host: cover the pentagon for "the washington post" for many years. he is now out with a book called "by his own rules: the ambitions, successes and ultlimate failures of donald rumsfeld" -- how did donald rumsfeld view the role of public service? guest: he was very interested in public service from a very young age, inspired in college when it advice stevenson came to talk to his graduate in class. that was at princeton. stevenson urged all the students to use their educations to put them to work in public service. not long afterward donald rumsfeld ran for congress and became the youngest republican member in 1960 and believed in public service. he served not only in congress, but also in the nixon and ford administrations and returned in the bush administration. even in between when he was a corporate executive he stayed involved serving as a presidential envoy on a couple of presidential commissions. host: the book is 800 pages. did he ever have presidential aspirations? guest: some of his old high- school classmates remember his expressing an int

he was on the other side of the pentagon from where the flight had hit. his immediate response was to run outside the building to see what had happened. he spent a few minutes helping victims. then he ran back into the building to drop other top officials in planning the response. he like other top officials of the bush administration never forgot that day. it gave him an even greater sense of urgency than before and try to affect change in the u.s. military. he came into the job as defense secretary with a main assignment from george bush to transform the military. he was pushing for that before 9/11, but afterwards the mission gained even greater urgency. host: we will take a look at one of the many briefings donald rumsfeld held of the pentagon. it is in response to the question, back when he did a kuwait troop town meeting. when he said to go to war with the army you have, not the one you want. this is his response. >> i am truly saddened by the thought that anyone could have the impression that i or others are doing anything other than working urgent

>> guest >> caller: yes, the pentagon. and when he was on the other side of the pentagon everything that we had taken place and they believed he had something to do with it. >> host: why don't you follow up what was his response and how did 9/11 affect donald rumsfeld both personally and from the policy point of view? >> guest: i had a very profound effect on rumsfeld. rumsfeld was on the other side of the pentagon from where the american airlines flight had hit on september 11, and his immediate response was to run outside the building to see what happened and he spent a few minutes actually helping trying to deal with victims and so long before running back into the building and joining other top administration officials and planning their response to the disaster. he, like other top officials of the bush out ministration of course never forgot that day and gave him more than anything and even greater sense of urgency than he had before that date in terms of trying and to effect change in the u.s. military. he came into

and then left the pentagon on the 11th of april, 2003. this was days after the statute of sitcoaddam fell in baghdad. one week later, i was standing in an air strike area. i stood facing this man. he was in his 60s, may be older. his fingernails were really worn down. he had brown hands. he told me how two families were wiped out. his children and grandchildren were killed. his son was a doctor, his wife was a doctor. that was a difficult moment. but it was also a moment where i knew i had done the right thing. in coming to human-rights watch, i could help to tell the story of those people about what happened to them treated i could look to assess whether the geneva conventions were being followed by all parties of the conflict. that is what it comes down to, what we do at human rights watch. let me tell you a little bit about how that work happens. at human rights watch, we have about 270 people. we work in about 80 nations worldwide. we are split up into different ways. -- we're split up in two different ways. we have the regional divis

working with congress and the pentagon. i think the president will address this in remarks later today. pardon me? no. again, in order to have a solution, this is going to have to be done legislatively. >> one more question, quickly on the d.c. issue -- why hasn't the president changed his license plates on the presidential limousine? is he going to change them to the taxation without representation license plates? >> the president is not -- the president is committed to changing the status of the district of columbia. i would ask you to arrest people in washington whether they would like to have that status change or the symbolism screwed onto the back of a limousine. yes, sir. cracks the president -- >> the president has a pretty warm relationship with the colombian president. do you expect the president to

and they included his deputy, paul wolfowitz, the chief of the top civilian policy official at the pentagon, doug feith but rumsfeld himself is not a new conservative. many of his views may overlap. they do depart one critical area which is the notion of spreading democracy and around the world. rumsfeld is always very uncomfortable with that notion particularly as a rationale going to war against iraq and argued to try to keep it out of some of the rhetoric justifying the invasion. he wasn't particularly successful. the white house embraced that notion along with other rationale they offered involving weapons of mass destruction and so on but when i press rumsfeld and why it was he ended up so surrounded by neocons and he didn't have a very convincing answer to that but he didn't seem to me as if it was exactly a strategy on his part. he tended to explain it as a result of him taking the advice of white house officials in the choice of wolfowitz and then wolfowitz in turn bringing doug feith on board and so on. >> host: how acted mr. wolfowitz and donald rumsfeld go back? >> guest: they we

members of the neo-conservative community including his deputy, the chief of policy positions at the pentagon but he himself is not a neo- conservative. many of his views overlap. they depart -- that is in one critical area which is the notion of spreading democracy around the world. he was always uncomfortable with that notion, particularly as a rationale for going to war against iraq. he argued to keep it out of frederick just find the invasion. he was not successful. the white house -- to keep it out of the rhetoric just a fine condition. the white house embrace their rhetoric along with weapons of mass destruction. i questioned him on why he was so surrounded with new kinneocod he had no convincing answer. but it did not seem to me as if it were a strategy on his part he explained it as the result of his taking the advice of white house officials and the choice of wolfowitz, and then dave, and so on. guest: he, the quebec quite a few years. they had served together on various groups and commissions. -- they went back quite a few years. host: here is chicago on the independent line. caller

they say in certain reports he was on the other side -- of the pentagon. when he was on the other side of the pentagon everything had taken place. they believed he probably had something to do with it. host: what was his response that day and how did 9/11 affecting both personally and from a policy point of view? guest: i guest: it had a profound effect on him. he was on the other side of the pentagon from where the american airlines plane hit. his immediate response was to run outside the building to see what happened. he spent a few minutes helping, trying to deal with the victims, and so on before running back into the building and joining the other top administration officials in planning the response to the disaster. he never forgot that they, like other top officials in the administration. it gave him an even greater sense of urgency than he had before that date in terms of trying to effect change in the military. he came into the job as secretary with the main assignment from george bush to transform the military. he was pushing for that before 9/11.

he thinks rumsfeld is hard charging style at the pentagon was just what was needed to bring about change. >> host: here are a couple of more calls. murphysboro tennessee, michael on the republican line. >> caller: i was just going to ask your guest if he had never heard-- i'm going to back to march of 2003 when the war began where cantor you had inspectors on the ground like we dad-- did they ever start a war like this? i remember well for one, where they shot the austrian guy and the austrians demanded to go to serbia to look for the killers are the conspirators and that was the reason austria started the war because serbia would not let them go in to look for the assassin of the student. >> host: michael, we'll get a response. >> guest: well, they generally believed there were going to be weapons of mass destruction. i don't think there were inventing that rationale. and come on one of rumsfeld passmore embarrassing moments was even a couple of months into the war, where he was insisting that they knew where the weapons of mass destruction wear and it was just a matter of time before t

in the past our relationship with the pentagon has been one of openness and trying to work together as a team. the armed services committee has always been a very bipartisan committee who worked well together. we have always tried to have a win-win kind of situation. both between the parties but also between the legislative branch and the pentagon. unfortunately these nondisclosure statements have a tendency we are concerned with muzzling our admirals and generals from preventing them from giving us data we need to be able to do our job. this amendment is being brought also by the gentleman from california, mr. forbes, and i would yield to him two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for two minutes. mr. forbes: thank you, mr. chairman. if we don't listen to anything else in this debate, we need to pause a moment and listen to what's happening right now. just a couple moments ago missile defense we heard, quote, unless you have oversight you should not spend money on missile defense or other platforms. and yet the majority and this administration fights us ever

what i think most people recognize will take some time to do, working with both the congress and the pentagon. i think the president will address this during his remarks later today. >> [inaudible] >> no. but in order to have that in during solution, this will have to be done legislatively. >> why hasn't the president changed his license plates on the presidential limousine? >> i think rather than change the logo around a license plate, the president is committed instead to changing the status of the district of columbia. >> but it is a symbol that a lot of people look at. >> i guess i would ask you to ask people in washington if it would like their status changed for the symbolism screwed on the back of a limousine. >> the previous president had a pretty good relationship with the colombian president. do you expect the new president to have -- >> i think today's meeting will mark the continued strong relationship between the united states and colombia. we hope that the meeting represents a deeper cooperation with an important ally. but i think part of that cooperation, part of that friendshi

i was on capitol hill, got back to the pentagon, we had the world trade center and the pentagon had been hit, so three of the occurrences that they had happened, the fourth had not happened, flight 93. it was known to be hijacked and fought to be heading for washington d.c.. what dothought to be heading fo washington d.c.. what do you do about this? we went to get permission to shoot it down, you're shooting down an airliner with americans on it, probably people from other countries as well, innocent men, women and children. is not a good solution because you only shoot it down if you know it is going to be a threat to something on the ground like the u.s. capitol or the white house, because more people will be killed if it crashes and to those objects but at the same time, should an airplane down over washington d.c. there will be debris. this is a terrible solution, a terrible solution, but it was the only one at our disposal and st. goodness we didn't have to use that. it is much better, as i will do later today, go to the airport, take off your shoes, take off your jacket and put

he was involved in the pentagon papers case. so the kind of discussions we had at our dinner table greing up ranged from lenny bruces right to offend to the nazi's right to march in a suburb. so, really, this is something that's been with me for a long time. and i made it for h.b.o., and sheila, who is the head of documentaries said to me one day when my father was representing done eye muss for his wrongful representation lawsuit, why don't i look into making a film. and i think the time was now because during wartime and when the nation feels its national security is threatened, it's a time when there's a push toward conformity in speech. and this was a time, what we saw over the country in high schools, plays about the iraq war being banned, university professors coming under fire for their controversial views. so it seemed the right time to take stalk of the free speech in america. >> what have you learned from history and then moved it forward to present day. expand a little more on what you think the current state of free s

i then left the pentagon on the 11th of april of 2003.his was days after the statue of saddam fell in baghdad. and in all honesty, a week later, i was standing in a crater in basra in an air strike in which we had targeted chemical ali because of his gassing of the kurds in 1988 and i stood facing this man. he was in his 60s, i guess, maybe older, with fingernails just really worn down and browned hands. and he told me how two families had been wiped out in that air strike. and his kids were killed and his grandchildren were killed, and he was a doctor. his son was a doctor. his wife was a doctor. and on and on. and that was a difficult moment, but it was also a moment for me where i knew i had done the right thing in coming to human rights watch i could help to tell the story for those people about what had happened to them and try to look and assess whether or not the geneva conventions were being followed by all parties to a conflict. and that's really what it comes down what we do at human rights watch in the emergencies division and

. >> host: bradley graham covered the pentagon for the "washington post" for many years and now a book that goes on sale today on donald rumsfeld, "by his own rules: the ambitions, successes and ultimate failures of donald rumsfeld." how did donald rumsfeld viewed the role of government official of public service? >> guest: he was a very interesting public service from a very young age, he was inspired in college senior year

we have a new president who has talked about change presumably to the pentagon. so far we are getting none of that. i admire secretary gates for the spine he showed in firing 3 people who desperately needed to be fired. still the wrong number of digits in the people who need to be fired, but he also brought on to his team voices of the past that didn't just tolerate the kinds of -- he fostered a new currency. this is not going to bring the change we need. they're about to make a decision to make everything work. the cost, the aging, all of it worse. they're going to make a compromise on the f-22, it seems if what i read in the papers is correct. we are headed straight -- not taking advantage of this historic opportunity to do things right. >> if i could follow up, ok, but where do you find the interest to drive them to more rational, intelligent decisions? >> the ads should be running in the washington post. not the hundred thousand jobs you would lose if you didn't build the f-22. they claim it took 100,000 jobs to build 184 airplanes. >> we haven't built those y

where are they today in the pentagon? >> there aren't any. >> you look at the 1983 cover story, and it says the pentagon undergrad. he is out there from the political engineering, precisely what happened with that and the consequent of the. generationally, are there a few boys is there, how can we amplify them wax is there a way to do that? is there a way to send grassley back? >> i haven't given up hope yet. i have proof of the. i talk on the cover year of 13 pentagon insiders and others who produce this book. if you look at the bios about the author section there are only 12 bios there. 13 is not. there still a lot of people. a lot more than that one, given the proper literature, will be happy to do the right thing work a trade. so i see it as a question of the leaders that we as citizens that the congress confirms and so every time there is a failure >> and not something that they can address. even though the military belongs to them it's our military. there's been a debate outside of work done by cgi and veterans group

about getting rid of the waste in the pentagon. we won't do it to pay this. instead, we'll charge it to our kids because we don't have the guts to stand up and make the priority selections that we need to make. i believe in a strong defense, but i also know what the waste is in the pentagon, and the fact that we won't go after all this waste. you know, we'll have a census that's going to cost two and a half times what the last census costs and we won't go after that. we have $80 billion, they say $72, but i'm talking fraud and medicare alone. we won't go after that $72 billion? it's well in excess of that as far as gao is concerned. we won't go after that to pay for this? no. we'll just let the $72 billion go keep going on right out the door and charge $80 billion to our brand kids. we won't make the hard choices every family in america is making today. this is something about prevention, but you're talking about infrastructure here. you're not talking about the real interaction between physicians and patients and television adverti

so how will the pentagon response to that idea? >> i don't know what the precise response will be in a letter form from secretary to senator inouye or if there will be a call. allah can tell you is, when this question has come up in the past and frankly, it came up in the secretaries polis side with the japanese defense minister when we were in singapore. the answer has always been the same. right now there is legislation, there is a lot, the ob of amendment which prevents us from exporting that technology to any one. so, as good an ally is japan is and as much as we may like to provide that capability to allies such as japan, the fact is it is prevented, were prevented from doing so according to the ob amendment so unless there's some sort of legislative remedy to this, unless it will repeal, our hands are tied on this issue. that is why the secretary made the further point to his japanese counterpart that, that the of 35 is the plane which we are pursuing and it plain that we would recommend the japanese focus their efforts in ter

economy was electronics based for that, the pentagon served as good cover. in recent years, if you look at government spending, it's shifting more towards the health institutions of the government. that's a reflection of the fact that the cutting edge of the economy is becoming more biology-based. that includes computers, the internet, satellites, most of the rest of the i.t. revolution that finally exploded in the late '90s in a tech bubble but also much else. civilian aircraft, advanced machine tools, pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, and a lot more. the crucial role of the state in economic development should be kept in mind when we read these days dire warnings about government intervention in the financial system after private management has once again driven it to ruins. at this time an unusually severe crisis and one that harms the rich, not just the poor so it merits concern. it's also worth recalling that large state intervention of the economy is nothing new. on the contrary, it's always been a central factor in economic development. there's no time t

there is not a lot of support for that weapons program at the pentagon. it is the determination that they have made going forward that it is not a weapons system they believe should be a priority for this country and the threats that it faces moving forward. the president -- our administration has set up a policy that said if that funding for another aircraft second engine were in the legislation, senior advisers at the white house and the secretary of defense would advocate or veto that, in that is our position. >> five years ago, when the president of haiti was overthrown by the military, the previous commission recognized the new government by the chief justice because under the haitian constitution, he was next in this succession. now with the president leaving honduras, the congress elected their president. >> that is one way of putting it. >> ousted. they elected their president as the new president to the country, which is in accordance of honduran lot. why doesn't the admonition simply follow the president? >> i think what we saw was a severe disru

>> what is the pentagon's assessment of the success that pakistan armies have had? >> i think it's been three, four weeks now or longer, and i think i spoke about that three weeks ago and we were a week into it then. it's been five weeks since this operation is underway. i think we are greatly heartened by the fact it's gone on as long as it. one key thing we were looking for in terms of pakistan military operations is sustainability. clearly this operation is sustained. and in doing so i think they have enjoyed great success. so we are pleased. we are encouraged. and we are hoping that the offense continues to the point that the militants in this region are defeated. and we are working with the pakistanis to provide them with whatever they need, wherein reason, to ultimately prevail. >> do you approve for the pac army to move into al-qaeda. do you think they are willing to do that? >> i won't get into those threats, where they exist, i would be encouraging of the pakistan military to take it to them, head on, and defeating them. but i won't go through a strategy, t

and i ask again, are no fiscal conservatives at the pentagon? in fact, we've turned the defense department primarily into the department of foreign aid now, and i believe very strongly in national defense. but we cannot afford to run the whole world and we cannot afford to have the department of defense be the department of foreign aid. all of this comes at a -- not long after we have raised our national debt limit to over $13 trillion. nobody can comprehend a figure like that. no one. that is an astounding figure. and yet on top of this debt that we already have, the president's budget in this year and the next two years will add over $4 trillion of debt to that debt? $4 trillion in the next year and two. $4 trillion added to our national debt. and then this year if i had told people two or three years ago that we would have a budget this year of $3,600,000,000,000 , nobody would believe that. they would have thought i was ridiculous or crazy in saying that. i used to say, my colleagues, that it was terrible what we were doing to our children an

were trying to itll back but it was after that that you planted the bombs in the capital and the pentagon. >> i didn't, the organization took credit for it. those were symbolic actions. they were designed to be in the middle of the night to be understood around the world, ndich they were instantly. they do need a communique to say what or why, and they heard no one. i am not going to defend them. in today's world is indefensible but they were not terrorist actions. >> host: what do you do today? what is your day job? >> guest: i teach at northwestern law school, i had the benefit of teaching human rights and children's rights for almost 18 years. o direct the family justice anter which is an organization, clinical program so law students and social work students work with our lawyers, lawyers who represent kids every day, kids talked with crime, kids pushed out of school, 0 tolerance policies and immigrant kids seeking asylum. m host: what is your relationship to bill ayers? >> guest: he is my best friend, my partner, i adore him. he makes me laugh. >> host: is your husband? >> guest: it

we know that the media is run by the pentagon, so who's to say there were not over their spying? st: 84 the comment. you can also send this in e- mail. -- thank you for your comment. north korea has a population of more than 22 million people. they're not going to attack anyone. they're putting its chest, looking for reactions. the previous caller was talking about 1 ton of. here is "roll-call" this morning. on may 20, 50 members of the senate democratic conference work on the record as nimbys when it comes to bringing prisoners from guantanamo bay to the u.s. but once the president presents his plan mid-summer and had to close it, this democrats will probably be asked to reverse their stance. it is an issue that many in the party see as politically perilous. florida, a republican caller. caller: what were the circumstances? i have been following this, but what were the circumstances they got caught? there were on north korea's property? what do they expect? who do they think they're bucking up against? these are people who are crazy, they are nuts. i was in korea 13 months. in 19

the dumbest generation". .. d.c. is 1 hour and 50 minutes. >> welcome to this fantastic event about a called "america's defense meltdown: pentagon reform for president obama and the new congress". i am danielle brian, executive director of the project on government oversight. i want to thank the 5 organizations that are sponsoring this event, the most important is the constitutional government, where we are -- the organizational home, the home of the recently passed stewart mott, the center for defense information, which winslow t. wheeler is a representative well, as well as drew, packages of common sense, with the executive director and newest member to our coalition, helen. the interview for policy studies, the executive director, these are a range of organizations who believe in the integrity of government. you couldn't have a better panel of people representing how to fix the american defense system. the 3 people behind us -- the first behind me, the editor of the book, winslow t. wheeler, he is currently the center of defense information, has a fantastic history as the only person to work in congress simultaneously for a democrat and

caller: to the american people in total budgets for all the military, the pentagon, what did those total? politicians often talk about public service but yet the revolving door that these people and at the staff of the politicians and up going to work directly or indirectly for these military suppliers. the top public service all the time but the fact is it is primarily for personal gain. this is the problem in this country. thank you. guest: the defense budget now is over .5 trillion dollars and continues to rise through this decade. even not counting the cost of the war. and the war in afghanistan and the war on terrorism all of which have added billions of dollars. as for the revolving door, i don't think it is the reason for the rise in defense spending, however. host: he transition the easily between public service and private business bega. guest: it is still possible to do that. bertran to put additional controls about that. -- they are trying to put additional controls. look, if it is a technical area experience counts. i don't think we want to completely close the door on those

and he entered the pentagon under george bush age 68 with a lifetime accomplishment. he is the only person to get a second shot at being secretary defense because he had been under president ford and had enormous potential, a lot of talent and much of the story in the book is how then he ran into trouble and was eventually compelled to resign six years later. in terms of the failures, failures to adjust to the changing conditions, failures in his relationships with the military, with congress, with colleagues in the administration and ultimately leadership. it's a tough book. i do try to be nuanced and balanced. >> host: used for the book with the end of his career as the secretary defense in december of 2006 and his resignation. we showed you was a little of the farewell ceremony before the trips. why did you start at the end? >> i think that was one of the moments of his life that hadn't been fully

some fear the pentagons ability to develop cyber warfare may forge partner ships with the private sector. and with governments and businesses a broad. in the cyber domain according to those. kevin chilton of strategic command said in a meeting last month with reporters,nsa had unique abilities to inform the military of threats and a ver theirs intent and to prepare for attack and to prepare for attack and a tack. every day unseen operators using software are using millions of scans that handled 56 teara bytes of data a day and used by millions of military and civilian personnel. that's in the "washington post" and there's also a story looking at - i've lost that story. oh, the associated press. may have heard in light of several news agencies being closed to independent ves gaytive journalism. these are usually, while the associated press decides to show some of the stories as far as journalism starting july first, they will deliver work by the center for republic integrity, the center for ves gaytive report together 1500 american newspapers that are free to public the and publish the ma

holt: the communication you speak of came from a mid level member of the pentagon. the only formal statement comes from the welsh report, i quoted from earlier, which said, we endorse the use of video recordings in all camps for all interrogations. perhaps this mid level official at the pentagon has not received the word that currently there are being developed improved procedures for detention and interrogation in this new administration. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: thank you, mr. chairman. the lieutenant colonel is a high-ranking field officer and i think the record as he stated stands for itself. he's a legislative officer with the department. lieutenant colonel will not state on the record something that opposes his higher rank. i think we all know that. with that i encourage all of us to defeat this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. in the opinion of t

one of the things one learns at the pentagon is meetings are supposed to start and stop on time. >> i hope this question does not disappoint you. we traditionally think of warm places when we think of your aior. you outline the beginning of your strategy. as you are looking up 20 years, to the north of your aor, the bering strait, bering sea, and thinking presence and not talking submarines. how much did the arctic feature in your thinking in your formulation strategy? >> it is a terrific question. the shortest answer is it did not figure much, but we did not ignore it. there are all manner of the interesting aspects to the global warming, if that is what is really happening. as there is an unmistakable evidence of increased access to be number passage. it you come up here, what military command is responsible? visit northern command? i could have made a pretty compelling case two and a half or three years ago. is it pacific command? you bet. is it european command? and what about canada? is it their water? how do we work through the policy challenges attended to military operations o

>> again, i would ask that you direct that question to the pentagon. there are roughly 135,000 u.s. troops in the country. but as for their particular deployment, i'd direct that the to the pentagon. >> can i just make sure i got this straight. when you were asked about the syrian fighters coming into iraq, have you actually seen a diminishing of that number or is it not yet clear? >> i think it's too soon to gauge the numbers except to assure you that we track this issue very closely. and compared to say a year ago, there is a substantial -- there are fewer such people coming over. now, whether there are fewer coming over because they understand the consequence of unlawful crossing of the border is greater now than it might have been in the past, that's hard to say. but the specific question had to do with the recent discussions with syrian authorities and whether there is a change in the flow at this point and i think in that case it's a little too soon to say. >> that was since last weekend, right? >> the discussions with syria were just last week, yes. so it is obviously a little

you see the case of the pentagon papers way before the internet. this was when the u.s. government was in vietnam and the secretary of defense says, decides to commission a study saying why are we in vietnam and that's the pentagon papers, sort of an interesting thing that the secretary of defense has to commission a study to find out why we are in the war. well, those papers got out, obama deciding to not release these torture photos which was, again, i think not a great decision for free speech, those sort of will get out. so i think what we find is that government transparency is more important than anything else and that especially given the technologies today things wirl get out so the government has really an obligation to be transparent. >> educated at brown university, liz garbus has done several document tear ris, including "coma,," also produced specials. she's in new york where she's getting ready to premiere "shouting fire: stories from the edge of free speech," and that's tomorrow night, monday, 9:00, hbo. greensboro, north carolina. sorry race on the line.

contractor's higher all the retired admiral and generals and called for the revolving door of the pentagon but somebody is going to have to -- i don't think that we can just keep on wasting and blowing money in the way that we are doing. the only question i have, you say at one point in your testimony there are a number of new projects in the pipeline and he mentioned this 30 million-dollar facility. how many, rough guess, how many other new projects are going on? >> i can't answer that because that is the immediate action, we are doing the analysis. we know it's $2 billion. we want to go out and touch those projects to see if they make sense. that's why you need people in theater. it just happened that this was shared when we happened to visit that base and you know, a couple hundred bases in iraq we visited three or four of them and there is obviously the need to do the analysis and then go out and look at the high dollar items and ask those questions does this make sense with the drawdown of iraq. >> so do you mean you from a visit to three or four and there are hundreds of basis so is

nothing is being done, and there is i sometimes wonder if there are any fiscal conservatives at the pentagon according to the congressional research service we are now spending and we had in the regular budget, the supplemental bills and we are getting ready to vote on another supplemental bill within either this week or a few days from now, and in the emergency appropriations and all the money they throw into the omnibus we are spending more on defense than all the other nations of the world combined and it seems to me that, you know, a lot of it is generatedbs higher all the retired admiral and generals and called for the revolving door of the pentagon but somebody is going to have to -- i don't think that we can just keep on wasting and blowing money in the way that we are doing. the only question i have, you say at one point in your testimony there are a number of new projects in the pipeline and he mentioned this 30 million-dollar facility. how many, rough guess, how many other new projects are going on? >> i can't answer that because that is the immediate action, we are doing the analy

that's several hundred more than the pentagon. i'm not sure the people would say for the pentagon, of all the pride we have for our sole soldiers, airmen, marines, i doubt people would say that's the model of economic efficiency. would they say the social security run by the federal government is the best investment system? would they -- pick pic a system the federal government runs and it's hardly seen as the best. we know we have a lot of dedicated employees there, oftentimes they are saddled and handcuffed by regulations. we have a system that is still after all these years, medicaid that has been around since 1960's, so fraught with inefficiency it invites waste, fraud, and abuse. it has not been revamped. an article that appeared in the "the new england journal of medicine" a couple weeks ago was saying, we've got to fix these systems first, otherwise, i go back to the art youicle, providing health care is like building a house. the task requires experts, expensive equipment and materials and a huge amount of coordination. ima

. >> admiral, chris with inside the pentagon. >> hi, chris. >> as the defense department does its quaudrenle defense review what priorities are you advocating for? >> a quadrennial defense review we were just in town two weeks ago talking about this. it is an important effort as many of you know. i'm pleased to report that combatant commanders have a larger say-so than my experience in the past in this -- in the formulation of this quadrennial defense review. it's a huge challenge for the department. as you would anticipate. with a space review, a nuclear posture review ongoing and several other not to mention the annual budget challenges, opportunities, if you will. so it's a -- we're more active in the formulation of the review. you know, we submit an integrated priority list. i mean, this will be mind-numbing for a lot of you but an ipl and we have 10 items on our integrated priority list. these are issues where we would prefer a little more funding a little more emphasis, a little more input or a little more output from the department of defense on those priority issues of ours and we su

is not favorable, the pentagon has indicated that they are aware of the counterinsurgency efforts that the pakistan military's engaging in and they're satisfied with the structure of this legislation that would help them continue to fight terrorism. we can work out some of the kinks, but are we going to wait while people are suffering? this legislation also has a recognition that we're establishing a new relationship with pakistan and the united states, a friendship relationship. we're acknowledging the recent efforts of the pakistan military and swat, and we are also suggesting that if there are changes in pakistan we will reconsider some of the requirements or some of the struck ures that we put in place. i would also say to my colleagues that i hope the republicans who are so interested in pakistan would be interested in making sure the international monetary fund is funded like the president would like it to be and that they would join in that support because they're so strongly in support of pakistan, which got money from it in the last year. in addition, there are issues dealing

>> no, there is not a lot of support for that weapons program at the pentagon. the determination they made in going forward, that is not a weapon system they believe should be a priority moving forward. our administration set out a statement of administration policy that said that funding and funding for other aircraft were in legislation, that senior advisers at the white house would advocate a veto of that. >> five years ago, when president aristide of haiti was overthrown by the military, the previous administration recognized a new government by the chief justice. under the haitian constitution, he was an extensive section. -- next in secession. in honduras, their president is ousted. the new president is in accordance with honduran law. >> what we saw over the course of the week and was is the fear -- was a severe this function in a democratic norms. we haven't changed the recognition of who we believe is the president of the country. >> my other question is on the calls the president has made to members of congress as to cap and trade, is the promise to it

for instance, in 1942, the pentagon, the transfusions of black, when the united states was sent to the second world war, and at that time the director of the red cross in these islands, was charles view, very important scientist who had not invented the plasma but almost invented it because thanks to him it was possible to save millions of lives in the second world war, and so he was a director of this part of the red cross, and he said, i will not order these stupid order because block blood doesn't exist. there is not such a thing like a black black. and he was, of course, resigned. he resigned. but he was expelled. he was a scientist, very important, and he was black. he was black himself. so, he knew perfectly well what he was speaking about. and this is an history not very known here in the united states but it's important. >> host: the punchline of your story, because of story is in "mirrors" there's no such thing as black blood, all blood is red. which is total common sense and of course led to his being dismissed. one of the things that is remarkable about the we you tell these

obama is now the president and these are very recent for instance 1942, the pentagon prohibited, forbade the transfusions of black blood. when the united states was entering the second world war and at that time the director of the red cross -- who had not invented it was possible to save millions of lives in the second world war so he was the director of this part of the red cross and he said i will not obey the order because black blood doesn't exist. there is not such a thing like blood black. and he was of course resigned. he was expelled. he was black himself so he knew perfectly well what he was speaking about. and this is a story that is not very well known here in the united states but is important. >> host: in the punch line in your story there is no such thing as black blood, all blood is red which is total common sense and of course led to his being dismissed. one of the things that is remarkable about the way you tell the stories in how they have the structure very often of a joke and there is a lot of humor room, so i picked out one particular couple examples where i thought

approximately 10% of metro riders use the metro rail stations at the pentagon, capitol south and union station serving the military and the congress. in addition, metro's ability to move people quickly and safely in the event of terrorist attacks or natural disasters is critical. metro system was invaluable on september 11th, 2001, providing its importance to the federal government and the nation during the terrorist attacks of that tragic day. there is a clear federal responsibility to this system. metro is unique from any other major public transportation system across the country because it has no dedicated source of funding to pay for its operation and capital funding requirements. but we are close to resolving that issue. i was proud to work alongside with senator mikulski and senator webb and former senator john warner last year to pass the federal safety improvement act signed into law in october of 2008. this law authorizes $1.5 billion over 10 years in federal funds for metro's governing washington metropolitan area transit authority matched dollar for dollar by local jurisdic

in the pentagon papers case, the solicitor general or the supreme court that publication of the information which pose an immediate danger to national security. 18 years later they knowledge he had never seen any trace of a threat to national security from the publication of the intermission and admitted the principal concern is not with national security, but with government embarrassment. it is important to protect national security, and sometimes our courts have to balance the need for justice with considerations. congress has balanced these important demands. in the criminal context we enacted the classified information procedures act. in fisa that we set up procedures for the courts to look at sensitive materials. we can and should do the same in civil cases. our system of government have never lied with assurances at face value. presidents and officials have been known not to tell the truth on occasion. this is especially in the truth -- in their interest to concern -- to conceal something. in the words of the ninth circuit, the executive cannot be its own judge. to allow that is to a

guest: is his job to defend what the pentagon tells him to defend. the longest range are called intercontinental ballistic missiles, or icbm. we have no other defense other than those ground-based systems. a somewhat shorter missile would be called a ballistic missile. that is particularly a threat if, for instance, in the pacific, to an aircraft carrier or a fleet of ships, and they would be used perhaps by china to force us not to have ships close to taiwan, for instance. so the ballistic missile is also a type of threat, and we addressed those with a ship- based defensive missile, which comes off of our cruisers, but particularly a new breed of destroyer. the japanese also have destroyers, a defense against these ballistic missiles. it is important to stop ballistic missiles. that is being funded, so there originally was not any controversy there. we are saying it is not an either/or, but a both/and. host: next call, republican line. guescaller: we call ourselves te moose herder's. teddy roosevelt is our hero. the bull moose party of 1912. i have a

administration, whether it is those in the intelligence committee, which it community, those at the pentagoni think the president believes he has a great team. >> the health care coopt option. does he like it? is in a possible solution? >> i have not talked to him specifically about that. >> there was a discussion with the senators the other day. >> i was entertaining you are and was not in that meeting. i will take one more. margaret? i appreciate that. i will follow up with yoga, tatetr totr tots and -- yes. >> one on the supplemental, and one on iran. there was a point during the speech, he made a point not to say it directly by name, but over the point of last week, not to get involved in the early election process. i am wondering about that. did president obama feel that the bush administration erred? >> let me not comment on the previous administration except to say that we are certainly watching what is going on in that region of the world, watching the results of this election, but you're not going to see or hear as advocate with specificity for a certain candidate. a desire not for