be admitted. it was my determination that bringing the case in an article 3 court made the most sense. >> sir, the military personnel were killed on 9/11, they attacked our pentagon, and i don't think we should give a preference to military commission trials simply because of the enemy attacked civilian peoples rather than military people. >> i think you get the idea. can you believe this man is attorney general of the united states of america? god help us. listen, our next speaker is a man who was just amazing. he is a former federal prosecutor. he helped prosecute the blind shake -- the blind sheik. you read him as a contributing editor to "national review" and cochairs the joint project of the national review institute where he is a senior fellow. his book is "

i have an official portrait of the pentagon in the hall of chairman of the joint chiefs of staff.it was done during the clinton administration. and that was during the time when al gore was doing the reinventing government program. so, it is an eight by 10 glossy that has been blown up. [laughter] it is an aid by 10 glossy that i do like and it was blown up to full size, put in a framed and hung on the wall. [laughter] you are even come on today -- you are even today hillary. >> well, that is how we balance the budget. >> i am honored and thank full for your presence today. so many have come from -- friends and family from the bronx, friends and family as a soldier, my life in the government. if i can audit knowledge everyone here or we would be all afternoon, but there are a few people i have to say a word about. first, i want to thank the artist, stephen colstonpoleson for a marvelous job. stephen is a wonderful artist and i thank him for the magic he has applied to this portrait, i hope. [laughter] i also want to express my appreciation for people who have come from afar from o

think it possible that someone could commandeered three or four airplanes and fly them into the pentagon and the world trade center. this was a similar thing. it simply didn't occur to the people who were responsible for managing the financial system that so much of the financial system could be built on a single premise, that turned out to be wrong. that housing prices across the united states will not fall everywhere. we might have the balls in one community or another but they wouldn't fall everywhere. and it turned out that we had a financial system that was a house of cards built on this very flimsy foundation. because houses were the collateral for mortgages that were turned into securities that were turned into more securities that were turned into more security, and slice and dice in ways into people that were buying a song and didn't understand what you were. but if housing prices hadn't fall, it would have been so bad here but they did fall and in huge losses to be taken. i think that's the first thing. the second reason this crisis is so bad, why we have had him and we can now

i think that what struck me was how -- my friend ken bacon, the late ken bacon, former pentagon spokesman, read my manuscript as it was being produced to give me some guidance and counsel along the way. and he described polk as a smaller than life figure with larger than life ambitions, and i loved that phrase, and i got it into the book. and i think what struck me about polk is i didn't really understand who he was in terms of his temperament and his personality. a man so limited in so many ways could be so successful as a president. >> you've had some pretty good reviews. >> i have received some good reviews. >> i wondered how much of -- some of them -- i mean david sherman gave you a good review in pittsburgh, but didn't you all -- did you all work together at the "wall street journal?" >> i knew david. we were competitors when he was with the new york times, and later we were colleagues at the wall street journal, yes. >> i just wondered how much of a, you know, well, the one -- the major one in the new york times book review, is sean wilentz. did you know him? >> never met him, no. i

they do this in the pentagon.reasury they have contingency plans for everything. , that was of the first situation where we knew that we were headed to a financial disaster. when there was a failure in of breath the secretary ordered a study as to what could be done under the of this in law to a large extent i have been involved in drafting the legislative plan. we started with a small bill and ultimately it was increased to where it eventually had over 4 under pages. so, i do not doubt the veracity your statement might be correct, but i do not think it is poured into the matter. -- pertinent to the matter. we are pulling out all sorts of information. we still are. yesterday a professor at the ratings agencies called my office to offer some suggestions because he saw my name in the article and his name was in the article. that is happening all the time. look, i welcome everyone. if anyone has a solution to these present economic problems and they can add something, do not hesitate. talk to me, members of congress,

and if there are some internal discrepancies about that then best directed toward people in the pentagon. i think the president strongly believes and all those that participated in the meetings agreed that the president's proposal got more troops into afghanistan faster than any other force option that he was presented with. and that's the policy he chose. >> but if it should extend to 11 months -- that was the end point general rodriguez put on it -- would that still be the fastest -- >> again, i would go back and ask secretary gates -- i don't want to contradict testimony he gave in front of the senate and the house, which obviously put that on a different timeline. >> is this disturbing to the president then, this possible extension? >> well, the president believes we should get our troops in there by the end of the summer. yes, sir. >> on the meeting with the bankers, did it become clear why they haven't been lending as much as you would like them to do? >> well, look, i'll let them discuss their business practices. and i think the president believes, as you heard him say after the m

the pentagon estimates that it will cost about $500,000 per soldier. independent budget analysts generally believe pentagon numbers to be more accurate. gardner, maine. independent line. back to you. go ahead. caller: i think that the situation is that yes, we have a large amount of troops there now and we will spend more of that has to happen, but there is a war right here in the united states. a lot of people out there are trying to fight for their own lives, for employment. i do not think that we should be spending so much money over there to fight a war that has pretty much died down. host: do you have a job? caller: i have been laid off and i am struggling like a lot of people in this country. host: how are you making ends meet? i hear children in the background. caller: any way possible. i go to church been a lot of people there are helping, trying to make ends meet. no, it is not easy and i have three children. host: are you collecting unemployment? caller: yes, very little. host: the white house is having a jobs summit later in the week. is tha

and it's not just money for the pentagon in this bill but a bunch of expiring programs. care benefits that were part of the economic stimulus package that was enacted in february, so under senate rules they've agreed to limit the debate. and they expect a vote on this spending package maybe 7:30 a.m. saturday if the republicans decide to use all of the 30 hours of post closure time they are allotted. once that's done, they can try to turn back to health care, which is the elephant, you know, in the room. and basically, if senator reid that the point feels he has the votes to try to limit debate on that, he will do so and file a series of motions and pose a manager's amendment that will make some major changes to the original bill he offered in early december, and we'll see what happens. host: do you expect the senate to be in session all weekend? >> uh, yeah. guest: that's almost for sure. they have 20 dispense with this pentagon spending bill, because the funding kind of expires on midnight saturday. they could of course if they can't agree on this particular bill with

they do this in the pentagon. at the treasury they have contingency plans for everything. , that was of the first situation where we knew that we were headed to a financial disaster. when there was a failure in of breath the secretary ordered a study as to what could be done under the of this in law to a large extent i have been involved in drafting the legislative plan. we started with a small bill and ultimately it was increased to where it eventually had over 4 under pages. they were inserted by the legislateors in the congress when we worked on the rescue plan. i don't doubt the veer asity -- i'm thinking of his name now, our friend from the "new york times" "too big to fail" book, his statement may be correct but i don't think it's pertinent on the matter. we were pulling from all sorts of information and still are. as late as yesterday, because of a piece in the "new york times," the rating agencies, a stanford from the law school, offered some suggestions because he saw may name cited in the article and we

in the afternoon, the state department and pentagon officials testify on contacting in afghanistan. private security companies are paying off the deep and cheeks to make sure that u.s. convoys get through -- pay half taliban chiefs to make sure that u.s. can always get through -- u.s. convoys get through. >> the heart of the matter is the half-a-trillion-dollar cut in medicare, the $400 billion tax increases, and the fact that insurance premiums are going to go up dramatically for most americans. >> follow every minute of the debate on the senate floor, with late nights and possibly more weekend sessions, life on our companion network, c-span2, the only network to cover the sessions gavel-to-gavel with no commentary. and get updates from the congressional quarterly-roll call group. >> "washington journal" it continues. host: this is john bresnahan of "politico." we have invited him here this morning to help us understand what the senate rules are and how they might help or support people who are in favor of or against -- or thwart people who are in favor of or against the bill. i wa

they do this in the pentagon. they have war plans for every nation in the world. in treasury they have contingency plans for everything that might happen. and certainly what happened in september, which was the final straw that broke the camel's back, that wasn't the first occasion that we knew we were going to run into and were running into a financial disaster. we'd actually had it occur almost a year before in august. so when there was a failure in august of some of the securities, it was anticipated that worse had been case scenarios could occur. i wouldn't be surprised if the secretary ordered a study what we could do under existing law if we needed greater authority if certain conditions occurred that they take those steps and later on they were brought out. but i participated to a large extent in drafting the rescue plan which became tarp. we started out with a very small bill from treasury. i think it was 3 1/2 pages and ultimately the congress, both the house and the senate, wrote it up to where eventually probably 400 pages. so a great deal was added to