it is a mistake to assume the united states can only have influence in the country if the united states has 100,000 troops on the ground. the regional government said the same thing last week. the united states remains today the critical interlock among political parties in iraq. given regional tensions the united states is in fact playing an integral role as an honest broker in iraq. i tell you from my own experience that the words honest broker are not used by iraqis to describe iran. it is also wrong to assume that because our troops have departed that our security, our defense relationship with iraq has ended. iraq has purchased a billions of dollars in training and military education. and lead to long-term defense ties. it is based on a sense of partnership, shared interest, and respect each other as sovereign nations. iraq and the united states share an elemental bowl. and the prosperous iraq, the government is tenable to and serve the needs of the iraqi people. and work together at the most senior levels of government on governance and the rule of law, to energy and the environme

the international court of justice found against united states and said the united states had in fact violated obligations under the treaty and issued an order to the united states to halt the execution of mr. midian and the other aliens on death row in the united states or who are also in the same situation. president bush issued an order to the governor of texas. i trust you need the address to put on the letter. president bush issued an order to governor rick perry, asking him -- federally ordered him to stop the executions of the united states could come into compliance with the vienna convention on international court of justice's opinion. texas refused to obey it and actually was sued in the supreme court and ultimately the u.s. supreme court refused to stop the execution. mr. midian was executed shortly thereafter. in that decision the supreme court said even though the united states had signed the vienna convention that required these kinds of warnings that congress still have yet to do something. congress had to act to put it into effect until congress did that come in the co

and right know 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 the of strategy where 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 all 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 som

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

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

>> 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

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

that the most optimistic viewpoint is china's economy may already be traders and largess and the united states once saw an entirely sure where it is but certainly from our point of view the perspective of europe and from the united states and europe is generally that still china is letting far behind and we think that's clearly not true and apart from the i.m.f. even a study by the economist 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 including sixteen in the purchasing power parity terms and put as an eighteen in one hundred g.d.p. terms so when you would think if they have not already overtaken the u.s. which is quite possible then two hundred sixteen was amazing that's probably the latest date so clearly from an investor's perspective you better look at china gaining some exposure in some way form or geopolitical perspective clearly it's. gaining influence quite strongly and it's probably a good thing that this is happening you know the trend in russia i think criticize a lot in the u.s. but then as we all know there are di

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

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 instrumental a 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 gold central gravitated good is we've all been a little busy to figure out your figure of speech ok ok josh one of your last one of those is going to change my point go ahead joshua 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 and this economy people have dollars people trillion dollars and that means good news for the u.s. in the short term ok we'll see if the chinese can get rid of them one way or another you guys go way over another time a think so my guess a day in our land and in chicago and banks are viewers are watching is here already see you nex

the united states, europe is not whole. they're always needs to be a partnership between the two parts across the a planted. >> i want to focus on the relationship between the united states -- across the atlantic. >> i want to focus on the relation between the united states, because it goes back a long way. some of the basis of your constitution was based on our constitution as well. >> you are right. >> but it is a peaceful country. if i read correctly, 35,000 in the army. that is very small. you are also involved in both afghanistan and iraq, and that surprises me. >> well, we were involved in the first iraq effort. if we did not participate with our troops in the -- we did not participate with our troops in the recent iraqi military movements. but we have been very half -- active in afghanistan. if you calculate it per capita, is a very strong participation. >> the united states is a big investor, is in it, and the checks -- in the czech republic? >> i wish it was more. >> but it is in the top five, is that right? >> it i

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

it's called empowering local partners to prevent violent extremism in the united states, unquote. what it's wrong with that? what's wrong with it is every single part of it. it's not only or even principally violence. the same could hardly be called extremism when the motivating doctrines -- empowering local partners if the local partners are organizations like care and islam is more likely to worsen than to improve our situation. the paper opens by identifying the challenge as nothing new and tells us that quote throughout history violent extremists, individuals who support or commit ideologically supportive environments -- the response is supposed to be a quote, community-based approach, unquote, without outreach to local stake holders. to the extend a villain is identified, it's al qaeda that comes off like some sort of motorcycle gang. to the state laum -- princefully as -- why al qaeda would want to focus its attention on muslim

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

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,

the united states, these 34 countries, ranks 32 of 34. and it shows that one of the countries that allegedly is somehow more competitive, germany, their tax burden is 55% higher than the united states tax burden. that's the oecd, not me. and the united kingdom, another country a few weeks ago this committee was debating they are somehow stealing our ipos, they have a 42% higher tax burden than the united states. greece has a tax burden of 25% higher than the united states. even turkey's tax burden is higher. the only two countries that have a lower tax burden than ours are chile and mexico on this list. so i'd like to submit that for the record. i ask this mr. secretary because we heard if europe is somehow doing a good job dealing with their issues, and all they are doing is one side of the ledger which is the austerity measure which is fine, am i wrong to think that the u.s. made significant cuts in the last years through budgets? >> yes. congress reached agreement last summer to cut more than $1 trillion in spending over the next 10 yea

how does he see the world, the united states, in the nuclear program? when you look at him, he really believes that the islamic republic is engaged in conflict with the united states. he believes that the united states has never accepted the revolution of 1979 and will never accept the revolution. 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 shah, and what he believes to be u.s. domination over iran. his world view is very much based on his experience. the islamic republic, he may even believe is an important military deterrent against the united states, even if iran does not develop a nuclear weapon. the fact that it has a virtual capability, that it has the capability to as

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

>> i think ultimately the treery has specific statements. states like the united states and the soviet union and others could sign it 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 aggressively forward on new s.t.a.r.t., which is not an insignificant political risk. i think matt, for example, thinks some of those cuts go too deep, but i don't know if that's true or not. in any case, i think the administration believes, basically, that we also have to make good-faith efforts to start to sh shrink our arsenal. but it doesn't excuse iran's commitment under the npt. some ask doesn't iran have the right if p the u.s. has it and others? they gave up the right to have them when they signed the npt. unless they're willing to pull out -- the israelis aren't a part but we are -- that right is ironclad regardless of what we're doing. >> i would say when you put yourselves in the shoes of the leaders in tehran and how they're mak

it's true of wiki leaks expose the world secrets these documents belong the united states government been attacked by the powerful united states strongly condemned by you broke the law illegally shoot someone for five hundred days now being detained without charge but that hasn't stopped it. today on the quest for revolutionary ideas that can change the world tomorrow. today i am joined by intellectual superstar. philosopher. a former anti communist dissident now turned so described communist together we call david horowitz a former radical and black panther life now a fiery right wing zionist i want to know what they think about the future of europe and the united states because becomes he did you have to be physically restrained if we shout rant and talk calmly about nothing and palestinians black panthers and israelis about a farmer romney and stalin. david you describe yourself as a conservative and you describe yourself as a communist but nonetheless i was of you have had a picture of stalin. to make free money don't mess. about it now. you write it can't talk to an international

they think it involves a secession of sovereignty in the united states. well, it basically is a litany of positive interventions, policies which have guided countless ministries quietly i think, but effectively around the world in thinking about how to do environmental impact assessment, and how to have a greater transparency in their decision-making effecting in the environment, and a whole range of other such good common sense principles. a statement of principles on forestry. we didn't get a convention on forestry, which the united states and germany particularly drove to get, but we did get a statement of principles. they make sense. they're a platform. i have to say i'm disappointed that rio plus 20 will not address the forest issue or the oceans issue or the fresh water issue in ways that i think makes sense, and that will leave something further for the united nations to do in the future. we also, of course, signed there the global convention on climate change, which created a moral, if not a legal obligation to return greenhouse gas emissions to th

and the time will come when the united states will depart afghanistan. iran has pressured the afghan government not to sign a status of forces agreement with the united states. iran does not want a permanent presence, a u.s. presence in afghanistan. there's a good chance once the u.s. departs that iran would go back to its traditional policy of supporting tajik and hazara groups against the taliban. i think iran is realistic enough to realize that the taliban and the pashtuns will have a lot of influence in afghanistan and may dominate parts of the country, but it's also interested in maintaining its own zone of influence in western afghanistan. i think as long as western afghanistan is largely stable, this is okay with iran, as long as iran maintains some influence, it will not be a loss for iran. it will be a win. at the same time, iran's policy is nuanced, as

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

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

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

iran feels that 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. and diplomats told me that they always felt that the iranians were looking over their shoulders to see where were the americans to guarantee the kind of security guarantees, the kind of delivery of technology that would make a deal work. so i think a key sign of success at this meeting is if there's a bilateral talk between the iranian representative and between the american representative. and the talks assemble in 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. now, if this can't be a fuel swap, what would be a smaller sort of confidence-building pesh? it might it be something called

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 get rid of their 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 he run halted its nuclear program for two years and it allowed intrusive inspections through the additional protocol there in the summer and i am sure it 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 are to see you next time and remember roster of . i am mission free accreditation free lance for charges free. range and free. free free stereotype free. download free blogging as a plug in video for your media projects a free meal gogarty dot com. there hasn't been anything yet on t.v. . is to get the maximum political impact possible. before source material is what helps keep journalism honest when. we want to presen

i want that in the united states here in phoenix to help us with the economy. that brings me to the third point and that is the notion of dynamic talent is a tricky concept in the united states. we don't know in modern economies what helps an economy continue to grow and to remain strong and to prosper as it inknow vates, particularly as the economy and the culture and the society becomes relatively well off. it is a known phenomena that it is hard for individuals who are relatively well off to take outsized risk and put everything on the line. back to my original story, if you think about the swimmers in the contest, in order for the united states to prosper, we need lots of swimmers who are willing to get in the water and swim and save nothing for the trip back because they are the type of person who will do whatever it takes, work as hard as is needed and get to the other side without saving energy to get back. and this shows up in what we now have as the crystal clear data in the last several years largely funded by the kaufman foundation out of kansas city

the. 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 infirmary an international raid 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 already see you next time and remember. you can. still. if you want. home.

between us and the united states the united states is really hated in many parts of the muslim population do you think that by having such a close relationship with this well it is jeopardizing its international standing even further. not at all. there are many who say that. israel is so much attacked politically and so much incitement against is rooted in the arab and muslim world. because we were present western to all courses than the western civilization so it's kind of the other way around and indeed unfortunately in the muslim and the arab world there have been some brainwashing for generations by islamist elements by palestinians and they do not see the facts there is only one narrative. which is kind of a block for them for real opening their minds and hearts to somebody which is different from someone who somebody which really wants their. benefits. in that respect i believe all of us are in the same basket whether it's the united states whether it's europe whether it's russia or whether it's israel israel is still to have seven hundred nuclear weapons and it is the questions to

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

turkey las a nuclear umbrella from the united states. the most likely candidate is saudi arabia but not because they build one but because they tried to buy one from pakistan. of course, the pakistani would be extraordinarily nervous about providing this in violation of the npt marking themselves os an outlaw. it's not clear they would be willing to do that either. matt and most other scholars that looked at this don't believe iran itself would use a weapon. it's sufficiently rationale to know that to use a wep against israel and the united states would bring about massive retaliation. that's not the scenario we're talking about. possibility of iran being emboldened to use its proxy like hamas or other groups in the region, i think that is an issue we should take seriously. but of course, iran already does this without nuclear weapons. this isn't a danger an goes away from you stop iran from getting a bomb. the real quell is whether a emboldened nuclear iran and israel would find themselves in a situation that would escalate to nuclear wa

there's a lot of people pushing for the united states. he friends of mine two years ago are saying we want the united states to come in and bomb and a good point that the u.s. bases, the homes and elsewhere. but who is asking the question of what comes after, what is being dismantled as an arab nationalism that really keeps in check some of the forces we are seeing rise up, some of the islamic forces, the movements and other countries, people have been so thoroughly punished by some of these u.s. dictatorships that the turn of deeper and deeper towards religion, and i don't get the sense, and i don't -- i'm curious on what you think, the u.s. policy makers are thinking much further than the news cycle and with public pressure seems to be brought on the large media outlets or by the influential prominent think tankers. so much of what we think of is policies actually driven by what is going on here. i mean, just to give you -- to go back to iran, we have an odd political situation here where normally a democrat would rule on the issue of jo

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

in cooperation with the united states, we will continue our efforts against terrorism. think the forls of terrorism are becoming very diverse. amongst them, cyber terrorism, for example. between japan and the united states, cyber security as well. so we shall work together to rout out terrorism as well. i would like to ask a question f. there's no direct reference to china in the joint statement. what sort of views did you have on china in toward stability in the asia pacific connected with their advances in the oceans and also the military build-up. i wonder what thoughts you have on this subject. >> let me answer first. as you pointed out, the shared vision does not refer to any specific country. we recognize china as a major partner in the region. in our exchange of views, both of us confirmed that viewpoint. china's development is an opportunity for the international community, for japan and for the asia pacific. now i explained in the meeting to president obama when i visited china last december, i broached this subject in order to further advance our mutually benef

council eileen chamberlain donna who said, took a strong position, and she made the statement, "the united states on monday urged the united nations human rights council in geneva to stop its biased treatment of israel." it took particularly issue with agenda item 7 on which -- and this is something i've been complaining about. as long as i've been on this session. every single session the united states council has put an item on it, on their agenda with regard to israel, and, she said, the united states continues to be deeply troubled by the council's bias and disproportionate focus on israel, as exemplified by the standing agenda item. i think it's very important that the united states became part of this council, and i want to applaud the secretary of state and yourself for taking that position. but i want to reference one other issue, and that is women and michel bachelet and what we're doing with the u.n. efforts to address women's concerns. i've fought my entire life, as you have i know, to raise the status of women. and we see, and i've heard the secretary of state say this many times, 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

there were problems between the british and united states government. britain wanted to sustain its neutrality in the raging civil war and became somewhat skittish about continuing this agreement for the belief that the confederacy, which was still very active fighting the war, would interpret this as british power coming in and endorsing the emancipation proclamation, and not only doing that, but relocating the slave participants abroad. menard himself is also somewhat unsettled by the events that occurred in his absence. he comes back to new york and he learns that the new york draft riots of 1863 had occurred, when several free african-americans in the city were lynched. they were attacked on the streets, including henry highland garnett, who had to take cover in his home and remove the sign from his door to prevent the mob from coming in and attacking him and his family. this definitely unsettles several members of the free black community and they perceive british honduras for a brief period as a possibility to escape to. but at the same time, menar

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