well we are at the i mean against our country i guess i mean the united states but the united states is the legitimate threat for the world so there is no legitimate threat to the united states of the largest military power in the world nobody even comes close to being a threat to the united states and if you look at the conceptions of what a threat is i mean take iran for example is a very good example what is the threat of iran today we hear that they're developing nuclear weapons and they're going to wipe out israel or be a huge threat to the region even though top officials defense secretary intelligence officials the national intelligence council announced that iran has no nuclear weapons they have no nuclear weapons program there is no evidence so what is the actual threat and if you look at the pentagon and intelligence reports to congress they're a little more blunt they state that iran's military structure is not geared towards aggression and it expansion it's geared towards deterrence so why it's not a threat because if you're a world empire and you think that you have the

they say he was a senior figure in the united states and journalist. i call him and say, best regards from your old friends in moscow. and i reminded some of the guys. he said, if you call again, i'll call the fbi. that was the end of it. as i said, we had over 300 as i mentioned sources. they believed in socialism or communism as a future of humanity. and i myself, when i graduated from high school in 1952, i was a stalinist. i mean, stalin was alive. he was a great victorious leader. when he passed away march 5th of 1953, i was in training at that time -- well, foreign languages, english, german, arabic would follow. my mom called me and said our dad passed away. she was weeping over the phone. i didn't understand my father was young. i said, what do you mean? our dad joseph passed away. i went to the class. i said josef stalin -- it was over the radio within a half an hour. everyone cried, it was such a shock. and what a shock it was. much worse in 1956 when khrushchev in his infamous secret speech at the party congress revealed the atrocities and b

states has a right i'm simply or exercising a somewhat different judgment that the united states has very often played a role in maintaining equilibrium but let me make another point about syria if i may the opposition forces in syria i'm not at all clear it may be true that al-qaeda is playing a role and it's not only al-qaeda there are a number of forces that represent the opposition in syria so when you're talking about the united states supporting al-qaeda the united states i don't see forty i'd say are working when they're missing is that i don't know in syria i am side of i didn't say working with on the same side i said that the opposition forces in syria represent a number of different interests and it is not simply al-qaeda that's the only point that i'm making when you're talking about libya the result of the view remains uncertain we're not entirely clear about what the result will be so for the judgment to be made that we know exactly what has happened is not at all accurate ok john now we know that we know the answer in the key the call from telling me all the time that

the united states is looking at a rapidly changing threat portrait from the region groups that act much more like transnational organized crime groups than purely terrorist and politically and ideologically driven groups i would personally reshape the strategy strategy dramatically and i would probably be a lot tougher on the karzai government and the amount of money that is being allowed to flow out of the region. but i but i think the current strategy has at this point it's you know the final nail in the coffin came this week. with the shooting and punch away ok christian the final nail in the coffin you want to react to. well you know you have to take a look at the longer term so we have a counterinsurgency strategy of sorts that president obama put in place but it's always been essentially a policy of managed failure because of the time he knows the surge and he didn't give the combat commander the amount of troops that were necessary for this with the president also knows to offer arabs and so the taliban basically have no there's an expiration date on the u.s. commitment they've c

but the israelis it's a risk, for the united states it's a political risk. >> on, the united states, obama does not want the israelis to launch a preemptive strig would you draw us into war. but he's not going to say something like that and told -- netanyahu that we don't want it done, and the real question is, is obama committed to take the united states to war in the event these negotiations really don't go anywhere? but iran still does not have a bomb. they have what mort calls capability which they have now. they've got a -- they can refine the uranium, they can do it over a period of time, but they just don't have the absolute ability to build a bomb. >> in that press conference in the roads garden this week, the president said the window for diplomacy for stalling this problem is shrinking, and he was speaking to the iranians as much as anyone else. and david cameron said everything is on the table. he repeated that line, which i thought was quite a strong statement because -- british are very opposed to israel. >> you want to pit out obama is really sending a bad example becau

the united states? israel? iran? frankly all three. even if they're all talking tough, tough, and tougher every day, in order to ever prevent actually having to have a conflict, does racheting up the rhetoric help or hurt. rudy giuliani believes it helps. >> instead what he should be doing is convincing the iranians that he's serious, that if he had to, he'd bomb the hell out of them. they should believe this. in fact, the best way he's going to avoid bombing them is convincing them in their heads that he's capable of doing it. >> physically capable of doing is is not in question. but after 11 years and over $1 trillion that was based on wars, the you u.s. appetite for conflict is unsurprisingly ploe and iran knows it. what will the u.s. really do? we'll get to that in a moment. first to tehran where today was the first election since the 2009 disputed presidential election. cnn's ivan watson is there. i spoke to him right before the program and asked him what turnout was like. >> reporter: well, what's pretty incredible is watching th

even in the united states. and so the swap lines, by providing access to funding, significantly reduce the need and the pressure on europe's institutions to cut lending in the united states and in emerging markets around the world, where u.s. companies have big stakes, and where growth matters to us. so the swap lines were very effective in helping to soften the impact of the crisis on us and on countries around the world. and it would have been much worse for us without those lines. and the feds are in positive returns on the swap lines. the role is equally important. and what congress did in 2009 in authorizing the imf was absolutely critical to getting trade around the world restarted, providing financing for countries to borrow so they could buy american products. we would have been in much worse shape and our economy much weaker without those two steps. >> well, i appreciate that. and as you have indicated, it's certainly in our best interest to help solve this crisis. and i believe is that that in additio

the most important strategic ally and friend the united states has in that region. but what are the consequences, or what would the consequences be to -- under a waiver to unesco, the body that actually voted in favor of the palestinians' request? i've got a couple of these, dr. rice. >> okay. >> madam ambassador, if you could. so i'm going to list them quickly. so consequences to unesco -- i know we have 22% of their regular budget. so that's a significant stick if we wanted to use it. also, do you know anything about the presence of russian troops in damascus? i read a piece the other day that the russians had landed in damascus. is there any truth to that? and if so, what were they doing there and what were their intentions? also, what are the -- if you can speak in public session about what the status is of negotiations between iran and the five plus one with regards to nuclr program. where is that status? also, it's been said that the swift program -- are you familiar with that? the society for worldwide interbank financial telecommunications, which has just sa

rahm sold the former defense secretary of the united states. dislikes russia very much too and also mr mccain when he was running for president says four years ago he was basically saying the same things that russia is one of america's bursaries so i think that this logic of the cold war that the united states is first facing a lot of foods a lot of enemies in the world is still very much present in the sinking of the republican elite and look at the republicans who are running against one against another. fighting for the primaries they are all on the ultra conservative wing like you gingrich or mr santorum mitt romney is considered to be one of the moderate republicans that if a moderate republicans say things like this that russia is enemy number one we can only imagine what a real conservative republican would say on this score so i think it is an ideal issue is very much present in american politics do you think it's really that surprising that obama would says such a thing. you mean when he said the rest of it of what he thought about the

large number of united states generals we warned against the war. and maybe he's trying to be realistic and to not be bullied by the new york conservatives and not be bullied by israel and so i think to look for movement you have to look position at the united states not to react because there's no real case against a rare it's the well you don't seem too optimistic about these negotiations in your opinion do you think that war with iran is inevitable and evan a. no i don't think that's the case because it really depends on christian china and then once if the neo conservatives can no history. russia or china would be next and i just think they're catching all of that for a long time and russians the chinese are in a terrible way would see it with the libyan resolution. and i think they're corazon and they're less easily deceived and so they're more likely to put some kind of resistance but i do think it's possible there is hope is that obama has learned that he's being stampeded into a potentially disastrous action and so it could be that it's a bo

slicing through the united states. in the interceptor speed is 4 1/2 kilometers a second which is very fast for defending europe, this is the defended area in here. you really cannot protect the united states. if i increase that speed to five kilometers a second, now i can do a good job of defending the eastern part of the united states, but the west coast is a little bit out of the footprint. i haven't shown you the capability of the ft. greely up here. so five kill miters a second, the forward base site could help defend the east coast. ft. greely the west coast. but if you want to cover the entire continental united states from poland, your interceptor speed has to be up around 5 1/2 kilometers a second. much faster -- at least a kilometer second faster. now, why are the russians concerned? this chart shows you the footprint, the defended area for russian icbms launched from all the known launch locations in russia. it is high for any of the sm-3 interceptors currently being talked about. so if i put that sm-3 block

hyping war rhetoric and pushing the united states attempting to corral the united states into a war that could be catastrophic according to the world renowned economist nouriel roubini a war that could cause a global recession that this is not good for israeli interests either and i think there are a lot of players in the u.s. itself that are concerned about exactly what you just said that the neo cons are sort of pushing this engender i want to pull up something that just in case you missed it was a full page ad today in the washington post and we'll put it up on the screen basically a picture here of president obama and netanyahu and various quotes here by top officials current and former secretaries of defense the chairman of the joint chiefs all essentially saying the consequences of attacking iran are too grave now is not the time asking the president to resist the pressure for a war with iran. and wondering what kind of impact do you think visuals like this these full page ads in the newspaper i mean do you think that people will start to realize hey there's another perspective her

states here i personally can't see how iran is a really big threat to the united states maybe except for maybe proliferation. i think that israel and the united states are more or less aligned in terms of their on their sort of the way they ascertain the threat but i think it's really a question as or instead of how to deal with that threat and the time in which you have to let diplomacy and sanctions work and the time at which you decide that you know military strength is necessary all right thank you very much to all of you for an intriguing to this question many thanks to my guest today in washington and injuries and thanks were viewers for watching us here see you next time and remember.

god bless the united states of america. [ applause ] >> the president of the united states was speaking to the american israel public affairs committee here in washington. opening up a very important week in u.s.-israeli relations and also in u.s.-israeli relations, visa vi iran. there will be meetings this week, very important ones, with the president and prime minister netanyahu who have had a somewhat troublesome relationship. both of them focused this week on iran. i'm candy crowley. with me here are foreign affairs reporter ellise. give me your 50,000 foot view about this sweech. >> candy, i think the president did some very key things that the pro-israel lobby is looking for him to do, and that's, first of all, he took containment off the table. he said i am not here to contain iran. my job is to prevent a nuclear weapon. and not just that this is an israeli issue. why it's in the u.s. interest to do so. he said he is not going to take military option off the table, and he also said, look, israel has a right to go this alone. i think at the same time he then went on to say all the

states here i personally can't see how iran is a really big threat to the united states maybe except for maybe alleged proliferation. i think that israel and the united states are more or less aligned in terms of their on their sort of the way they ascertain the threat i think it's really a question as or instead of how to deal with that bright and the time in which you have to live diplomacy and sanctions work and the time at which you decide that you know military strength is necessary all right thank you very much to all of you for an interesting discussion many thanks my guest today in washington and injuries and it takes more of us from watching it here to see you next time and remember crosstalk. for. the for. her. book sold. well with her science technology innovation called the us developments from around russia we've got the huge earth covered. cave.

currently the united states is pursuing it within the united states security council a motion to condemn the actions in syria. my question for your panel is whether or not do you believe that this would be an effective measure or an indictment from the icc would be a effective pursuit. >> we'll take one more over here. ma'am. >> i feel like it's a different type of question. i just want to say that my mother is a survivor of the holocaust and she tried to get into the nuremberg trials but they wouldn't let her in. so i'm interested i hear your father -- >> can you speak -- i didn't hear the question. >> but that is not my question. my question is to the first speaker. you say galead sheik mohammed is getting all these rights given to americans, is presumed innocent yet at one of the debates for the republicans, scott pelley asked newt gingrich whether it's okay to kill an american without ever charging them with a crime. and ron paul said it's unconstitutional and the next three or more people had been killed, maybe more. probably the only ones caught. and newt gingrich says it's legal t

or to a united states citizen here? >> i would have to go back and i am not certain whether that was addressed. >>shepard: so we have clearty here, he is not certain whether it was addressed, whether our government can kill our own people inside our own country. this really needs to be addressed. we can't just answer this question, no, the government doesn't kill our own people, we have a process for this and it is called the justice system. you file charges, lock them up and try them before a jury and they don't kill our own people! judge. the question is, can they kill our own citizens inside our own country? this is a question we have to ask? >>judge napolitano: it is not a question we should have to ask or that he should have ever sprayed answering. he is probably knowing that the answer is, no, but he don't want to frustrate the bosses who said the answer is yes because on tuesday at north western law the attorney general of the united states manifested extraordinary ignorance of the constitution of the united stat

states supporting al-qaeda the united states. working with the lesson is that i don't know in syria i am side of i didn't say working with on the same side i said that the opposition forces in syria represent a number of different interests and it is not simply al-qaeda that's the only point that i'm making when you're talking about libya the result of the remains uncertain we're not entirely clear about what the result will be so for the judgment to be made that we know exactly what has happened is not at all accurate ok john there was no wait there's another thing the answer in the tree from getting we all got in that that's the only thing on this and the only one going to be doing that john go ahead in brussels. you see it's too easy also to speak of the west because the west is divided has always been divided there are the new conservative forces and the police forces and a certain number of human rights people who want to wage war and create international law and destroy international but there are people who are quite a dif

states to the united kingdom. we both understand, and the president was talking about this, this morning on the lawn at the white house-- he understands, as we do, that you can't run these large deficits forever. you've got to have a plan to reduce them. >> rose: and you have to do it simultaneously, create growth and reduce the deficit. that's the believe of magic everybody is looking for, or the balance. >> those who think growth only comes from government spending would find that difficult to believe. i am someone who believes the-- the enterprise of the private sector, the innovation of business, the desire of people to better their lives lives is t drives sustainable economic growth. >> rose: in terms of financial regulations regulations that have been proposed in america are it, dodd-frank, as well as the volker rule, do you believe that is this is an effective and necessary response to the financial collapse we have? >> i think it's inevitable after what happened. financial centers like the united states, l

what law does united states military look to? >> if i could, i would like address both because they are related. cause resources risk incurred elsewhere by the use of force one other place. this is a zero sum game. take them someplace and use them. that's the issue of cost. and, of course, in blood and treasure. the cost of legalasis is important though. we, again, we act with the authorized use of military force either at the consent of a government, so we're invited in, or out of national self-defense, and it's a very -- there's a very clear tie yearia for that. and the last one is with some kind of international legal basis. >> wait a minute. let's talk about an international legal basis. you answer under the constitution to the united states government, do you not? and you don't need any international support before you carry out a military operation authorized by the commander in chief of the united states -- >> no. >> i just want to know that because the's a lot of references in here international matters before we make a d

the united states? israel? iran? frankly all three. even if they're all talking tough, tough, and tougher every day, in order to ever prevent actually having to have a conflict, does ratcheting up the rhetoric help or hurt? rudy giuliani believes it helps. >> instead what he should be doing is convincing the iranians that he's serious, that if he had to, he'd bomb the hell out of them. they should believe this. in fact, the best way he's going to avoid bombing them is convincing them in their heads that he's capable of doing it. >> physically capable of doing it is not in question. but after 11 years and over $1 trillion spent on two wars, one based on heated rhetoric on weapons of mass destruction that didn't end up being there, the u.s. appetite for conflict is unsurprisingly low, and iran knows it. what will the u.s. really do? we'll get to that in a moment. first to tehran where today was the first election since the 2009 disputed presidential election. cnn's ivan watson is there. i spoke to him right before the program and asked h

>> yus the united states. we just finished the certi certification for a cast to fly spent fuel to russia. we're getting ready to do our first shipment of that. >> it's certified for russia but not us? >> right. >> how did you certify it? >> it takes probably year and a half or two years. you're talking about taking this and putting it on an airplane. they needed to do a scenario to figure out the impacts if the plane crashed. we didn't want to rent plane and put the casts on it and crash it. that didn't make a lot of sense. they came up with a design where they built a rocket sled. they put a rocket on the back of the cast and sent it off by rocket until it crashed. they were able to look at the impacts of the crash and determine there was no breech and the cast -- >> they literally strapped a rocket. >> that's my understanding. i was not there and was not witness to it. >> it's fine. nice. >> sounds like so. >> it's an art and a science. >> it is. >> what's in there? >> that's the contained -- >> you can rem

money markets, alleviated pressures on foreign banks to reduce their lending in the united states and has boosted confidence at a time of considerable strain in international financial markets. as market conditions have improved notably usage of the swap lines has fallen back, currently about $65 billion. i would add that the swaps are very safe from the perspective of the federal reserve and the u.s. taxpayer. they present no exchange rate or interest rate risk. each drawing has a short maturity and must be approved individually by the federal reserve. they are collateralized by the foreign currencies for which the dollars are swapped and our counter parties are the foreign central banks, not the commercial banks receiving the dollar loans. fed has also worked with the fsoc and other agencies who ploernt our financial institutions. notably u.s. financial institutions have very limited direct credit exposures to the most vulnerable euro area countries and u.s. money market funds have almost no exposure to those countries. there are some exposures arisings from the sale of credit defau

states and to the people of the united states. i'm concerned about the text he not to which the cuts in funding in the defense budget, the pressure on the defense budget is con stricting your ability to do the job than we need you to do. general frazier, i noticed that last week you told reporters that southcom at this point can only check the transiting in the region en route to the united states because of what i take to be insufficient assets or personnel. i'm going to quote you. we interpret abocept about 33% we know is out there. that's a limitation on the number of assets. more is getting through, end quote. i wanted to ask you just to amplify for a minute, in a very specific way p if you would indicate to the committee what specific assets would you like to see more of at southcom, which would help you and your successor fulfill the mandate, the responsibility that we've given you? >> senator, the figures you quote are correct. those are figures from our task force south, which is our organization that conducts that operati

the united states is looking at a rapidly changing threat portrait from the region groups that act much more like transnational organized crime groups than purely terrorist and politically and ideologically driven groups i would personally reshape the strategy strategy dramatically and i would probably be a lot tougher on the karzai government and the amount of money that is being allowed to flow out of the region. but i but i think the current strategy has at this point it's you know the final nail in the coffin came this week. with the shooting and way ok christian the final nail in the coffin you want to react to. you know you have to take a look at the one or term so we have a counterinsurgency strategy of sorts that president obama put in place but it's always been essentially a policy of managed failure because of the time he knows the surge and he didn't give the combat commander the amount of troops that were necessary for this with the president also knows to offer absence of the taliban basically have no there's an expiration date on the u.s. commitment they've conducted thems

states sees it and is sensitive to the united states concerns. >> i hope so. we have tried-- we have had conversations and i think we wonder hard to depict on the 31st of december, 2014, it isn't the end of the u.s. relationship with afghanistan, or the international relationship with afghanistan. and part of, i believe, his comfort with the role of the-- of pakistan in the region is the hope, the desire that afghanistan will remain a stable state, a stable state with constructive relations with islamabad, and with pakistan. and it's important then that we have a conversation between pakistan and the united states, and that afghanistan has a conversation with pakistan, that leads us all to the common belief and the common conviction that a stable afghanistan that is aligned with the united states, with good, constructive relationship with pakistan, is in everyone's interest, not just the u.s. interest, not just the afghan interest, but with pakistan. and in their interest as well. >> rose:let question is do they accept that and understand that? >> i hope so. i

the united states is not leaving. >> rose: where does this leave the united states? what can it do? anybody? >> the very hard part here, charlie is that there's not a lot of t united states can do with words. this terrible, terrible incident coming on the back of the burn of the koran, those two things together at a particularly bad time in this war domestically in the u.s. and afghanistan make this much more significant than it would otherwise have been and as one afghan leader said to me, this is too big to fix with words. too big. and the u.s. now finds itself with no allies. they've made an enemy of the karzai government. the karzai government has had their role in that but essentially the u.s. has consistently undermined karzai, the leaking of the eikenberry cables is a very good example of that. and so the u.s. has the taliban, its enemy, on the one side, and an enemy of the afghan government on the other side and slowly an enemy of the afghan people so you end up with fewer and fewer and fewer people in afghanistan who are able to bridge the cultural divide between the u.s. a

i will not let this go by me in the united states senate. we are not going to say that a woman who is 40 or under is not going to be eligible for insurance coverage or a mammogram. not going to happen. and barbara mikulski took the lead, and i'm going to tell you the first thing that came out of that plan was that provision. and it will never be in a plan as long as barbara mikulski is in the united states senate. so i'm just going to tell anybody who is looking at health care reform, take a little advice. don't mess with barbara mikulski, because we're going to have mammograms. and not only that, barbara mikulski came forward in the next month and passed unanimously in this senate a mammogram standards bill, because she learned in this process that there were varying degrees of standards of mammograms, mammography. and she was going to make sure that there were standards that every clinic would have, that every piece of equipment would have. and she led the effort, and it's law today. i will just end with yet another accomplishment, and tha

states and demanding the american government, the government of the united states change its policies. >> rabbi arthur waskow -- i'm going to give you each a chance to speak. >> i want to say that it is very clear that if the minister its changes policy, we would be in good shape, but -- if the united states changed policy, we would be good shape. but it is not. we have to change the situation from the grass roots. i remember a time four years ago when i was speaking and some mention the united states policy. i reminded them for years ago, nelson mandela was the most respected leader in the world where every american president wanted to have an opportunity with, at that time, mr. mandela was still on the terrorist list of american congress. it changed only after that. we need to create a strong, powerful international movement here in the united states and other places in europe. we need to change people, then parliament, then the government will change. i am sure of one thing. one day the palestinians will be free of this apartheid system. we're doing it through nonviolent resistance

states and almost every republican voited not to keep it in the united states. if we're going to take that risk, the oil should stay here and send a message to iran, and almost every republican voted against it. >> we have the keystone pipeline as is it, and the president's approach says we're not going to have a keysan antonio pipeline -- >> what's the point of building it if you're not going to keep the oil here. keep it here, don't vote against that. >> i don't disagree with that notion. >> you're in agreement. the republicans -- thank you congresswoman emerson and congressman marquis, up next, senator scott brown's joke about santorum. you decide if it's dirty or not, only on "hardball" on msnbc. >> we're seeing political bullies standing up to the president, and who is seeing the hurt? the middle class. tonight's side show, seamus strikes again and he has hit the big time. rick santorum was asked to weigh in romney's decision to have have seamus the dog ride out a road trip on the roof of the car. was he willing to cut romney slack on this? >> as far as sea

their lesson is one for the world as well as the united states. in december my subcommittee invited officials from the federal reserve to explain the economic unrest from europe and what actions they would consider in reaction to it and what measures remained at their disposal as events changed day-by-day. daily headlines read of liquidity injections of billions and trillions of euro, swing stock markets widely. in december the ecb held a second auction known as a long term refinancing operation to provide banks with cheep loans and a credit event was declared in greece. the credit event in greece is one of particular concern to markets around the world. as we look ahead, the european story is far from over. european leaders continue to strengthen the weak framework of the eu to substantiate their rescue efforts and financial markets become more dependent on continued willingness of the central banks to use their balance sheets to rescue the global economy. understand that the economic storm facing europe influences u.s. markets, i commend chairma

and emphatically, the united states of america. but we are not going to call the shots. >> you have written that all this debate about american exceptionalism conceals a flight from reality. >> well, i think it does. we began the 21st century with a balanced budget. for the past few years now, we've had a trillion dollar deficit. we began the 21st century with a military that we were not only persuaded was the best in the world, but with a military that we were certain could win any fight quickly, achieve victory. we've been engaged in war for more than a decade now and we have no victories that we can claim. we began the decade with an economy that seemed to be cooking on all cylinders. and that for the past several years now has been in deep recession with large numbers of americans, we're still what, over 8% unemployment without work, millions losing their homes. what does this signify? what do these bits of evidence signify? well, they signify something. and what they signify is not that the american century continues or that c

these people were prosecuted in the united states as hezbollah operatives in the united states several years ago and chris will go into that in much more detail. some defendants cases have been known as having combat experience with hez la la in lebanon. the numbers are are greater than they seem from looking at the federal docket. since other suspected hezbollah operatives were criminal aliens without militant backgrounds being publicly disclosed. the director of national intelligence, general clampa recently said, iran's leader are under great pressure and appear to be "more willing to attack inside the united states in reaction to perceived actions that threaten the regime." so these threats are real. that could be sooner rather than later and as a committee, a congress and a government we simply cannot afford to ignore this threat. and i'll recognize the gentleman from mississippi, mr. thompson, for his opening statement. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, for calling this hearing today. as the homeland security committee we are charged with the responsibility of ensuring this n

states more than we implored in to the united states. so what's happening is we've most of our domestic petroleum products being shipped put into anchors and shipped off to europe south america asia we're seeing a shortage here in the united states which is driving the prices up at least that's one reason the prices are going up another is that over seventy percent of the oil in the united states right now has been taken off the market and locked down by banks like j.p. morgan goldman sachs who have no intention ever of using it they just bought in it to take the oil off the market rate a shortage drive up the price so when they sell it back into the market they can do so at a profit this practice is called speculation and it's the second major driver of higher gasoline prices right now the first being just the exports so imagine if we as a nation said that for the good of our domestic economy we're going to ban petroleum exports we're going to keep this oil here in the united states suddenly we have a surplus of oil products and prices

states, the same laws that bar employers from christians and muslims, import and the united states. a christian. but they like the same laws. it's wonderful. and he got very mad at me. of course there would like it. you can't buy houses where they want to. in fact, they bill the house and it might be demolished. you know, appropriated, but basically because of the distinction between a national and citizen, this privileges. >> the take away in your book? >> doing very hard to become americans. the question of whether americans accepted. i sort of use to look at muslims has been accepted into american society. the catholics and jews were really despise in early america. and eventually, if you look at the supreme court we have nine justices of the peace. all these people that were despised a century ago, and now that's what america is about. well, i don't know whether a muslim this point to be a member of the supreme court, but that's not the question. but the muslims be able to integrate such a way that nobody will raise a question about the participating in defining what america is?

states has a right i'm simply or exercising a somewhat different judgment at the united states has very often played a role in maintaining equilibrium but let me make another point about syria if i may be the opposition forces in syria i'm not at all clear it may be true that al-qaeda is playing a role it is not only al-qaeda there are a number of forces that represent the opposition in syria so when you're talking about the united states supporting al-qaeda the united states i don't see forming i'd say we're working with the lessons that i heard of in syria i am side of i didn't say working with on the same side i said that the opposition forces in syria represent a number of different interests and it is not simply al-qaeda that's the only point that i'm making when you're talking about libya the result of you remains uncertain we're not entirely clear about what the result will be so for the judgment to be made that we know exactly what has happened is not at all accurate ok joe we know that we know that the answer in the caves apart from causing we all got in and that's the only thi

the united states i think had been very badly hurt by vietnam. very badly divided, so i think that was a concern, and a lot of economic trouble because of inflation was running high, partly because of the expenditure on vietnam. and so nixon was very conscious of the position in the united states in the world had been very damaged by its own internal troubles and its problems with vietnam. he was concerned about his relationship with his allies and he was very concerned about the soviet union which was, of course, thoroughly enjoying the spectacle of the americans going to grief in vietnam and was dragging its feet on arms negotiations, for example. i think the early 70s were troubled, and nixon was very concerned, and i think that's one of the reasons why he thought that an opening to china might help to rebuild the position of the united states. >> what was the relationship in 1972 between the united states and china, but actually probably ought to drop back a little bit before that in '71 when i assume the liaison started and how did it start?

they're dangerous to israel, the united states. you look at what they tried to do as i said before with the other arab countries including saudi arabia. we need to get the arab league involved. we need to get the world to say we're going to stop you, iran, one way or other. that takes political pressure off of israel. for israel to go alone they're stronger with us w the united states of america but secondly we're not going to let them go alone. that's not going to happen if eventually we have to do the things we have to do. >> congressman king in his speech today and prior to this in an interview the president has intimated that some of the criticism of his policy toward israel, the criticism that he hasn't been a strong backer of israel is based in u.s. politics. would you agree with that. >> basically no. there's always going to be some politics involved and i'll give dutch credit, between the two of us we keep politics out of foreign policy but the president, i mean did going back in 2009 and 2010, have a very confrontational p

states by the growth of the united states economy. what i make is that of course china is a challenge because of the growing economy. they face challenges, too. they have significant hurdles to get over both domestically and in terms of their international situation before they can become anything approaching what the united states is right now. i think i addressed the problem soberly. >> what is your reaction to what it was like in this country before in 1972 when the president went to china? everything has completely flipped. they hold our debt. we still have the largest military in the world by far. now we're getting concerned that they're starting to build their military. why don't they have a right to protect themselves? >> they have a right to protect themselves. they have a right to expand. there is no justice system in the international order that says everybody gets to do with the want to do. everyone has a right. is it a benefit to our primary concerns? is it a benefit to the world? as china increases the military voice, we

in the united states recruited people from the muslim world after 1952 because that's when the united states went into the business of communism in the muslim countries and so we have a lot of propaganda based on that and they've recruited students to come study for their masters degree or ph.d. in the united states and some of these people did not go that. then after 1965 we have the major immigration when the united states abolished the asia exclusion act and then we began to have people from asia coming like pakistanis, bangladeshis and mauritanians so we had different waves. >> professor sheryll cashin, honey muslims or how many arabs are in the u.s. at this time? nobody knows. god knows best because nobody has counted them. there are sore between 17 and 11 million. a day may be about 2 million. the arab christians. the christians and displaced people from the palestinian christians and so as the middle east is emptying out to have emigrated not all of them come to the united states, canada or europe, but there is a process of the emptying of christians. because of the situation,

how much will that cost the united states? timothy geithner has dismissed reports that we might participate in a special european aid fund. i would like to know that to be true in the future. increased our contribution to the imf which is currently 17% of the overall budget. they will need another $500 billion. how much exposure are refacing right now attacks come at exposure are we likely to have added? will be underwriting the crisis tax thank you. >> i think the said committee chairman. the bill goes to the ranking member of the subcommittee, mr. quigley for five minutes. >> thank you. i am honored to be the ranking member the european debt crisis met this. in 2010, our forces totaled 430. the global market is not what it was 10 years ago or five years ago. there can be no question a help the european economy is in the best interests of the united states. i am encouraged by secretary geithner. i'm encouraged by the efforts by our leaders. beaders created a compact under 25 days agree to new rules. restructuredy debt. the eu

>> yus the united states. we just finished the certification for a cast to fly spent fuel to russia. we're getting ready to do our first shipment of that. >> it's certified for russia but not us? >> right. >> how did you certify it? >> it takes probably year and a half or two years. you're talking about taking this and putting it on an airplane. they needed to do a scenario to figure out the impacts if the plane crashed. we didn't want to rent plane and put the casts on it and crash it. that didn't make a lot of sense. they came up with a design where they built a rocket sled. they put a rocket on the back of the cast and sent it off by rocket until it crashed. they were able to look at the impacts of the crash and determine there was no breech and the cast -- >> they literally strapped a rocket. >> that's my understanding. i was not there and was not witness to it. >> it's fine. nice. >> sounds like so. >> it's an art and a science. >> it is. >> what's in there? >> that's the contained -- >> you can remotely

david nuffer of utah to be united states district judge for the district of utah. michael walter fitzgerald of california to be united states district judge for the central district of california. ronnie abrams of new york to be united states district judge f the southern district of new york. rudolph contreras of virginia to be united states district judge for the district of columbia. miranda du of nevada to be united states district judge for the district of nevada. susie morgan of louisiana to be united states district judge for the eastern district of louisiana. greg jeffrey costa of texas to be united states district judge for the southern district of texas. david campos guaderrama of texas to be united states district judge for the western district of texas. ryan c. wimes of missouri to be district judge for the eastern and western districts of missouri. christine baker of arkansas to be united states district judge for the eastern district of arkansas. john z. lee of illinois to be united states district judge for the northern district of illinois. george l

the congress of the united states and the president of the united states need to have a comprehensive energy policy that embraces alembraces all forms o. to the credit of the president, he approved not too long ago the loan guarantees on reactors 3 and 4 at plant vogel. the first energy reactors built in the united states since three mile island. nuclear is a impar bonn-free generation of energy. every time we can expand our energy capability, we are lessening our dependence on fossil fuel to be burned. the marcella shale -- we have gone from having a finite supply of energy gas to an infinite supply. yet because there is some contest over whether hydraulic frabbing fracture is good or not good, we are not exploring natural gas like we should. we should be exploring it as much as possible because it is a cleaner-burning fuel than is petroleum, liquid petroleum, and gasoline. we ought to be doing renewable energy where ever it makes sense but we've seen renewable energy has its limit. we spend $6 billion a year subsidizing ethanol in hopes it would reduce foreign exports but it hasn't.

department working on that right now my conservative warhawks here in the united states are lower if you go she is just as easily and then go on to argue particular as we go into november that the president's making deals with terrorists. it certainly is possible but i think in terms of the shifting political winds in the united states we're seeing conservatives and republicans starting to call for a withdrawal as well you know newt gingrich was making sounds earlier this week about that we aren't going to fix afghanistan rick santorum has made similar comments recent polling done earlier this week was showing that for the very first time republicans are evenly split on whether the war in afghanistan has actually been worth both the financial and human costs so although it's assumed that this is a bit of a partisan issue i think what we're seeing now is a genuine shifting in the in the public sentiment toward this war that goes across the political spectrum. in the last minute we have here is there a way out without a deal with the taliban. it's hard to envision a situation in which

in emphasizing that the position of the united states and the power of the united states has been remarkably consistent through economic crisis, political crisis, three different administrations, yet on the other hand you say that this is not sorting. this could change. -- foreordained. this could change. what is it that explains the permanence of this position, and conversely, what matters? this foreign-policy matter? the presidential leadership matter? what could change this if we have maintain this position throughout the administrations, throughout different ideological perspectives? >> that is an excellent question, and what could change it is a growing consensus either that we simply cannot sustain this role anymore, or that we should not sustain this role anymore. there are certainly spokesman for all of those out there. even the president, who made this rainy reputation of the climate in his state of the union address, sometimes encourages the notion that we should beat "nation-building at home, not engaging in foreign activity" which i think he is the notion that it is time for a ti

so we are producing more here in the united states. i think the second point you make is one that economists have recognized for a long time, that we don't control the price of gasoline here in the united states based on the amount of production that happens here in this country. it's a global marketplace that sets the price of oil and it is the global factors that we see both in terms of iran as well as the growing demand that we see from countries such as india and china, which are a part of what we're seeing in terms of the global economics which we face today. >> thank you very much. senator murkowski. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think we would all agree, senator landrieu has mentioned theans is not just drilling, coming from an oil produce being state, the answer is not just drilling but it is part of the solution. so i think it is something that we would agree we are subject to the vagaries of the market. we are certainly subject to the volatility on the global scene. but i think that the fundamental problem that we have here i

serving the interests of the united states. and demonstrating the high caliber of the american system of free enterprise. which from this new frontier is nothing into the trade of the world oil. one of the material that is making a truly great contribution to our modern civilization. one of the reasons and the reason for the primary one for the invasion of iraq is to ensure u.s. control of really major energy resources in the world when the embassy in which one will be inside baghdad is a city sort of no other embassy and story around the world they're not building the embassy. in syria rakim the huge bases around with an intention to leave they're building the moon pension to maintain control. since two thousand and three the us has built dozens of military bases in iraq in chief thousand and eight the us and iraqi governments signed an agreement that states that all foreign troops should leave the country by two thousand and eleven . the agreement also says that the u.s. will not seek permanent bases or a permanent military p