it is like we are the united soviets states of america. a huge orwellian police state, really. i do not know what we can do about it, president chiu, but i would hope you will do something about it. can you imagine that? reports of the soviet union and how communism took over there. this huge at&t telephone companies working together with the government, and that is why basically we do not have any news media. they are all whole -- hiding the fact. we are coming up to 9/11. it is unbelievable. i just cannot begin. president chiu: thank you very much. are there any other members of the public who wish to speak? seeing none, why do i not invite back the appellant for a revival of up to three minutes? >> thank you. it is three antennas, not one, just so you know, and all three are appointed in the same direction. that is number one. number two, they are still inaccurate in their measure. if you look in front of the octagon, it is the stairway that leads up into the deck, and that is -- the black and decker tape measure does not lie. 56 b is a bit of a red herring because that is t

during the soviet occupation, the united states supplied and supported the anti-soviet mujahedin as they call themselves who waged a guerrilla war against the soviet army. in 1985 the united states launched something called operation cyclone which was a clandestine support program, which supplied the mumbai been with weapons and cash to the pakistani inter- services intelligence agencies. that united states really ramp up its participation at that point in time. once and so it's withdrew in 1989, they continued to support the afghan time is government under, the collapse of the soviet union in 1991. at that point in time, afghanistan really drops from the american radar, and especially under the clinton presidency there's very little interest in afghanistan. there's some residual interest from the refugees caused by the soviet war. there's also some kind of speculative strategic interest out of what are called pipeline politics, because the soviet, ex-soviet republics have huge natural gas resources so there was talk about a pipeline running through afghanistan into pakistan in order to

discussion of security arrangements, security arrangements between us and the soviet union, the former soviet united states of america, russia under the new circumstances, but also some of the other post soviet, nonrussian states. i wrote a little bit about this. >> rose: you wrote a book that said basically this was a time in which the united states missed a huge opportunity. >> yes, because we could have been engad the russian in security discussions that might have created a kind of a structure, a loose structure of mutual reassurance. >> rose: so how did putin come to power? >> well, putin came to power because of the internal failure in the siet union of the yet sin regime. >> rose: in russia -- >> i'm sorry, bad habit of mine. i have been living with the soviet union for such a long time, that it is hard not to think of that area as the soviet union. >> rose: the failure of yement sin opened the, yeltsin led the way for his o -- >> he hand picked -- >> it was a tragic failure because yeltsin was a complicated individual who was a at one point a true and similar pliferk believer in the doctrine

during the soviet occupation, the united states supplied and supported the anti-soviet mujahideen as they called themselves who waged a guerrilla war against the soviet army. in 1985 the united states launched something called operation cyclone which was a clandestine support program which supplied the knew mujahidn with weapons and cash through the pakistani inner service intelligence agency. so the united states really ramped up its participation at that point in time. once the soviets withdrew in 1989, they continued to support the afghan communist government under imagine they bull la. and the u.s. continued to supply is mujahideen though at a lower level up until that collapse in 1991 and the ending of soviet subsidies to to the afghan regime. at that point in time, afghanistan really drops from the american radar, and especially under the clinton presidency there's very little interest in afghanistan. there's some residual interest from the refugees caused by the soviet war, there's also, um, some kind of speculative strategic interests out of what are called pipeline politics

when so security was first passed and republicans argued that the program would turn the united states into a soviet union. luckily the american people ignore the republican surtax scare tactics them and by the time republican dwight eisenhower was president the one nine hundred fifty s. even he knew that those who wanted to get rid of social security were in his words stupid and he wrote in one nine hundred fifty four letter to his brother should any political party attempt to abolish social security unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs you would not hear that party again in our political history there is a tiny splinter group of course a little easier to do these things if you are the texas oil millionaires and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas the number is negligible and they are stupid unfortunately there's stupids every turn today and if the enemies of social security many of whom rely on wall street to fund their campaigns swept into office last year yelling and screaming about how social security is going bankrupt which is not by the way as

. >>> in october 1962 the united states and soviet union came close to nuclear war.oughout the crisis and we now know so did the first lady, jacqueline kennedy. at her own request. coming up, a "last word" exclusive with presidential historian michael beschless of how the just released audio tapes are adding to our understanding of american history. >>> later, penn jillette joins me on rick perry's campaign to become christian in chief. [ male announcer ] a raw nose can feel really sore. achoo! [ male announcer ] and common tissue can make it burn even more. puffs plus lotion is more soothing than common tissue, and it delivers our most soothing lotion for every nose issue. and today, we're re-inventing aspirin for pain relief. with new extra-strength bayer advanced aspirin. it has microparticles so it enters the bloodstream faster and rushes relief right to the site of your tough pain. in fact, it's clinically proven to relieve pain twice as fast. new bayer advanced aspirin. extra strength pain relief, twice as fast. [ male announcer ] test our fast relief. love it,

. >>> in october 1962, the united states and soviet union came close to nuclear war.dent remained at the white house throughout the crisis and we now know so did the first lady, jacqueline kennedy. at her own request. coming up, a "last word" exclusive with presidential historian michael beschless of how the just released audio tapes are adding to our understanding of american history. >>> later, penn jillette joins me on rick perry's campaign to become christian in chief. [ hayden ] what if there was a makeup that didn't just hide your breakouts... but actually made them go away. neutrogena skin clearing makeup has our proven blemish fighting formula so it clears your breakouts. now that's beautiful. neutrogena®. dr. scholl's custom fit orthotic center recommends the custom-fit orthotic that's best for your tired feet. foot-care scientists are behind it. you'll get all-day relief. for your tired achy feet. for locations, see drscholls.com. thank you... >>> when jacqueline kennedy a that died on may 19th, 1994, "the new york times" obituary -- she is silent no more. i

. >>> in october 1962 the united states and soviet union came close to nuclear war.sident remained at the white house throughout the crisis and we now know so did the first lady, jacqueline kennedy. at her own request. coming up, a "last word" exclusive with presidential historian michael beschless of how the just released audio tapes are adding to our understanding of american history. >>> later, penn jillette joins me on rick perry's campaign to become christian in chief. ♪ ♪ ♪ when the things that you need ♪ ♪ come at just the right speed, that's logistics. ♪ ♪ medicine that can't wait legal briefs there by eight, ♪ ♪ that's logistics. ♪ ♪ freight for you, box for me box that keeps you healthy, ♪ ♪ that's logistics. ♪ ♪ saving time, cutting stress, when you use ups ♪ ♪ that's logistics. ♪ this is what we can gather from an ordinary crash test dummy. two million data points. this is what we can gather from a lexus crash test genius. [ engine revving ] when you pursue industry-leading safety, you don't just engineer breakthroughs in simulation technology, you engine

major impact on particularly then-president putin's thinking about what the united states was trying to do. in the former sovietregion. and really contributed to putin's, at that time, disillusionment with the united states. and i think the one wider implication of this is, you know, we have a tendency in the united states when we think about ourselves as the sole superpower not always to focus on the fact that some of the decisions that we make can really have a disproportionate impact on others compared to the level of priority for us. and i'm not saying that to endorse the kozak memorandum or that particular solution to the problem. but i think it's something that bears thinking about. another thing that i found a little bit surprising was the relative lack of concern among many of the people who i talk to and, certainly, the two authors, about china's role in the former soviet union which is something, you know, that a lot of people in the united states are, are very focused on. but there was really a sense among a number of russian participants in the dialogue meetings and also the authors that, you know,

in this in the seventy's by the soviet union the united states and bush administration has contributed a lot to removing those pillars russian plethora of bullets is there a logical they gear is to continue as a corporation of that existed in the saw each era in building of the stability and this is extra missile defense in europe. is actually moving because of stability just to hold off we're going to have to can you could you just conversation on our website r.t. you talk you got a list as always a pleasure thank you thank you. i do stay with us here on r.t. we do value your opinion of you to get involved go to our website have to say on what the switching roles in the ruling tandem will mean for the future of russia cast your vote and check out what other viewers think as well that artsy dot com all right as we carry on here with a breaking news that r.t. let's cross over live to our to you so you had a really great job she's been covering the united russia conference are for. here at r.t. all week long. you've spoken to some of the people can you give us some background to the whol

&a >> even a partially successful strategic defense initiative would mean that the soviet plan are looking at the united states could not be assured of the outcome of an assault and a first reich on us. in the late senator malcolm wallop served in the senate from 1987-1985 and was a leading conservative during the reagan pregnancy, an early supporter of the star wars space defense system, and a leader in anti- communist policy in central america. watch him online at the c-span video library. >> next, a discussion on federal efforts to eradicate the stink bug, however i got here, and its impact on u.s. hubble growers. from "washington journal," this is just under 10 minutes. host: why is this an issue for the federal government? guest: it became important to us in apple production last year. around and 1990's, this has built up a population in the mid-atlantic area that last year really cause devastating losses to quite a number of folks in mid-atlantic fruit production. that is one thing that galvanized our efforts. this insect as an invasive species seemed to be like nothing else we have had dealt with

united nations veto and with interests ranging from europe to iran to asia? my next guest has been part of this crucial relationship for nearly four decades. sergei lavrov represented the then-sovietions in the 1980s. he is back now as russia's foreign minister. thank you for joining me, mr. lavrov. >> thank you for the invitation. >> in may, 2010, there was a leak of a 70-page document to the russian edition of "newsweek" in which you are supposed to have written that barack obama had the potential to be a transformational president who would change the character of u.s.-russian relations. and he was battling an intelligence military foreign policy establishment that wanted a more confrontational relationship. so two years in, has obama transformed u.s.-russian relations? >> well, i don't think we wrote exactly what you quoted. but we certainly believe that the slogan of change under which president obama came to office was a comprehensive one and embraced not only domestic politics but international and have seen a change in attitudes, the atmosphere is very different from the last years of the bush administration. and i think from the first meeting with president medvedev, i be

star wars as it was termed euphemistically at that time the soviets the then warsaw pact countries and everyone else understood that the united states was trying to do away with the old system of mutually assured destruction in the event of nuclear war and gain a kind of primary advantage by having a system that would catch some missiles which would allow the u.s. to carry out first rate weapon attacks so the russians the chinese the other major nuclear power certainly understand that it is of course worth ron to go simply just . brought out of course defensive systems could be used as offensive systems and that's one of moscow's major concerns why is it that the u.s. is reluctant to give a legally binding guarantee that those missile defense systems will not be turning into offensive systems and targeting russia. right because it's part of a coordinated first strike weapon system when there was mutually assured destruction when both sides knew that they would be destroyed in the event of a thermonuclear exchange or even a somewhat limited nuclear exchange that became a deterrent setting up a missile defense shield the united

major impact on particularly then president putin's thinking about what the united states was trying to do in the former sovietregion. and really contributed to putin, at that point, disillusioned with the united states. and i think one wider implication of this is, you know, we have a tendency in the united states when we think about ourselves as the sole superpower. not always the focus on the fact that some of the decisions that we make can really have a disproportionate impact on others, compared to the level of priority for us. and i'm not saying that to endorse the kozak memorandum, or that particular solution to the problem. i think it's something that bears thinking about. another thing that i found a little bit surprising was the relative lack of concern among many of the people who i talked to, and certainly the two authors, about china's role in the former soviet region, which is something that a lot of people in the united states are very focused on. but there was really a sense among a number of russian participants in the dialogue meetings and also the authors that, you know, china has a very imp

it brings us back to the cold war and reminds us how the soviet union and the united states were likens in a bottle, that the cuban missile crisis created a real fear, all the way to the first lady. and it showed the love that she had for her husband. i think jackie kennedy was being genuine when she said her greatest years, her happiest times with jack, were when she was in the white house, '61 to '63. in the white house, they had time together and the family got close and it's indicative of what anybody thinks if they have children they love and want to stay together in a crisis and not be apart. >> as a historian, do you think forever more will be viewed it will be viewed that she didn't like martin luther king? >> well, as you know, anderson, we live in these soundbite culture in a lot of ways. when ted kennedy was alive, there would be no way these tapes would come out, but it's the 50th anniversary of all things john kennedy and you have the kennedy library trying to bring attention to the presidency and here the tapes are and it was considered the time to bring it out. i think

it brings us back to the cold war and reminds us how the soviet union and the united states were likea bottle, that the cuban missile crisis created a real fear, all the way to the first lady. and it showed the love that she had for her husband. i think jackie kennedy was being genuine when she said her greatest years, her happiest times with jack, were when she was in the white house, '61 to '63. in the white house, they had time together and the family got close and it's indicative of what anybody thinks if they have children they love and want to stay together in a crisis and not be apart. >> as a historian, do you think forever more will be viewed it will be viewed that she didn't like martin luther king? >> well, as you know, anderson, we live in these soundbite culture in a lot of ways. when ted kennedy was alive, there would be no way these tapes would come out, but it's the 50th anniversary of all things john kennedy and you have the kennedy library trying to bring attention to the presidency and here the tapes are and it was considered the time to bring it out. i think the ma

relationships with its neighbors, but we argue that it's the soviet era that inhibits the other former ss r has constituent said units of the same states continued after the soviet collapse. these manifest themselves institutionally until 2000 relations with the countries were handled by the separate ministry for the affairs and the foreign affairs. they were simply not made to deal with this part of the world. and in other words, we argue that when moscow metals in its neighborhood it does so not out of security imperatives that all of the soviet era had it. the relevance for the u.s. interest in the region while perhaps not direct, i think we are deutsch crucial because if we assume an inherent fundamental clash of interest between the u.s. and russia in the post-soviet eurasia than the u.s. is presented with a stark choice either a realist bargain or neo conservative sort of roll back approach. but since that assumption is flawed, the u.s. interests and priorities can and should be examined in a different light, and what we argue is needed is a fundamental refashioning of the region itself. a more effective u.s. e

well back in the forty's the soviet union used to veto. things and the united states made a unilateral decision to say we will not veto applications to join the united nations so they will be broken that rule already some say of course. it satisfy the montevideo accords of water is that this peace process peace process we know is you know wants and we know what the united states wants out of it it wants well it's government it's congressman they want to get paid by zionist zionist organization but as i said because it once is dreadful for u.s. interests as for the european union i mean they don't even have a good solution at least a gay lobby in russia seems to be saying that the u.s. should not use its veto what president sarkozy said the talks were doomed to failure side said preconditions for each other what do you think about that i think president sarkozy's position on these matters again very much on that side and it doesn't bode very well for all his attempts to join in the arab spring whether it's for his petrol companies to elfin french companies we do

afghanistan certainly was not a country which the cia and the united states were unfamiliar they carried out a war there a covert war against the soviet back regimes in the one nine hundred eighty s. they had backed the taliban as a matter of fact and osama bin ladin was someone who was extremely well known to them he was a cia asset when you take iraq i mean saddam hussein was an opponent of al qaida they invented reasons to go into iraq they claimed he had relations with a drug cartel which now everyone admits was a lie they claimed he had weapons of mass destruction which now everyone knows was a lie so what you're dealing with are wars not to protect the american people but to serve the interests of the elite that run this country the top one percent the corporations the banks that saw in wars with plunder the ability to get ever more wealth as a consolidated more american your current one the oil resources of the outcome will be for your country unaware of this. well i mean i would say one of the great casualties of nine eleven and what followed is the integrity of the american media and what passed for an american telegenic that

just of the republicans but the democrats too i believe that the united states government feels in the aftermath of the collapse of the soviet union twenty years ago this year that there is one single power left in the world so they would like to overthrow the government in china they would like to overthrow the government in russia they would like to overthrow the gov. in venezuela cuba or wherever people are independent of the dictates of washington but i think it's a fantasy but when it comes to syria and iran washington doesn't seem to be just fantasizing about revolutions it actually fosters the process by pledging support for anti-government movements there but some say this might eventually turn against america's closest ally in the region israel if you were to see the rise of a popular revolution with with very extreme islamic fundamentalist elements there what you have with. with hamas could essentially spread to many more places and then you'd have a much much larger population base in an extremely hostile position towards the very existence of israel by throwing its support behind revolution makers and really say

soviets left afghanistan. which we had been funded by the united states the cia they came back to haunt the united states with the taliban regime do you worry about something like that happening with libya. that's already happening in libya where there are actually people fighting there who were trained by al qaida who've been in afghanistan and this is of course very close about but this is something which is already going on of course it is one of the very likely things that would happen. i had absolutely no chance we could. recognize that many many libyans are so pleased to see him go and i think he is afraid to take on but the truth of the matter is that you cannot just go into countries overthrow the regime this has to be a process which the people of those countries themselves undertake as they have done in egypt as they have done in china syria and as they want to do in a number of other countries which are being prevented from doing such as in power right now and if you don't do it like that if you think you can dictate these things in the value of the british empire used to do in the way that the ame

is as weak as it is is that great powers to include the united states to include russia in very much to include the soviet union in former days have disregarded the u.n. when they fit when they felt that the un's purposes were inconsistent with their own that's the reality of great power politics ok and then i just want to touch upon earlier because you were talking about the military industrial complex i'm curious with now that we hear politicians be in advance of war in some regards towards pakistan and we hear talking about the economy at work and regard to the attack in pakistan do you think that is a real threat or as a new book the man to justify war also the boogeyman i mean i think the u.s. pakistani relations are so fraught with contradictions that it's almost comic to describe our relationship as friendly or that we are one another's allies that said i think the hawks who are promoting the notion that the united states should use force against pakistan. that's an absurd proposition you know states already has more wars going on than it can handle and anything like full fledged hostilities with p

the united states versus the soviet union.and felt it would go on forever with a tech boom. bill clinton's people said what did you like better, the prosperity or the peace? it's not just 9/11 that shattered the supreme si. trends around the world, india and china and our own economic arrogance and foolishness once it got to the 21st century. >> what was missing post-9/11 and it had a raid yent effect on this country, we didn't have a dialogue about where we wanted to go from there and what it means to us. as we, you know, you can't measure history by decades or centuries. the punctuation mark of 9/11 happening was an opportunity to say what do we want? we are coming out of the american century. what is the 21st sentry going to mean to us. we had this attack. there's something called islamic rage out there. we are a global power. how do we deal with that? what do we cherish and what is the legacy? >> it is encouraging to see in the movements throughout the middle east that anti-americanism is not a flag. despite all the misste

pollard was it not opened german a former soviet union so he could travel and also the possibility to study in united states that you did. education which is called master of public and station business and. your converse of that certainly hope when you were when you were pretty i was the youngest. central school of presidents and this is was ok was. i was over this opportunity to say i spent almost two years in new york. did you have an opportunity to complete your reforms well all that there was envisaged by the by the and. his plan was it all done was it all i have been told by my friend because i have severe sedation and they're working for the team so we had advance basic reforms liberalizing the economy started the started of this basically solutions stock exchange starting privatization so i was in a better situation club political point of view but of course even three years is not enough so i have the second stage between two like ninety seven and two thousand and i have i was also a deputy prime minister we have accelerated some other reforms well in transition from state to market economy

during the cold war, there was a threat to the united states from the cold war, from the soviet union, during that period. this was a band of perhaps 1,000 radicals, mostly housed in afghanistan, pakistan, and i would argue that in fact, we did elevate them and in fact, we rejuvenated them in many ways by going into iraq, because according to the islamist ideology, the united states was sort of the far enemy and the regimes they didn't like, saudi arabia, egypt, were the near enemy. most jihadis pre9/11 were fighting the near enemy. we became a new force of enmity that the jihadis were opposed to. recruitment went up. >> cover story of "national journal." it's a sobering piece. an excellent read. it will be online for everybody to read or behind the firewall? >> i think it will be online. >> check it out. thank you. >>> tonight on msnbc, rachel maddow and nbc news chief foreign correspondent richard engel take a look at how 9/11 changed our world. first half of "day of destruction decade of war" premiers at 9:00 eastern on msnbc. we're centurylink...a new kind of broadband company com

enough because those countries in particular have been under the sun during the soviet era of their intelligence services. the united states stated goal of so much of what we've done to help eastern europe was trying to throw that off in a can democratically run. it seemed to last rather hypocritical but now we were cutting deals because that's what we were doing with the intelligence services. msn, winking at them, saying you know, we know this to be illegal in your country, with which it also was, but will do with you on this. >> guest: the "washington post" in this case and other cases has exercised i think more careful review and self-regulation to other major newspapers in the country and you deserve acknowledgment. >> guest: let's talk about that for a minute. what really needs to happen i think is there is no way the government is going to get prior agreements for papers. what needs to go on is more education and more discussion because that's the only way out of the weblog more responsibly. i want to give you one example of this. one time we were looking at rendition of airplanes that what we had this idea p

3000 americans in the course of a single morning, and looking more direct damage on the united states than the soviet union had done during the cold war. as of right and manage to do since then during united states? the answer is nothing. there has not been a single successful attack on the domestic united states for a decade. the idea that there would be one in the future it is fairly implausible, and if it does happen, i think it will not be something that completely changes our national security as 9/11 did. furthermore, there have only been 17 americans who have been killeding heidi terrorist attacks since 9/11 by people motivated by al qaeda's ideal jean-pierre fort hood, texas, the most obvious. more americans die in their bathtubs by considerable numbers than in terrorist attacks. we should not fear of heights if you're their ability to try to do anything in terms of catastrophic tax or anything relatively small is very constrained. why is that? the difference between 9/11 today and -- between 9/11 and today. on 9/11, there were 16 people on the no-fly list fear now, there are thousands cheere

point out, after the cold war ended with the fall of the berlin war and the soviet union became russia, all of a sudden the united states stood there number one and what we didn't realize is there were two billion new people looking for all the things that america had and somebody was gonna take note of that and build on it. it wasn't necessarily us. what hapned? >> we did something as we say in the book, that can be fatal, we failed to understand our environment. we took the end of the cold war as a giant victory and it was a giant victory but it also presented us precisely as you say because it brought two billion new people in the global work force and presented a huge challenge and we didn't recognize it and we threw a party and then came september 11 and we responded as we had to respond t we also over responded. we went around chasing the losers from globalization and forgot about the winners in east asia and forgot about dealing with our domestic challenges which are ultimately crucial for dealing with the world so we've had two decades of drift and we got to get back on track. we've got to back to our fiv

because those countries in particular have been under during the soviet era of their intelligence services, and the united states stated goal and so much of what we have done to help eastern europe would try to throw that off and make them democratically run and support the space institutions. it seems to us whether hypocritical that now we are cutting deals because that is what we are doing with the intelligence services and in a sense saying we know this would be illegal in your country, which again, it also was to do on this. >> host: i acknowledge the "washington post" in this case and in other cases has exercised a more careful review of self regulation than others in the country and to desert acknowledgement. >> guest: let's talk about that for a minute because what really needs to happen i think there is no way that the government is going to get prior agreements from the papers. what it needs to go on is more education and more discussion because there is the only way that anybody is going to act more responsibly. i want to give you another example of this. one time when we were looking at their r

countries, those countries in particular, had been under the thumb during the soviet era of their intelligence services, and the united states stated goal and so much of what we had done to help eastern europe was to try to throw that off and to make them democratically run, support democratic institutions. it seemed to us rather hypocritical that now we were cutting deals, because that's what we were doing, with the intelligence services, and in a sense wiping at them -- winking at them saying, you know, we know this is illegal in your country, which, again, it also was, but we'll deal with you on this. >> host: well, i acknowledge the "washington post" in this case and in other cases has exercised, i think, more careful review and self-regulation than have other major newspapers in the country, and you deserve, you know, acknowledgement for that. >> guest: let's talk about that for a minute because what really needs to happen, i think -- there's no way that the government is going to get prior agreements from the papers. what needs to go on is more education and more discussion because that's the only way that every

united states. kind of totally different. even if we knew. because we saw so many years ago the soviet army in afghanistan that afghanistan is so trepan tree that cannot be concrete and which is very very difficult and. there would be no solution with pakistan on one hand on the other hand in afghanistan ok well looking at their perspectives people especially ordinary citizens going there are those in afghanistan and iraq who do feel that the u.s. attack them for no credible reason i mean even if we go back to the reasons that existed at that time do you think there's a danger that the u.s. has created more enemies for. citizens in its efforts to protect. you can say that of the iraq war because going to work in iraq was the period of solidarity of. solidarity with z. u.s. after the attacks of the. years. in iraq know. going in your heart. was. necessarily a way to create enemies of the u.s. . that's what history shows shows now ok at ten years on do you think the u.s. has a one anything in the war on terror. yes they have if you will if you look at the ten years you look at the. ten y

when the united states china and other countries saudi arabia pakistan got heavily involved with afghanistan against the soviets the arabs came in and you know the at the arab legionnaires the islamic legionnaires who gave support to the fundamentalist afghan groups but even you know the most fundamental mentalists afghans never like the arabs they consider them arrogant and the arabs consider them not real muslims and the arabs probably most famous for americans are the arabs who came in was so solid in law exactly and. the u.s. did the u.s. helped establish the taliban. indirectly absolutely during the eighty's we were the cia provided most of that support through the pakistani i.s.i. the military intelligence organization which was ludicrous because i had its own agenda the american agenda was really to give the soviets their own good was not really there for the afghans we talked a lot about freedom fighters supporting them about the whole charlie wilson's war exactly exactly which also by the way the film misrepresented the situation we support of this rather nasty individual called goban hekmatyar who is