tv Washington Journal CSPAN May 9, 2011 7:00am-10:00am EDT
u.s. and what the obama administration's teacher response to pakistan should they. later, we look at the 2008 financial crisis and the lack of prosecutions of high-profile participants. "washington journal" is next. ♪ host: good morning. today is monday, may 9. welcome to this edition of "washington journal." we want to talk for the first 45 minutes on this edition of the washington journal about the future of u.s. pakistan relations. the numbers, if you want to get involved in the conversation, for democrats, 202-737-0002. for republicans, 202-737-0001. for independents, 202-628-0205.
to get involved, for democrats, 202-737-0002. for republicans, 202-737-0001. for independents, 202-628-0205. you can also send us messages through e-mail and twitter. our first call comes from clearwater, florida, on the line for republicans. caller: how was it going? thank you for taking my call. host: what you think about the future of u.s. pakistan relations? caller: troubled waters. politicians are really pushing pakistan to give some kind of public apology. i do not understand how we went in without informing pakistan of our intentions. i think it was their misfortune that he was there.
i do not think steps and he had any direct relation to. on television it would appear to be a bad area. host: the president said that if he had actionable intelligence, he would go and get him. the pakistanis must have known that if he had actionable intelligence, they like the day visit. caller: i am waiting with a backlash to really hit. i do not know who was thinking about this. why did they not take it to trial? our officers on the ground should have thought about taking this man hostage. failing in his greatest endeavor, no one thought about
taking him hostage. it is beyond me. host: george, brooklyn, democratic line. your thoughts on the future of u.s. pakistan relations? george? your thoughts about the future of u.s. pakistan relations? caller: yes, good morning. thank you for taking my call. i think that -- host: george? caller: yes? host: george seems to be having a problem this morning. we will take a short break from the calls right now to show you what the president had to say last night on "60 minutes." >> since 9/11, pakistan has been a strong counter-terrorism partner with us. there are times when we've had disagreements. there have been times where we
wanted to push harder and for various concerns may have hesitated. those differences are real and may continue. but the fact of the matter is that we have been able to kill more terrorists and pakistani soil than anywhere else. we could not have done that without pakistani cooperation. this will be an important moment in which pakistan and the united states get together and say -- all right, we have got bin laden. but we have got more to do. are there ways for us to work more effectively together than we have in the past? it will be important for our national security. host: the president and his thoughts on the future of u.s.- pakistan relations, last night on "60 minutes." roberta, you are on "washington
journal." caller: they have been lying from day one. we need to figure out the money that pakistan oppose us, give us back the money, and pakistan becomes our top enemy of all time. they knew that bin laden was there. a man with that much money? he is a millionaire. he is not going to live in caves. host: let me ask you this. if pakistan knew that he was there, what was their motivation for not telling the united states? caller: for the millions of dollars that they have been getting from the u.s. for their infrastructure.
host: had they told the u.s. officials, would that not have gotten them more money? made them bitter allies? caller: then we would have been in and out. if they had been better allies, yes, we could have trusted them, but by deceiving us like they did, killing your own people, my goodness, this is a new jihad. host: let's go to martha in charleston, south carolina. caller: good morning. thank you for your fine work on c-span. i am concerned about the story of the lives -- wives.
there was an interview with the author of "growing up bin laden." i think that c-span should air that again. the third wife and the fourth son left osama bin laden before 9/11. host: we will take that under consideration. what do you think about the future of u.s. pakistan relations? caller: i think that it needs to be questioned. the people in pakistan are concerned. i am so glad. are you still there? host: i am still here. caller: by m so glad that obama did not bomb. london, that with the citizens were preserved. -- buying am so glad that obama did not bomb osama bin laden,
that by the citizens were preserved. host: we have this twitter message from [unintelligible] who writes this morning -- host: back to the phones, baltimore, md., kenneth, your thoughts on the future of u.s.- pakistan relations this morning? caller: i think that the united should dates -- united states should hold back the money and let pakistan know that we need them to do most of the work. place -- they should hand over the wives of osama bin laden to the united states and if not, we will hold back the money. thank you. host: more from "the new york
host: back to the phones. san antonio, texas, richard, you are on "washington journal." caller: there are about 200 countries in the world, give or take. they are all sovereign. they make their own laws. they have their own borders. these countries have to learn to give along with each other. how will our relations be similar to those of pakistan in
the past? strange, but it is necessary to continue working on them. the point is that we cannot put these issues aside. we have to discuss the issues. the things that we did right. the things that they did right. working on security, we have to continue to work at it. host: richard, san antonio, texas. this from the associated press this morning, "a loud explosion heard in the town where osama bin laden killed." host: we will update that as we get more details. eureka, s.d., republican line.
byron, washington -- you are on the "washington journal." caller: this is a set up. we will be invading pakistan next. anyone following this knows that bin laden has been dead since 2001. the picture you keep showing us, that is his double. there is a big difference to twin the picture they are showing of bin laden and the bin laden of 2000. he died in the later part of 2001. host: how do you suppose that the u.s. administration and anyone they had to work with could keep a secret like that for 10 years? caller: this is part of the bush plan. everything that obama is doing is a continuation of the bush administration. they are planning more wars. host: albert, a democratic line,
your thoughts on the future of u.s. pakistan relations? caller: the house knew something about this thing. i know what the senators knew it. it was the same thing that obama had known. republicans calling and talking about taking him alive? you know how many people had to juggle to take him alive? hijacked, chopped off, hostages and all that. i cannot believe he was soaking. the press keep pushing this thing. they will not come now, making obama look bad. host: the question on "the wall street journal" op-ed page --
that in the military to pakistan he could somehow build this facility -- is just crazy. host of jacksonville, florida, pat calls us -- host: jacksonville, florida, pat calls us this morning. caller: people call in to say that we cannot stop the war now. i am reading my paper and it is about cutting schools, art, medicare, music, language, turning off street lights to save money. taxing veterans for their health insurance for the first time. it goes on and on. pakistan has helped to kill our soldiers. they have bombed the crowds. the state department is over their passing out money like it was lollipops. passing out money
like it was lollipops. yet there is not a single person calling in to say -- keep these wars going -- that i believe is not getting money for these wars. i also believe that the top guys in washington, d.c., are [unintelligible] the biggest lobbying firm, and it is disgusting. host: we will leave it there. this atwitter message says -- host: that's the message we got from twitter. we got an update from the associated press. "taliban fighters holed bin laden memorial -- hold bin laden
memorial." host: back to the phones. dayton, ohio, kathleen, you are on "washington journal." caller: i love, love, love c- span and washington journal. thank you for existing. you had the former head of the cia on. just last week. the focus was pakistan. you talked a lot about, so much, of course, but the duplicitous relationship between the u.s. and pakistan. about how we ship our arms into afghanistan from pakistan.
i would like you to have him on again, but here is the question i asked myself, the president, and the american people. most of us are happy that he is long gone. if the reason he was killed was cut -- crimes against humanity, killing americans, innocent people, why is our president, congress, and the american people, sheltering bush, cheney, and the people responsible for hundreds of thousands of dead in iraq? when are we going to value innocent human life in the same way i am not in any way saying that an international navies sealed team should go after bush and cheney, but trials and hearings should suffice. yet we are talking about innocent human life. when we value their lives as
off host: back to the phones. -- host: back to the phones. texas, good morning. caller: good morning. one of the things that i have to keep in mind, there is a tribal region in pakistan and afghanistan. that area of casimir, there is a different mentality there. war is war to those people. because of the way that we conduct ourselves, honor is very important to those people. i think that foreign policy has shifted back and forth to not only do we not know what is going on, most of the world cannot anticipate the next move.
host: the lead story from "the baltimore sun" this morning -- host: we will read from that in a moment. but town, florida. curry, you are of an "washington journal." caller: i by to commend all of the hosts on "washington journal." you have a great deal more patience than i do. the article which you read from armstrong williams was right on the mark. we will probably have to stick with pakistan. george bush, shortly after 9/11, stated that you are either with us or against us. a lesson that pakistan has yet to learn. but i do believe that it gives us some leverage to perhaps have
a better relationship with them. getting the other criminals hiding in their midst, bringing them to justice. as well, we are at a point now where we need to put the heat bush campaign -- hate bush campaign, it has become a ad nauseam. these folks cannot seem to let go. and i thank you for your program. host: more from "the baltimore sun" tribune newspaper --
host: we want to show you a little bit more about what he had to say with the u.s. looking for a bargain between islamabad and washington. >> we need to look at this in terms of his relationship totality. we have had our problems with pakistan, as well as a tremendous amount of partnership. host: back to the phones and the future of relations between the u.s. and pakistan. caller: thank you for taking my call that op-ed piece that everyone has been commenting on -- taking my call. that op-ed piece that everyone has been commenting on, we do
not support them because they are our friends or that we like their policies, we support them so that they do not drop bombs on their neighbor. it is not because they always do the right thing, it is to stop them from starting a war in the middle east. we cannot just cut them off. it is a relationship we have to work on because we have to keep that region safe. host: this is from the op-ed section of "the wall street journal." "should we stay in afghanistan related to what happened in pakistan last week"?
here in the united states. schools are closing and everything. we want to still work with them when they are still biting us? i do not agree with that. host: this twitter message -- host: also coming in and electronically, an e-mail from bill in glendale, california. host: in washington, d.c., on the line for republicans, michael. caller: good morning. i think that the relationship between pakistan and the u.s.
might be hurt a little, but they are not doing anything different from what was done in the past. the president and the secretary of state are doing a good job. all of the americans that have never left the u.s., you have to get out there and see what other countries are about. we have a right to speak our mind for a reason. host: "television, newspaper, and aiding -- naming the man they believe cia chief. " john, new york, good morning. caller: i think that we are brushing prematurely to justice on pakistan. -- i think that we are rushing prematurely towards justice on pakistan.
[unintelligible] we have to remember that in america, of our services, we have to allow people to fly planes and not let the man, the actual bombers, when they got stopped on the watch list, he got away. also, cia allows the underwear bomber, whose father went to an embassy to say that his son was a terrorist and was going to do something terrible, and our cia before that all happene we make a judgment about pakistan. host: thank you for your call,
host: you can read that article in this morning's "usa today." mark, michigan, you are on "washington journal." caller: good morning. host: what do you think about u.s.-pakistan relations? caller: it is on the decline, just like the trust in the u.s. government and the mainstream media. we do not trust it anymore. the american president, president obama, does the realize that we have to see that body. when he went and got osama bin laden, the world needed to see it. people do not trust government any more. it may look like it on television, but anyone that you
speak to, people are losing their trust in the government and the mainstream media. controlled by the elite. host: mark, what about the fact that no one from al qaeda, the taliban, or pakistan, and the osama bin laden's followers are stepping forward to say that he is still alive? caller: of course they're going to say that. that is how they use the mainstream media. they can get to a lot of people very quickly. they may have someone to come up and say -- i am osama bin laden. id will freak out everybody. no one will know what to believe. host: gary, syracuse, new york. good morning. your thoughts on the future of u.s.-pakistan relations?
caller: i do not think there is a problem. host: you do not think that there is a problem? caller: we step on their toes to go in and get bin laden. obama did. the money that we send pakistan, we do a great bit of trade for that search equipment. not only the most expensive kind of equipment on the market. i think that it offsets what we did in violation. host: in "the wall street journal" rethinking flood control is the headline. this article writes about the record flood on the mississippi river.
host: back to the phones. lee, baltimore, you are on "the washington journal." caller: i really wanted to respond to this pakistan situation. they have a lot of tough questions that they definitely need to answer. there is no way that osama bin laden could be in that pot -- be in that compound and them not to
know anything. these conspiracy theorists saying that we need to see the picture of osama bin laden, or that he has been dead for years -- answer this question for me -- if he has been dead for so long, why is it that the day of his death, his supporters are holding pictures of him, saying rest in peace? it does not make any sense. people need to let this thing go. you cannot give credit to president bush, he did not get the job done. republicans, democrats, they have to work this thing out. host: this from "the baltimore sun" this morning --
caller: there are a wide late -- wide range of theories, but the bottom line is that pakistan is a foreign power and we need to do what we can to increase and enhance that relationship, keeping stability in that region. it does not necessarily mean that it will be agreeable terms on each side of the relationship, but we need to try to flourish as much as possible. thank you. host: that was jamie in manassas, virginia. saul sanders, in his follow the money column, rights -- -- writes --
host: that is the follow the money, and "the washington times." column in the money kampal "the washington times." caller: frankly, personally, i do not trust pakistan. the government has proven themselves to have anti-american sentiment. so, we should look closer at what we're forcing such a strong relationship with pakistan. -- so, we should look closer at why we are forcing such a strong relationship with pope -- with pakistan. host: philadelphia, pa., jack
host: jack, republican line, good morning. caller: obama put it pretty clearly in that "60 minutes" piece that you just showed. they are not going to do everything that we want, we are not going to everything that they want, that is the way life is. host: how do we move forward, jack? caller: very carefully, just like with everything in life. when we asked them to stop building these settlements in israel, they told us to go to hades. host: the battle over the health care law shifts to the federal appellate court, this from "the new york times."
george bush would have hidden bin laden, it is just as ludicrous as bursar'irthers. pakistan is the most expensive highway that we've run and we have to have it as long as we are engaged with afghanistan. it is a deal with the devil, but it is the devil that we have to deal with. as for hating and president bush, i am a democrat and we should stop, but on the other hand we have to respect president obama. host: in 45 minutes we will be talking about al qaeda after bin laden. after the break, a look at the study in the deep political divide between voters. today is monday, may 9. we will be right back.
even more information to make it easier to find information on the committee members you are looking for. take a look at the new "congressional chronicle" at c- span.org/politics. wax each morning, open quote washington journal." -- >> each morning, "washington journal." in the evenings, or a arguments. on the weekends, interview programs. you can watch our programming any time at c-span.org and it is all searchable and our c-span video library. c-span, a public service created by america's cable companies.
>> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us at the c-span cable, carroll doherty, the associate director for the pew research center. a new study just came out saying that voters are more deeply divided. we want to address you to a "washington post" article on that very issue from friday. host: what is the major finding of this study and how people are divided along political lines? caller: -- guest: people being more consistently conservative,
liberal, and independent voters have strong positions on a number of issues, just not consistent in a liberal or conservative way. independents are the wild card group of american politics. host: in the research that you did, what is making the middle more divisive than it used to be? caller: -- guest: people are rejecting party labels more than ever. host: so, subgroups within the middle, within the center, are less defined by republican ideology or democratic ideology? host: on some key issues they do associate with the party. republican groups, one thing they have in common with core republican groups is a deep
criticism of government. but of other issues, libertarians, very tolerant of acceptance of things like homosexuality. host: among the growing segment of americans identify with neither party, they call themselves independent, there are fewer moderates. many in the middle hold strong ideological views. the study concluded that three groups in the center of the apology have very little in common aside from their avoidance of labels." tell us about these books -- groups. guest: we have those that are critical of government, and then we have the post-modern liberal- leaning groups, agreeing with
that the democratic party (some issues, but not necessarily of the role of government. host: the disaffected of the right, is that the tea party? guest: 70% of staunch conservatives, they are associating with the party, although the libertarians also include tea party supporters. host: we are talking about a study put out by the pew research center. give us a call, the numbers for democrats, 202-737-0002. for republicans, 202-737-0001. for independents, 202-628-0205. you can also send us messages using e-mail and twitter. our first call comes from
colorado. patrick, an independent line. caller: good morning. i have been thinking about this divide this morning. it appears to me that this is no accident. the political system that we are living in today, there is quite a bit of effort that goes into creating a wedge issues and controversy. aggravation of all kinds. host: carroll doherty? guest: that may be true, but there are also big issues that divide the public. significant issues facing the country like how to deal with the deficit, the appropriate role of government, this is what we will be talking about over the next year. host: over the next 40 minutes or so we will be talking about the political divide.
if you want to get involved according to research center criteria, go to the web site and you will find this quiz to identify your political topology. select one response from the prepared statements. if neither statement is right, choose the response that comes closest to your view. take the quiz, see how it turns out, it might change how you identify yourself, politically. republicanacuse, wha line. caller: one thing i have noticed about politicians, it is not the tea party, it is the establishment politicians who have been there for years and
have rejected any form of change. the people that have already been established. without solving that problem, we will not be able to move forward. host: with that the tea party this year, we saw a clear rejection of the status quo. that is continuing today. some of the struggles republicans are getting their own nominee, none of these people have governmental experience. it is a sign that people do want change on the republican side. host: is there something in the poll that points to which group, center, right, left, appreciates the government service more than other groups? caller: -- guest: liberals are still hanging in there with
government. they support a strong government safety net and appreciate government performance, which is unusual these days. host: sandy, you are on "washington journal." caller: thank you so much for c- span. down here in the hills of north carolina, it appears to me that the biggest abide is being caused, nurtured, and fostered by a deeply religious system that is trying to go back to a time. guest: both parties are divided by social views and religious views.
typically the democrats are the ones who have their own debates over gay marriage, but now there are republicans as well. there is a libertarian group that supports abortion rights and is evenly split on by a marriage, putting them out of step with the republican coalition. host: andrew, independent line, you are on "the washington journal." caller: my name is andrew. host: go ahead. caller: i was a rescue worker of the world trade center, developing two cancers, pst, i need my health coverage. people are trying to cut our health coverage. our medicare. as far as i can see, people that would vote for anyone that would
us, they areis to wa pretty stupid people. i will say that out loud. that would try to hurt the working people, the middle class. host: i would -- andrew -- caller: i would fight and die for the united states -- host: you are calling on the independent line. do you find yourself leaning center-left, center-right? caller: i do not know. i feel that we need someone else running for the president. do you know who i really like? i'd like donald trump. host: we will leave it there. credo, pa., will be with us in a second, but first let's look at the numbers supplied by the research.
guest: there is a real big divide. these are core republican groups and these are basic issues. it does not mean that these mainstream republicans are going to go elsewhere, but they really differ with hard-core conservatives on business. on the environment, that is a bit of a surprise. main street republicans, they are not quite as staunchly conservative. there are a few differences between those groups reflected in those attitudes. host: st. joseph, missouri -- well, we do not seem to have st. joseph, missouri up. angela, go ahead, republican line. caller: how are you? host: fine. caller: the problem is that we
had decades of indoctrination in our schools with marxism, socialism, liberalism, half of this country is blinded by the allies and the manipulation of the democratic leaders in washington. what we have got here is a fight for our future and whether we will be living under a totalitarian government or living a constitution. i became politically wise when health care passed. that is what woke me up. i fight every day to wake people up to the lies that the left uses to destroy the republicans. thank you. host: that seems to go along with the numbers that we have here regretting the intensity gap between the base, how they feel about the president abbas
job performance. -- president's job performance. guest: i think there is a little bit of disillusionment among democratic supporters, his strongest group of supporters. you see it on the healthcare bill. conservatives are saying overwhelmingly that it will be bad for the country. only about 40% of liberals, unqualified positive impact on the country. so there is a gap there. host: why is there not as strong solid support among liberals for the president and administration, as there seemed to be strong, solid disapproval from conservatives? guest: the economy is still rocky, no doubt. the president has made some tough decisions that has frustrated his own base as well.
host: st. louis, carol. democrat's line. you are on the line. caller: he said he thought the tea party was just for change. i think they were just wanting to change the democrats being in control. that is why i think they are definitely all republicans. guest: there is a partisan component to this. the previous caller observed health care was a defining moment in the tea party, and opposition was intense. most of them now are falling in the republican camp, no doubt. host: carroll doherty is a director at depew research center. he is responsible for writing
and editing the center's reports. remind us, how many folks did you talk to for this study? guest: about 3000. host: over what period of time? guest: mid february to mid march. all across the country. host: akron, all i know. dorothy, you are on. -- akron, ohio. caller: unfortunately, most of americans do not know about our history. the republican party was actually a third party that was innovative at one time. now we cannot have a third-party come in because the two parties have created a monopoly to keep out any other part is, like the
green party. it is time to get back to ethics. most of the politicians have political or personal agendas. honestly, it is time for an ethics party. time to get back to the basics where we do right by everybody. part of the problem, too, is the fact that the media is playing a large part in keeping the truth out of what is happening. i was a commander in the military. i have two multiple degrees in political science and advanced government studies. it makes no sense that americans have no clue what we are doing in the world and what is going on. host: does the research, in any shape or form, suggest that because of these divisions, we
are moving to a time where a third party could be viable? caller: formidable obstacles stand in the way of third part is, as we have seen. however, there is, across the board, cynicism about politicians and their motives. host: another set of numbers. who has the better approach to the deficit? staunch conservatives say -- are these numbers that folks on capitol hill and the white house will be holding on to as they tried to get through this congress and 2012? guest: democrats will say we need to read gage with the base. republicans will need to keep
expanding and hold onto the metal. -- middle. host: fayetteville, north carolina. caller: the problem is, with this whole conversation, very much what happened with the call screener. i called in as an independent and i said i was a registered republican but i tried to explain to her, i both both sides. -- i vote both sides. neither side pays attention to the average middle-class citizen. people did not want to be associated with these parties. they have become stale tears in the system. as soon as they get to washington, they get pulled in by the party hierarchies.
-- they become failures in the system. i would want to see a third at the party come to fruition. host: you anticipated my question. your dissatisfaction with the way the parties are laid out now, does that mean you will be working towards creating a third party? if a third party emerges, would you be supportive of that party? caller: i voted for ross perot the first time around, even though i got disaffected by the time of the election. it was more of a protest vote. if a solid candidate emerges, with solid ideas, i would support a third party. republicans, although i agree with them on a lot of issues, i agree they have gotten so mired
in to some of their core social issues they are no longer effective in getting some of the more economic and less social issues fixed. guest: you are seeing those frustrations with politicians of all sorts. what was striking after the 2010 election, even the republicans made huge gains, the party's image has not really improved. there had that been a groundswell for the republican, or democratic party, for tha. when you have an economy the way it is, that is part of the problem. host: mclean, va. david on the republican line. caller: you have several callers
that call in and say, our children are being indoctrinated. they are communist. c-span should call a live a lie. there was a study from the university of toronto. -- a lie a lie. it put political party is all around the world on a chart and showed the true government, like bolivia, far to the left. it and the democrats one point to the right and republicans 3 points to the right, so this is truly a center-right country. when donald trump says something, you should respond, this is a federal matter, this
is a lie. they are filled with just a bunch of low educated voters. guest: again, you see these sharp, harsh criticisms of the republicans. you see that kind of polarization we discussed in our report. host: you seem to be saying this is not your father's republican party, but the same could be said for democrats as well? guest: republican party has changed a good bit over the decade. it is becoming more conservative. moderates are less numerous, nation wide. host: gop topology groups. we have staunch conservatives by race.
92%. black, not large enough to measure, i guess. hispanic, 3%. mainstream republicans, 80%, white, 2%, black, 4% hispanic. guest: that is a problem for republicans. democrats do have more appeal, at this stage, to younger groups. host: a and then voters under 30. 8% said they are staunch conservatives. that would indicate what? guest: in a midterm election,
those are not bad numbers to have because those are the groups that turn out. old people do tend to turn out. in the future, the demographics are working against the republicans, to some extent. host: at the bottom of the page, solid liberals. 72% white, 9% black, 11% hispanic. under 30, under 50, 50%. guest: one of the interesting groups next to them are these coalition democrats, who are very different, and demographically. they're different from the solid liberals in terms of their demographic makeup.
more minority concerns, more conservative about social issues. host: regarding this study from the queue research center, tell me the difference between a new coalition democrat and a solid liberal democrat. guest: new coalition democrats are kind of the people on the way up in the country. they have a sense things are going to get better. they are seeing success in their own life, and they have hopes in the future. where they differ is on the social issues. host: we are speaking to carroll doherty, associate director for the peer research center. we are talking about a new study coming out talking about voters be more deeply divided. frederick, maryland. logan on the line for independents. caller: i happen to be socially
conservative, conservative across the board, for the most part. however, i realize, conservatism, if you take it to me logical conclusion, we can be socially conservative, but if you really want the minted government, we should be kind of along the lines of the libertarians. we should not support government intervention in 99% of these social issues, even though personally hold something different. limited federal and state government. all the conservatives out there that are holding a line on all these social issues, you have to wake up. you cannot have it both ways. i want you out of my life,
except some of these issues that i support. host: carroll doherty? guest: the sentiment on the republican side is less government in the economic area, some intervention in the areas of restrictions on gay marriage, and things like that, but notably, there are libertarian dissenters to that. host: rich in new york. good morning. caller: i was just going to say, people talk about the two-party. the modern father of the tea party is ron paul. he is an anti-globalized.
it is for the united states of america. the new world order is trying to degrade america. i have heard osama bin laden has been dead since 2001. host: carroll doherty? guest: of ron paul does come up a bit in our poll. he does pretty well. ron paul, mitt romney, there is no front-runner yet. no one has broken out yet. host: 8 twitter message -- a twitter message -- guest: again, that is a pretty
strong comment. taxes, deficit, budget, all deeply divisive. host: jefferson, new york. burlakov on the democrat's line. -- veronica on the democrat's line. caller: last summer, all the meeting had about health care budget, it caused a lot of dissent. i do not think it was understood well. it was the tea party who said that they were going to kill granma, they were going to do this and that. this year, when paul ryan's budget came out, they got a dose of their own medicine, and they did not like it. it did not go down well. the thing that bothers me the most is, i feel they do not listen to the people.
i do not feel congress and the senate is paying attention to what the public wants and needs. we are being hurt out here very deeply. everyone is struggling. i think the rich can afford to go back to clinton tax times. we are not raising taxes. this was supposed to expire in 2010 but everyone was held hostage. if they did not let that go through, we were not going to get things for the troops, unemployment. i do not feel that they are out for us. i wish they would feel more for the american people. i do not really feel they are serving us. thank you for your time.
host: carol dorothy, your response? guest: -- carroll doherty, your response? guest: health care was a major issue. it is a big change from what people have been experiencing. it is drawing intense opposition. probably not surprising that major initiatives like that get intense opposition. host: some more figures. democrats divided over social issues. where they generally agree, the best way to deploy peace is through diplomacy. why the dip?
guest: all things considered, that is a point of agreement on the democratic side. post-iraq, i think you see some dissension about afghanistan. there are some ideas that the country is over extended militarily, and there is some thought that we should be using diplomacy. host: where they differ, for example, homosexuality should be expected by society. -- accepted by society. why the drop off? guest: these divisions are not new. i think you are seeing more religious democrats, more minorities, who are also very religious, some of them.
again, this is not a new division, but it is a major fishfissure. host: how did you describe a hard-core democrat? guest: on the basis of their own values, the questions that they answer. host: we want to remind our viewers and listeners, if they want to take the quiz for themselves, they can find it at people-press.org/topology. caller: the lines of political parties are intentionally blurred. partisan politics. in just think about it.
mika is on msnbc. the war on terror places trillions in the hands of each of these players. saudi bin laden group. carlyle group. conspiracy theories and all that nonsense are perpetuated by the media. the part in the bush for financial crimes, wiretaps, and the war crimes. bloomberg just won a freedom of information act. the federal reserve gave trillions to their friends, including international banks, during the height of our financial crisis. host: anything in your research to suggest, as some have suggested, that the media, in any way, shape, or form, presses people's ideas, shapes the
political debate? our people do that by themselves? guest: we do ask some media questions in the report, and as expected, people on the left and right choose different sources. one of the striking findings is the degree to which staunch conservatives really rely on fox news. that is, by far, their source of maine news. host: liberals on the far left? guest: more diverse sources. npr, cnn, even fox, in some democratic groups. host: let us take a look at this twitter message.
this comes from spooney35. guest: with the country facing the deficit, public views are somewhat conflicted. that is understandable. people do not have a desire to seek cuts in programs or tax hikes. so the public's message on that issue is not altogether clear host. host: we are talking with carroll doherty of the pew research center. next call from lakeland, florida. caller: i am one of those rare people that have voted the same way all my life. i have voted republican all the way up through pusbush 2.
but when he raised taxes, started the wars, ran a deficit up, i realize that i was following the wrong party. we were not the republicans that we were with dirksen, dole, honest, upright people. now all we have is sean handy, andl o'reilly, glenn beck, all these people believe what they say. host: is your switch more of a sign that you are dissatisfied with the republican party, or something more attractive in the democrat party? caller: i am dissatisfied with george bush. when he ran, cut taxes, had a
necessary wars, and ran up the deficit, that is where the deficit started. guest: it would be interesting to see where jim heads in 2012. if he is disappointed with the in the deficit, it will be interesting to see where it goes. democrats are also responsible. host: where do you see the debate going in terms of policy versus politics? we had the first republican debate over the weekend. guest: we do not bring much clarity to the 2012 race on the republican side because there is not much clarity yet. in terms of the general election, we see some strength for obama, but some witnesses as well.
host: senate races, house races, local races? guest: turnout is always keep. what you see, especially with democrats in 2010, there was a big falloff. they definitely need to address that in 2012. host: independent phone call. long beach, california. .caller: caller: i have a bit of an issue of the way that you are describing independence. -- independents. a false dichotomy that this is just a republican or democratic country is not true. there are a lot of us who are
different. people seem to think that it is just two different versions of the businessmans party. there are a lot of us who have interests that are not of the rich. you do not hear many people from democracy now!, most think tanks, young liberals -- again, the young people to the left of the liberals. guest: that is the kind of independence we are seeing. if it ever was monolithic, it certainly is not today. very liberal on a lot of issues, others that are very conservative on certain issues
as well. host: last call comes from david in williamsburg, va. republican line. caller: first of all, let me say the democrats andst a dislike the republicans. do you think that the way that people vote is their familial background? how their parents voted? i was just wondering if familial background is indicative of the way that people tend to vote. i know government workers are usually democrats, for obvious
reasons. people in the private sector tender vote republican. -- tend to vote republican. i just wondered if family background influenced the way that people voted. host: are you the product of a one or two-parent family? two-parent family. my father was from the south and he intensely hated the way that democrats, at the time, were treating blacks. guest: it does play a role. what we have seen is, a lot of these independents these days not only come from democratic or independent families, many were republicans or conservatives themselves. high percentages of the independents say hank, i was
with the democratic, republican party, but i have decided to change. host: thank you for being on this morning. a discussion of where the prosecutions are after the financial meltdown on wall street. but coming up after the break, and look at homeland security in the post-bin laden age. it is monday, may 9. we will be right back.
>> every weekend, experience american history on c-span 3. hear first-person accounts from people who have shaped modern america. history bookshelf features the best known american history writers of the past decade and travels to important battlefields that shaped an era. every weekend, visit college classrooms across the nation as professors delve into the nation's past. and the presidency. focusing on the president's policies and legacies. insights from administration officials and experts. get our complete schedules online and sign up to have them e-mailed to you.
>> when they say, we were protecting the consumer, the consumer may want to say, wait a minute. i have a right to protect myself, too. >> california representative mary bono mack on consumer privacy, resulting from the case involving sony. >> find our content any time through c-span's the video library. we also take c-span on the road without local content vehicle. it is washington, your way. the c-span that works. -- networks.
host: juan zarate joins us talk about homeland security in the post-bin laden era. he is a former security adviser for counterterrorism for the bush the administration. currently with the center of strategic and international studies. welcome to the program. "washingtoning's times" we have this had deadline -- guest: the fact that we got so much information, an intel bonanza, unlike anything we have seen since 9/11 -- in volume and in terms of quality. we have the electronic media files, all sorts of things that will not only lead us to al
qaeda leaders, but also understanding the network, at large. historically, currently, and where it is going. it is a treasure trove of documents. for the most part, the administration will not want to talk about the details. we will be curious, asking a lot of questions, but the administration will be careful to talk about anything sensitive. we see the bin laden story as the end of a story, that in many ways, given this was such a fruitful site exploitation, with all of these leads coming from it, in many ways, it is the start of a new phase of care terrorism operations. -- counterterrorism operations. but i do not think it is bad to signal to their leadership that we have a lot of this stuff. many of them did not have direct
communication with osama bin laden. it is a good terrible to throat -- a variable to throw into their thinking. it may force arab that we can take advantage of. at some point, we may want to constrain what we are saying publicly so that we can take action on the information we are getting. host: how much information that they got from the compound do you think the average person will benefit from, in terms of, how safe is it for me to get on a plane, train, travel across the country or overseas? guest: the first priority for officials is to see if there is any information about plots or activities target in the west. one of the things they are doing is looking for information of operatives who have been deployed to north america or
europe. looking for information on attack planning. we saw a threat morning last week with respect to surface transportation. that relates to some of the memos found at the compound. it is not likely that you will see every day information coming out that will give us specific information about threats, but, periodically, information that will signal that analysts have found things that are troubling and american public should be aware of. host: former secretary of defense donald rumsfeld says -- how do they fight that urge? they found all of this information. everyone wants to know about it.
how do they fight that urge to say that this is what we have got, this is what we will tell you? guest: it is tough because there is such an insatiable appetite for the information that came out of that raid. the public has a right to know, in many ways, what is coming. that said, what you will see happen is the counterterrorism community will start to take ownership of what happened down, in terms of the analysis and what is said. the more the analysis that comes out of this leads to counter-terrorism activities, the less it will be talked about. the problem for the white house is, how do they stop being the active voice of these updates? how do they stop being the fact witness? part of that challenge, to the
extent that they have briefings, have the pentagon and intelligence community do it. host: juan zarate is our guest for the next 40 minutes, talking about homeland security in the post-bin laden era. if you want to get involved in the conversation, democrats, 202-737-0002. republicans, 202-737-0001. independents, 202-628-0205. you can also reach us by e-mail and twitter. first call comes from michigan. mattie on the line for independents. caller: there was a story last week in "the washington post" about osama bin laden, and they said that they had found the guy that knew the guy that led to the guy. did they find that the merc of careers? that is what it seems to imply.
-- network of couriers? guest: is a great question. part of the intrigue of this case is how we discover the breadcrumbs that led us back into bin laden's lair. this started back in 2004 when we got news of a trusted courier network that he was relying on. one of the theories was, if we got enough information on it, these corridors could ultimately be the bread crumbs that would lead us back to his lawyer. over time we get bits of pieces of data, more granular day about what that and work looks like. -- network looked like.
experts then honed in on that individual to find the compound. once they found a compound, concentrating heavily on what was going on there. however, at no point did anyone have visual confirmation that bin laden was there. no one had audio confirmation. so there was no certainty. but it was all the markers to suggest that it was a very high- qaedatarget in the al universe, and it was likely bin laden, given the compound, the number of individuals, the fact was travelingidocourier back and forth. they did not know for sure if it was bin laden in the compound. even though we did so much good work to get to that point, still, at the end of the day, it
was not clear until we executed the target, that it was bin laden in the house. host: mike in new york, new york. caller: what happens if we find out pakistani intelligence was involved in harboring bin laden? what kind of actions could we actually take? it is a great question. one of the strategic aftershocks of this question is the deepening question between the relationships of the u.s. and pakistan. the whole thing with raymond davis enflamed relations with
the u.s. and pakistan the president did not pre-notify the pakistanis, demonstrating a lack of trust in terms of the operational safety. but if we find there were elements of the pakistani intelligence service, or military -- and i think the evidence suggests that we may find some degree of that. this will be a crisis moment for the relationship. that said, the administration is doing two things. they are providing breathing space for pakistan to save face publicly. they are not being overly harsh. they are allowing some wiggle room for the pakistanis to address this. but behind the scenes, you become extremely tough in your lines, and demands, delivering on other al qaeda leaders, taliban leaders in pakistan.
frankly, holding the money that we have allocated for pakistan over their heads. we have to be real allies here, but if we continue to find these egregious cases of complicity, we are going to not only have to cut off funding, but some other harsh thing that you may not like. at some point, we need to have that conversation. no doubt, the administration is preparing for that. host: the pakistani president to address parliament on the bin laden raid. this being reported by the bbc.
in this address to the pakistani parliament, what does the prime minister have to say in order to reassure his people that his folks did not know that bin laden was there? and what does he say in this thing that reassures the united states that they did not know and were not cooperating with bin laden? guest: this is a tricky high wire act for president colodngi. ani. first of all, they failed to control american overreach, which is ever sent there. -- sacrosanct over there. military services are held in
pretty high esteem, considered a pillar of the state. in particular, with respect to india. one of the consideration for pakistan is, not only does it show a lack of ability to defend ourselves, not just from the u.s., potentially india, but also demonstrates a failure of intelligence. bin laden was at the compound, but you could imagine indian intelligence officers of the compound during the fairest things, from a pakistani standpoint. so galani will have to assure the public that they will fix whatever went wrong. he will also have to demonstrate that there is resolved against the united states. these kinds of incursions' will not be allowed again. we heard this from the military last week. finally, he will have to measure
his tone. to the extent that he comes out too bellicose or nationalistic against the united states, it will not play out well against the capital. it appears that the pakistanis were either completed or blatantly incompetent in terms of discovering bin laden in their midst, for five years. host: the pakistani ambassador was on abc this week. this is what he had to say about bin laden's whereabouts. >> if any member of the intelligence service near where he was, we would have taken action. presence inaden's pakistan was not to pakistan's advantage. guest: i respect the ambassador quite a bit. i have dealt with him before
certainly, that is the tape that senior leaders in pakistan have. the trouble is, the isi have longstanding ties to the taliban. they have longstanding ties to groups that are tied to al qaeda. so the elements of the intelligence service, both current and retired, have relations with al qaeda. so in some ways they play a double game that hurts the u.s. and the pakistani people. there is a pakistani calculus of needing to hedge their bets, u.s., india. the key question here is whether there is some element within pakistani intelligence or military that knew about this,
that established a network to support bin laden for five years. host: juan zarate is our guest. former national security adviser for counterterrorism in the bush administration. currently, the traditional threats project senior adviser at the center for strategic and international studies. brooklyn, new york. eileen. caller: i just have a few comments. fromed not too far kennedy airport. i remember around 9/11, as airplanes were going up and down, there was the feeling, is this just a normal airplane? after a while, things got better. have never, i understand that
this happened during the obama presidency, but i am so proud of everyone in the surface, everyone who put this together in counterintelligence. this also goes back to george bush, whom i greatly admire. these are two fears that i have. i know we had to take him out, but i get upset that the public and, particularly, the print media wants to -- so much the formation. we are not safe, we are far from safe. to just be enthusiastic about the death of this enthusiastic leader is very foolish. i think we have to watch out. there are others right below him who are getting ready. i saw the riots and protests in london, screaming about getting rid of america and killing us
all. i think very highly of the counter-terrorism people. yes, we have to know some things -- but for example, two of the headlines in the new york papers. i never thought i would be saying this kind of thing, but it is horrific to make fun of something like this. he is a horrific person. i am glad that we caught him, but we have to be totally on our guard and be careful about how much information gets released which could aid our enemies. host: before mr. zarate responds, as the airplanes are going in and out of kennedy, do you feel more comfortable? caller: yes, i do.
when i look out at night, i see them in the sky and i think of them as satellites, things that are protecting the shoreline. i love our country. i have our old values. i want the country to continue to do well, get rid of this horrific debt, start bringing things back to america. guest: great comments. i think one of the interesting things about this situation is it has demonstrating an element of continuity between both administrations in a way that you have not seen before. the obama administration came in wanting to change a counter- terrorism policy, but i had been predicting more continuity. a lot of the key officials that
they have relied on were bush administration and key officials. a lot of my friend were a part of this and i am proud of them. we demonstrated our persistence on this problem, the intelligence members, and they stayed on it and finally got it. incredible pride, i think, in the special operations community. all of those special forces that have done remarkable work, not just in this case, but in iraq, afghanistan. a community that is extraordinarily valuable to us. i used to be a counter-terrorism official, but now i am on the other side. one of the thing that the administration is trying to do with what they are putting out -- we are getting some this weekend, maybe more. they are trying to undercut the image of the bin laden as a
warrior. they are trying to undercut his image, in part, to go after the ideology of al qaeda. for counterterrorism officials, this is the start of a campaign to break the back of al qaeda leadership. we heard the president talked about this last night. some of the messaging coming out is not to fulfill the needs of the media and for all of us to know more, but also a message campaign to say this is not the man you thought he was. this is not a move that was once as dangerous as it was. we are going to destroy it. by the way, we have more and we are -- we have more in the back pocket and we're coming after you. host: in his interview on abc sunday morning, tom donovan talks about going after ayman al-zawahri, but in doing that we
still may not tell pakistan we have targeted him and may have to come again, across the border to get him. guest: if it is the most interesting, immediate problem regarding pakistani relations. if we have intelligence on the air apparent, the egyptian doctor, or others, do we tell the pakistanis? or do we do it in a way that allows them to save face and repair the relationship? i would expect the latter. allow a beginning of the repairing of the relationship. the challenge there is, do we trust them fully? this is sensitive information. for example, we send special forces across the border again. are they going to be put in
harm's way? all of that is part of the calculus. host: we want to let our viewers and listeners know that we are monitoring the speech of the prime minister that we mentioned earlier, prime minister galani. we are showing some of that now, courtesy of al jazeera. if he makes any news, we will bring it to you. back to the phones -- actually, let's take a look at twitter. guest: i think this is the challenge for pakistan. frankly, the pakistani leadership uses this with the u.s. to say you do not want
instability in pakistan. you do not want what is coming behind us, which could be a more extreme element in the pakistani government'. the challenge for the united states is, you have to have a relationship with pakistan. at the same time, you have to be demanding of and pakistan ally which has received billions in u.s. aid over the years. there is a challenge their but we need to see a stable pakistan. without that, you have to instability in afghanistan, india, southeast asia. host: actually saying that we may go after ayman al-zawahri, does that make things more dangerous, for us at home, or does that further separate him from his al qaeda membership?
guest: they already know it. if there is an attack under way, they are training for it. as we are starting to see in some of these documents, they were starting to gear certain attacks on anniversaries. generally, they launch attacks when they are ready. so i do not think it creates a danger. i think it plays into the psychology of the war on terror. you are tried to mess with the mind of the enemy. putting out bits and pieces of information that may make them nervous, may force them into making mistakes. ultimately, we will find these guys if they make a mistake inadvertently. host: we are moving into vacation season. do you expect al qaeda will be putting out stock to mess with u.s. minds?
guest: first, i think they need to worry about succession. they have not yet announced who the successor is. usually, you see that when they put out the eulogy for the person who died. presumably, it would be ayman al-zawahri. interestingly, they did not say that. that suggests to me that there are still internal divisions within the senior leadership. ayman al-zawahri is not well- liked, is not charismatic, and has an alienated some of the other leaders. second, they may not have had a chance to get together to communicate. part of the challenge is getting the remaining leadership together and communicate to make a decision. they may be having a hard time doing just that. al qaeda will be worried about its survival, a succession in the first instance.
what we have to worry about our reprisals from those who are already in the field, perhaps ongoing plots. of secondly, lone wolves. people that are angry, take matters into their own hands. homeland host: our next call comes from vienna, va., just outside of washington, d.c. thank you for reading. caller: i served 30 years in the military and in vietnam. i do follow security matters. my giro question -- my general question, and i have a few points to substantiated, is how many have interest in following
up on osama bin laden followed upon the failure of bora bora? me like this guest to tell if there is anything wrong with these facts. bora bora, we did not follow him. then i think it was in late 2002 when bush was interviewed and he said he did not know where bin laden was in the did not care. in 2005, he disbanded the cia intelligence unit hunting for bin laden. when he left the presidency in late 2007-2008, he did not seem to care about not finding of some of bin laden. host: we believe it there. i want to answer this report that says their intelligence services have insisted they
shared a confirmation about bin laden's compound two years ago with their american character parts. guest: i did not know if pakistan shared information. they may have shared information ancillary to the compound, but i am not aware of anything they shared that would have pointing -- would have pointed to this compound be and where bin laden was. i can neither confirm nor deny that. his question is an important one. what was it revealed in this operation in understanding how this came about is a revelation that we did not lose sight of bin laden as a goal. this administration points to the work done in the prior administration to get to this point. i was in the white house from 2005-2009 and this was a top priority for me dealing with this issue. i will tell you we did not lose sight of this. this was a key goal of ours, not
just because of the symbolism but because we knew that he was still operationally relevant, which is now coming down given the documents that have been found. he was an important figure for the global movement. bora bora was a big mistake. if we had a do over there, the leaders would have put more troops on the ground to assure that we had killed bin laden and a sure he did not escape. we allowed him to escape which led to a lot of years of frustrated hunting. i but not take the lack of progress as a symbol that we were not trying. a lot of the starts and stops during the time between 2002- 2007 there about one of started to get more leads was really a dry hole. we were falling all sorts of leads possible. the unit at the cia was disbanded and that did not mean that we did not have enormous resources looking at this.
as you read some of the reporting out in "the new york times" and other publications, the cia was involved in the other opportunities to get more intelligence on the ground in pakistan to the dust of the point where he was found, captured, or killed. host: juan zarate is the transitional threats senior adviser. that is a mouthful. what do you do? guest: it is one of the main think tanks in town. i hope that the transnational threat project which looks out of the three strands nationally that are a concern, organized crime -- which looks at all the transnational concerns. right now, one of the things we are working on, and this is a fascinating time to be doing this, but it is a steady that will come out on the future
about qaeda and its related movements. -- the future of the al qaeda and its related movements. is a very different organization in 2011 than it was after 9/11. and has metastasized, the rise of affiliates in places like yemen and africa, unaffiliated individuals that are radicalized but not necessarily trained by al qaeda. i call it the al qaeda hydra. we emphasize the core elements of the bin laden and al- zawahiri, as it remains critical to the cohesiveness of this movement, and to the extent that we can get rid of bin laden and al-zawahiri, you are doing a great service in this tantalizing this. -- in dismantling this. we can start imagining that now.
host: last week in "the baltimore sun, they had this story by brian bennett. what is the shelf life of the information that the navy seal team was able to extract from the compound? how long before some of the things that they come back actually changing and we will not be able to act on them? guest: great question. there will be categories of data, some information that is actionable now and will only be used in the next couple of weeks. addresses, phone numbers that will likely to not be relevant because al qaeda members will relocate. there is a shelf life to some of the data. some of the data will tell you more about ongoing operations that are still being in the training, network building, financing, other elements that will be useful for a longer period of time.
then there will be an entire suite of information, an encyclopedia, that will tell us a lot about the organization in the past, in the recent present, and in the future as bin laden was conceiving it. that information will be valuable for years to come because will fill a lot of the gaps that we had, and lack of understanding as to why they were doing certain things, how they operated, where their network is. this treasure trove will service not only in the weeks and months to come but in the years to come in understanding this number can ultimately dismantling it. host: gainesville, va., you are on with juan zarate. caller: are in a first-time caller. just to disclose, i have spent a lot of my life in the subcontinent in this specifically, my comments and questions may be a little biased. after all this happened, and i
hate to say this because i am sure you have heard this 8 million times, but when everything was going on, even up until the cargo wars, people on the subcontinent had been screaming and shorting and saying a lot of the terrorism was originating from pakistan. even in the mumbai attacks and all of the casualties are happening, and a former terrorism, whether it is one death for thousands of debt is horrible and terrible. in terms of foreign policy, i find it a bit hypocritical in terms of if it happens in a different country, it happened somewhere else that their device is to have strengthened because, but what happens to the citizens of the united states, it ends up that we will go to war with this country and we
will do whatever it takes. in that region, which is very unstable because of the dynamics of the power sharing, i would like to think that india would be a very, very strong ally in the terms of having a sense of stability, economic stability. i would really like a comment as to why that has been ignored for such a long period of time. host: sorry to cut you off, gainesville, virginia and. guest: we appreciate the differences in perspective of terrorism and how it affects different countries. that is something to always keep in mind. the concept of india, one of the challenges with pakistan is that they have grown weary of the growing strategic relationship that the united states has built with india. many foreign policy experts will
tell you that one of the achievements of the bush administration in the international realm had been to reconsider their relationship with india, build that up not only on the nuclear side, but also with counter-terrorism. something that i wanted to see when i was in the white house were those deeper ties with the world's largest democracy, to have those relationships. month and will know is that i wrote a piece in "the washington post" is that one thing many to be concerned about the fact that terrorism can serve as a flash point for a greater conflict. between india and pakistan, we have been on the verge of war because of two terror strikes in 2002 and in mumbai. if another attack were to happen significant enough on indian territory, the killing of indian civilians, and there is enough of the sense that the pakistan citizens have not done enough,
that could have served as a flash point. we will see a trial in chicago, david hedley, involved with one of the groups in pakistan, that trial will start shortly. part of the trial will involve the pakistanis involvement. this will be seen as aggravating in the context of india validating their views of what has been happening in islamabad. host: our next call comes from bergen county, new jersey for juan zarate. caller: good morning, c-span. good morning, military monday. you are very, very informed. i would like to know but what is going on with this pilot. he was started in 2005 near an
airport base. two witnesses spotted him and got his license plate. i believe that he is in charge right now. he was the second or third in line. i do not hear anyone talking about him. we need to know what is going on with these terrorists. i believe that osama bin laden has been dead for a long time. i do not believe he was killed just recently. i believe that this pilot has been ruling their roost for the last couple of years. i would like to know where the intelligence is on hand. host: what is your evidence that bin laden was not killed when the administration said he was? caller: i can tell that is the same person when i watch the video is. i am no longer naive. i read everything. not many people not even know about this pilot. you might even find his name anywhere unless you read a world
that daily. no one knows about the people in california who spotted him near the military base which is where the weapons taste -- weapons testing. two times they spotted and reported him. you'll never find that. you have to read about it. the townspeople in pakistani both said that osama bin laden was not living there. host: we will have to leave it there. guest: i could not agree more. there was no interest in the bush administration on this one to make something like this up. it would be to any administration's political benefit, as we are seeing now, to have announced the death of bin laden. one of the things i walked away from the white house with was a deep, deep sadness -- deep dissatisfaction that we had not been able to find and kill bin
laden. that was a failure for me as a senior counter-terrorism official. i would not have loved anything more than to have been able to help the president help the country declared that we had killed bin laden. it would have been strategically important so we would not have seen a metastasizing of the movement under his leadership and the symbol of his leadership. i could not disagree more. i encourage you to keep reading, but i would be careful of what you believe on the internet. it was completely in our interests to announce his death sooner than later. any notion that he was kept in a closet or killed a long time ago is not true. i believe the administration when they talk about not only the dna evidence but the facial recognition, i witnessed testimony of his wives who were there, and the al qaeda announcement talking that has that's just recently. you do not have to believe us. you can believe al qaeda.
i would encourage you to look at some of the other evidence. ok. host: we are showing some video right now of bin laden. there are no dates on this or anything, but the color of his beard seems to change every time we go to a different picture. that may be where some of this is coming from. is it just that he was a vain that type of guy and wanted to darken his beard? guest: that is what we are finding with some of the documents. before he had a really dark beard and people were laughing because it looked funny. it looked like he would die this before -- dye before his various statements. the last video we had seen was 2007. he had put out audio messages, but not nvidia. the address -- audio but not video.
that may address the caller's question. the pilot is now part of al qaeda in the middle circle. he will be an important with kashmiri. there are still senior leaders on the bench including those in an iranian custody that will be a part of the next stages of what i think the administration will do to go after al qaeda. host: a quick comment on this headline. his voter will not be released. they would not in sight additional violence if the images emerged of others killed. your thoughts on whether or not the pictures should be released. guest: i think it is a good decision but a hard decision. and in the age of wikileaks, it is hard to keep this data confined for too long.
part of the problem, too, is you will still have people with down's, like the previous caller. without seeing some evidence, you have trouble. the administration wants to control the narrative. they do not want gory images tainting the moral high ground in terms of killing the world's most notorious terrorist leader. host: in the terms of safety, does it make us safer and in the u.s.? guest: i think it does come especially right in the wake of the killing. it makes sense not to put something out that what inside the people to use as a tipping point for those who are emotionally engaged to actually take violent actions on to themselves. host: scott on our line for independents, you are on with juan zarate. caller: if the navy seals had gone into the compound and bin laden not have been there, what would that have done it with our
relationship to pakistan? guest: a great question. i think it would have been incredibly damaging to the relationship if we had gone in and it was just an innocent party. that was part of the risk involved. not only did we not know for sure whether or not he was there, but we were not sure if the operation would have been successful. if the pakistani troops in the region reacted and we had got into a firefight with them, that could have been, ultimately, -- it could have destroyed the relationship. now there is a very tense relationship, but it is made much less so by the fact that bin laden was there. great justification on all parts. the president said he would send troops across the border if we found him. it is very possible the pakistanis can get too upset about having the world's most
wanted man found 35 miles from their capital. the fact that he was their tempers the reaction a bit. if he had not been there or if it had been an innocent party and we sent navy seals that far into the heart of pakistan, it could have ruptured the relationship long term. host: juan zarate, thank you for being on the program. we will take a short break. when we come back, in discussion and on the lack of post- financial meltdown prosecutions. joining us will be in the weeds story of "the new york times" -- joining us will louise story. >> it can access our programming any time with the c-span radio application offering four
streams of our programming of commercial free. you can listen to our signature programs every week and it is available around the clock or everywhere. download it free from the application store. >> c-span's comprehensive resource on congress, congressional chronicle, has new features to make it easier to find information about your elected officials, in today's committee hearing, a video of every house and senate meeting, and the progress of of the notes. take a look at the new congressional chronicle at c- span.org/congress. experience american history on c-span3. 48 hours of people and events telling the american story. here first-person accounts in oral histories. the history bookshelf features the best known history writers of the past decade. travel to important battlefields to learn about key figures and events that shaped in error
during the 150th anniversary of the civil war. visit college classrooms as professors build into the american past during lectures in history. joining curators and collectors and museum exhibits and historic sites on american artifacts. the presidency focuses on american policies and legacies as told their american and sites throughout administration officials and experts. american history tv on c-span3, all weekend every weekend. get the complete schedule online using the c-span alert. host: joining us from new york is louise story, a business reporter from "the new york times" to talk about post life and financial meltdown prosecutions. in an article you wrote on april 14th, the headliner -- "in financial crisis, no prosecutions of the top figures
." that is our first question to you. guest: we looked back at 2008 and 2009 when the financial markets had really erupted with panic. for the regulators, they were focused on stabilizing the system first and foremost. maybe this sounds like a no- brainer that of course they were focusing on stabilizing the system, but at the same time a lot of these regulators had a dual role like the sec and the federal reserve to both the watch up for the financial markets and hold people accountable. they are supposed to police the markets. we found a number of examples back then there really slow down these cases.
this is why we are here three or four years later and we have not had any. host: further on in your article, you write, could determine why a dog did not bark is anything but simple." tell us what can about the meeting between those two gentlemen and how that affected the number of prosecutions coming out of this crisis. guest: that was a yellow light, as though down moment. and was a very unusual meeting. the president of the new york fed often does not meet with the attorney general of new york. he is often thought of as the new york sheriff, right here in new york. in that meeting, timothy geithner, who is now treasury
secretary, went in and expressed are very concerned he was about the financial markets. we spoke to three people who heard about the meeting at the time and how there was really not a concern about the possibility of that there could being subpoenas. that was a meeting with the message "the slowdown." a few months after that, the securities and exchange commission came up with a secret policy that they did not make public that if they were finding a company and they had bailout money, they would make sure the fine was not too high. that sent a message to wall of the lawyers about how hard they would go after these companies and the message was not very hard. host: the article goes on to say that, "several years after the financial crisis, which was caused by excessive risk-taking --
what was the difference between the situation in the late 1980's and the situation we found ourselves in this century? guest: it was very informative to look at the 1980's. right away, the government set up a task force with a lot of resources and dedicated lawyers to dig in and find out what went wrong. in contrast, in 2008 when the
fbi tried to switch resources, the department of justice over world the after and at first they refuse to put together a task force focusing on financial crisis crimes. it was not the kind of "go figure out if people need to go to jail" approach. and in the 1980's, bank regulators like the fdic, the sec, the sec, they were all required to refer cases to the department of justice. but they sought anything going wrong, they were supposed to pass it over. they would report hundreds of hundreds of cases. we the get the number of referrals lately from bank regulators and they are really tiny compared to the number of cases we saw in the 1980's and early 1990's.
then the department of justice and the fbi did not have much to work with. host: louise story is with us today from new york city. we are with her for the next 40 minutes talking about the prosecution and lack thereof from the fine actor crisis. the numbers are on your screen. -- and a lack thereof from the financial crisis. our first call for louise story comes from charleston, west virginia, on our line for democrats. kevin? kevin, turn down your television. all right. now we go to fort collins, colorado, an outline for independents. caller: can you do me a favor
and explain it credit default swaps? if americans really understood what those are and how they are the greatest the gimmick in the world to watch "a-rated" paper go to "c." if i could do that, i would be richer. think about it. please explain this to the american people. geithner, bernanke, goldman sachs, you look at the entire way our system is the together and run with a lobbyist and everything, it just seems you are telling your son, "you are in trouble." they are all in the same boat. guest: credit default swaps are
a financial type of insurance policy. they started in the 1990 proxy, very small. it was a way for banks just to make sure that if a company they loaned money to went bankrupt and defaulted on a loan that they would get paid out. what happened in the early part of this century is that these were extended to mortgage bonds. what investors did is if they thought a lot of these mortgage bonds went south, of then because of the credit default swap, this insurance policy on the mortgage bond, they build it paid out a lot. what this enabled people to do, very large hedge funds as well as bank said goldman sachs, they were able to bet against the mortgage market. when the housing market collapsed, those investors made quite a lot of money because the credit default swaps. i do not know that suffices as
an answer, but another thing that is an issue with the the derivatives market as a whole is that it is very tightly controlled by a handful of banks. they set the rules to write the policies, and they make a lot of profit in this market. a lot of people including gensler have said that the limited market structure controlled by such a few parties is raising the prices in the derivatives which does affect all americans because it digs into your ticket at an airplane seat or anything that you buy because they all have to pay for derivatives for hedging. host: for those who do not follow the alphabet trail, what does that stand for? guest: commodities futures trading commission. they are over derivatives as well as agricultural, financial instruments. they work a can with the
securities exchanges commission. they work on stocks and derivatives. host: on airline for democrats from georgia, go ahead, what the. -- go ahead, walt. caller: that me ask you about hank paulson. was he not at goldman sachs? we tapped him to come to the treasury. how does he play into this? thank you. guest: hank paulson gdid the watch of the treasury department. he put into place the beginning of the federal bailout. he was there when regulators made their first steps to back away from prosecutions. in my reporting, i did not find a direct link to secretary paulson. why did not find any evidence that he specifically told
regulators to back off, but he is certainly a very powerful player at the time when the decision to back away from the cases were made. host: is part of the situation the fact that part of the reason they do not. the ft these prosecutions the fact that in administrations, both democratic and republican, so many people work in wall street and in the financial sector come in and work for various administrations, the treasury, the fcc, and when they are over they go back to wall street? guest: the revolving door is well alive. i did write about attorney general, who is now the governor of new york. -- attorney general cuomo who is now the governor. one of his lawyers who had been overseeing a lot of these cases went right over to work for goldman sachs.
that is a very recent example. one of the investigators did not look into a lot of cases than now has a prestigious position. they say that link was unfair, but there are a lot of people that there do wonder how much influence the revolving door has on how strong and how hard these prosecutors go in these cases. host: the new attorney general and in new york, which has been the indication that he will get tougher on these prosecutions? guest: he has not said publicly. he has questioned the the mortgage settlements. a lot of state attorney generals have been working to get more resettlement and he was questioning whether that was tough enough. that seemed to indicate that he will be a tougher attorney- general and hold more people accountable, but we have not seen many cases yet.
that is certainly something i am watching. host: next up for louise story is chris from the democratic line. caller: i really admire direction. -- gretchen. it is so disillusioning after things like 9/11 than the complete failure of the state -- of savings-and-loan and the failure of government and now we have this collapse. the government does not seem to be able to do its job. in this case, on either side of the aisle their word manages to doing what they did. in the case of democrats, they wanted to make sure that everyone who could not afford to get a loan did. it they meant well, i am sure. this is a big, powerful country, but it was almost ruined in one
day in the blink of an eye. it is disillusioning. i do not think that -- if people would do their jobs and abide by the laws and do not take on unnecessary risks that it would be much better place for everybody. thank you. host: louise story? guest: he was touching on the moral question here, something we have been thinking about. when you look at how the government handled the financial crisis, you can look out the did stabilize the system? yes. with the bailout paid back? most of it, yes. there's also the moral question. but other jobs does the government have? people think part of the job is to hold people accountable which is why we are looking at the question if the government put in enough resources to really investigate and find out if there were people needed to be held accountable.
so far, it is not clear that they have done that. host: we are talking about post-financial meltdown prosecutions with louise story of "the new york times." a lot of the work she has been doing has been co-written by gretchen morganson. on our line for independents, your honor "washington journal." caller: in 2004, the fbi reported to the department of justice, testified in front of the congress that mortgage brokerage and mortgage banking in the united states was riddled with pervasive fraud nationwide. sea to shining sea. white collar crime is an industry. it is an industry that corrupts
the stock market, our banking system, our politics. if that referral from the fbi had been actively followed on by the department of justice and congress, which deserves most of the blame for the lack of oversight, what could have happened? what should happen now? thank you very much. guest: 2004 was back before a lot of the financial instruments for the housing market really got out of control. talking about credit default swaps, they're moving into the mortgage market and they really expanded in size in 2005, 2006, and 2007. you are right. there was a warning in 2004. there was an fbi official talk ing about the tip of the iceberg of mortgage fraud. what is developing here? what types of loans are being
given now? what types of events, for and against, are being made? it is possible they could have stepped in, slowed things down, and it still would have been a painful process for some homeowners and loan holders in 2004. the debt that our nation, the world that invested in, honors by the housing bubble was not as in place back then. but it would have likely been a lot less painful. the fbi said that back in 2004 and in 2008 they put together a memo to reallocate a lot of their resources towards financial crisis and mortgage cases. they sent it out, but then they had to back step and resend part of that because there was a push back from the department of justice. host: our last caller brought up congress. tomorrow and in front of the senate banking, housing, and urban affairs committee, the
chairman of the financial crisis inquiry commission will be appearing. remind us what the financial crisis inquiry commission is and why it was put together and with the committee expects to hear from the head? guest: the commission was put together to investigate the causes of the crisis, much like the 9/11 commission investigated the causes of the attack on 9/11. the disappointment for a lot of people is that the financial crisis inquiry commission did not uncover a lot of new material. but it did do well is that it covered a lot of ground. it really covered every corner of the crisis, although some of that was just covering stuff that people already knew. tomorrow, when he testifies he will probably be asked more details about what they uncovered. we also understand that the commission reversed to some things they think our criminal
to law enforcement agencies, to the department of justice. i will be interested to see if tomorrow congressmen asked him more about what he thought may have been criminal, but he thinks about the lack of prosecution, because he certainly spent a lot of time studying the crisis and he may have good answers. host: the article we have been referring to, you write about the countrywide puzzle as non- prosecutions ago, none more puzzling than the case of countrywide. tell us a little bit more about that and why mr. mozilo paid
$22.50 million instead of being prosecuted? guest: the tricky part of a lot of these cases is that for a criminal case rather than a civil case, it may be an sec case that he settled on a civil matter. for a criminal case, investigators have to show there was criminal intent. it is a much higher bar. the department of justice decides not to go after these matters and it is often because they think there's not enough evidence to show criminal intent. that could be a possible reason that it was not pursued, but remember that there is a lot of evidence that came out in l.a. the sec case. mozilo wrote to other executives about how toxic the loans were country ride was making. he was making public statements to countrywide shareholders that did not disclose what he was
saying privately about how bad the loans were. there are a lot of people really questioning that one and questioning why no officials from aig, the big insurance company, were held accountable. people are also looking at the banks that failed like washington mutual, lehman brothers, and they wonder if there was anyone there who really saw the whole picture, masterminded this canute's some things and should have told the public. -- it masterminded this and knew some things. was this criminal, was this recklessness, was this stupidity? host: louise story has a master's from yale. she is a business reporter with "the york times" and is with us from new york this morning. our next call from michigan, on our line for democrats. go ahead. ed?
caller: can you hear me? host: go ahead. caller: the savings-and-loan trouble started in 1985 during the reagan administration. james baker, i believe, was secretary of the treasury. he left and appointed a woman. he went down to texas working on his friend george h. w. bush's campaign. the taxpayers pay the in the billions. the taxpayers got stuck for something started by the banks. am i correct about that? guest: the taxpayers did help to cover some of the losses there, just like this that them during this financial crisis and provided hundreds of billions of dollars. because there were more
prosecutions back in the 1980 's, there were a lot more fines and penalties paid. right now, you cannot point to a sydney begins amount of money that was being paid by the big fish, on the major financial companies, there ceo's for criminal matters. host: off of twitter, guest: he was looking at the rating agencies pretty early. cuomo took that matter out right away. some people think it was a little weak, but he did take that up. one thing that is interesting is now he is a television show host and he talks a lot on his show about what he calls "the
enablers" about wall street. what he says, in part, caused the crisis and the lack of the ballot -- the lack of accountability are the lawyers and accountants that are all paid to write these letters and sign off on things. this is really interesting because one of the few cases we have seen that was filed by cuomo against ernst and young that did lehman brothers accounting. instead of a case against lehman brothers that had tens of billions of dollars of bad assets, the accounting firm has a case filed against them because they've signed off on that. host: the laws and regulations caused by congress and allowed this to happen, does that make the lawmakers enablers? guest: well, i do get emails quite often from some people
asking why there have not been more questions about the government's housing policy. remember that a lot of these cases would focus on money that an executive or a trader made while he/she was making decisions that would have been harmful to investors or shareholders. that is what they tend to go after, but i certainly get a lot of reader emails where people really want to question decisions made by the government. host: about another 14 minutes with louise story. our next call from sacramento, calif., on our line for republicans. caller: i would like to speak to the possible reinstatement the glass-steagall act. again, this is the origination of the disaster essentially in our times. also, i wanted you to comment on the angelides commission because
they apparently only had $6 million to use to do their investigation whereas during the clinton administration, the congress allotted $60 million for them to investigate the lewinsky scandal. that is scandalous in and of itself. guest: the fdic did have a limited resources. and what they really had was limited time. they had a due date for their report and with these complex cases, it could be that they did not figure this out loud report -- this all out. back then, there were hearings about the 1929 crash and what had gone on in the banking back then. those hearings had a deadline.
the commissioner is just kept going, and going, and hammering, and investigating until the got to the bottom of it. the fdic certainly had a shortage of time and that may have been an issue. host: we are talking about prosecutions in the post- financial meltdown with louise story of a "the new york times." caller: i still have a beer with your name on it. did you ever interviewed alan greenspan? i recall back in 2002-2003 when he was in front of a committee hearing saying, "the industry needs to invent new and creative ways to lend money." when i heard him say that, i sat here and heard him say that. for the life of me, i could not figure out what that man was talking about. is there any way you can enlighten us on what he meant by that? thanks.
guest: i have not interviewed him, but a number of my colleagues have. it was really one of the bitter moments during the financial crisis during a hearing when greenspan really admitted that he had made a mistake about how wall street and the market would police itself. he said at a hearing that he was wrong to think that the bats in the wall street and market forces would keep things under control. that was a significant statement by him. people were wrong to debate what his policies caused, but there are concerns about the low interest rates even right now in this and margaret. host: in the marketplace section of this morning's "the wall street journal," ceo pay jumping 11% in 2010. as a job like that get the attention of the sec and other federal investigators as to how
these ceo's making their money and whether or not they need to go back and take a look at what is going on? guest: very little has been done on compensation. the government to encourage the banks to pay their employees and executives in a lot more in stock, and they are, but there were not really any efforts at all to look back on pay on wall street in 2006, the thousand 7, 2008 when a lot of workers were paid -- 2007, 2008, when a lot of workers were paid on mortgages that were a mirage. there has not been a big effort to look at that. the other thing that has been interesting to watch is that i saw a number of financial companies, both financial and non-financial, granted ton of stock options at the end of 2008 when the stock market was not a
real low. now you look at them and there are worth a ton of money. as the market recovered, in part because of government intervention, you see a number of wall street and other ceo's making a lot of money and stock options. host: north richland hills, texas. good morning. caller: i hope you let me finish. this young lady, as smart as educated as you are, you have not mentioned it that there was a lot of regulation during the savings-and-loan in which george bush's brother was caught in the. during the bush-cheney regulation -- administration, they did a lot of downsizing of government employees including the regulators. this is what has happened since selling lot of this that has
happened up there is considered legal now instead of illegal. republicans are on the bandwagon again to deregulate, get rid of government workers, and it is very obvious where our country is going to go if they get even more power. it will be the super rich and others. host: susan in texas, thank you for your call. louise story? guest: even today, we have been hearing more from the sec and other regulators about how they did not have enough resources to put in place all of the new rules. last year we have the financial reform and they were supposed put in place hundreds of new rules to really bring in wall street and have been telling us that they do not have the resources to do it. it is a problem now.
it was a problem a few years ago. it is a perennial problem. if you really want someone to watch the banks, watch world street, you need to have the manpower and the regulators need to use the manpower smartly. it is an ongoing problem of resources. host: gainesville, ga., on our line for republicans. go ahead. caller: they keep talking about the economy and the mess it is in, the regulators come and the bailout money. they claim has been paid back. where in the world did they get that money when they stole it to begin with to pay it all back? host: from gainesville, georgia. louise story? guest: the government was able to pay for the $700 billion bailout because congress authorized that money in fall 2008.
congress was able to allocate money, of course, but the longer-term question is where do you get the money? right now, we are facing questions about the federal debt limit and how much the government can really afford to spend on things like medicare, education, and other things in the face of a bad economy, on week attacks and -- tax revenues. on the bailout, in the face of disaster, congress authorized the money to be used. host: tallahassee, fla., on our line for independents. go ahead. caller: i have a comment in a couple of questions. one of the questions was in reference to the prosecution's, you know? it seems to me that everyone knows that aig is basically involved with all of the unions and the unions are basically in
bed with the democrats. that is why we feel they were not prosecuted. i would like to know what your thoughts are on that. a lot of people are not bringing that fannie mae and freddie mac, also governmental entities, and any thing that is a government entity or a union, look at what happened with the railroad, maritime, and anything else involved heavily with the unions that are not heavily involved with democrats. i am sure they are involved with some conservatives, but if you go through all of the the director and you read the research, there are more -- all of the literature and you read the research, there are more democrats involved as far as this. this is why i feel like there are no prosecutions, because they are all politically involved. host: we had to let you go. chief master sgt also wants to
know about fannie and freddie. they did not want their favorite sons to go to jail. guest: fannie and freddie are arms of the government because there are put into conservatorship. the treasury department has introduced things to help the housing market have been administered by fannie and freddie. they have enormous amounts of mortgage debt left over for the crisis still on their portfolios. there are ongoing investigations and the sec is looking right now on the ways that fannie and freddie disclose details about their mortgage holdings. they may have missed classified some of the types of mortgages they had said they did not look as risky as they did. there are some people to say that if fannie and freddie had not had those misleading disclosures then we would have had an earlier warning about the
mounting disclosure. the other tricky issue here, of course, is because the government fully owns fannie and freddie now. all these investigations rack up large legal bills for the companies and the companies agree to pay the legal bills of their former executives. the taxpayers are still footing the bills on former executives on things like old accounting fraud at these companies. and it's a really tricky legal area. host: off of twitter -- is that an accurate statement? there have been that many more bank bailouts after public administrations versus democratic administrations? guest: the majority of the bank
of bailouts did happen when bush was still in office. when the obama administration came in, they carried through and oversaw the policies of the bailout. they bailed out some others. the number of bank failures has continued under the obama administration from the bush administration. it is a little difficult to put your finger on the exact date of these things, but both administrations have been involved in the bailout and both of them very much tried to stabilize the system. host: we have an e-mail from manassas, virginia. guest: the sec oversaw the investment banks. they were the regulators for merrill lynch, bear stearns, lehman brothers, and all of those companies that manage to a huge amount of trouble. the only two that survived in
the independent former morgan stanley and goldman sachs, but both of them changed their legal status so that they moved out of the sec and became banks under the federal reserve. the sec proxy oversight has been greatly criticized -- the sec's oversight has been greatly criticized for letting them use an enormous amount of leverage in their trading. a lot of questions have been raised about cox and the sec because they have lost a lot of power in the ways that investment banks changed into banks or were acquired by banks. host: louise story joining us from new york and has been reporting on post-financial meltdown prosecutions. you can read her work along with her co-writer on newyorktimes.com if you do not pick it up in hard copy.