if it is pushed out of afghanistan, it will merely go to yemen and strengthen its forces there. >> the right honorable gentleman makes a very powerful point, with which i agree strongly. i have had many bilateral meetings with other foreign ministers during the kabul conference, and that was a regular subject. indeed, my right honorable friend the defense secretary and i have spent most of the morning with the italian foreign and defense ministers, and yemen was high on our agenda, as was somalia, on which the italians have particular expertise. we will try to make sure over the coming months that we reinvigorate the friends of yemen process launched by the right honorable member for south shields, and i fully take the point made by the right honorable member for leicester east. >> rehman chishti. >> may i commend the foreign secretary on the role that he played at the kabul conference, and ask him what proportion of the taliban are afghan, and what proportion are from outside afghanistan? that will be a relevant factor in a long-lasting political settlement. >> i thank my honorable fr

yemen in 2008.showed their appreciation by voting against opposition 92.8% of the time in 2008, 71.4% in 2009. but yemen, not only did they get millions and millions of dollars simply in foreign aid from the united states, new england gave them a real boom. new england just found out in the last few weeks this year new england gave them a contract to provide liquid natural gas for the next 20 years to yemen. now, in order for yemen to get that contract, we had to snub our nose at countries who have been very supportive and have been friends, including some in the caribbean. we snubbed our nose at our friends and new england gives what will result in incredible amounts of money to yemen for liquid natural gas. at the same time we were having hearings, been having hearings in natural resources committee to try to hamper hydraulic fracking by the use of -- fracking. by the use of hydraulic fracking we've been able to secure over 100 years reserves of natural gas that we could be using our own natural g

or outside of pakistan in yemen? our assessment is he is most likely in the tribal areas of pakistan. >> given all the resources the u.s. government has at its command and all the years you and others have spent trying to find them, we essentially have no clue where he is? >> see he is in the tribal areas suggests we do have some clue. [laughter] >> right, but nice try. >> it sounds really silly. i don't mean to make light of this. finding him i think is a national security imperative. but he is hiding. he is hiding in an area of the world that is unbelievably difficult for the u.s. and the government of pakistan to operate. if you look at the olympic park, it in the mountains of appalachia for many years, it took him -- to belong time to find him as well. the world is an awfully big place. thanks to many movies like " enemy of the state" americans a imagine we have far greater capabilities to zoom in on any geographical or nets in the world and find the individual. if it were, my job would be a lot easier. >> let me

regarding yemen first, we are working a civilian military with yemen. it's, as you know, a very poor country. it's got severe water problems. it's got an internal rebellion, and of course, it's got the aq, the terrorists that are a thrt not just to yemen but also next door to saudi arabia. we are working in as cohesive a way, civilian diplomatic military role as we can, considering the capacity of the cotry to take on support. but i think it's going the right direction right now. it's going to be a problem. we are going to have to address it i think in league with some friends in the region that can also assist. as far as the horn of africa, as you know, it's under afrakaikan but if you look at possible links with al-shaabab, we are going to have to get to a point of collaboration that the enemy doesn't find a seam between cent-com and africom nd i'm committed to doing that. >> that's the point i wanted to raise with you. they're so close, trafficking between the two places. i look forward to traveling to the region later this year and learning more abo

we're going to bring in a bomb from yemen where the terrorists have been located so often and it turns out people on capitol hill are getting calls who raised a question about it and they get a call, look, we are trying to build up yemen and trying to help this country that is supporting our enemies so maybe they will like us better. i have a bill and filed it all three sessions and i'm hoping we will get it to the floor. we will file for a discharge petition to be brought to the floor. very simple. it says any country -- every country is its own sovereign. any country that votes against us can vote in the u.n. will get no financial assistance from us. you don't have to pay people to hate you. they'll hate you for free. why are we pouring billions and billions of dollars hoping they will like us. they'll not. you don't buy friendlyness. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for the remainder of the time until midnight. mr. gohmert: you can give somebody your sandwich and give somebody your lunch money and hope that they leave i alone but all they do is keep co

his radicalization the somoccurred more in london n yemen. but if you say it occurred in yemen, first, they will be very fearful that there will be a direct american intervention and i think a lot of countries fear a direct intervention by the united states because it will tend to combine the population opposed to the government, opposed to u.s. intervention. they're worried about that, but also, they see this as an opportunity because there are huge problems in yemen. i think over 60% of the population is under 25. there is about 40% youth unemployment. there are about 1 million refugees there. sennar will be the first major capital to run out of water, probably in the nnxt 10 years. secession is moving in the south and they've got rebellion in the north. al qaeda becomes low down on that list. but if the united states were to see al qaeda on the arabian peninsula being said -- a threat to their security, you could see how they will be managing that threat, playing it down. i'm not trying to be too cynical, but it is just a fact. >> you ment

security in pakistan, yemen, somalia, and elsewhere. so again, i agree with part of what you said, and i certainly agree our strategy is not sustainable. host: front page of the "l.a. times," this headline, "the pakistan taliban ties may be key to u.s. afghan goals." and one of the points from the story from l.a.'s alex rodriguez is the pakistan government denying again, as you said earlier, any ties or assistance to the taliban, but the story continues to surface. guest: well, yes. the story hasn't died, and i don't think -- you asked me if i know there is no pakistani collaboration with the taliban. no, i don't know that, and i think at some level, somewhere in pakistan, there is, and it has taken a huge effort, led by our very capable ambassador to persuade the pakistanis to invest more resources, their military and police resources, and going after the taliban in pakistan. but they are doing it, and there's a loss of life there for doing it, but they have reclaimed some areas of their own country, like the swat valley. i visited the

security in pakistan, yemen, somalia, and elsewhere.o again, i agree with part of what you said, and i certainly agree our strategy is not sustainable. host: front page of the "l.a. times," this headline, "the pakistan taliban ties may be key to u.s. afghan goals." and one of the points from the story from l.a.'s alex rodriguez is the pakistan government denying again, as you said earlier, any ties or assistance to the taliban, but the story continues to surface. guest: well, yes. the story hasn't died, and i don't think -- you asked me if i know there is no pakistani collaboration with the taliban. no, i don't know that, and i think at some level, somewhere in pakistan, there is, and it has taken a huge effort, led by persuade the pakistanis to invest more resources, their military and police resources, and going after the taliban in pakistan. but they are doing it, and there's a loss of life there for doing it, but they have reclaimed some areas of their own country, like the swat valley. i visited there with ann patterson recently, f

both you and senator lugar mentioned somalia and yemen. it is not correct, this is not my area but i follow it and it is not quite correct to say that the u.s. is ignoring it or has no plans in it. .. envisioned? of the rollout has not yet reached the provinces. that is the next phase. we we have put $100,000, $100 mil'' approval. conagra's approval of funds at the disposal of general petraeus and isaf to do this through isaf, but the main route for doing this, what you and i call reintegration, is through the afghan government and the trust funds which the bredesen that the japanese have led to which the u.s. did not contribute. the jack japanese took the lead. it is hour and absolute goal to press the afghan government to fulfil its already stated commitment to put to reintegration officials in every one of the contested districts in the country immediately and to support them with logistics and make this plan work because every day under the in pressure that isaf put on the taliban there are people contacting local authorities and sayin

al qaeda isn't in afghanistan anymore, but in pakistan, building up in yemen and somalia. americans are saying are we going to nation billingd in every country in the world until the problem is solved. and what would you say? >> we should help those governments which are willing to take on terrorist elements in their midst which threaten them. help them t

gain out more than two percent is in the news of the chemical company in elstree and they're still yemen farrell of seeking to replace the c.e.o. found in over in europe shares are also fooling with the dax and slipping into the red this hour bucking the trend though banks have risen sharply this week on a combination of the prospect of looser regulation and earnings the higher again on wednesday with the m.p.c. power bar shares up three point four percent. russian companies have cut their reliance on banks for financing to the greatest degree since nine hundred ninety instead companies issue bonds and shares which accounted for seventy percent of corporate finance this year according to bloomberg that's up from forty seven percent two years ago their placement of banks is. sources of finance brings russia into line with developed economies where many companies raise finance directly from the market's russian corporate bond issuance has exceeded twenty two billion dollars so far this year with another twelve billion still expected according to citi group russia's gas group may assemble t

all wars that we've been fighting with special ops forces going into other countries like yemen and somalia that now the tab for that has reached over a trillion dollars and it seems like this unstoppable machine and in many ways i feel like these people probably would love it to be that instead of a machine but it's dangerous because when everything's name done in the name of fighting against terror of not only protecting america but also israel its allies and really this will never end and that since it puts us into a religious war with these other people that are that are waging a religious war against us that's a good point you know they also forget to mention that general petraeus a couple of months ago did say that our in conditional support for israel is putting american troops in danger on the ground in these war theaters not to mention the thirty billion dollars we're giving to israel next ten years for their military forces now as you mentioned trillions trillions of dollars in debt this country has become because of these wars while we continue to fund israel which is contributin

if you look at ccristmas case, which originated in yemen. the government will react -- they are fearful that there will be a direct american intervention a lot of ountries fear the consequencess they would worry about thaa. they would say, yes, this is an over 60% of the population aree under 25. they have a rebellion in the north. al qaeda, is very llw on the list. you can see resources flowing in. maybe that is not such a bad thing. they are playing it up and playing it down. i m not trying to be too simple. >> you mentioned ttat he was paddcaaized mooe so in london, where he was a university sttdent. more so than in yemee. the rest of eerope.+%--phow wwes counterterrorism between the u.s. and europe today? >>>i think it is pretty good. there is a close relationship between the american ageecies predates /11 by a very long time. clearly, everyone is trying to promote heii own interests. in the relationship has to recoggize the interest of the other side. whether you are talking about countries, you are bound tt see an instance of interest.

the taliban and al qaeda, they have been moving their training grounds outside of afghanistan into yemen and into pakistan and that's why we must not allow them to have sanctuary. another thing i'd like to talk about that's not been mentioned is the rules of engagement. when i was coming in today i heard on the radio an afghanistan american soldier who had just gotten back from afghanistan and he said the rules of engagement are crazy. he said he'll go into a combat situation and he'll have an enemy target and they'll say you can't fire on that target unless you get approval from your commanding officer and he says many times the soldiers who are put in that position will get killed before they get the approval to fire on their target. we need to change those rules of engagement so we can go after the enemy wherever they are. and get the job done. why should we handcuff our troops when they're in a combat situation? it makes absolutely no sense. that's a recipe for disaster. so if i were talking to the president or general petraeus i would say, let the troops do their job, don't give san

-- a particular detainee back to yemen, the national security adviser told me that those agencies would be reminded of the administration's decision. now as i think we discuss once before, the administration's decision is their decision. but if there is an implication that the intelligence committee should not be told honestly and frankly of advice that you give to the policymakers, whether is set acceptor not, that troubles me. would you commit to providing the committee the honest and forthright recommendations and assessments that you make, regardless of whether they are accepted optimally by policymakers? >> yes, sir, i would. as we discussed before, this is an interagency process and not an exclusive determinate. it would be in my view that the intelligence should be as thorough and accurate as possible in making such assessments. i do not see any problem with that once we have spoken are peas, and that that is ignored, that is the process. i certainly have no trouble -- i would not have any trouble conveying that to the committee. >> in case you are advised of a position, we want

al qaeda leaders in yemen, somalia, sudan. everywhere except afghanistan we do not send in 100,000 troops on the ground. we work with indigenous government and other operations cooperative lead to objection, amended. the unfinished business is the question on suspending the rules and agreeing to h.con.res 290, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: house concurrent resolution 290, concurrent solution expressing support f designation of june 30 as national esign day. the speaker pro tempore: the queson is will the house suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended -- >> madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the -- those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and b

i mentioned yesterday here on the floor about yemen, i just wonder how many new englanders, how many people who live in boston know that this year for the first time they've gotten rid of their contract for liquid natural gas, liquefied natural gas, from areas that are very friendsly to us, some in the caribbean -- friendly to us, some in the caribbean, that's been done away witha and now contract for the next -- away with and now the contract for the next 20 years is with yenl. i know there are nice folks, there are nice folks from yemen, but they also happen to harbor terrorists. when people from guantanamo were released to yemen they ended up getting away and those terrorists are at large, maybe back here in the united states now. and another thing, of course today that occurred in addition to this massive appropriation, came out of committee, we find out the senate has voted to seppeds the so-called financial reform -- send the so-called financial reform bill to president for signature to become law. break mice heart. now, there's some things in there that are good reform rules a

how would you characterize the threat of the american in yemen? and it is in our interest to see him killed, captured for intelligence or kept on the run, as he is today? >> i think he has made no secret of his animosity against this country. i think he is a danger that ought to be addressed aggressively. >> what about the kill, capture, or on the run? >> ok. [laughter] >> what do you think is in our long-term interest? is it to kill him, capture him to glean intelligence, or try to force him underground and constantly moving from place to place on a daily basis? >> we talk about a long-term interest of this country. homeland security, we use the phrase -- what does this country needs at this moment? we need a safe and secure home land. we need a dynamic economic engine that can generate new wealth. we need strong friends and allies. we need relationships with others within the rule of law. we need fundamentally to keep ourselves secure and address threats when they exist. it is a threat, do we need to address it? yes. in my follow-up question, di

, one of those terrorists that went back to terrorism in yemen, they're hoping they won't be onboard that ship to blow it up and take half the city with it. . i want to end our dependency, having been in the military four years, i know if you cannot produce as a country everything you need in warfare and especially energy, you can't win a serious war. you can't. and some people are not aware of how dangerous the battle of the bullling was at the end of -- battle of the bulge. if the germans had enough gasoline, the bulge that was being pushed through the west to the font and montgomery said i'll stay in the rear, it would have been too late if they had gotten to montgomery but they ran out of gas. those incidents where the germans got so close to americans' supply of gasoline and didn't take the supply depots, i think were acts of god. as a result, they didn't have the gasoline they needed. patton was able to move in and they stopped it, but the intent was working to drive americans back to the atlantic ocean. and they ran out of gasoline. now, we're to the point where we are so depe

they're losing tside funding from saudi arabia, yemen -- so they have had to resort more to criminalctivity, extortion, kidnapping, illicit lumber trafficking, heroin trafficking, also the taliban are very factionallized and i think in the west we often perceive them as this monolithic entity. there is also a differentiation between more the older, ideological taliban and some of the newer taliban like the haqqani network or the hikmanchur network, a week ago we had 11 of our workers kidnapped by the taliban in logar province which is near where these two american soldiers had been kidnapped or killed, and our leader -- our manager, waqil within a few hours met with the elders in the province and they assurrender that the taliban who kidnapped our 11 workers -- they ascertained that the taliban who kidnapped our workers were basically outsiders, so they contacted the haqqani taliban, it's local, it's their turf, within 20 hours the workers were released unharmed, we obviously wouldn't pay any money for them but it had to do with their knowledge of how the factionallized taliban group

it pops up in yemen, it pops up in somali. what is the larger vision? how does the u.s. combat that? >> the larger vision is to appeal to the moderate islamic states. the moderate muslim world. which is the vast majority. that's the first piece. the second piece is in those areas which the radicals can feed on and breed off of is to try to help stabilize those governments. not alone. but with the rest of the world. and part of that is building strong countries around them. as well as inside. and it's a long-term deal. but i think we're making progress. and president obama -- i got asked the other day, well, you ran for president, you know. you're vice president. i said, we got the order right. even if i had been a great president and been elected, it would have taken me four years to do what he did in one month. in one month, he changed the attitude about america in one month. the muslim world, and the moderate muslim world no longer thinks it's us or them. the most important one we're finishing up now, god willing, is iraq. imagine iraq as a stable country in that part

al qaeda leaders in yemen, somalia, sudan. everywhere except afghanisn we do not send in 100,000 troops on the ground. we work with indigenous government and other operations operative lead to root them out. so i think if we are going to do that, we need to have a system to identify the problem, anyone associated with what they are doing, and go after them similarly. i do not think it requires 100,000 troops on the groun the counterinsurgency mission has some sious issues, and i hope the president uses this opportunity to revisit it. you do need a government that is not corrupt, which had been a problem in afghanistan, but some of this money going in could be fueling those operations. we need to see what is a more efficient way to fight terrorism. as i say in the report, there is a lot of use for that money in this country. hos the senate confirmed general petraeus as the afghanistan commander. what does that suggest to you as far as the debate in washington? guest: they believe he is the man to get this job done. he wrote a b

"yemen, the next afghanistan"? a couple of the points that he makes include this -- "al qaeda has sounded more confident than ever in recent weeks, publishing its own internet magazine and its own english only magazine." as you to see from this piece, "al qaeda may have found the perfect combination of political chaos, tribal hostility, and military opportunity in yemen." james, good morning. caller: good morning. i am here to tell you that of law of unintended consequences is alive and well in georgia. let me just say that i know something about the prison system down here. we want to make prisoners pay for the stuff that they do. to large degree it makes sense. in many ways it has gone overboard. many prisoners who are more than eligible for parole are opting not to go on parole. they are going to get hit with child support off the top, 60% of the gross. standard payroll taxes, another 20%. they have to pay for parole officers, some of which do not have to pay reparations on top of that. it is not worth it to go

sorts of boats going up and back between yemen and somalia.nd it's very, very hard to stop the flow of guns coming out of the middle east into somalia, especially when there's chaos in somalia. there's no government. so movement in and out is very easy. and also it borders on kenya. now, kenya is a friend of the united states, they don't like al shabab but it's hard to control the borders. so anybody who has access to guns can easily access somalia. host: next, on our line for republicans. sorry we just lost them. tell us a little bit more about what the administration plans on doing to try and quell this growth of al shabab is there anything they can do diplomatically or might this involve the use of military force either unilaterally or in conjunction with some of the countries in the african union? guest: one thing i can assure you is the united states government is not going to send troops to somalia. we had a bad experience in 1993, and we're not going to do that again. plus, we are fighting wars in afghanistan and iraq. the whole focus o

iran sent tentacles into yemen and saudi arabia. iran sent weapons into south america.this is what they do when they do not have nuclear weapons. think of what they will do tomorrow when they do have them. it is very hard for modern men and women to come to terms with the rule of irrationality in human affairs. we tend to think that people and states are driven solely by interest, by a sober calculation of cost and benefit. we must recognize that those who glorify death and those who dispatch hordes of suicide bombers are not driven by grievances that can be addressed or by a despair that can be alleviated. we must recognize that they are wide-eyed true believers, even mad believers in the world. there are fanatics who prescribed to it twisted creed and they are willing to pay any price for its realization. they are driven by a fervent hope that they will succeed at any price. shakespeare advises us to see the method in the madness facing today's militants in the middle east. we should be well advised to see the madness in the method, to recognize that not everyone is c

the particular case in point, in yemen, as we discussed in february as a closed hearing. that is something you have to watch carefully in yemen because of their ability to monitor and rehabilitate anyone is problematic at best. when these decisions are made, this is an interagency thing, process, in which intelligence isn't important, but not the only input into that decision. >> do you agree the committee should be given the intelligence assessment on guantanamo bay detainees which we have not fully received yet? >> as far as i am concerned, yes, sir, you should have that information. >> i have some concern that i would like your views on having the dni sit in a policy-making role for the purposes of voting on the disposition of guantanamo detainees. is that over the line of intelligence gathering and at getting into a policy area? >> i do not know the exact mechanics of how those meetings work. i would say as a general rule that i don't believe intelligence should be in a policy-making role. it should provide a range of options for policymakers, but i do not believe int

we need to use the anti-trade policies to get countries like afghanistan, pakistan and yemen to police their own countries. we need to stop having our politicians that use us as a police force. only then can we solve the problems in afghanistan because they are their own country. they have sovereignty themselves. and they have an idea of what they want for their lives. as long as we impose our will on them, they'll never corporate fully. >> i'm pleased to see that john mccain agrees with me. i believe that john's term was "an uncertain trumpet". it's more than an uncertainty. it undergirds this administration. we actually have a commander in chief wanting to give medals for our folks not fighting. what an insult that is for the men and women who do any task we ask of them and are fe nominal for -- denominal for us. we need to make sure that this commander in chief allows his commander on the ground to change the rules of engagement so that our troops can engage in war fighting. i thought it was interesting that john said there should not be a date certain. i agree. i remember this well

we have al qaeda in other countries as well -- in pakistan, sudan, yemen. we do not need to have a war for every threat we have. i say this as a widow of a veteran who was in two wars -- world war ii and korea. thank you very much for taking my call. what do think of my ideas? guest: there is a growing number of people in this country and all around the world who think that, who have the same feelings you do. let's not forget that we are in afghanistan as a direct response to 9/11. they did attack us, and we are seeing al qaeda or affiliates in other countries -- yemen, somalia -- branching out and trying to inflict damage outside of those areas. i do not think anyone, this president or anyone else, is advocating fighting a war against every country where there is a al qaeda, but you have to remember the afghan war was a direct consequence of 9/11. host: north korea, what is the condition of kim jong il? guest: unclear at the moment. he is better than he was two years ago when he suffered a stroke. but there are concerns in north korea about his health. the

we need to go back to using trade policies to get countries like afghanistan, pakistan, and yemen to police their own countries. we are not the world police force and we need to stop having politicians that use our military as a police force. only then can actually solve the problems in afghanistan. they are their own country. that have sovereignty themselves. they have an idea of what they want for their lives. as long as we impose our law upon them, they will never cooperate fully. >> i am pleased to see that john mccain agrees with me at least in terms of the conduct of our current commander entry. it is more than an uncertain trumpet. we actually have a commander in chief wanting to give medals to folks not fighting. what an insult that is to the men and women who do any test we ask of them and are phenomenal for us. we should define victory in afghanistan as the eradication of the taliban and any al qaeda remnants within that troubled land, and we need to make sure that this commander in chief allows his commander on the ground to change the rules of engagement so that our troop

i asked him about this squall in yemen situation, because they apparently had some connection to that bombing in uganda, and he admitted that yemen is almost as bad as where things were in afghanistan a few years ago. not exactly the greatest comparison. >> no, very bad, very bad to say the least, chuck. as you mentioned, the president is about to come out to discuss oil containment in the gulf, but he has to be careful to temper his words because he does not want to appear to be doing some sort of victory lap here. >> that's exactly right. aides have been furiously trying to tamp down expectations because frankly, it's very possible we'll see oil flowing again, because this whole system was designed to contain the oil while they get the relief wells done. and so i think that's why they've been very hesitant, even with these remarks. look, let's be honest, we were expecting these remarks about 40 minutes ago. it's very obvious to me that they're still trying to figure out the right tone to take, because they don't want to raise expectations that this is over. >> and chuck, the preside

hundreds of people from nations that sponsor terrorism including afghanistan, and egypt, pakistan, in the yemen, who had been detained as they are crossing into the country. is that a likely number, that there are hundreds of potential people from terrorist nations who are crossing on a regular basis? >> i have not seen that report. i cannot comment. we are working every day to ensure the safety and security of the southern border. as one who knows this area well , this order has never been more secure. we are working to strengthen the measures that we have. no single part of the system -- it is a combination of personnel and procedures. we will continue to work on those areas. but there is someone else here. blue shirt. >> in the current fiscal climate, isn't it time to get rid of the funding formula? and replace formula that is based on the fact that north dakota has the same number of senators and then new york does. >> in our view, it is very clear. everyone faces some risk. we know that as we have translated into an austere fiscal environment, a number of things need to be reexamined. we n

first of all, how would you characterize the threat of the american yemen to the u.s. homeland? do you believed it is in the u.s. long-term interest to be killed, captured for intel, are kept on the run as he is today? >> i think he has made no secret of his animosity and determination to ferments violence against this country. i think he is a danger that ought to be addressed aggressively. >> what about the kilt, capture, or on the run? >> uh, ok. >> is it to kill an american overseas? to capture him for intelligence? or is it to try and force them underground as he is living, from what i understand, constantly moving from place to place? >> we talked about the long-term interest of this country. homeland security we use the phrase "a safe, secure, resilience place where america can drive." what does this place needed? we need a dynamic economic engine that can generate new wealth. we need strong friends and allies. when the predictable relations with the rule of law. we need to fundamentally to keep ourselves secure and address threats. is he a threat? yes. do we need to addre

how would you characterize the threat of the american in yemen? and it is in our interest to see him killed, captured for intelligence, or cap on the run? >> i think we have made no secret -- he has made no secret of his animosity against this country. i think he is a danger that ought to be addressed directly. >> what about the kill, capture, or run and run? >> ok. [laughter] >> what is in our long-term interest? is it to kill him, capture him to glean intelligence, or try to force him underground and constantly moving from place to place? >> we talk about a long-term interest of this country. homeland's security -- homeland security, we use that phrase. what does this country needs at this moment? we need a safe and secure home when. we need a dynamic economic engine deck and generate new wealth. we need strong friends and allies. we need relationships with others within the rule of law. we need fundamentally to keep ourselves secure and address threats when they exist. it is a threat, do we need to address it? yes. in my follow-up question, vir

this has included iraq, afghanistan, pakistan, yemen and somalia. after 20 years of killing and a couple of trillion dollars wasted, not only does the fighting continue with no end in sight but the leaders threat ton spread our balms of benevolence on iran. for most americans, we are at war. at war against a tactic called % terrorism. not a country. this allows our military to go any place in the world with without limits as to time or place. but how can we be at war? congress has not declared war as required by the constitution. that is true. but our presidents have and congress and the people have not objected. congress obediently provides all the money requested for the war. people are dying. bombs are dropped. our soldiers are shot at and killed. our soldiers wear uniform, our enemies do not. they are not part of any government. they have no planes, no tanks, no ships, no missiles, and no modern technology. what kind of war is this, anyway? if it really is one. if it were a real war, we would have won it by now. our stated goal since 9/11 has be

yemen is the perfect example. it's like playing the child's game whack-a-mole.stop al qaeda in one area, they'll show up in another. the war against terror is not to be found in the mountains of afghanistan and pakistan, as we have vividly seen in uganda recently. i mention that and i have this poster that shows, again, as i am being repetitive for just one minute, the number of men and women coming back from afghanistan and iraq in a flag-draped coffin. it's our policy, our responsibility on the house floor and in the senate to debate policy. these young men and women are doing exactly what they joined the army, marine corps, navy, and air force to swear they will do for this kuhn country. they will go when -- when their leaders call on them to go. it is our responsibility on the floor of the house to debate the policy. policy on afghanistan has been proven from alexander the great to the english, to the russians to all the countries, you are taking a country with over 1,400 tribes and trying to make it a nation. it's not going to happen. it's not fair to our m

we have afghanistan, pakistan, yemen -- they have to stop terrorism in their own country. >> mr. harris. >> we have problems in afghanistan because we have a commander in chief to does not understand the situation. we need to change the rules of engagement that our troops confront. if a sniper drops a rifle and tries to blend back into a crowd, our troops cannot engage. we should define victory as the eradication of the taliban and any al qaeda or pronounced within the land known as afghanistan. those two conditions must be met. i think that will bring success. >> senator? >> of course, congressman hayworth is misinformed or does not understand. i do not know which. the rules of engagement set by general petraeus had been tweaked. general petraeus will do whatever is necessary. he has had the experience and is one of the great leaders. this is long, hard, and tough. we agreed that the loss of american lives. july has been beat up this month ever. august will be tough, as well. we can succeed and bring them home with honor. >> next question for mr. hayworth. when you were in congr

clearly we are interested in yemen. we are interested in somalia but there are things about the location and afghanistan that gives al qaeda an advantage for being in afghanistan that would not have to have if they had to rely on a safe haven in yemen and and afghanistan you made a very telling statement, mr. ambassador, about the consequences if we walk away from afghanistan as we did 20 years ago and i believe that is almost a direct quote of your testimony today that the results could be catastrophic as they were earlier because we walked away and in that context i want to ask you to respond, mr. ambassador, to the comment of the cia director when he said u.s. officials had not seen any firm intelligence that insurgent troops in afghanistan and interested in reconciliation, which i think we've acknowledged in this room today is important if we are going to bring this effort to successful conclusion. mr. panetta said davis, and you've read the testimony but let me quote for the record, we have seen no evidence they ar

yes, we know al qaeda's in other parts of afghanistan, 50, then pakistan, yemen, somalia and other countries. and yet tom begosey is like so many in our military that would undergo time after time, time after time. but they also are human beings that break down as well as get tired and the families, katie, is now the mother to two children without her husband, tom. mr. speaker, this tragedy difficult war goes on and on and on and yet we have no end point in afghanistan. we just keep sending the troops back and back and back and back and just recently we had a debate on the floor of the house and we tried to debate, what is the end point to the strategy? i'm not a military man, mr. speaker. but i've talked to many, all ranks, and i've been told, if you don't have an end point to a strategy, you have no end point. i hope that mr. obama will keep his word and start in june of 2011 to downsize the military. because, mr. speaker, it breaks my heart to stand on the floor and to show a beautiful young couple and yet the husband was worn out and tired and in fact the title of the article says, a pro

ronald reagan for not wanting to start a war, let's give credit to president clinton also with the yemenael really doing something other than wasting time protecting poppies in afghanistan? guest: i have grown more skeptical of the afghanistan mission. i do think that there was a commitment we made to the people of afghanistan. several years ago when this government of hamid karzai had more popular support and was left overwhelmingly corrupt. the american presence in afghanistan was more popular. it might have been that the united states could've played a more constructive role there. i fear now we are in the situation in which we have committed to a counterinsurgency campaign. in that it has to be owned by the local government. unless there is commitment to the people from that country, it is unlikely to work. the recent rolling stone article about stanley mcchrystal, doubt the afghan president does not know all the provinces where the u.s. military is fighting. that is very disturbing to me. we also have the strange situation in which most of the al qaeda presents we are were about is

people from nations that sponsor terrorism, including afghanistan, egypt, or iran, iraq, pakistan, and yemenwho had been detained as they illegally crossed into the southern part of the country. and a follow-on question from what you were commenting on, is that a likely number that there are hundreds potential people from terrorist nations who are crossing unregulated across our borders? >> i have not seen the report. i am afraid i cannot comment on it. what i can tell you is that we're working every day to ensure the safety and security of the southern border. knows this area well, knows arizona well, knows the border extremely well. this border has never been more secure. secure.

al qaeda leaders in yemen, somalia, sudan. everywhere except afghanistan we do not send in 100,000 troops on the ground. we work with indigenous government and other operations cooperative lead to root them out. so i think if we are going to do that, we need to have a system to identify the problem, anyone associated with what they are doing, and go after them similarly. i do not think it requires 100,000 troops on the ground. the counterinsurgency mission has some serious issues, and i hope the president uses this opportunity to revisit it. you do need a government that is not corrupt, which had been a problem in afghanistan, but some of this money going in could be fueling those operations. we need to see what is a more efficient way to fight terrorism. as i say in the report, there is a lot of use for that money in this country. host: the senate confirmed general petraeus as the afghanistan commander. what does that suggest to you as far as the debate in washington? guest: they believe he is the man to get this job done. he

they send tentacles into yemen and threaten saudi arabia directly. this is what they do today. when they do not have nuclear weapons, think of what they will do tomorrow when they do have them. it is very hard for modern men and women to come to terms with the role of rationality in human affairs. we tend to think that people in states are driven solely by interest, by a calculation of cost and benefit. we must recognize those to glorify death, and dispatch wards of suicide bombers are not given by grievances which can be addressed or by a despair that can be alleviated. we must recognize their wide- eyed, true believers, even mad believers in the road. they are fanatics to subscribe to a twisted creed and are willing to pay any price for its realization. they are driven by fervent hope that they will succeed at any price. shakespeare advises us to see the method in the madness -- facing today's militants in the middle east, we should be well- advised to see the madness and the method, to recognize that not everyone is constrained by the calculus of cost and benefit that has be

there are a number in guantanamo that i think that if we got the situation with yemen squared away enough, they could be released. there's a moratorium on that for the most part now. but it is a relatively limited number. each week or month as the judge is trying these cases, is a relatively small number of cases that remain to be tried. i do not think that we need legislative enactments to fix something that is not broken. >> anyone else in the audience have a question question -- a question? well if you would join me -- a concluding remark. the tanker panelists. -- i wanted to thank judges lewis and judge spaulding and sharing. how one of the thank everyone for being here today. please make sure that you pick up a copy of the report. it has are websites for more information about this important issue. and thank you. >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> in a few moments, a briefing on plans to send more u.s. card trick -- national guard troops to the mexican border. then president obama encourage

he was trained in a camp in yemen. the other farmer was actually an american citizen, not trained in afghanistan. -- the other bomber was actually an american citizen, not trained in afghanistan. >> come much longer should we be interact? >> i believe that the surge is working. they are taking over important responsibilities in the military and then it will be time for us to go. >> i do not think there is a timetable. i think that the bush strategy is an appropriate one. i hope and pray that our troops are able to leave and get out of harm's way. the governing of iraq should be turned over to iraq. >> voters are more polarized than ever. what can you do? >> i do not think it is a good thing. there is such a frustration with people saying that they do not like the direction our country is going. we have a president that wants to fundamentally change america. i believe that every day americans and others that have been on the sidelines are now saying that we need to have a voice. our republic is in jeopardy. >> can you w

getting stronger, and this is no government, we have to act on our own, which we have in somalia and yemen. >> we have a pretty tense situation in the korean peninsula where north korea said it could lead to a conflict. china is back in their play. are you worried there could be something here that could spark a conflict? >> i think north korea is just too interested in their own survival to do anything which would spark the end of that regime. i think they are only interest nd regime survival and while damage could be done in the south, it would end the north korean regime. >> that's it for our time. >> after a conversation with senator carl levin, we talked about policy on the ground and the domestic debate at home. what did you learn from the senator? >> what i found to be the most interesting were his expectations when the troops are expected to leave in 2011. he described a good enough scenario where the afghanistan government can hang on until they can build up their own troops and take control of their country. we aren't talking about leaving a country behind that is really in tact.

responsible for radicalizing the nigerian was an american citizen, and cleric who is now a resident in yemenin the case of the times square bomber, the perpetrator was an american citizen. i will tell you, when intelligence agencies approached data involving american citizens, there are numerous hurdles they have to go through before they can collect that information appropriately as we try to strike a balance between celebrities, privacy, security. one of our findings was we need to make sure everyone understands in the community the proper interpretation of these laws, and while expecting everybody's privacy, we do not allow them to inhibit in some fundamental way our ability to deter terrorists. my main thought about these two articles we have seen so far is they make some useful points but that leaves out a lot of context that leave readers with the feeling that somehow, this is a business that has grown too big, but in fact, is growing and is doing well. host: eddy on the independent line. you are speaking to john mclaughlin. caller: as a former civil service employee, i used to visit c