>>pam: in national news, he was the speaker of the house during the clinton administration. newt gingrich is taking the first step for a 2012 presidential campaign. atlanta. >> today we are establishing a website exploring 2012. todd, will look at this very seriously and methodically of what we will do next. >> newt gingrich told georgia we deal that he was close to making an announcement. however, not going to form a presidential team. after leaving on ethics, he was still in the public eye. and his think tank, raising $40 million in 2010. he has been a contributor on fox news. wednesday, the networks is funded his contract and another potential. pennsylvania senator rick santorum. this suspension will not impact. >> it will not be an impact. ohio, south carolina. how the fund-raiser is going. >> both of these gentlemen fall behind the gop candidates. at the top, former president and arkansas governor, marmight cut to b i the next two weeks, this will pickup. huckabee >>catherine: >>this just in to the kron 4 news room albany police found a policmissing teenager. ammunition,

guest: ended tax rates that were in place during the clinton administration -- the tax rates in placee clinton administration did nothing to slow down the economy. you saw a roaring economy. when you get into high marginal tax rates, the kinds in the 1950's and other times, that has some impact. no one is disputing that. when you are talking about tax rates in the range that we had in the clinton administration, the economic evidence indicates that they did not slow down the economy. when you look at the house of the economy, you have to weigh a number of factors. as we have been saying in debates on a bipartisan basis, one of those factors will be getting our deficits and debt under control. in order to provide economic stability and growth in the out years, you cannot have this big overhang of debt, so we need to bring that down, and there is a number of tools for doing that. reducing spending and to look at revenues in a reasonable way. i think people would be hard pressed to say the folks at the very top, the top 2% income earners, cannot help contribute more to reducing our natio

the obama administration, i'll discuss that in a second, mr. reagan, mr. bush i and mr. bush ii ran deficits of over $6 trillion that they signed the bills to spend. over $6 trillion. bill clinton was president for eight years, the last four years we didn't raise the debt at all, unlike every one of the republican administrations where we raised it on a regular basis. not at all during the last administration. the last four years of mr. clinton's. and he ran the only president in your lifetime, and mine and i'm older han -- than you are, a $69.2 billion surplus. look it up, no argument, but let me say something. irrespective of who's responsible, we are responsible for fixing it. republicans and democrats, the american people know that we have a crisis confronting us. they know there is no option other than to deal with this realistically. i would call everybody in this body, republican, democrat, liberal, conservatives, attention to an article that was written by david brooks today in "the new york times." read it. read it. we all ought to read this, take it to heart. i call it to my conference's attention or caucus' attention this morning. our deep debt is a serious danger to

there is blame for the clinton administration, blamed for the obama administration. talk about the bipartisan nature of this crisis. >> it is a fairly bipartisan problem at this point. many of us, including myself, were deeply disappointed with president obama's behavior. he said things during his campaign that led us to believe he would take action about this, and when people voted for him and contributed to his campaign, i think many thought these issues would be addressed, and it has been a huge disappointment to see that he has turned out to be in many ways just more of the same, whether it is because of his personal emotional characteristics or because of the structural issue that wall street gives money in enormous quantities to both parties now, i do not know. maybe a mixture of the two. but this is, in a general way, a dangerously bipartisan problem, because america only has two political parties, and they are both so captured by wall street and wall street money. tavis: when president obama started announcing to his team was going to be, should we have known

and bernard rust held several positions in the pentagon during the clinton administration and he spent a number of years directing research into the so-called gulf war illnesses. the kinds of symptoms that are seen in people with gulf war illness are totally inconsistent with exposure to morrow depleted uranium and so they came to the conclusions as has the united nations the e.u. . almost everybody who has looked at this in an unbiased scientific way that the pleated uranium is not related to the unexplained illnesses that we saw in the first gulf war. thank. you. this is the center of amman the capital of jordan among the shoppers are all and to iraqi cancer specialists today they are sightseeing but they have come to a man to take part in an uncool logical congress sponsored by a large american pharmaceutical company here they will find out about the latest treatments for cancer but they will not be able to use them in iraq. we are triple and we are looking to people dying with though any help from us or from others we could say we are crippled and or months are tied together becaus

the 85-year-old christopher served as is being -- secretary of state in the clinton administration during which he negotiated the end to the war in bosnia. also brokered the release of 52 u.s. hostages held occurring -- during the revolution in 1981. >>> the crisis in japan impacts that nation's food supply. the products that have now been contaminated with traces of radiation. >>> things are cooling down at that crippled nuclear creek tore. what japanese crews have just been able to do to reduce the threat of a nuclear meltdown. >> we uncover a bay area breakthrough making vegetables you already ate more nutrition. >> what is the downside? >> there is none. >> i like it. . >>> now for the latest from japan, japanese engineers appear to be gaining control at that nuclear power plant tonight. but there are indications that radiation has already entered the environment. low levels of radioactivity were detected today in japanese tap water with slightly greater amounts in milk and spinach from farms near the power plant. but the greatest danger is to the engineers at that plant, some of whom

i spent 22 years as a washington lawyer and some time out at the cia in the clinton administration. i am honored to be invited into any polite company. [laughter] two years ago, when eugene mccarthy was working on the nomination, we have been involved in some of these things of one kind or another for a long time. that me start by -- let me start by calling attention to key distinctions. it gets blurred a lot, not by our speakers today, but i want to make it explicit. we have two the energy systems in the country. one is transportation, and it is 95% oil. we do not use anything but petroleum products, natural gas, and as such. basically, it is all oil. completely separate, electricity. it is a mixture of coal hydro, nuclear, except for. -- etc. 15% of our natural gas comes from canada, unless you he share the views of cartman's mother and think we should invade canada -- [laughter] we tried that lies. we invaded in 1775 and 1812, and they with our butts both times. we do not have a farm supply problem with energy -- foreign supply problem with energy but with oil. these things have n

from russia in order to do that repeal i think that the administration didn't want to do so so did the bush administration incidentally so so did the clinton administration but it is a tough thing to push through congress all right and how right now would you assess the status of the reset between russia and united states. i think it's pretty strong one thing that's interesting i'm attending an oil conference right now i'm actually in houston and one thing that i'm hearing is that when oil men consider the trouble now going on in the middle east it makes them think that working in russia is a lot easier one one earth for example the c.e.o. of total of the french oil company speaks of russia as a place that that's one of the easier places on earth to work in so i think that that that the united states does want to move its relationship its commercial relationship with russia a higher level it would like to repeal the jackson panic that russia into the job you t.o. and make the diplomatic relationship that much stronger right stephen via editor from washington based foreign policy magazine by fair perspective thanks for having me. remember y

through the clinton administration that it is you know it is really had. made the situation much more serious and much more difficult and problematic i mean there are you know there are reasons why we have a huge military presence in the middle east why we are now in the midst of three conflicts and it has to do with the large amount of oil which we are dependent on and we we are we are about five point five percent of the world's population but we consume the most oil workers you know about it well that's correct about twenty five percent of our oil. is consumed by the american public and. a very large fraction of that i would say summer at least sixty percent comes from foreign sources so the situation is actually gotten worse when carter in seventy nine made that speech my recollection is the seventy four seventy five is generally estimated as the peak oil point for the united states that's right and during that decade we made the transition from being a net x. oil exporter we were actually exploiting oil that's right there in the during the. nixon and f

what does the clinton administration do? it begins, it puts on an embargo. it, basically, kills off what was the textile industry at the particular time. it has good intentions about supporting democracy, but then undercuts the economic base which you need for democracy. they restore aristide, aristide lives out, goes out his term, preval comes in, aristide returns, you once again have a polarizing period. you have washington confused. do we support aristide? do we back away? do we hold off aid and, and, sort of clip the umbilical to the united states? he leaves in, in 2004 under, obviously, duress, and you move in, as i said, into this sort of hybrid. the united states, i think, by about 2004, 2005 really sees that it cannot take an active and direct role in determining haiti's future. so you turn to minustah, ah, you turn to the n.g.o.'s, you basically create a sort of hybrid which shares sovereignty with the haitian government. at least that is the sort of interpretation i have. so in essence, i think after 2005, the united states has sort of relinquished

when the military base closures occurred throughout the united states during the and after the clinton administration and local governments and regional governments were preparing for that sort of evacuation of property before it was transferred back to local and regional government. we never did that here. so we're now not only trying to address these things block by block, and codes need to unite between sdi code and what was -- between city code and what was under redevelopment's prism and preparing for the business model of enterprising people who might get a leg up in a corridor like the fillmore. but there is literally no plan for that at all. commissioner moore: and i am particularly interested in hearing you speak to that because we are in the middle of re-establishing new redevelopment projects of rather significant size and finding the balance between redevelopment and proper city governance that is for me the big question mark because we're still operating and moving into the future and looking at two forms of governance. >> well, to me to be honest with you're welcome and this is the conv

he also served in the clinton administration as chairman of the national security council and assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs. his latest book is call "the future of power." i'm pleased to have him back at this table to talk about something he has been thinking about, writing about, teaching about and pulling into play for a long time. i'm pleased to have you here. welcome. >> it's nice to be back. >> rose: power has been your subject. soft power, hard power, smart power, and now the future. >> well, power is simply the ability affect others to get what you want and you do it by... in three basic ways. you can do it by threats, sticks you can do it by payments, carrots, or you can do it by attraction in getting others to want what you want. that's what i call soft power. but combining them so you can do both hard and soft is what's smart pow which is what hillary clinton called using all the tools in your tool box, and that's hard. >> rose: take me to egypt and how you saw it and what does this mean because... >> it's extraordinary. >> rose: it's extrao

the glass steagall are to by the way the clinton administration signed on i know it all of this i don't know and i don't see a glass steagall it in particular i mean more oversight for derivatives i would i would agree or but they may disagree with the particulars but i'm glass steagall i get europe never had it never separated commercial and investment banking the way we did but it's a very heavily regulated a bloated year but they didn't have that strict separation where your bank could also not be your broker or offer you would surely have even had bureaus you bankers unity banks q had you is benefiting from being able to do that but we had u.s. banks that had generated i mean keep in mind that the g.d.p. the united states is sixty five. i'm sorry around fifteen trillion dollars a year the g.d.p. the entire planet is sixty five trillion dollars here we have u.s. banks that have generated over eight hundred trillion dollars in money and in c.e.o.'s and derivatives that just like it was literally zero in one thousand and nine phil gramm decriminalise this and it went to eight hundred t

the budget, his administration is sure to be deadlocked. a failure to pass the budget-related bills will shut down parts of the government. in the 1990s in the united states the clinton administration failed to pass the budget. as a result, hundreds of thousands of government workers had to stop working temporarily. >> so how will the prime minister deal or overcome this situation? >> well, prime minister kan will try to postpone or delay voting on the budget-related bills as late as possible. he's hoping that by that time the opposition parties would change their minds and cooperate. the prime minister is also hoping that the japanese people will not just criticize his administration but also the opposition parties for not implementing the budget. as a matter of fact, japanese businesses are already worried about the impact on the market if the budget fails to work. kan has defended the budget and the related bills. he has insisted that they are needed for the economy, for japan's economy to recover. >> so what will kan do if he doesn't succeed? >> well, if the prime minister cannot pass the budget-related bills by the end of the current diet session, which is june

, the former appointee of the clinton administration, had done his research and i asked him why he had not questioned those people who had ordered that that language be kept out, he said, well, they left the administration. so we really can't question them , they're in the private sector now. well, you do a little further research and you find out the private sector that these people that cost the united states government billions of dollars and made billions of dollars for the cronies of the democrats in the big oil actually had gone to work for british petroleum. how about that? so to have heard the former clinton appointee who did the investigation and said, well, i couldn't possibly question these people because they left and they're in the private sector, i was surprised because if someone intentionally and knowingly defrauds the government it's a crime. and the f.b.i. doesn't have any trouble normally going after folks, subpoenaing records, they know how to do it. they do it quite well. but they didn't go after these individuals b

in the sense that we have two administration. we had the clinton administration and in the bush administration. they had a conscious goal of driving up the homeownership rate. when clinton came in it was 64% in 1993. i will talk about secretary of henry cisneros in the nicer greece a high of 69% in 2004. since then we have received and will talk about the enemy. to what extent can you talk about products that were initially intended for those at the top being marketed to those much closer to the bottom. to what extent did the effort to expand homeownership as a national goal lead us into the waters, and attribute waters that we found ourselves in the last few years? and to the extent it did, is it something that should be replicated? is that the train to get back towards 69, 70% of the country owning homes? >> first of all, 69% isn't a particularly high homeownership rate on an international basis. it's in someplace in the middle of the pack of advanced countries. and mid '60s is the middle of the pack number, not bad, but not particularly hi. i wo

it did begin in 2000 when the clinton administration left office. the projection for the decade 2000 to 2010 was that there would be a $5 trillion surplus. $5 trillion surplus. based upon the policies that were in place when clinton left office. 2001, $5 trillion surplus. literally paying off all of america's debt. gone, history. what happened? how well you said it. two tax cuts that were not paid for, that cut the revenue of the federal government. two wars, afghanistan and iraq, not paid for. first time in america's history that we went to war without having some way to pay for it. that is some tax policy to pay for it. and then, on top of that a medicaid -- medicare program, the drug benefit. again, $100 billion program not paid for. and then the heart attack. the crash of the world economy caused by excess wall street exuberants. in many cases it was fraud, misdirection, and the collapse of the financial industry, taking down the world economy and our economy. mr. perlmutter: will the gentleman yield? mr. garamendi: i certainly will. mr. perlmutt

housing market and the clinton administration efforts to increase homeownership to 66%. his remarks at a conference hosted by "the atlantic" council and the "national journal" our 35 minutes. >> all right. we hope we have saved the besthy for less.mer henry cisneros, former mayor ofn san antonio, former secretary or housing and urban development under president clinton. former president and ceo ofivist univision. and today chairman of cityview d companies which work withcrosshe developers to build affordable housing across the country.on mt as dean acheson might have said n of the really two administration long push to expand home ownership, and to really kind of force this into debate as not only an economic, but a social goal. what was the thinking at the beginning of this effort? what were the benefits that you saw from increasing home ownership rates? and then we'll talk about the lessons you take from this experience. >> ron, thank you for the question because i think it gives me an opportunity to really kind of frame the moment where some of this began. before i do

closely -- work with quite closely at the time of the bosnian conflict and we both urged the clinton administration to take a more assertive position. so we were on the same side. and i believe he doesn't believe in democracy. i would like to have a debate with him on this issue because we have now parted company. because i think that he -- he is guided by this self-evident truth and namely that, you know, we know what democracy is. and when you accept american values, then you are on the right track. and i say that democracy means that people have a right to decide for themselves. and they don't necessarily believe in american values. and they can still be democratic and they can still be an open society. >> is there another country in the world that you could live in comfortably that has a good democracy? >> yes, there are many. europe is -- would be quite comfortable for me. and i think that europe has some democracies. i think that brazil has done wonderfully since the -- since they overturned the military dictatorship. and i think that is, for instance, the way that the presidential elections

he worked in bosnia and middle east during the clinton administration.e died from complications of bladder and kidney cancer. as he prepared to step down n as secretary of state, his accomplishments included a ban on nuclear weapon tests. >> on monday, santa clara city council will decide whether to give $34.5 million in dedevelopment money to the 49ers. cities around the state like santa clara is trying to hold on redevelopment money. our media partner san jose mercury news, santa clara is racing to put the money where the state can't reach it by handing it over to the 49ers. and voters approve have to $113 million to go for the $900 million stadium next to great america. >> it's going to be cold, chilly and wet -- you name it. >> another 12-15 hours, we are anticipating very strong storm. very windy conditions, 47 degrees in san jose. east wind at 18. there is rain over the bay area coming down pretty good, but it's only going to increase. i'll tell you about it coming up. >> also coming up, a wildlife rescue center that has been rescued after being ev

in the sense that we have two administration. we had the clinton administration and in the bush administration. they had a conscious goal of driving up the homeownership rate. when clinton came in it was 64% in 1993. i will talk about secretary of henry cisneros in the nicer greece a high of 69% in 2004. since then we have received and will talk about the enemy. to what extent can you talk about products that were initially intended for those at the top being marketed to those much closer to the bottom. to what extent did the effort to expand homeownership as a national goal lead us into the waters, and attribute waters that we found ourselves in the last few years? and to the extent it did, is it something that should be replicated? is that the train to get back towards 69, 70% of the country owning homes? >> first of all, 69% isn't a particularly high homeownership rate on an international basis. it's in someplace in the middle of the pack of advanced countries. and mid '60s is the middle of the pack number, not bad, but not particularly hi. i wo

what they did, got the front loading program, got the whole system pregnant, then comes the clinton administration. we have the hole. f-35. it was like an extortion had strategy. it was done in the case of the f-22 and the f-18 we have it thoroughly documented. the documents are on the web. it was done with malice aforethought, period. >> on that note, i would open up to the people on the audience. this is recorded and speak loudly to the people that can hear. i'm not sure if it works or not. but go ahead. go ahead. >> sir, do you know how many more the weapon systems cost? by spreading it around, how many does it increase the cost of weapons? >> i would tell you that i think the building would be low to even explore that. >> they have no idea. >> they don't want that to be known. they have no idea. but i don't think they are interested in finding out. >> no. it would be really hard. >> i mean, yeah, we can't audit the books that we have today. much less -- >> we can't audit the books. we have talked about that. >> we do know the consequences. consequences go beyond cost. cost maybe the least cons

in the sense that we have two administration. we had the clinton administration and in the bush administration. they had a conscious goal of driving up the homeownership rate. when clinton came in it was 64% in 1993. i will talk about secretary of henry cisneros in the nicer greece a high of 69% in 2004. since then we have received and will talk about the enemy. to what extent can you talk about products that were initially intended for those at the top being marketed to those much closer to the bottom. to what extent did the effort to expand homeownership as a national goal lead us into the waters, and attribute waters that we found ourselves in the last few years? and to the extent it did, is it something that should be replicated? isthat the train to get back towards 69, 70% of the country owning homes? >> first of all, 69% isn't a particularly high homeownership rate on an international basis. it's in someplace in the middle of the pack of advanced countries. and mid '60s is the middle of the pack number, not bad, but not particularly hi. i wou

the obama administration. it started way back actually with the reagan, a little bit before the reagan administration. the reagan, the george bush the first administration, dramatically altered by clinton which actually would have, if those policies had continued, created a surplus almost wiping out the total debt of america and then run up big time during the george w. bush administration. these are projections 10 years following if you continued the same policies what would happen. that's where it started. and then the great recession and the effort now to deal with that. the obama administration ha put forth a proposal that follows closely along with the recommendations of the deficit reduction commission that said don't -- don't do anything that would harm the current recovery like make an austerity program, like make massive cuts, yet our republican colleagues have done and proposed exactly that. fortunately, the senate has not gone along with that. but we're nickel and diming our way toward $30 billion of cuts that may in fact cause us to see a decline rather than a continued growth in the economy. we must watch that very carefully. so that's the deficit piece of it. manufacturin

robert malley, former director for near east affairs at the national security council in the clinton administration. he now heads the mid east-north africa program at the international crisis group. and michael singh, who held the same n.s.c. post in the george w. bush administration. he's now a visiting fellow at the washington institute for near east policy. welcome to you both. beginning with you, arms embargo. asset freezes. travel bans. what do you make of the international response so far? >> two things. first if you compare the international responses to others in the past it has been extraordinarily quick. that may not feel very good if you're sitting in tripoli and you have to enjoy the continued rule of qaddafi. from a comparative perspective it's been extraordinarily rapid. in part that's because ka qaddafi himself has very few friends. he is now paying the price for alienating his friends. and also because this administration in particular had staff who feel very strongly about this. the president himself and some who work for him and see it as their life mission from preventing what ha

political engineering thing, got the whole thing, the whole system pregnant, and then in comes the clinton administration and deliberate and say we've got this pickle in the out years let's start a new program. f-35 jobs and. so whole thing was like an extortion strategy and was done in the case of f-22 and f. 18 we have a thoroughly documented the documents on the web. it was done with malice of forethought, period. >> on that note i want -- [laughter] -- i would open up to the people in the audit. i remember because this is being recorded if you could speak loudly so people can all here. i'm not sure if it works or not but go ahead. >> do you know how much more weapons systems cost because they politically engineered the way that i built? how much more does it inflate the cost of weapons? >> i think the building would be -- they don't want that to be known. i mean they have no idea but i don't think they're interested in finding out. >> no. it would be really hard. >> i mean, we can audit the books. >> we haven't even talked about that. >> but we do know the consequences, and consequences go way beyond

he was on the national security council staff in the clinton administration. and daniel dombey, a diplomatic correspondent for the "financial times." welcome to you both. let's jump right into this. daniel, i'll begin with you. there were some conflicting signals today. paris, london, the obama team traveling all talking to this about whether there's any agreement on who will assume control or command. will do things stand? >> where things stand is we've had a theo logical debate over the last two or three days. they finally agreed or they almost agreed that nato can help command and control the operation so nato can help run the operation. what's left are the minor details of who is going to command it. what the goals are. they've spent two or three gays having a debate where the british and french seem to be at loggerheads. the turks have been angry. now they finally agreed that to do a deal just what remains will actually work out what that deal is. >> warner: you mean the really big questions haven't been resolved? >> the deal will almost certainly involve

director for near east and south asian affairs at the national security council during the clinton administration. he's now middle east and north africa program director at the international crisis group. welcome to you both. general, i'd like to start with you. what are our goals in libya as a coalition? are they being met so far? >> yes, gwen, i think they are being met. the goals obviously to prevent saddam hussein's troops from committing atrocities against the civilian populations in those large population centers across the northern part of libya. we want to prevent moammar qaddafi from hurting the innocent civilians there so i think so far things are going quite well. >> ifill: how do we know that we are protecting the civilians, as we say? >> we'll be watching them very closely throughout the next several days to see what the troops on the ground actually do. general carter ham had already mentioned that one of the things that he's asked the folks to do on the ground, the signal from them should be very simple. lay down your arms and back away from the civilians. >> ifill: robert malley,

concerns with regard to islamic extremist terrorists, and so in the last couple of years of the clinton administration secret talks were initiated. and moussa kusa in his capacity as external security organization chief was our principle contact. >> brown: what was he like, and in particular do you have any hints as to why he would have acted as he did now? >> moussa kusa is a suave, polished, smart, official who would fit in quite nicely as an ambassador or minister for a western government. and this is not somebody who comes across like a revolutionary. and i can't help but think that he feels more comfortable in the west right now. >> brown: do you have a comment on the importance of these defections? >> i think it's critically important, because moussa kusa as paul said has had contacts and access to the highest levels of the libyan regime for decades. this is a man who can tell us where the fishers are, who supports qaddafi, who doesn't support qaddafi, help us reach out to individuals who may be willing to oust qaddafi. >> brown: at the same time the british have to say right away they're not gi