iran maintains or supported certain groups that are a key part of the resistance of the united states. for example, the head who lived in iran for a long time, so why is eiran supporting the taliban? i think this is really a signal to the united states that if the united states or israel attacks iran and iran's nuclear facilities then iran can increase the support to the taliban. so far we haven't seen very sophisticated weapons go to the taliban including advanced surfa surface-to-air missiles that could target u.s. helicopters or explicitly foreign projectiles that do so much damage to the u.s. forces and cost so many u.s. casualties in iraq. but there is the possibility that iran could step up its support to the taliban in case of an attack and this fits iran's overall national security doctrine of letting others do the fighting for it. there have also been reports of iran having significant ties to al qaeda. iran is known to host senior al qaeda members within its territory. it's not clear how active iranian support of al qaeda is currently. a lot of al qaeda members are known or

>> hinojosa: has the first latino president of the united states already been born? some say, "yes." as the youngest mayor of a top 50 u.s. city, my guest today symbolizes the emergence of a new generation of latinos in american political life-- the mayor of san antonio, texas, julian castro. i'm maria hinojosa, this is one on one. mayor julian castro, welcome to our program. >> tnk y vermuch f having me. >> hinojosa: so your mom was a big time political activist in the 1960s and 1970s-- chicana activist. your brother is in state government in texas. you're the youngest mayor... or one of the youngest mayors in the country, san antonio, and people are saying, "this family has got a political future." so is that kind of the way you had it all planned out? >> oh, it's... well, that's the way that it's working right now, it seems, but not the way that we planned out. >> hinojosa: so you didn't even think, like, when you were a kid you were like, "i'm going to become a politician like my mom." >> no. you know what's interesting was that because my mother was so involved a

of mexico, and it is consumed here in the united states. so the energy that we are create ing here in the united states is partly responsible due to fact alone we imported less than a million barrels a day than we had in the prior year. a million barrels a day. so the energy that is being produced here is, in fact, being used here in the united states. on the issue of gas prices, as everybody here in this audience knows, it is determined through global economics no one has the abili ability, not even harry potter, to wave a magic want and say we're going to have gas prices $259 or $2.50 or $3. it doesn't work that way. it doesn't happen that way, and that really is the point that i hope most americans understand, that there's no silver bullet, there's no magic want. and if we're going to find our way to addressing the -- one of the very most important fundamental questions of the united states, you need to have an energy framework and energy policy in place like the one president obama and his team have put into place, and that's an "all of

we are the number one export destination for the united states. to give an idea of the scale, most americans do not understand anything like these numbers. united states exports more to canada than it does to the brit countries, u.k., and germany combined, and, of course, we're also your largest supplier, external supplier of energy and 25 #% of all oil imports come from canada, larger than any middle eastern country. we never miss opportunities to discuss the very important trade and other relationships we have with this great, great country here. >> well, thank you. [speaking in french] [laughter] okay, now we'll talk in english. let me start with competitiveness and innovation because as i listened to what the president said and what you have just said and what president calderÓn said, we're talking about when you add in moment koa, a trillion plus dollar market and that adds up to real money and real clout. one of the things on the president's list agreed to today, i think, is a joint regime for simplifying regulatory reform. at the wilson cen

>> look, i think ultimately the nuclear none proliferation committee has reciprocal commitments. and states like the united states and the soviet union and others that signed the treaty initially as nuclear states, they have an obligation to move towards disarmament. i think actually the obama administration shares the view that there are obligations on both sides, which is why they moved aggressive forward on new start, which was not an insignificant political risk. i think matt thinks some of those cuts go through too deep but i don't know if that's true or not. but in any case, i think the administration believes basically we also have to make good faith efforts to start to shrink our arsenal. but it doesn't excuse iran's commitment under the npt. the fact of the matter is iran gave up the right to have nuclear weapons when they signed the npt. unless they're willing to pull out of the npt, the iranians are not a member of the npt, we are a member and committed to drawing down forces, that member is ironclad no matter what we're doing. >> kbh you put yourself in the place of the leader of tehran, they'r

and right no given that the united states has created a new platform with the so-called arab need to the gulf cooperation. hillary clinton was at this new forum putting the united states in an active alliance with the g.c.c. this demonstrates a continued to be of strategy with the united states is working with its so-called regional allies to maintain its own national interests overseas and in fact when there were protests against mubarak it was after frank wisner jr who was sent is the only boy to talk to mubarak and to try to find a strategy to lengthen mubarak's tenure not to ask him to step aside in fact frank wisner jr in his memorable television up link to the munich conference said that he had discussed a democratic transformation with saudi arabia you know all ironies intended imagine that that an american is talking about democracy with riyadh regarding a protest movement in cairo it's ridiculous. and you know where you come out on that because of course you know some countries some people in the arab middle east can have the arab spring the arab awakening but some ca

if i guess what about replacing the dollar with a fair currency unit for the world i mean that just benefits the united states at the detriment of everyone else in the world everyone. yes well you have to remember that immediately after world war two we did develop an instrument play that was called special drawing rights as the r.'s and the reason we don't have as the us today is because nobody wanted to use them the dollar has become as good as gold central gravitated good is we've all been a little busy to figure you guys are figure of speech ok ok josh i'm going to be the last word of the prose is going to change my point go ahead joshua well yeah i think he's make an important point that bretton woods taught us that you can't make an artificial currency and at the end of the day people trade what they have and in this economy people have dollars people trillion dollars and that means good news for the u.s. in the short term yeah ok we'll see if the chinese can get rid of them one way or another you guys go way over a lot of time many thanks to my guest today in orlando and in chicago and take your viewer

and settled in the united states, at united states children and citizen wife. as a whole we want to address this issue. >> host: palm beach, florida. >> caller: thank you. very hard work. i want to comment on the integration of the u.s. army with the mexican army and heading towards north american union and something that might be dangerous for our health and safety laws friday while enforcement perspective. >> host: do you see a lack of sovereignty? >> guest: that won't happen. very simple, mexico is a sovereign nation. they are proud to be a sovereign nation. we are sovereign nation in the united states. we all need to cooperate as neighboring countries for the security. not just of our region but the security of the entire world. we work closely together. i want to say i am proud of the service, work very much on our

security and what the effect would be on the rest of the world if the united states had a different attitude towards the security. especially the united states underwrites world security. that gets us in a lot of trouble often. we overreach and i personally favor a lighter hand. but the united states has global responsibilities. it can choose and in the past has chosen on occasion to deny those responsibilities and let the world go its way. the consequences have generally been negative. you can also point out that when we have not let the world go its own way, there have been negative consequences to. there is an intermediate position and that's the that i would try to find. the details of the budget are such that you can argue with a lot of the individual pieces of it. and our budget has not done the same way as other countries do theirs. health care is about $60 billion of the defense budget. in other countries, that is not in the defense budget. i am talking about not only active duty people and families and everything else, but the health care system is outside of the defense bud

the end of the state of israel. and once iran has ballistic missiles capable of reaching the east coast of the united states, which experts estimate could be in as little as five years, one of these could result in nuclear exchange on the east coast of the united states. so these are serious threats that the united states would have to deal with. so as president obama said, a nuclear iran is unacceptable. a u.s. military strike could almost certainly destroy iran's key nuclear facilities. this could set iran back. i estimate it would set iran's program back between three to ten years. iran could end up permanently without permanent weapons. there's a significant upside to a strike. there are also down sides to military action. i think that these risks are often exaggerated and aren't quite as severe as many people believe and that united states could put in a straty to mitigate many of these down side risks. it's important to understand that iran doesn't have a strong conventional military. rather that i ear developingcy symmetric military attacks. it could cause problems in the persian gulf, up to and including of closin

is increasingly frustrated when they see that money spent in afghanistan rather than here in the united states. >> i understand. the whole purpose of this is to protect the american people. that's what this war is about. >> bin laden is dead. >> no. the reality is the attack on the united states on 9/11 was planned from where? from afghanistan. our mission there is to make sure we have an afghanistan that can secure and govern itself and it never again can become a safe haven for terrorist who had planned attacks on our country. >> you know u.s. intelligence officials are told congress there are more al qaeda operatives in somalia than in afghanistan. >> the danger is this. if we don't succeed in afghanistan, there is a real probability the taliban will come back and who will be the first people to take advantage of it? al qaeda. that's what we have to protect against. >> are we asking too much of these american troops who spend up to five tours of duty and now these reports with dead bodies of taliban fighters urinating on dead bodies. one american soldier starts killing 17 afghan civilians i

there is the united states of america! here is not a black america, and a white america and latino america, an asian america. there is the united states of america! shannon: you heard it, candidate obama promised a new era ofby path sanship. after he arrived in the white house, to say it didn't quite happen would be an understatement. will the statements hurt mr. obama or will voters chalk it up to that's washington? brad blakeman and dick harpootlan, gentlemen, good to see you both today. dick, did he deliver or not on those promises? >> he attempted to deliver but it takes too to -- two to tango. he reached out with a hand of friendship and pulled back a nub. that's washington. and i think we saw that during george w. bush's term and i'm afraid that's just the way things are in d.c. right now. it's gotten worse because of the tea party and if you read matt bye's piece in the "new york times", john boehner did really want to deliver on the big deal, but there's no fire like friendly fire and he caught it in the back every

the united states did in libya. primarily with our force, the air force and supplying arms. the secretary panetta said that the united states legally could not intervene in syria because the u.n. security council had not authorize the operation as it did in libya. as a member, the obama administration waited three weeks to get the un security council before intervening. we have a debate. we can always talk about whether mr. panetta is also correct when he said we don't need congress's permission, but the u.s. permission. there you have the secretary of defense publicly saying that we need the permission of one of these neutral independent international organizations to give its approval before the united states can do something. another one is in the alien tort statute litigation that has been going forward against american corporations, the supreme court has a case right now called the coble case where the question is , of foreign governments violates international law and the treatment of its own citizens and alleg

most optimistic viewpoint of their time is economy may already be twenty of us and largest in the united states one so we aren't entirely sure where it is but certainly from our point of view the perspective of anyone from the united states and europe is generally a that still china is letting far behind and we think that's clearly not true and apart from the i.m.f. study by the economists really is just now saying was a lie the i.m.f. that china will be surpassing the u.s. as the number one economy in two thousand and sixteen the purchasing power parity terms and two thousand and eighteen a nominal g.d.p. terms or when you would think if they have not already overtaken the u.s. which is quite possible then to the and sixteen to those nations that's probably the latest date so clearly from an investor's perspective you better look at china gaining some exposure in some way from a geopolitical perspective clearly it's. gaining influence quite strongly and it's probably a good thing that this is happening you know china and russia have been criticizing a lot in the west but then as we all know th

the migration flows between the united states and mexico. the numbers like 3 million mexicans came to united states. and it was -- it's very important difference between migration toward mexico and migration coming from mexico. but today we are tying the flows. what that means, that today we are reducing migration to the united states almost to zero in net terms. why? somebody told me that today appears an article in "washington post." i didn't read that. but the fact is due to several factors. because we are creating opportunities, job opportunities in mexico, educational opportunities for young people, health services and health care for an entire nation. another, probably restrictions and law enforcement immigration here in the united states probably due to the crime activities and so on. but the fact is that net mie grafgs toward the united states is zero today in net terms. probably is one of the most important news that we need to consider about these quite important debate. actually, a lot of people, mexican peoples here are thinking o

the united nation conference on environment and development in 1992 where i headed the united states delegation, the expectations for it were much greater than for rio +20. one cannot but feel the sense of meeting fatigue, of resignation, of lowered expectations going into rio +20. i think it's probably a good idea to lower expectations for a conference, frankly. there are some very specific things, however, and i just went through them i thought in a compelling way that can be achieved there. and it will advance the cause. perhaps not as dramatically as what was achieved and agreed 20 years ago, but nevertheless, effectively to continue the country, the world, the environment moving in a better direction. now what rio did, i have a number of really indelible memories of rio. i think one of my most compelling is of flying back from a meeting that i had had with president calor and three of his minute stores and laid out the terms under which i would support president bush attending the conference. president calor said heads of state were waiting to see if president bush was coming and

but also i want to go back to what was said about president during president and his era when the united states attacked afghanistan and the iranians condemned what happened in new york and they actually healthy. knighted states get rid of then and the taliban in afghanistan immediately afterwards the united states called iran an axis of evil and i would also like to remind you that the person who actually restarted the iranian nuclear program at the end of his term in office was president hard to me and the reason why he did it was because iran halted its nuclear program for two years and it allowed intrusive inspections through the additional protocol or environmental remediation rates will be when all run out of time fascinating discussion we go on for another hour for sure many thanks to my guest today in washington and in beirut and thanks to our viewers for watching us here are to see you next time and remember our struggles. if. you want to. live nation free cretaceous free transfer charges free arrangement free live free stereotype free.

he doesn't believe that the united states is just opposed to iran's specific policies on the nuclear program, for example, but he has stated that the united states opposes the very essence of the islamic republic, and i don't think this is going to change as long as he is alive. this is the way he thinks about the united states. he participated in the revolution. he was one of the revolutionary leaders. he helped overthrow the shaw and what he believes to be u.s. domination of iran, and so his world view is very much based on his experience. the islamic republic may even believe that the nuclear program as an important military deterant against the united states, even if iran does not develop a nuclear weapon, the fa account it has the virtual capability, the capability to assemble a nuclear weapon if need be, i think serves as a valuable deterant for iran and iran has seen the united states overthrow neighboring regimes like the regime of saudi arabia and the taliban with relative ease, so the iranian decision makers know that in the future the united states may take military action

specific agenda demaris there has been very insistent she will this visit continue to require the united states back results move to get a seat on the united nations security council and a permanent seat at that and the united states the obama administration has given no sign whatsoever that they're going to back rozelle and that is where as they have been in the case of india for example so there are some issues that are very tense between the two countries and then there is a relationship brazil has had with iran there was a relationship brazil that has in that region as being a member of you know sure of being a member of say lackies new emerging entities in latin america cooperation amongst nations without which the united states is completely excluded so i think that you know another issue that's going on there and at the same time this is actually a more important visit for president obama than it is for president rousseff because next weekend is the summit of the americas it takes place in colombia and the u.s. is really on the outs in latin america and nobody wants to be meeting with in

the first place it really is a society a continent saying anough is enough and the message for the united states and other parts of the world is an ambiguous but the economists that are being quoted over at fox news and on the networks here in the united states some of the so-called business shows and some of the other networks is that well these are just of course you would expect the average person who has no understanding of economics to be out in the street demanding something for nothing they don't realize that you know this is the real world and that these banks have to have to do what they have to do and that austerity is necessary and you've got to balance the books that you can't have everything for free and you can't have the government is the employer of last resort how would you respond to probably doing a bad job of paraphrasing that message that seems to be being repeated over and over over and. i've heard variations on that three times in the last week on major national news shows in the united states if i'm doing a bad job of paraphrasing it please. fix it and i'm curious how you

we disadvantaged the united states from a security standpoint and by the same token we disadvantaged the united states and the people of uzbekistan by sending him back and not keeping the forward motion with respect to human rights and freer political and freer economic systems. so it is a matter of how you look at it. now, the reason i come to that conclusion and it is not the way people mostly look at things in the world, the reason i do is because if we're good, we weren't good, think of our country. think of what we went through. we had slaves into the 1800s. women didn't vote until the 1900s. we had a civil war. we killed hundreds of thousands of human beings, a terrible, terrible civil war. we didn't arrive this way. we're still evolving. those countries are evolving. they don't go from a dictatorial system to a free system in five minutes. it is a tough journey. it is a very tough journey. it was a tough journey for this country, and we made enormous progress. we did the same thing with takistan. musharoff stepped up and supported us and the war on terror. he was very effective

one reason by malaki declined us to let us visit the camp ashraf was because the united states continues to put them on the foreign terrorist organization. is the united states succumbing to the keep them on the fdo organization list? >> absolutely not. >> our decision is entirely going to be ornt merits, and we are not keeping him on the list because of anyone else's concerns or views regarding the group. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. pope. >> thank you, mr. chairman. before i begin, may i ask unanimous consent of my statement be entered into the record? thank you. i just came back from egypt and libya over the break and have some views about what's happening in both those countries. from the united states point of view, does the arab sling and its outcome so far help or hurt or have no impact on ant anti-terrorism policy. >> it's an excellent question, sir. let me frame it this way. the arab spring and arab awakening presents everyone who opposes extreme imwithin an extraordinary opportunity. and that is to build the democracies in those countries, countries where peopl

the united states is heavily integrated into the global trade and the u.s. accounts for 11% of total trade around the world. some people assume that the united states is the economy in an of itself. 11% of u.s. trade of total trade is accounted for by the u.s. and disconnections are particularly strong with europe. 20% of u.s. exports go to europe. well europe with its own set off countries, 27 of them, account for 67% of trade. the arrests, 27% goes to the united states. out of the top 10 markets where u.s., u.s. companies invest, five of them are european. if you look at jobs in this country, 3.5 million jobs are with european-based companies. so the intertwining, the w eaving between these two regions is extremely strong. so what does that mean? as the european economy falters, then the u.s. recovery and jobs might well be in jeopardy. so america has a stake in making sure that european economies and world economy does better. and that brings me to my third and larger point. because if integration poses great problems, it also is a promise for great reward

the united nations security council. that issue was discussed and dealt with through the normal channels, but through diplomatic efforts led by the united states it became clear that the palestinians over time would not only succeed in their application because the united states were to oppose it, but they did not have the nine affirmative votes that would be necessary for that application to be approved by the security council even in the absence of the u.s. veto. so that is more or less been on ice for a few months. the palestinians have will held further action in the united nations as the discussions that the jordanians have facilitated have been ongoing. they have continued to do so even as those discussions have been paused. and we hope, although i don't think it would be -- i would go so far as to say that we are confident. we woeld hope that the palestinians would see the wisdom of continuing to refrain from that march whether through the general assembly or the specialized agencies. that said we recognize that they may at a certain point change their mind. we are very judge lant about all of the potential avenues that they might take

iran feels the united states is the country which is going to deliver the goods and the beginning of this process from 2003 to 2006, the europeans were doing most of the negotiating and the united states was not even present at the table. diplomats told me they always felt the iranians were looking over their shoulders so see where were the americans to guarantee the kind of security guarantees, the delivery of technology that would make a deal work. i think a key sign of success of this meeting will be if there is a bilateral talk between the iranian representative and between the american representative. the talks in this segment of geneva, the last two talks, there were no bilaterals between the americans and the iranians. if we get through this first round, and if we get to a second round, which would happen fairly quickly, that's where the real difficult things begin because you want to have a confidence building measure. if this can't be a fuel swap, what would be a smaller sort of confidence building measure. it might be something called adhering to the additional protocol wher

and i just think that the justices are out of step with what's going on since nine eleven in the united states this is not going to turn the frowns upside down that's pretty darn sure since nine eleven the people of of the united states of america all suffered greatly and we are suffering more and more every day because it's turning into a police state and i think that the outcry of trayvon martin is the finger of the pulse has to be touched it's an outrage because it's happening in every state everywhere the brutality and the invasion of privacy by law enforcement and now it's going to continue in the jails and if you look at what happened in this case what happened to albert lawrence you know you guy who was strip searched this is right where the kids came from he's in the passenger seat his pregnant wife is driving he's got a four year old son in the back seat they're going to the mother in law's for dinner and she gets pulled over for speeding and he says this is my car here's the registration sir you have an unpaid ticket well i really don't and i have a piece of paper proving i've paid t

the uprising in the united states, the occupy movement. the situation in syria deteriorates by the moment. the reality from libya the united states believes in regime change by force. and expanding air war in pakistan, yemen and somalia, and expansion of special operation forces and we remember the pledges president obama made as candidates obama. how he was going to dismantle the bush doctrine and 3 engage the world. the first several executive orders he issued dealt with dismantling parts of the torture apparatus in the united states but to close guantanamo. the united states doesn't torture but he gave that speech at the national archives. if we fast forward to where we are now and we look at it, how big of a break have we seen from the bush doctrine when it comes to foreign policy? >> until recently there was relatively little break. in the bush did ministration we saw a break from the bush doctrine. the first. years and then the gate stop which was a management doctrine. when obama came in the signal was he took gates and the national

to europe two years later the years two thousand and ten and two thousand and eleven reverse the united states is not the extreme problem europe is and the financial crisis that we talk about is as severe today in europe as it ever was in the united states the banks in europe for example are in such trouble that almost no days goes by in a european major newspaper where someone isn't talking about will we have our own lehman brothers type of collapse the way we did here in the united states for both of the periods the two years the miracle was worse of two years that europe was worse brazil china india russia the bric countries and so on we're doing real well there now in trouble so my advice is for americans count your chickens that are not hatched be we're the crisis that was buried here then became dead somewhere else is heading back here to give us as many problems no. as we see the europeans having but we'll have them a little bit later the housing industry in the united states big improvement until about a year ago where it's flattened out and now it's going down and that isn't as import

the relationship with the united states when the united states and brazil well i mean it's improved it's always been a pretty good relationship i think there even during the time of the previous president released last year that it was a relationship that was very cordial was still a strong relationship at the same time brazil has been growing as a power not just not in america but around the world as you were pointing out before and so it's trying to distance itself from sort of being underneath the power of the united states the relationship continues to grow in terms of cooperation are there the two presidents are discussing all kinds of stuff in the area of science and technology cooperation spatial cooperation economic cooperation social issues that they'll be caught reading on education reducing poverty things like that at the same time brazil has a specific agenda it matters that it has been very insisting she will on this and this visit or continue to request that the united states backwards eels move to get a seat on a united nations security council and a permanent seat back an

this cannot be an obstacle to the cooperation that we have to have amongst mexico and the united states, to stop these criminal activities that underlie this issue and which is one of the greatest obstacles for mexico. i understand the internal problems from a political point of view in the united states, and i mentioned this publicly in congress in the united states. and i said things exactly the way i believe them. i said them outright. there is a great deal of discrepancy between points of view. it is a very complex political issue. but it is very important to underscore it. and i believe that's the only part of the question that i can answer it and i would say that what president obama has already answered was very well done. >> just very briefly with respect to the presidential elections in mexico, vice president biden met with the candidates to express sentiments similar to what stephen expressed here with regard to the u.s. elections. that is that the friendship between our three criminals, the partnership between our three countries extends beyond and is more fundamental than an

trade -- 11% of total trade is accounted for by the united states. this connection is strong with your. europe accounts for about 60% of the trade. 20% goes to the united states. the same is true with direct investments. of the top-10 markets for the u.s. invests, five of them are european. 3.5 million jobs are with european-based companies. the woven between these regions is strong. as the european economy falters, the u.s. recovery and jobs might well be in jeopardy. america has a stake in making sure that european economies and world economy goes better. that brings me to my third and larger point. if integration poses great problems, it also is a promise for great rewards. it will only be so if there's heightened corp. between the nations. when nations faced common challenges, everybody wins. when they retire to their own backyard or the operate in isolation, everybody loses. we have seen it. "the reason why the world lacks unity is because man is disunited with himself." this concept -- two visionaries back in the last century really got it. an a

is brazil walking a tightrope between its relationship with china and its relationship with the united statesat? >> they are. that's right, john. the decisions are here and the united states is pouring all this money out and investments come into brazil and exports are becoming more expensive and their trade balance is bad. they've got their own problems also with the chinese, who are being pretty tough. but brazil is not a world center power. it's the greatest power in south america. that's it. military it's not a great center power. >> china is its number-one customer. >> china is number-one trading partner -- >> doesn't that concern you? >> the chinese are getting all this money from the united states, and they take it and invest it in in the world! >> to the extent -- oil production anything that diminishes the middle east is a good thing. but we can't just -- get oil from brazil. and what they're upset about it brazil is the tightening of the sanctions on iran because 30 see that disrupting the oil market. so when the leaders get together it's a good thing the president has good relation

so this gives them tremendous incentive to locate profits and businesses outside of the united states. >> brown: is, i'll start with you martin sullivan, is all this bringing about a larger debate about, with states at the federal level about changing the tax code as technology changes, as commerce changes? >> well, there's an enormous debate going on right now in the international tax community on the one hand there's the argument by conservatives and republicans to totally exempt foreign taxes, foreign profits from tax. and meanwhile, you have folks on the other side of the spectrum who say we need to close these loopholes in order to help pay down the deficit. there is some middle ground. the middle ground would be to reduce our corporate tax rates to improve our competitiveness, as i think almost everybody in washington is arguing for that right now, the president and the republicans. but we need to pay for that some way, and to pay for that we must close loopholes. and this type of loophole that charles is talking about is probably the biggest loophole we have. >> brown: charles,

and it will focus largely on how the united states and u.s. companies are doing in the competition for international markets. and i would suggest this is a particularly fluid time to be trying to address this question. just to sort of frame it on the positive side, some of you might have seen the article in the american interest by tyler cowan, economist at george mason university. it has a lot of attention and makes the argument that the u.s. is poytzed to become an export powerhouse. notes that since the end of the -- or since the end of the recession, exports accounted for fully half of total u.s. economic growth. so the rather weak recovery that we've had would have been positively anemic without strong growth on the export side. secondly he notes as the chairman mentioned that the obama administration surprisingly appears to be on track to meet the national export initiative target. double exports by 2014, even starting from the depressed base of 2009, there were very few economists who thought that was achievable. that's a 15% annual grow

that's what we do in the united states. so faced with that loss of ability to fund, european banks had to cut lending sharply around the world. even in the u.s. so the swap lines by providing that access to fumding significantly reduced the need and the pressure on europe's institutions to cut lending in the united states and emerging markets where u.s. companies have big stakes and where growth matters. the swap lines were effective in helping to soften the impact of the crisis on us and on countries around the world, and it would have been much worse for us without those lines and as i said, the feds are into positive returns on those swap lines. what the congress did in the middle of 2009 in authorizesing the imf to have a larger emergency capacity was critical to getting trade around the world restarted, providing financing for countries to borrow to buy american products. we would have been in much worse shape and our economy much weaker without those two steps. >> i appreciate that. and as you have indicated it certain

the. united states get rid of then and the taliban in afghanistan immediately afterwards the united statescalled iran an axis of evil and i would also like to remind you that the person who actually restarted the iranian nuclear program at the end of his term in office was president hard to me and the reason why he did it was because iran halted its nuclear program for two years and it allowed intrusive inspections through the additional protocol that are implemented an emotional rage will be all right out of time fascinating discussion we go on for another hour for sure many thanks to my guest today in washington and in beirut and thanks to our viewers for watching us here to see you next time and remember. you. still. want to. you know sometimes you see a story and it seems so for like sleep you think you understand it and then even something else you hear or see some other part of it and realize that everything you thought you knew you don't i'm tom harpur welcome to the big picture. wealthy british style. life. market why not. come to find out what's really happening to the global econ

which is very exciting for the united states. before i get into an answer, we have to praise this administration for finally getting involved in the international conversation about education. we have never done it in this country before. the other countries have been meeting for years and we're finally part of that conversation which is positive for us. teacher evaluation -- every teacher knows a make a difference in how a child learns. they would not come to work every day if they did not believe it. the challenge is how do you assess what they do and whether they are achieving that success with kids? what everyone of checks to in the profession is you cannot tell whether i am doing a good job based on the score of a single test. what a child does on a single day on a single test does not reflect what the child is learning and does not do justice to the child's learning first of all and it does not do justice to what the teacher is doing to move that deadline for. we are looking for ways to capture that so that is meaningful. ev

if you have no weapons you have no proof something that al gore dianne bitterroots lawyer in the united states who is our by the way earned seven hundred fifty thousand dollars according to sources from which i would call this very ineffective counsel defending him against the united states government has done everything in his power not to bring that up and of course again would as not certainly would not help his case or his cause by not standing as a witness in this case and the. theatrical i guess you could say the law as they proceed is yesterday where you made these. essentially worthless statements against the d.a. addressing the judge and thanking her for her ability to judge the case basically it got out the window but as you say i mean the word and alleged has been used quite a lot said during this and boot maintains his innocence and is planning to appeal how far as he wanted to get with that. oh hughes is not going to go if you don't get anywhere as a matter of fact the case was lost way back in thailand in two thousand and nine because again i was there i know what happened the ca

navy had its choice of the best seamen in the united states. not so. they had to compete with privateers, and they usually got the best men, because their cruises were shorter, and the prospect of profit was greater than serving in the u.s. navy. beyond that, the u.s. navy also had to compete with the u.s. army. by the end of the war, in order to get people to serve in the u.s. army, the administration, the war department was offering bounties that were $124 in cash, and 320 acres of land. now, based on what an unskilled laborer made in those days, i would say that's probably the equivalent of about $30,000 today. there were a lot of seamen who could not resist the lure of that bounty. and figures show that about 5% of the u.s. army serving in this war was seamen. they asked people what their trade was, what their occupation was, and about 5% were seamen. they went where the money was. so the u.s. navy was competing not only with privateers, but also with the u.s. army. and certainly didn't have an opportunity to pick the best seamen. the british also a

the president of the united states properly recognized that the purpose of terrorism was to terrorize and alter our behavior and cause us to change the way we live, and he did something, made a decision, that was notably different from our country's behavior through different administrations of both political parties and the preceding period, and decided that they had to go on the offense and use the phrase that was cited earlier that given the lethalitie of weapons in this decade, after 2001, and the risk it could be not 3,000 people, but 300,000, caused him to conclude that he had to declare a war on that and do everything conceivable not to defend only but to reach out and make everything that terrorists do harder, make it harder for them to move around between countries, harder to talk on the phone, harder to get money. harder to raise funds through the financial americas. harder to find a country that would be willing to house them and be hos pitable to their planning and training and launching of attacks on free people. in my view it was the right decision. he was criticized for

how quickly does the united states and how quickly does the rest of the world react and what will the strategy be? >> i think what's going to happen is the united states as i said, i think it's going to be very difficult for them to go forward with the 240 now, tons of food aid to north korea, set forth in the february agreement. that is not going to happen. i think what's also going to happen is that there is going to be a desire to put more sanctions on north korea and more pressure. the problem right now, problem right now is that north korea is, you know, people have talked about it is the land of lousy policy options. ideally, the united states would have -- would be working on a bunch of combination of policy involving carrots and sticks. china continues to shield north korea. -- >> shepard: philip yun pardon the interruption. there is breaking news now on othe fox news channel. it's the bottom of the hour. we have just learned from a u.s. official that the rocket launch, in fact, did fail. jennifer griffin got the word. she is live at the pentagon. jennifer? >> shepard, a senio