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

states to me in the present i mean the chinese are watching the united states tear itself to pieces ok and the chinese just keep slowly going up and now i mean it's remarkable to watch from a distance. yeah i think the chinese are going through an industrial revolution of sorts in a similar way that the united states has gone through it in the twentieth century taking over the power of europe and europe in in the nineteenth century so i think you're right that there is a lot of parallels to be drawn here between the declining power of the united states and the declining powers of europe but let us remember that even after the decline in european quality of live g.d.p. per capita air quality. education level control of the corruption are still much much better than then most emerging markets so to say that china. only needs the united states to grow is also i think an extreme point of view i believe that china i think there's now i'm just simply by growing internally in the same way that the united states grew internally in the twentieth century ok joshua jump in go ahead. i think th

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

states or eighty eight in denmark fewer than eighty people die a year from guns in the united states more than thirty thousand people die a year from so more guns don't seem to equal happiness. how to begin strong military does that equal happiness denmark spends roughly four point three billion on their military a year we spend six hundred eighty. and while the military is the biggest portion of our discretionary budget we're a lot bigger than the mark in denmark it's the fifth biggest denmark spends more money on social programs on labor on education on health care and on technology then they do on their military so military power clearly doesn't equal happiness either so here we have denmark a nation that taxes at higher rates than we do in the united states gives basic health care and free education all its citizens as a sole their elections off of the highs vitor doesn't place any importance on arming their citizens against each other isn't involved in any wars abroad and has seventy two percent of its workers unionized here in those stats republicans head would explode it denma

united states and not the military might. in order to ka joel johnson day and night, he let his deputy run the department of defense. it was everything to strategic arms. the only time he actually made a decision about the budget and strategic arms, he managed to mess up a nuclear submarine program that he had to go to clean up. clifford was successful in convincing johnson that it was a losing battle and it was time to call an end to escalation and reduce the american commitment to vietnam. both secretary brown and herring alluded to mcnamara's brilliance. george bundy who served with mcnamara. he is the ablest man in government. when he makes a basic decision and gets up ahead of steam, he doesn't always keep the sharpest eye out for new evidence. others of us who had been more alert than we were to guard against this one weakness of this extraordinary man. he made his decisions after marshalling the available facts. normally quantifiable data and statistics. he believed that the more facts or information that you gathered

you can go back and look at any of the wars the united states has fought. but, if you consider why we're there and the fact that thank goodness we've not been attacked again since 9/11 and we have dismantled al qaeda thanks to a lot of great work when leon was at the cia before going to the defense didn't. i think there is no doubt that america is more secure. afghanistan is more secure. but, we're not resting on our laurels. we're looking forward to what kind of relationship we will all have, nato and the united states after 2014 to help afghanistan continue on this path. >> you trust afghan's president mr. secretary? >> he is a leader of afghan tan. >> you trust him? >> i have sat down with him. we talk pretty frankly with each other. he is the leader and she the person we have to deal with. >> does that mean you trust him, though? >> certainly you trust the leaders that you have to deal with, but you always kind of watch your back at the same time. >> that doesn't sound like a reigning endorsement of the leader of afghanistan. >> it is true for any leade

of the united states such as venezuela or at least political adversaries and the united states was not on account of her gender whereas on the other hand brazil was on the top of obama's agenda and he visited last year in march and one of his first visit to latin america it was his first stop so i mean there could be some stuff going on here in terms of getting back in retaliation against the brazilian government because they have any relationship with the united states a priority certainly a lot of people are looking at that and saying pointing out what you pointed out which is that visit to venezuela pointing out the visit to cuba also kind of looking at what happened back in two thousand and ten brazil did join with turkey to vote against sanctions for iran at the u.n. certainly that was another thing that u.s. leaders weren't necessarily happy with but there are other people and let's talk about this really quickly about i mean in what ways are has that relationship improved over the last few years. their relationship with the united states is hanging out in faith and where there a

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

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

attacked by the powerful united states strongly condemned they. illegally should shun the full five hundred days now being detained without charge but that hasn't stopped us. today we're on a quest for revolutionary ideas that can change the world tomorrow or the day i am joined by intellectual superstar beanie and philosopher so i've always you a former anti communist dissident now turned so described communist together we call david horowitz a former left wing radical black panther ally and now a fiery right wing so i guess i want to know what they think about the future of europe and the united states the conversation becomes he did you get has to be physically restrained we shout rant and forthcoming about nazis and palestinians black panthers and israelis but out of karma romney thanks column. david you describe yourself as a conservative and describe yourself as a communist but nonetheless i was of you have had a picture of stalin. going to make me don't. know many many. about him now. yeah right ok. that's an international shot. all right d

at the second is why the united states in particular needs to be engaged? and the third, why corporations are so vital and why does the imf must play a bigger role? let me begin with the global economy. i think it's fair to say that things have improved quite a bit over the last few months. there are signs of an prevent after probably the longest and hardest winter that started back in the summer, if you look at where this crisis of which the epicenter was europe, started in the middle of august. pretty much like every financial crisis in the last decade. peoples should never go on vacation. some seen encouraging signs of financial stabilization in europe. we are clearly seeing some encouraging signs in the united states as well, not whether you turn your eyes to the employment situation or the manufacturing activity. but as you rightly said, we should not delude ourselves into of sale the sense of security. the recovery is still very fragile. the financial system in europe is still under heavy strain. that is still too high, both public and private -- debt

this publicly in congress in the united states. and i said things exactly the way i believe them. i said them outright. there is a great deal of discrepancy between points of view. it is a very complex political issue. but it is very important to underscore it. and i believe that's the only part of the question that i can answer it and i would say that what president obama has already answered was very well done. >> just very briefly with respect to the presidential elections in mexico, vice president biden met with the candidates to express sentiments similar to what stephen expressed here with regard to the u.s. elections. that is that the friendship between our three criminals, the partnership between our three countries extends beyond and is more fundamental than any particular party or any particular election. that's the message we have to send with regard to mexico. i've had an excellent working relationship with felipe. i expect to have an excellent working relationship with the next mexican president, whoever that candidate

states as hosni mubarak to be to step aside i don't think so united states should. every every arab country who faced uprising united states should immediately as the head of that seems to be a step aside i think this is would be simplistic unrealistic and doesn't reflect the reality on the ground i think and doesn't reflect the complexity of the social politics of the different countries in the middle east. strategic geopolitical elements are very important but i think we have really a new phenomenon year if you see like what i notice is that you seen united states or european countries are not taking in regard with syria or egypt or other libya or yemen they're not taking a unilateral actions if you see their. mind come on then they will when you when the united states as well hillary clinton says this leader must go ok that's pretty unilateral sounding to me and sounds very definite as well what right does the united states have a say in the leadership and what they should go if if i might come in here jump in jumping if i might come in here years you know i thin

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

now he's sought refuge from the united states. of course we have to protect him. we also have to try to encourage the chinese government to see this as an opportunity. i know that sounds a little naive, but there are many voices coming out of the top levels of chinese leadership right now that are calling for a nation underworld law. so this is the opportunity for the chinese government to show that it really is a nation that is ruled by law. >> ifill: sasha gong, a senior administration official said we're searching for the appropriate balance. in the past the appropriate balance has been to focus on discussions between the u.s. and china on trade or currency issues, not necessarily on human rights. is that even possible to find an appropriate balance? >> well, for human rights it should be part of trade, and economic relations. because you can't say, well, we developed trade and the economic relations first and the disregard of human rights, that's not who we are. we are the united states of america, and, well, i think what somewhat the voice of america heard is

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

today in europe as it ever was in the united states the banks in europe for example are in such trouble that almost no days goes by in the european major newspaper where someone isn't talking about will we have our own lehman brothers type of collapse the way we did here in the united states for both of the periods the two years that the america was worse of two years that europe was worse was ill china india russia the bric countries and so on we're doing real well they're now in trouble so my advice is before americans count their chickens that are not hatched be we're that the crisis that was buried here then became buried somewhere else is heading back here to give us as many problems now. now as we see the europeans having but we all have them a little bit later the housing industry in the united states big improvement until about a year ago where it's flattened out and now it's going down and that isn't as important a shape or of the future of our economy as ever the uptick in the automobile industry is so the jury is out is not at all clear that we are anywhere near out of the wo

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

the united states as an emerging export power house, or the united states as a nation that really is at a serious competitive risk. i'd like to start with sam allen among the many hats he wears is the chairman of the council on competitiveness, which was a group established in the mid 1980s led by chief executives and they have done work on this over the last 20 years. we'll start with you, sam. >> at risk being in washington, d.c. and answering this way, i think the answer is yes and yes. i think both are true. if i look at our company, john deere, we'll be about 32 billion this year, 50% of it is in the u.s., 50% is outside the u.s. we are from 2010-2018 going to double the size of the company and a lot of that will come outside of the u.s. about 50% of what we do outside the u.s. we export from the u.s. i think one of the things and why there could be a manufacturing renaissance here is there is this combination of both going through the '09 financial crisis, every one of the companies here 18 free market society made tough decisions very quick, very lean, very efficient. combine

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 alle

chamber's agenda here in the united states. and after a tenure as president maybe tom donohue will invite you back to the chamber to talk about how we can work together. i thought that was a terrific comprehensive speech, not only because you also plugged the u.s. chamber's mexico leadership initiative, and we thank you for your strong support, but because it gave you a true sense of what has happened in mexico under president calderon's leadership. i'd like to open up the floor for a few questions. go ahead. ahead. even though you are known to all of us, please introduce yourself. i want to congratulate the president for his great speech today. mainly because of the numbers you have presented to us today the i am sure i am speaking on behalf american chamber of commerce to mexico to congratulate you during the five years. you have really supported free trade. you have really supported foreign investment in mexico. and that is something that is helping the country and the numbers are showing it today. congratulations, mr. presi

states as a critical ally while urging the united states to do more to address some of the underlying causes of his nation's challenges, particularly the drug trade. he has demanded and received the serious attention of world leaders. in june he will host the g-20 heads of state, and he has brought unprecedented energy and leadership to that effort at a critical time. in a time of exciting growth for the entire region of latin america he has worked to ensure that mexico is able to make the most of every opportunity. he has augmented one of the world's most impressive free trade networks, giving mexico exporters access to 44 markets worldwide. if our trade representatives are here, take note. we need some more ourselves. and he has enhanced the commercial relationship with the united states, indisputably his's most important economic partner, through differences in regulations and differences in investment strategy and he has streamlined and secured in many ways our shared border. and by advancing a vision of shared competitiveness in the transpacific partnership. in all of these effor

is nothing happening in syria this threatens the security of the united states is going to invade the united states or attack us and this is an example of this empire mentality whether it's syria or chad or nigeria or a broom or any other place there is the united states with the military there that's literally all that's what's wrong with the united states we not born as an empire we're born as a republic words of glory was liberty not domination we weren't supposed to be like other countries and now we've turned into the same old roman empire again empire romanov empire. ottoman empire and that's what we need to back away from because it's ruining the entire country and yet here you are and you've heard terry intervention here just make sure you've heard the word on the show that you never hear on the corporate media and are both views that and it's a word that is hidden we are the largest empire in world history by far and it's never discussed it's one reason we're commies are working as we know it and par you have to satisfy your client states so to give jobs you know so you are c

states debt and any party think international left in the democratic party united states that went to war for saddam and against george bush when he went into iraq we should have settled their hands we should not have you know we should have occupied them for something to save this is a mapping program to which i should've stuck it to syria and that we should have stuck into iran but bush came under such a talent. from the from the democrat there's never been such as seditious movement by a major american party they all supported the war i do all of them but their leadership supported the war they voted in their majority in the senate and the war and then they turned against it and they lied saying that bush lied bush couldn't have lied . about the intelligence because kerry and that rockefeller and feinstein all the democrats stand on the intelligence committees they had their intelligence then julian in in the work that we do the work that wiki leaks does we are. pushing forward the boundaries of a certain type of liberty it is we say protected by the first amendment that is the lib

iran cannot conquer the united states. the united states, if it decided to, could conquer iran. would be a big mess. i don't support doing so. but in terms of material power, there's simply no comparing the two countries. so, given that, if you look at things from iran's perspective, any diplomatic deal would involve making lots of substantial security assurances to iran. if you do this, not only will we not -- not only will we do something on the one hand, but we also agree not to do something in the future. so, the question becomes how could iran trust assurances provided by a country that has overwhelming power and, indeed, i believe is still a unipolar power in the u.s. system? how do you make credible assurances to a relatively weak state that, if it decided to, could reneg on those assurances at any point. it's not very well grasped, at least i don't see evidence that that's very well grasped by the administration or certainly by congress. it's just very difficult, no matter how genuine the intention, to credibly convey that to a country with which, coming from both sides,

>> it has been a consistent goal of the united states and other countries in the region to discourage north korea from proceed wig its wmd programs. in fact, it is this objective that led us to these talks that we had on the 23rd and 24th of february in bejing to get the north koreans to commit to suspend, put a moratorium on flight tests of long-range missiles. so continuing work on mitchells. missiles. that's why we and the region are so troubled by this possible missile test going forward. the subject of cyber warfare, i know that north korea is increasing its efforts in that arena and i know that we have a close relationship with south korea and that we share a lot of information with them. what is the process or what -- are we working hand-in-hand? are we doing enough with them to ensure we again contain or counter attack what may be coming out of north korea with respect to cyber warfare? >> congresswoman sanchez, i can in a close forum i will be more than happy to go into the details of that, but first i would tell you that we work hand-in-hand with the roc military on the prot

the bar has to be set extraordinarily high for the united states. these are the things i would ask myself. has every other option been exhausted? diplomatic, sanctions, et cetera. is there smoking-gun evidence that the iranians are actually going for a weapon, not just concerns that -- actual evidence that they are. are there nonovert ways of getting at this issue that wouldn't require large amountings of military force? if so, i have a strong preference for those over military force. are we able to forge a large coalition? here maybe i think, matt, you and i probably differ. i think the only scenario in which military action conceivably makes sense against iran ever at some point is that if it's like the 1991 war with iraq, not like the 2003 war with iraq. that is, a very large coalition -- and the reason is twofold. one, because it's the only way to mitigate the consequences of the strike itself. and second and most important, if you don't have a large coalition going in, not just the french and the british, i'm talking arab states, nato, ideally

conspiracy to defraud the united states is a federal crime. we're not talking about international law, we are talking about united states crime. i don't want to say -- i would never say that is because it looks on the face of it that there is a statute that has been violated that someone has committed a crime. you need to have a series, their prosecutor examine the existing statutes and examine the evidence and make a determination. on the face of it, you have some very startling evidence. not all of the facts are out of the back, bag, even to this day, about exactly what president bush knew and when he knew it. exactly what the objectives were in the iraq war. his eyesight in the book, statements by him and vice president cheney -- that there is no doubt that iraq had weapons of mass destruction, also the claim and we know that this is not true, of course, the claim that saddam hussein was in cahoots with al qaeda, and they knew better. these are some of the points that could be used by a prosecutor in determining whether to prosecute. i will

of the united states are bickering over something like this. it has shades of a "saturday night live" skit, who's more macho. it's awful. completely disrespectful for the issues at hand. they ought to be watching a report that nic robertson did earlier on this network, which we did on current and comprehensive and detailed plans by al qaeda, currently in operation, to kill thousands and thousands of people. and people like us ought to be saying to the president, what are you going to do about that? don't take me back a year and bicker over the semantics. tell me how we're going to deal with the challenges we're facing today. i just found the bickering back and forth really distasteful. >> a lot of people would take that argument, and this president, he was president, when bin laden was killed. he gets the credit for that. he did say back in the last campaign when hillary clinton raised it up, it has no role in our politics. he did say after the raid, no spiking the football. >> except for, he said no spiking the football, but when the other tea

as a state and the united states. declared that it would veto bad in the security council nevertheless are still a chance because if they go back to the general assembly they could conceivably get a new verb for status it's upgraded from what they have to be it might give them access to the international courts but probably the palestinians is that occupation was only seen as a very temporary military situation maybe lasting one to three years until it's over this is a forty five year occupation and international law simply isn't geared towards dealing with it so the fact that the palestinians aren't a state i think. completely destroys their chance to use international law and if in fact these millions of people are left without any to france or any ability to leverage israel through international law it certainly dense the credibility of the entire system. and then also when we saw the polish time voted into your nasca which of course isn't. some might say as important as the security council they were literally par

in response to the horrors in syria, the united states and our partners at the united nations have supported an immediate halt to the vie leps and negotiated peaceful transition and a responsible democratic process. despite russia and china twice vetoing security council action, the united nations general assembly and human rights council have repeatedly and overwhelmingly condemned the carnage and the united nations has played an important role in supporting arab league efforts to end the crisis including through the joint appointment of special envoy co-fee annan. in line ya the u.n. led gadhafi from massacring his own people. to end nuclear weapons programs, the united states pushed the security council to impose the toughest sachss ever on iran and north korea. as the president has made clear, we will prevent iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. and as long as iran fails to meet its international obligations, the pressure will build. the united nations played a critical role in supporting the creation of a newly independent south sudan. the u.n. ensured a democratically elected presiden

will it help him move voters in the united states this fall and the presidential election? >> i don't think the summit there will. if he took a trip to mexico it would help him. but this is just a bunch of fellow who talk, it's a publicity meeting. you've got 33 people there, and they silt around and discuss one issue, it's a big problem is the drug issue i which is real problem for those folks down there [overlapping speakers] >> first stop that obama made before going to columbia. it was in florida. and he told people there, when i'm at the summit, you're the people i'll be thinking of. that means it's political and he wants to reach out to hispanics and latinos and he wants them to know even though i'm spending a couple days outside of country, you're on my mind. >> it's good marketing and it's good politics. and obama's always look to be up the u.s. export market, and latin america has actually weatherrered the global slowdown better than most. they're prospering, and the markets over there -- are very good and çobama is popular. this is a terrific forum. i doesn't se

like israel and the united states. it's unlikely that these crises would turn into the types of krooifss, the nightmare scenarios assume. lastly, there's the concern that the united states would somehow be cowed by a nuclear iran, chased out of the gulf in the strait of hormuz, for example. i find that a unlikely. after all the north koreans and chinese are have nuclear weapons and haven't chased us out of asia the last time i checked. the third point i would make, matt's description of a surgical strike against iran holds a lot more risk than he assumes. it would be difficult to oomph dictate limited aims to the irani iranians. there's a lot of room for miscalculation, the fog of war, mutual distrust actions by both sides that could set off fears of surprise attack and therefore, drive escalation up. a war with iran will be a widespread affair that could lead to retaliation by but iranian prox is against us in iraq, afghanistan, against israel which could widen the war in the middle east and have a dramatic effect on

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 iranian weapons go to the taliban, including advance surface-to-air missiles that could target just helicopters or explosively formed projectiles that did so much damage to u.s. forces, that 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 territories. it's not clear how active iranian support of al qaeda is currently. a lot of al qaeda members are known or reported to have been actually under house arrest in iran, and iran could be using al qaeda members as a negotiating -- as a leverage against the united states. again, if the united states attack

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

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 dick at that to herral 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 tak stan. mu shar off stepped up and supported us and the with a are on terror.

the first budget of the united states was $8 million. >> questions? please. would you wait for the mic. wait for the microphone. thank you. >> suzanne field, syndicated columnist. ron turno who was writing about george washington. he wrote in the "wall street journal", that in the 19 debate as a republican candidate, that washington is only quoted once. there are many more quotes from lincoln, from reagan, etc. i'd like to hear why you think that's the case, that washington is so discounted by the men who are running for the nomination of the presidency from the republican party. >> go ahead. >> well, he wasn't very pithy. he wasn't a wordsmith. >> not even referring to him or paraphrasing him or talking about his positions behind the constitution. >> you're right. washington was not a great writer. if they're quoting, they're going to quote great writers. i think washington was a good writer, but he's definitely not a great one. and so to get him to understand what he did, you have to look at his career. you have to understand his deeds and his actions and t

documented and undocumented, presence in the united states. their earnings were enhanced by about 2.7%. why? it's complicated and i'll send a link to the commission so you can look at the exciting charts and graphs and do that to your heart's desire. it comes down to a simple idea which is intuitive and you know it. the economy is not a fixed pie. when you expand the labor curve, a simple economist will say the price of labor goes down and we're all hurt. the more people that work here, the more people that are chasing jobs and we're all doomed. wrong. the expansion of the available labor force creates opportunities that did not exist before. you have innovation and entrepreneurialism that increases the actual size of small and medium-sized businesses. they consume and that expands the demand curve. you have a dynamic economy for 90% of u.s. born workers that enhances their wages. the other 9% got whacked up side the head with globalization and immigration and everything you can list and they need help. getting rid of immigrants doesn't really

united 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 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 eco

states which is to open markets in the united states bank on this in every international conference, is a bit of a broken record. it happens to be true. i can think of places where subsidies and constraints upon access to markets has prevented efficient investment for example in power, but also in -- causing the water table to drop, 15, 20 feet ayear and producing low value crops, these are counter productive policies, there are a number of various creation of power facilities in a number of emerging companies, much more accessible power would have been presented by private companies. they are there for the taking, and they are reform. and increasing renewables and the rest. this is the way to do it. >> please join me in thanking our panel. >>> it's been more than 20 years since los angeles police officers were videotaped beating rodney king after a traffic stop. the officers were found not guilty of police brutality that sparked the los angeles rioting that killed 53 people. he later wrote a book called "the riot within". you can see it live on book tv's website at 6:30 p.m. eastern

of course there are, and many of them resides in the united states as loyal americans. and millions more reside around the world. there are many places where they are in power, notably -- but a brave view are actually struggling to create within the religion a thheads an organizatn called the american islamic forum for democracy and is about to publish a book that is called the -- and i hope you will all buy when it's published. at princeton's name madison's program, who recently delivered a lecture, arguing that there are ways in which -- so as to oppose the classical sharia, the election is published in the november 2000 issue. the regrettable part of this story is that i'm sure as many people in this room know, first thing as a catholic, not a muslim publication, but make no mistake, as numerous as they may be, among those who pronounce doctrine, the moderates are the distinct and weaker majority. the majority is -- lightly prominent on the world stage. he said that the term nod rat islam is as he put it ugly or offensive. he said there is no moderate islam, islam is

united states can confidently say we'll reopen it. if iran has nuclear weapons, it's much more complicated. would we be willing to risk nuclear war to open the strait of hormuz? maybe, maybe not. a nuclear armed iran i think would lead to a long-term risk premium being built into oil prices that be could in place as long as iran had nuclear weapons. a lot of these other national security interests we're in a bad situation regardless of the way we go >> look, i think that -- the best outcome is clearly a diplomatic outcome here. there is a lot of anxiety causing oil price tosses tick up. but a military strike on iran, i don't model this tough, i'm not an economist or a trader, not traitor, i'm neither one actually. but you know, the folks i've talked to said a strike could easily push gas prices to between $5 and $6 a gallon in the near term. the question would be, if the markets became anxious that the war would continue to escalate or drag on, then this isn't a short-term blip, a two to three-week thing. this is something that goes t