last year the defense secretaryy was also ordered to serve as the pentagon's chief management officer. it also created the post of deputy chief management officer, a job filled by beth mcgrath who has 20 years of defense management experience. ms. mcgrath, thanks very much for joining us. >> thanks very much for having me. >> let's start out, you've been on the job for about a year, what have you accomplished and what do you hope to finish in the remainder of your term? >> i think that to your point about the congress establishing the role of chief management officer last year was very significant and really a highlight of some of the activities and statutory requirements they've levied on the defense department, really, since 2005, so i watched throughout that time frame more and more progress and a business pace towards achieving greater efficiencies and effectiveness and i would say entirely across the board from personal readiness types of activities to the way we acquire information technology, logistics management. it's really been quite significant, again, given the time and fo

dwlee deals with fund -- committee that deals with funding for the armed services which is the pentagon. but i suspect that after 9/11 there has been a hyped up intelligence source. my colleague porter gos who -- goss, who took over the c.i.a., i have talked to him. there's a heightened thought of what to do because of potential terrorism. >> have you heard about the n.s.a. we know about the warrantless eaves dropping and the flap over that. the president seems to not only successfully not been hurt by it, but he comes out a winner because the congress has come away from it because they don't want to appear soft on security. but the n.s.a., it is said, put cookies on those computers that inquierd into the n.s.a. have you heard anything about that? >> no, i know it's cookies are put on my computer all the time. it's not only cookies we had a bill dealing with the spyware and that has not passed. >> do you think that the federal government is doing enough with this new phenomenon where a person's identity cannot only be penetrated and exhausted but also stolen? >> i think the government d

to promote the war former military officers would get talking points directly from the pentagon than say them on the air no questions asked if answered the. gesture. that is needed retired u.s. generals talking points. in iraq ruled by the message yet needs to be a legend in iraq imagine iraq under control zarko you're talking point link iraq to iran i believe that iran is now the number one troublemaker in iraq that's bad enough but a lot of these pentagon pundits were making big money from defense contracts most of the t.v. and the radio military analysts have ties to military contractors people who could possibly be making money on the. most would consider that a potential conflict of interest maybe not even potential at the same time reporters who did ask hard questions were punished by the white house luckily their managers stood by them reporter jonathan landay covered the speech dick cheney gave in august two thousand and two to the veterans of foreign wars many of us are convinced that saddam hussein will acquire nuclear weapons fairly soon that was based on absolutely nothin

of people in the pentagon trying to shut me out of travel with the secretary of defense i was not allowed to have not been allowed. to trip pentagon trip since. that three years. the chill by white house correspondent. he had been trying to get on the vice president's plane in early two thousand and four there were some things that the vice president did like that we wrote. there was no. it's my belief that a lot of journalists did not ask hard questions. of this administration's policies particularly in the run up to the war. because they were afraid of losing access and having happen to them what happened to me and has happened to others an example of why media ownership matters to democracy for reporting. sheds light on the reasons why. they are being asked to go and risk life and limb and health and family and everything else then we're doing and if that displeases the secretary of defense if it just loses the vice president so be it. the biggest scandal of the bush administration is the story of reporters who protected their access to top officials first and put their responsibility

early in the pentagon the newsweek poll showed forty one percent of americans thought saddam hussein was directly terrorist attacks i don't think we ever should i know i didn't say that there was a direct connection between september eleventh and saddam hussein nobody's ever suggested get the attacks of september the eleventh were ordered by iraq no wonder the news media has lost the public trust they want to make policy choices based on truth and what i heard is that people didn't really quite feel that the mainstream media in the media as we most of us experience. was truth telling group fairness and accuracy in reporting did a. study of two weeks around february fifth two thousand and three right before the invasion before major nightly newscasts m.t.c. a.b.c. c.b.s. and p.b.s. news hour with jim lehrer there were three hundred ninety three interviews down around war only three were that they were leaders three of almost four hundred when half the population was supposed to be invasion that is no longer in the mainstream media that's an extreme. in the drums for war a recent new y

this is what some of the critics in the pentagon and other people said. how do you make this work? let me give a few examples from the book on how you make it work. again, these things are happening in the field as we write in the book, many of these things, the innovations are coming from the young military officials, officers, young analysts, people solving problems on the ground, not directed necessarily from washington or the higher headquarters from some place. let's take the example of thinking about deterrence in networks as thom mentioned. this is important because, again, the idea that you can have on the one end of the spectrum, suicide bombers, most of them are not detourble. they think they'll get rewards, no use in going after them. the government tried as we write about to make secret efforts to get to him through his family with secret messages. he never responded. the people in the middle that thom talked about, these enablers, these supporters, people like the lolo gist tigses, the financiers, the volunteers, people they rely upon, but they are not driven by the ide

. >> reporter: playing in the grass where flight 77 hit the pentagon, these puppies hardly look like the front line in the fight against terrorism. they are the tsa's future dogs. >> they have all the raw potential. we do it by good breeding. >> reporter: the tsa puppy program was launched after 9/11. every puppy is named after a victim of the terrorist attack. these two are the last names of a port authority manager and fbi agent both killed at the world trade center. their special names are tattooed inside their ear. it's also a gesture that touches the relatives. lisa met the puppy named for her husband that was killed inside the pentagon. >> it seems like this puppy has completed a circle for my family. >> reporter: scott manages the program in san antonio. >> as soon as they are born, we expose them to the different odors they are going to be looking for. >> reporter: formal training doesn't begin until they are a year old. they make promising recruitinre. >> a dog that likes it -- >> reporter: puppies that make the cut go on in a bomb career. train stations and passenger planes.

barbara starr working your sources at the pentagon and reza in islamabad. barbara, let's start with you. is some sort of military action being discussed here? >> at this point, kyra, the answer is no. look, the pentagon always says all options are on the table. that is the standard language. but all of our sources are indicating there is no indication of that yet. it would come, of course, at the direction of the president. one of the key problems is, if you want to do military action, what would you strike? what would your targets be? what you're talking about the revolutionary guard core, the group of people that make up the most militant wing of the iranian military. what they're still trying to pin down is whether this plot actually went beyond them. did it really go all the way to the top to president mahmoud ahmadinejad and to iran supreme leader. these are some of the key intelligence questions on the table. right now, however, they are sticking with sanctions, financial sanctions and the possibility of taking this to the u.n. security council. look f

given that, i think it is essential for the pentagon and the u.s. government writ large to develop a coherent long-term strategy for deciding what pieces of the defense industrial base are really going to be important going forward over the next several decades, and make some real strategic choices. we talked in the report of six or seven or eight major areas which we think should be invested in preferentially. we do not give you or suggest a list of what those are. but we think if you're going to have the strategy in so far as strategy is about choice, that you are going to have to focus on capability areas that are probably in the single digits. at the end was 75 for 123 most important things you just don't have a strategy, and it's very difficult given the interest of the various here on the hill and congress the various services and constituencies and industry to not end up with a very large list, so i think making that choice going forward is really critical. let me just say that it's not easy. you need to start with the challenges that we face

we have vividly remember the horrific sides of the world trade center in new york, at the pentagon in virginia, and at the crash site in pennsylvania. hundreds of those who perished where people sworn to serve and protect. 343 firefighters, 50 law enforcement officers, 37 from the port authority pd, and others from new york pd. we each remember that day. we remember the tragedy we face as a nation under attack. we also remember how we came together a san franciscans, neighbors, and partners. the city came together as a family to ensure that all those were safe and that our loved ones were free from harm. one of the most important ways to honor the memory of the innocent victims is to continue to strengthen our collective effort, to maintain vigilance, to enhance our preparedness, response, and recovery efforts. it is a shared responsibility. we all play a role in being resilienct neighborhoods, citie, and states that are a foundation for a strong nation. we can accomplish much more when we work together. over the last decade, incredible progress has been made in integrating collaborat

>> this is what some of the critics and the pentagon and other people were saying. how do you make this work? let me give you a few examples from our book and again a lot of things things are happening in the fields as we write in this book. many of these things the innovations are coming from the young military officials officers, young analyst, people who are trying to solve problems on the ground, not in direct from washington or higher headquarters. so let's take this example of thinking about deterrence and networks as thom it mentioned before. this idea of networks is really important because again, the idea that you can have on one end of the spectrum suicide bombers, probably most of them are not deterrable. although the government tried as we fight about in the secret efforts after the 9/11 attacks to get to him through his family with secret messages. he never responded that the people in the middle that thom talked about, these enablers, the supporters, these are people like the logisticians, the gunrunners, the financiers, these are people in the network

true driven into the world trade center towers, one into the pentagon. at was the threat that people were worried about? it was a concern that a couple of the ten possible u.s. citizens have gone back into the country and were going to carry out a truck bomb. so the scale is quite different. what we argue in our book her, however, is that this country's starting with the president on its way down to the congress has not prepared the american public for what we believe will be another attack. we don't know what format will be. the creativity of these lawmakers up there now, it could come in the form of another airplane strike. could come in the radicalization of an individual as we saw at fort hood, texas, where an army major picked up an automatic rifle and shot his colleagues. but what this country has not done, the country's political leaders have not started talking about how the next attack will come and have the country needs to be more resilient. and we don't mean to say resilience in the form of rebuilding. all this is all the images of crown zero

you pass fairfax county parkway making your way on to 395 at duke, and as you make your way past the pentagon, seeing congestion in the hov lanes there. the 14th street bridge is

jennifer griffin with the news, she's live at the pentagon. r an impasse about this troop immunity deal. >> in fact, the defense secretary today saying that there is no impasse. it certainly looks like an impasse, but he pushed back on that notion that it's too late for the iraqis to ask zoetropes zoetropes -- u.s. troops to stay. >> at the present time, i'm not discouraged because we're still in negotiations with the iraqis. >> a top iraqi official, spokesman said to us this weekend that the issue of immunity, they are not going to bend on, that all the iraqi forces agree the forces would not be immune and that a deal breaker for the pentagon. >> trace: now you have some on capitol hill who are already saying the obama administration may have waited too long to cut a deal. >> that's right. senator john mccain accused the administration of daddling, saying they took too long to begin negotiations. here is what he had to say. >> we could have negotiated an agreement. we didn't. we had an ambassador there prior to this one that had no experience.

>> jim miklaszewski at the pentagon tonight. thank you, jim. >>> let's bring chuck todd back at the white house. it won't be lost on people that we are just one year ahead of a presidential election right now. >> reporter: that's right. the president himself brought up the campaign promise on this. you've got to remember the history of the obama candidacy began with his opposition to the iraq war. it's a central promise and something the white house today continues to emphasize. at the same time they believe they, overall, have a good story to tell about their national security record. they lump this in with the promise to start drawing down troops in afghanistan while at the same time as an adviser said today he's not bound by ideology and he'll go after security threats. that's why they have gotten bin laden. that's why they were able to participate in the coalition that eventually got gadhafi and of course they got al-awlaki in yemen. so they believe the story they have to tell going into the election year is a good one on the

and jennifer has this news live for us from the pentagon this afternoon. s to be, is there an impasse here? it feels like it. >>reporter: it looks that way if you listen to what the iraqi officials told thus weekend when the report surfaced they said they, that they essentially would not give immunity to any u.s. troops that stay. that is a dealbreaker we know for the pentagon, but, when we asked secretary panetta a few minutes ago on the steps of the pentagon about whether they hit an impasse he said, no, they are still negotiating and no one is willing to call it an impasse at the pentagon but back in this story, admiral mullen then the chairman of the joint chiefs says it is a physics problem, you bring 40,000 troops home you have to know if you are leaving some behind. right now it looks like they are on a path to bring them home. >>shepard: something on capitol hill or accusing the administration of delaying this. >>reporter: they are saying, according to senator john mccain on the senate armed services committee and he is accusing the administration o

and a spontaneous rendition of god bless america the broke out in the pentagon cafeteria the presidentspoke to reporters. one member of the press corps asked questions on everyone's mind. do you want bin laden dead? president bush replied and in his texas drawl which i won't imitate, i want justice. there is an old poster out west as i recall that said wanted dead or alive. for the president supporters which at the time seemingly are impossible now but at the time included a large majority of americans a statement was a symbol of american resilience and swagger on the face of unspeakable tragedy. for the president's critics as the war on terror drag on in afghanistan especially in iraq the remark would calm to epitomize bush's simplistic cowboy diplomacy. even president bush himself would eventually express regret over his choice of words that day. either way it was an iconic moment in the nascent war on terror. with those four words president bush inextricably linked the conflict in the public's mind with the fate of one man, osama bin laden. in reality the statement was mr. maddock a

could it be that the law keeping in the pentagon right after nine eleven and encouraging us to go to war we were just totally playing into the hands of been log i mean that we just had played as suckers for ten years i i'm not sure i accept that premise i don't believe that bin laden wanted us to go to war i think that's a convenient story that was developed. in the aftermath of what actually happened i think you wanted to strike a blow at america and he did that. and may have thought that we were too weak to go to war or we'd pass it off like we parody of those are occasions he would bleed us to death with a war well i know what he says but he says a lot of things that and also i don't think that are locking necessarily well into the pentagon and was pushing for war in fact at the time at least his public he stated views were that the united states should not retaliate by going to war over the deaths of civilians here. he was somewhat of a moderate then the bush administration just didn't have a map of who the muslim community know anything about so most of the most of the burden of

in almost two decades as a washington journalist, doug has covered the pentagon, congress, the state department, the white house, and the cia. from 1994 to 2007, he served in "time" magazine's washington bureau first as a correspondent, then as a senior correspondent. he's also served as diplomatic correspondent traveling throughout europe, asia, and the middle east as well as the persian gulf in pursuit of stories. he has carry the out extensive coverage of the middle east peace negotiations and the wars in iraq. before coming to "time" magazine, he was a correspondent for "newsweek" reporting on the gulf war. he was born in norfolk, virginia, studied at wake forest university, and did graduate work in urban affair at the university at north carolina at char lot. before joining news week, hefuls a legislative assistant on the staffs of senator william proxmyer and representative. he's now a defense analyst for bloomberg government. among the many, many books, a number of them best sellers are "the commandos" "air warriors mpt the inside story of the making of a navy pilot." "big red

jennifer griffin has been following this all along for us, they joins me live from the pentagon. what is the word from the pentagon this morning on all of this, jennifer? >> reporter: martha, neither u.s. defense officials or intelligence officials at this point can confirm that qaddafi has been either captured or killed but we can confirm from nato officials that nato war planes did drop bombs on two vehicles that were loyal to qaddafi forces, they were moving around sirte at the time. it's not clear whether qaddafi was in that convoy or whether it was a nato air strike that, in fact, may have, if he did dry -- if he did die, kill him. there are conflicting reports from the ntc, the libyan rebel opposition group, the current government, they are saying -- some reports suggest he was shot as he was trying to flee, that he was shot both in legs, as well as in the head. those were initial reports, but then we heard that nato war planes may have had something to do with it. so the only thing we can confirm at this moment is that nato did strike on two vehicles that were loyal to qadd

in almost two decades of the washington journalists, douglas waller has covered the pentagon, congress, state department, the white house and the cia. from 1994 to 2007 he served in time magazine's washington bureau first as a correspondent, then a senior correspondent. he has also served diplomatic correspondent travelling throughout europe, asia and the middle east as well as the persian gulf in pursuit of stories. he has carried out extensive coverage of the middle east peace negotiations and the wars in iraq. before coming to time magazine he was a correspondent for newsweek reported on major military conflict from the gulf war to somalia to haiti. he was born in norfolk, virginia, studied at wake forest university and did graduate work in urban affairs at the university of north carolina at charlotte. before joining newsweek in 1988 he served as a legislative assistant on the staff of senator william coxmeyer and senator edward marky. douglas waller is not a defense panelist for bloomberg's governance. among his many, many books a number of them bestsellers, are the commandos, the

committee and the pentagon said thawould reduce defense spending by $464 billion. my question is, if the super- committee puts the bill before the floor of the house that would cut defense any further than that, will you vote no? how many of your colleagues do you think would join new? -- you? >> it is hard to predict how would vote. i would probably vote no. i have told the world -- i am trying to tell the world that $464 -- we are using $465. i hear there is $489 now. this has all happened very quickly in the last year. we believe we need a strong defense. in my lifetime, i have seen us cut back after every war. we cut back the military greatly, it seems like so we won't be prepared for the next one. each time you do that, when you have to ramp up and we are attacked, it is very costly, both in treasure and in blood. we use all -- lose a lot of people unnecessarily. after the last election, people came and said everything needs to be on the table. the budget situation is terrific. we have to cut drastically. this is a situation we built up over decades. it's going

in the days after immediately after nine eleven was brought into the pentagon to meet with senior pentagon officials because he was perceived as a moderate muslim who would support bush's plan to invade afghanistan. given that osama bin ladin the stated purpose for nine eleven was to get us to start a war given the george w. bush told his biographer in ninety ninety four years elected that if he was elected the first thing you want to do is start a war only in iraq because it would get him political capital it seems that bin laden's goal of our being in a war in the middle east and bush's war goal of our being in a war in the middle east. were kind of a lie and although i'm not trying to create a kind of grand conspiracy theory here just an interesting confluence and one of the people in this article is a former intelligence officer here's the quote from who was horrified that this guy who was being brought into the pentagon without being any security video so they vetted people politically and showed indifference toward security and intelligence advice. could it be that a lockie being in

mean why shouldn't troops if you take a look at people who are coming it's based on the states or the pentagon controls about five hundred billion dollars of sunday in a year and it uses that to control or high technology industry the costs of the initial stages of technological development are all subsidized by the taxpayers through the system because the pentagon is publicly funded institution obviously you know half the federal budget now is devoted to things that are either military or intelligence or homeland security and all those bureaucracies feed or a lot of contractors and the people making large amounts of money and why would they want to stop why would they not want to feed at the trough anymore the british historian the people once said that it was misleading to say that the soviet union in the united states had military industrial complex and he said it was more accurate to say that they were military industrial complex and. in the u.s. case you could just as well have said military industrial academic given the role of the university of california where you see. a very important

the pentagon seemed to be caught off guard at first that it was coming out today. >> it seemed like it had been in the works for a long time. but no one had a clear idea, especially on the hill that it was all coming together this quickly. now, senator inhofe, a supporter of this mission, nonetheless said he thought the white house was not fully engaged here early in. but the white house pushes back hard and says president obama signed into law -- moving forward to crack down on these rebels and they say they are moving as swiftly as they can now. >> it's a big story, ed. thank you. much more on this with the panel. >> president obama and the south korean leader li toured a general motors assembly plant in michigan. the visit was meant to highlight the mew trade deal between the two countries, which is supposed to make it easier for american automakers to sell their products in south korea. we learned this afternoon that the u.s. government ran up its second largest budget deficit on record in the 2011 fiscal year that just ended. the final figure, $1.3 trillion in the red, that was a

, cia, and other agencies involved. $1.1 billion is the pentagon's aspect of this. "the national journal" is quoting vice-president joe biden. other figures -- host: pat is a democrat. you are on the "washington journal." caller: good morning. i am not at all convinced that gaddafi is dead. all we have is local the video images and reports. if it were him, i think we would see some photos or a body. i suspect later we will hear he was buried at sea. this whole operation nato has done in libya was to prove to africa that nato -- that the toughest country in africa was libya. gaddafi did not let corporations in to explore oil. educated americans and individuals who researched this will come to that conclusion. i do think this is a new protocol for war state-sponsored -- assassination. i would like to hear a lot of politicians talk about that, like ron paul. host: many of the newspapers and web sites have multiple pictures of gaddafi's body. here is one that is in "the wall street journal" we just showed you. some more graphic photographs on the pages of the new york ta