one of the closest allies of the united states and we've seen. actually forgave the usa for turning its back on more bartok but in the long and the long run a new thought that todt the support of the army so it had a safety net it had an insurance policy in both egypt and. was that was one of the major reasons that actually the obama pulled the rug from under their feet. off mubarak knowing fully well that supporting this important pivotal point with to actually win over the conflict win over their support of their people to the army which actually took over power and diffused to relinquish power and it was only after protests further. up we had what i think that talks more about indecision and the lack of strategery even understanding what's going on on the ground on how would you how would you look at how the western powers particularly the united states has dealt with events in the greater middle east over the last two years because you know we can look at each individual country in their specifics there but the bomber administration seems to

individuals who loan money to the united states. global radicals gristly as the world body count doubles in just a year raising questions over just what i decade of war on terror has to show. israel's warplanes bomb syria again reports which the israeli military refuses to comment on right now. they want to know it won't. but everybody knows they get it and all of this in the midst of syria's civil war the government's trying to keep the international agreement by finishing the first phase of its chemical disarmament plus. the poor clashing with police in the streets of rome leaving at least six. also.

a future that frankly hurts the united states. it is not in america's interest to have a weak europe. it is fundamentally in america's interest to have the strongest and most capable allies in europe that we can. we do need to find a way ultimately for this alliance to prosper by having more resources devoted to defense. that means as economies rebound, there's a need to increase spending on defense. that means that as economies rebound more of the spending needs to go into investment. that means that there needs to be, to the extent we can find a way, to increase more increases in defense cooperation, including importantly on the issue of role specialization, and that may mean also a reordering of our priorities. here let me end with perhaps a harasy, and anyone who knows me, it's one i've long believed in. our spending or nuclear weapons probably isn't the smartest spending we can think about when it comes to the future of this alliance. these are weapons that are not likely to have any role in anything we do in 99.99999% of the

states now safe the united states doesn't change its policies toward cuba and these countries are just not going to go along with the united states has put it's symptomatic as part of a broader international lessening of u.s. influence we see what's happening in the middle east crisis can really influence the situations are war making we've got this powerful military the most powerful military in the history of humanity and it doesn't work since world war two. you look at korea you look at vietnam you look at afghanistan you look at iraq i mean we can we can invade grenada and we can defeat a couple dozen cuban construction workers and reagan can go on television saying it's morning again in america the united states is back and standing proud but this the military solutions don't work to any of these problems even in libya situation there is falling apart we need some we need to rethink how we approach the world as much joy to really truly join it not as a dominant partner but as a co-equal border and that would really take an act of enormous mental your military and i don't know the

united states position -- the united states position was to not use pressure to pave the way for war. if there is not a deal, if diplomacy is not permitted to succeed, the only options the administration will have is down the road -- a military confrontation. the american public does not want to have a march to war. there is frustration with the overzealousness of the israeli occupation. it doesn't mean that the united states and israel's relationship is going to be damaged, but there is a tactical difference on this issue. the determination on the american side not to have this lead to a war is strong. on the israeli side, there is a preference to see united states take military action. host: twitter comment -- i agree with netanyahu. it was a have most -- a historic mistake, that it was iran that made that mistake. mark is up next on the republican line from a. good morning, mark. caller: good morning. dr. parsi uses very strong language. he says that -- iran has outwardly stated that it is going to destroy israel, not as recently as a few days ago, the leader called israel a rabid

they've invested more than $125 million bel in the united states -- billion in the united states over the past decade and invests about $1 billion every year in research here. when asked about it, they said, america produces better than anyone. the heart of our ability to produce better than anyone is our people. our entrepreneurs are the most determined and innovative. at the same time, we're the largest single market in the world. we have a deep infrastructure that connect this is vast market through pipelines and roads and bridges. our universities attract the best and brightest minds from around the globe. on top of that, we're experiencing an energy revolution in america. the united states is less dependent on foreign oil than at any time in more than two decades. we produce more oil at home than we have in nearly 25 years and more natural gas than any time in history. this transformation is driving down energy costs for consumers and businesses. our increase in energy production is not limited to oil and gas. energy and renewable resources like wind and solar doubled in the pres

nothing can change unless the united states senate were to reratify whatever suggestion the united states senate might engage in subsequently. there is no change. >> finally, i appreciate the comments you made here today in public as well as the ones you have expressed to me and i believe other colleagues in private about our openness and willingness to consider reservations, understandings and declarations that would assuage concerns that members have in terms of ratification of the treaty. and i just want to create a framework for that. i think, myself as the chair and working with you and others, are very open to that process. however, we can also have requests of rud's that go beyond an appropriate balance. and so, while we want to work very deeply with those who want to get to a yes on the treaty and find a way to do so, it is my hope that the requests that we get for reservations, understandings, and declarations are fair and balanced so that we can take care of the concerns that exist and at the same time not undermine the very essence of our standing with the treaty. is that a fai

states and it damages the perception of the united states with people on the ground because they say these people these want these americans they do support dictators saudi arabia is the best example. well yeah no i mean it is a conundrum of the president he did inherit this i mean unfortunately you know he did he did you know cast the cast the first stone and he said in cairo that he that he. was going to advance this new vision of democracy and he was going to support these democracy movements unfortunately got very complicated and which he was he was facing a host of allies in the middle east the elites the monarchies who were counting on him also to stop these rebellions and so what did he do he did nothing unfortunately and i don't know what the answer is but i mean if you take one example you mentioned bahrain maybe he should have took a ricks there maybe he should have took a risk and sided with the democracy movement and bahrain and said to the allies listen we're going to do what's right here ok i mean we have enormous investments over there i think that we would have been a

in the united states c.e.o. pay average worker pay roughly was thirty to one and it was fairly consistent during that period of time we had a top income tax rate between seventy four and i. the one percent during that period of time and until the middle of the reagan years who was also against the law to compensate c.e.o.'s with stock which they could then roll over and only pay capital gains rate of twenty percent on. if we were simply to roll back the that part of the reagan revolution roll back the top tax rate and change the stock compensation rule would we accomplish what switzerland is trying to do by you know with an absolute cap. well we would take an enormous step in that direction you know you have to sit down and make some assumptions about whether it would be all that would be necessary but let me add to a point you made the use of the nineteen late forty's fifty's sixty's seventy's when we had high tax rates on the rich and when we didn't have these outrageous salaries for top executives these were

states because the united states is -- >> well the military leaders have actually tried to come to u.s. and say our people are against you so, therefore, you need to support us so that we are the only people who can hold the line in our country. >> rose: right. >> for you. >> rose: that's their message to washington. >> that's their message to washington and therefore they actually miss inform the pakastani public about the pakastani relationship so going back to what chuck hagel said i think he is right that you need to listen more to other countries but you don't need to listen only to governments. you need to listen and communicate with different branches of, different segments of opinion. within all countries. hook, the reason why america people's views of america is because they don't recognize their own aspirations and own historic point of view. in america, charlie, i said this many times, in america, when you say that history usually means is irrelevant, for other people history is very important so you have all of these officials that go and enter act with officials in other c

one of the closest allies of the united states and we've seen. actually forgave the usa for turning its back on more bartok but in the long and the long run a new thought that todt the support of the army so it had a safety net it had an insurance policy in both egypt and. was that was one of the major reasons that actually the obama pulled the rug from under their feet. off mubarak knowing fully well that supporting this and portent pivotal point where the actually win over the conflict win over the support of the people to the army which actually took over power and diffused to relinquish power it was only after protests further yeah we did. that but we had to think that talks more about indecision and the lack of strategery even understanding what's going on on the ground and how would you how would you look at how the western powers particularly the united states has dealt with events in the greater middle east over the last two years because you know we can look at each individual country in their specifics there but the bomber administratio

of a genuine two state solution well obviously the united states in other example is iran now there is the nonproliferation treaty to which most states in the world have signed on with the exception of. us close u.s. ally israel but part of the u. nonproliferation treaty is that states this nuclear. power states help other states the non-nuclear weapon states to develop their peaceful use of nuclear energy well that part of the nonproliferation treaty has been abandoned and it's there that the united states. leads a kind of a campaign to prevent iran the peaceful use of nuclear energy which is what is supposedly the nonproliferation treaty and little about georgia saying if i go back to majeed in tampa is that you know the international community the term international community is george is applying it here is really the washington consensus isn't it. i think that's a great point that. i think we're raising i think it's again depends on the context that we're using and we have to define and really know to be able to build up upon our arguments i think i think the international communi

opponent of a genuine two state solution well obviously the united states in other example is iran now there is the nonproliferation treaty to which most states in the world have signed on with the exception of you with us close u.s. ally israel but part of the u. nonproliferation treaty is that states this nuclear. power states help other states that non-nuclear weapon states to develop their peaceful use of nuclear energy or that part of the nonproliferation treaty has been abandoned and is there the united states. leads a kind of a campaign to prevent iran the peaceful use of nuclear energy which is supposedly nonproliferation treaty and little about georgia saying if i go back to majeed in tampa is that you know the international community the term international community is george is applying it here is really the washington consensus isn't it . i think that's a great point i think. i think we're raising i think it's again depends on the context that we're using and we have to define it really no order to be able to build up upon our arguments i think i think the international com

states we would defend the united states to no end but i would follow the teachings of major general smedley darlington butler our two time congressional medal of honor winner who said the united states military should never go over five hundred miles from our coast and i agree with that we have the technology to go anywhere in the world now we don't have to send our men and women throughout the world to be the policemen of it suggests a you're not afraid that terrorists are going to attack america from any side possible terrorists well i think the bigger question to ask is why are the terrorists attacking us can you answer that for me. why why why is the united states under attack from terrorism i'll ask you there are question you tell me and for me now why tell me well then what it is that's the question that's that's the question that's not being asked is that why do these people want to attack us isn't that what we should be finding out my view is let's get out of the middle east completely. that's my view look at columbus came to the i'm going to have fun with you know when colu

states and the united kingdom. more than that, he understood that even the greatest patriots are not just citizens of their own countries but citizens of the world with responsibilities that go with it. as the proud recipient of the state department's first and only honorary american passport, he would no doubt look to all of us today to use the privilege of our own passports as he did to help meet the world's challenges in troubled corners of the globe. cynics today might say that's an improbable aspiration. but hundreds of years ago, in this very city, what could have seemed more improbable than this day itself, to think that in statuary hall, a building british troops tried to burn down, that now the bust of a one-time secretary, secretary of state for the colonies, will forever stand alongside the statue of samuel adams, the founder of the sons of liberty and well it should. it reminds us that our job is to do the improbable and in that endeavor, as winston churchill's likeness resides among our greatest patrio

the united states and iran. but it isn't really. iraq is suffering from terrorism because, again, of internal problems. and also because of a war in syria. many of the sunny terrorist groups are a threat to us and iran. another place with the u.s. and iran have an understanding is afghanistan. they support the government of hold karzai. so do we. it doesn't mean we don't have a problems with karzai. but as the us anticipates with the troop withdrawal on afghanistan. challenging country to do deal with. more understanding and context you have with the key players the better it is. the trend in syria and so you could say, you know, russia and iran support assad. that's true. they're all in, as they say in syria. even if it means a little distance from the united states to support the opposition, the moderate opposition they feel have been slighted by the united states. they're there in part to challenge iranian interests, and every day that war goes on, more people are killed. the consequences of not get to geneva

have also spoke about one event i don't know if it's quite clear in the united states that a certain number of pressure coming from israel have been operated operating very harshly doing the general the. discussions one general times of if you listen and spoke directly saying that binyamin netanyahu one directly off of use that if the deal was a bad deal then they would be immediate. by israel on the such a number of. nuclear plants ok michael it sounds like there was that's extortion right there ok it's only a good deal for israel agrees it's a good deal we all know that they don't want any deal whatsoever and i think it looks like a bit of an embarrassment for the secretary kerry and i think president again mamma i think i think they thought that yes i think they thought that it was going to work why did he take the trouble to go all the way to geneva to meet with these guys and there's no doubt that there is heavy pressure not just from the israelis but also from the saudis and other gulf countries warning the americans not to go too far but i think it is a bit embarrassing the th

and saying no once it had agreed and then i think the united states clearly has to share the blame here because there was a an issue which we don't quite understand precisely the situation regarding the differences in the text but the united states was apparently leading iran to believe that there would be some kind of recognition implicit or explicit of its right to enrich in the text and this turned out not to be the case i think the iranians actually took advantage of the french monkey wrench if you will to say wait a minute let's take another look at this ok ok this is one of the things i want to get it is no because it looks like neither side won on the green emmanuelle a lot of people are saying i'm not but this is what i'm reading is that the french decided to change their position decided to sabotage it because they'll get future arms deals with saudi arabia and the prime french president is visiting israel soon how do you react to those two issues. well that's one position another position is taking consideration that france was a bit. upset not to be associated in the beginnin

i think as a general citizen united states. you know informed i realize that the united states is it is spying on everyone why i went there because it's you know a power struggle they want to do it's about economics and you know where germany's going to put their money we're you know companies are going here what companies are going there so it's not i don't think it's about you know military how we have a cold war thinking like they're going to bomb us or we're going to bomb them or where they're putting their submarines i think it's more of economics that are involved in the spying so what happened right after the leaks is that the countries that were spied on came on it's that it's outrageous but that's about it do you think they should do something more than just say it's outrageous about them being spied on you know i think they're spying as well i think it's you know this is my opinion i'm not a conspiracy theorist anything like that i just think these countries are constantly you know vying for power in certain regions a

we are the largest exporter of vehicles from the united states. kitsdition, we also ship to another six markets around the world as well as parts from port charles and will soon you -- will soon utilize other port. it is probable for the nation come the state and county and local cities as well as the manufacturing partners that surround us. with humble beginning, producing 50,000 cars annually, our plant in south carolina has become a global success story. by producing exceptional products with a strong group of dedicated workers come our plant continues not only to generate prosperity for b&w, what gives back to the region and to the usa. this could only be made possible by the trade agreements in place through the auspices of the united states and its partners. as positive as all these facts may be, there are still room for more comprehensive bilateral free trade agreements. bison jonah, we strongly support efforts to further open unhindered trade throughout the world and will continue to lend our voice to such efforts. that usingly state the u

market access to the united states which will cost some people their jobs in the united states in return for these other countries and dorsy in some measure of anti consumer provisions that will keep drug prices high and will expand the the rights of publishers at the expense of consumers. peter on this issue of keeping drug prices high i don't think a lot of people understand are aware of the patents that go into medicine and patenting surgical methods what do these documents show about how you know certain medicines that are creating the u.s. are search. methods that are created in the us. aren't exactly going to be as available to other parts of the world that need them that's right well it's called trade agreement but really this is a secretive rule making against public health and it would lead to preventable suffering and death in asia and latin america while binding us consumers to high drug prices bad rules here at home there are a number of bad proposals that have been advanced by big pharma and as you mentioned includes incredibly patents on surgical methods own the methods tha

the united states delivered heavy fuel oil. the u.s. deliveries were often late because congress would not appropriate the money on time. this was a perpetual problem that north koreans talked about. the reactors were never completed. negotiations continued with the north koreans. went to northight korea in 2000. they were talking about negotiating a deal on north korea's missiles as well. the negotiations went well. bill clinton had to decide and flip a coin at the end of his presidency whether he was going to go to earth korea or try to finalize an arab -- israeli peace agreement. wrong choice. , colinw. bush came in powell wanted to continue and wanted to pick up where north korea -- where clinton left off. he was publicly humiliated for making that statement. bolton went about leaking information that the north koreans might have a secret program to enrich uranium. then there was a confrontation in 2002. the whole deal fell apart. the north koreans started up the reactor again. there were other agreements that were reached with the

market access to the united states which will cost some people their jobs in the united states in return for these other countries and some measure of anti consumer provisions that will keep drug prices high and will expand the rights of publishers at the expense of consumers. peter on this issue of keeping drug prices high i don't think a lot of people understand are where of the patents that go into medicine and patenting surgical methods what do these documents show about how you know certain medicines that are creating the us or surgical methods that are created in the us. aren't exactly going to be as available to other parts of the world that need them that's right well it's called trade agreement but really this is a secretive rule making against public health and it would lead to preventable suffering and death in asia and latin america while binding us consumers to high drug prices bad rules here at home there are a number of bad proposals that have been advanced by big pharma and as you mentioned includes incredibly patents on surgical methods own the methods that doctors are a

states citizen, come back to the united states, with a russian wife in hand? >> he had threatened to renounce his u.s. citizenship, but he never really followed through. so he was still a u.s. citizen when he came back. how he was able to come back so quickly with a russian wife and not be interviewed by the cia is a puzzle. >> oswald was involved in another assassination attempt seven months before that awful day in dallas. >> someone took a shot at general edwin walker, a right wing -- oswald later told his wife that he had done. >> general walker was lucky, a bullet fired from the same mail order rifle oswald used to kill the president strikes the general's window frame as he sat in his home office. bullet fragments strike his forearm. >> i'm not a communist and i think that the red herring is rather ridiculous. >> are you a marxist? >> i have a marxist philosophy and other other philosophies. >>. oswald continues his pattern of treason during the pro castro fair play for cuba committee. >> he says he wants to set up a chapter in new orleans. the leaders of

the united states. >> i think that having several things that are in motion at the same time gives you a chance to build on some breakthrough in one that might effect the other. >> i think that's right. for example let's talk about that for a second. because i think that's exactly right. so for example, secretary kerry was key to entering into the understanding the agreement with the russians to move forward on cataloging first and then eliminating the chemical weapons capacity and materials in syria with the russians. we had up to that point as you know, and i was involved in this and didn't make a lot of progress frankly with the russians on syria and other things. we had really hit a kind of stalled point here with respect to u.s. russia relations. and i think that this project which is on track and i think we have a pretty good prospect of finishing successfully s an example of where you can have a success and maybe build on other successes. or build other successes working with the russians and oth

iran by the united states. the worsening economic situation inside iran means the country is finding other ways to make ends meet china has reportedly agreed to finance various projects by blocking twenty two billion euros of oil assets beijing and tehran deal in the law and not the dollar so the sanctions don't affect china's business with its third biggest crude oil supplier political analyst mohammad marandi says the u.s. agenda is splintering. this is one of many signs that the u.s. imposed sanctions is not working and it's beginning. to fall apart not that the united states wants this to happen the united states wants to make ordinary iranians suffer as much as possible they want to have a state the iranian economy and they've already succeeded in killing people because for example iran has had great difficulty importing medicines so the americans are definitely upset with this but as time goes on we are seeing increasingly countries moving away from the united states companies in nor in the united states

concluded by the soviet union, the united kingdom and the united states and already signed by nearly 100 countries. it has been hailed by people the world over who are thankful to be free from the fears of nuclear fall out and i'm confident that on next tuesday at 10:30 in the morning it will receive the endorsement from the senate of the united states. the world has not escaped the darkness. the long shadows of crisis envelope us still. but we meet today in an atmosphere in rising hope and at a moment of comparative calm. my presence here today is not a sign of crisis but of confidence. i'm not here to report on a new threat to the peace on new signs of war. i have come to salute the united nations and support the american people for your daily deliberation. for the of this body, reduction of global tension must not be an excuse for the narrow pursuit of self interest. if the soviet union and the united states with all of their global interests and clashing commitments of ideology and nuclear weapons still aimed at each other today can find areas of common interest and agreement, su

the united states is proud to play a role in this. just last week we announced more than 98 minute -- more than $98 billion in private financing for 4000 small and medium-sized businesses throughout the hemisphere in order to encourage this energy and create a stupid move and peering is the kind of growth that the region is soundencing, fueled by economic policies, innovative social programs and increased international trade and investment. that growth has to radically improved the lives of all of our citizens. , ashe past decade alone trade has grown between the united states and latin america, nearly tripled, more than 73 million people as the secretary- general mentioned have been lifted out of poverty. think about that. that is more people than live in canada and argentina combined. it is an extraordinary story. it is a story of success. it is the story of policies that to berking that need grown, not moved away from. imagine what is possible if we continue to open up trade and investment in our children's futures. when i was a se

states is more important to the united states than saudi arabia is to, or than happen than the united states is zero to saudi arabia, we see this across the area, rather the divisions among the sheikdoms so this is a time that because of iraq, because of syria, we are seeing kind of a realignment of loyalties, of interest groups, and this plays out in particularly in iraq and syria today. >> rose: david, back to all of these points, but just come back to you in terms of conflict between saudi arabia and iran and wha what the iranians, whate saudis are saying but also how the u.s. might respond to this, because as you know susan rice recently said we can't just be consumed by one region, as part of this sort of so-called pivot to the west -- i mean to the east and china and the rest of asia. >> let me just say a few words about what i think is a positive aspect of the middle east, the administration is much attacked middle east policy. obama is trying to see, if it is possible to make an opening to iran and negotiate a deal to limit iran's nuclear program short of having nuclear weapon

so united states forces raids into our homes is coming to an end now. if this happens one more time, this agreement is going to be cancelled. the ambassador is sitting here, the u.s. ambassador, he hears us. if one more time there is going to be a raid into our homes this agreement is no more. once more - if this happens, that agreement is going to be done away with. you are going to be back to your bases. if terrorists - they should be left to us. the united states should not do anything with them - we will deal with them. >>> we are moving away from afghanistan and going to iran where president hassan rouhani is speaking. let's listen to this. >>... there is conclusion and feeling that respecting the iranian nation who will bring about a positive result and threats cannot be - and the threats cannot bear any fruits. the second point is the government of hope and prudence seeks to create an atmosphere of trust between the islamic republic of iran and countries further interested in having friendly relations with this great nation. in order to - in orde

states appealed to woodrow wilson to help create an arab united states but of course the british and french were got ahead of them ok joshua this is a huge question but pull out your crystal ball and in and look into it peer into it do you think they could have had something like an arab united states in the middle east as a legacy of the ottoman empire. you know obviously arab nationalism from one end of the middle east to the other was the desire on the part of nasr and the bath party many arabs proposed this like that the greater german desire the greater slavic desire all these romantic nineteenth century and twentieth century nationalist movements it didn't happen in part because the arabs were way too weak you look at the turks out of turkey put together a big army that kicked out the foreigners. feisal the arabs could only put together a few hundred men in damascus to face the french who came over from lebanon and just devastated them within minutes so the arabs were not the national cohesion was not there and we're seeing that again in syria we're seeing that in iraq we're se

god bless you all, and god bless the united states of america. [applause] captioning by the national captioning institute www.ncicap.org-- >> friday marks 50 years since the assasination of john f. kennedy and we remember the day starting with "washington rarely" and at 10:00 the seen nbc news coverage when they first reported on the assasination and we'll take you live to dallas for a commemorative event. and to boston from the j.f.k. presidential library and museum for a musical tribute with james taylor and the u.s. naval academy women's glee club performing slecks from the president's state funeral. >> on the next "washington journal" mike doyle discusses the healthcare law and how he thinks it may affect democrats in the next elections. and then the future of immigration legislation and whether congress can come to an agreement on how to move forward. plus your e-mails, phone calls and tweets. "washington journal" is live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> a couple of live events to tell you about tomorrow on our ompanion network c-span. gov

you, the united states, are the big satan in iran's eyes. you think this is bad for us and israel, imagine what this will be for the united states. and so, mr. speaker, i would like to focus just a little bit on the chart that senator kirk put together, because i think it speaks very eloquently of why the p-5 plus 1 deal was very, very bad and why the prime minister netanyahu was rightly concerned about not only the national security of the jewish state of israel and the national security of the united states and freedom-loving people around the world. let's look at this document that was put together by senator kirk. they would get in cash $60 billion. some of the literature i read said up to $50 billion would be free and available to iran. at minimum they would have act stose $3 billion in cash. this is an actor, the state of iran, which was found illegally

the united states needs to explore those. but that first step would be for both an economic good for pakistan and it could be good for the united states to get over this view of the other as a data now i can read the truth is there is no ally and it is a shared enemy. the enemy for most people in pakistan's military intelligence services and the establishment is not a terrorist. in fact in many cases they are potential allies. similarly, for the united states, during the cold war, the enemy was expanding communism. and after that it has been terrorism. and in neither case has pakistan been the ally the americans fault. my view is that pakistan and the united states don't need to become adversities. they shouldn't. they should avoid that. but they need to have a more honest reality-based discourse and get the pakistani assumption that we are so geographically located in such an important area geographically that we are -- america needs us more. if the united states could supply to berlin it surely can do with afghanistan if it

to fall apart not that the united states wants this to happen the united states wants to me horrid mary iranians suffer as much as possible they want to have a state the iranian economy they've already succeeded in killing people because for example iran has had great difficulty importing medicines so the americans are definitely upset with us but as time goes on we are seeing increasingly countries moving away from the united states companies in nor in the united states and even individuals who are investing in iran without taking the sanctions regime into consideration a quick look now at some other news from around the world international peace talks on syria have stalled after the main western backed opposition group said it won't attend unless president assad agrees to step down the syrian national coalition is also refusing to sit alongside key regional power players iran which is a strong ally of damascus the united states banks the s.n.c. while russia has been trying to convince all sides negotiate at the proposed conference in geneva. violence is moderate the local election in

>> has not an a minute but go to the beginning when they came to the united states they said to have unrealistic expectations of you really want military assistance? we have no interest to fight india with toady helped bond testily and realistic path from a the first request in 1947 in the united states could only give him 10 million. but we must understand as a foreign policy realists most known for conceptualizing containment the genius of canada was what did he say? we need to understand what is russia about? what does the soviets want? unfortunately united states was not that keen to have any pool of experts few people the new south asia very broadly those of gandhi and india many compared it to jefferson davis by some people in the american media but even the british said they shared the lead the coalition and pakistan knees our hospitable people. pakistan was about to get one-third but only 17 percent it would not have a vibrant economy it did not have the means to pay for its own military and eventually it was with its own future they decided it would be by saying that pakista

and the united states since 9/11. i don't think he or his government want that attempt to completely fail. i think they will come back to talk to the u.s. because at the end of the day negotiating with the united states is far more important for pakistan's leaders than negotiating with the taliban. and when they do negotiate with the taliban, they will have to have a plan for what they want at the end of it. do they want taliban to prevail in pakistan or do they really want to take pakistan into the 21st century? >> fascinating conversation. we'll be back in touch. up next, what in the world has the united nations come up with a way to end wars? it sounds too good to be true. i will explain. vo: two years of grad school. 20 years with the company. thousands of presentations. and one hard earned partnership. it took a lot of work to get this far. so now i'm supposed to take a back seat when it comes to my investments? there's zero chance of that happening. avo: when you work with a schwab financial consultant, you'll g

they were all critical of the united states. pakistanis unstable government is pakistans west enemy. americans can only help in the private sector, if and when feasible. u.s. policy should be more aware of the fat rick of the people and long term consequences. we need more americans involved on the political front working with policy makers for change. >> what can and should the governments with doing right now to have better regses? >> one thing that went missing in the visit to washington which got so much attention on the drone issue, one thing that went missing was all the conversation that had to do with the economic issues. and the prime minister really wanted to highlight that, and the obama administration really wanted to put him in a position where he could talk to officials about this. so they did. all the secretary of commerce. so speak to him on these issues -- and the overlap seems to lie in the observation that pakistan's economy, pakistan's development, really will only take off if it's further integrated into its

the united states bottle has -- the u.s. government model -- and i don't want to exacerbate the model that i will present it as if it were coherent -- it has one track, which is as we withdraw our combat forces, build up the afghan national security forces, of course support the afghan political process and in particular the presidential elections which are essential for afghanistan's future because strong security forces with no government or not -- strong armed forces without government or not security forces. and at the same time, recognizing that there's a political base as well as other bases for the insurgency to seek a political settlement, television or other groups on the condition that as part of the agreement they separate from al qaeda and other international terrorist groups and accept the constitutional framework and afghanistan. as the backbone of that, the united states sees a small but important long-term us military presence as well as long-term financial assistance to the afghan security forces as essentia

united states but its relations with europe are mixed so i think that these very distinct. of all these countries and seeing that the developed world is acting in concert to make the rules which suit them at the cost of the emerging world i don't agree with this guy because i feel that within the emerging world there are lots of differences and developing countries have their own priorities which mean north meet the priorities of other developing countries that's a very good point against lumping the. countries together and approaching down an individual basis but i think this habit of looking into the world as us versus them or as winner. is a loser is a very american thing it's a winner takes it all sort of approach and the problem with it is of course that not many countries see the world this way and it is in the united states in particular that the rise of the rast is perceived as a threat as you know chinese and indians and russians and brazilians and the rest of the world taking died jobs taking that taxes they can die a petunia t. opportunities for growth and so on

to the united states? and finally, i would also say the risk we face of losing intelligence if they have to be mirandaized and things like that, that's a huge cost in terms of protecting our country, is it not? mr. chambliss: it certainly is, and i think you and i need to be very clear with our colleagues here as well as the american public, when it comes to cost of detaining terrorists who carried out the horrific attacks of september 11, i think the american people are well prepared to use their taxpayer dollars to house guys like khalid sheik mohammed who has committed to planning the september 11 attacks. and if we house him in a prison here inside the united states, he gets mirandaized, i'm sure the first thing he's going to do is to get a lawyer and you and i are both lawyers and we'd be foolish not to tell our client to hush up, don't talk anymore and that's exactly what he would do. so the cost of detaining individuals who ripped this country apart on september 11, 2001, is really not a considerati

the state -- personally mistreating serving members of the united states military, which you would not think would be good politics anywhere, let alone in texas. but these guys desire to be a purely uncompromising anti-gay in texas has now brought texas republican politics to the point where the state is defying state republican policy in order to till active duty service members who show up at state facilities that they need to get out, that they need to go deal with getting their benefits and their housing aloumpbss and their i dn d cards elsewhere, because if they are in a same ---texas doesn't care, your kind is not welcome at texas state offices, get out of here, soldier. a state government choosing to spit in the faces of active duty service members, currently serving troops ought to be a huge political liability for any state politician associate with the that behavior, right? but in texas, the republican calculation is that it is more important to be really anti-gay than to support the troops. contrary to beltway wisdom right now, on the right, radically anti-gay politics are -

the united states bottle has -- the u.s. government model -- and i don't want to exacerbate the model that i will present it as if it were coherent -- it has one track, which is as we withdraw our combat forces, build up the afghan national security forces, of course support the afghan political process and in particular the presidential elections which are essential for afghanistan's future because strong security forces with no government or not -- strong armed forces without government or not security forces. and at the same time, recognizing that there's a political base as well as other bases for the insurgency to seek a political settlement, television or other groups on the condition that as part of the agreement they separate from al qaeda and other international terrorist groups and accept the constitutional framework and afghanistan. as the backbone of that, the united states sees a small but important long-term us military presence as well as long-term financial assistance to the afghan security forces as essentia

the united states is the leadership. the point that i would raise the failure to ratify compromises the u.s. ability to advance the standards globally. it weakens our own credibility to participate in the development internationally of the rights of the with disabilities and is the chairman pointed out and others have pointed out it also compromises very much american citizens who are in other countries and their own protections. we are certainly not in the same position as we would for the rights of people in our own country. secretary ridge your comments? >> thank you very much senator. i want to respond to an appropriate question from senator johnson if i might. i think regardless of where you are in the political spectrum we all feel very fortunate and grateful that we live in the united states of america and it's a very unique place. if america was considered to be a product we could try to sell our private overseas, what is our brand? i think our brand is the constitution rule of law and our value system. under tha

any entity including the united states congress. i know there is a concern about binding future congresses andy ruds have never been invalidated. to our knowledge in the history of congress, a future congress as mr. gray said could amend the american disabilities act. has once. we constantly see there's a great desire to change the president's health care law. that is one of a hundred examples i could give. there are a lot of things congress could do to a number of hypothetically bizarre things. they could seek to ultimately sell the capital for scraps, disband expressions of approval or disapproval are not in order. i am trying to get to the point here that i have great faith despite our challenges sometimes in the institution and the american people who would say wait a minute, that is way off base. i just think in suggesting that we can look at whatever language is necessary. i don't think this congress wants to be bound itself in its actions by what the previous congress decided as evidence by those who want to undermine the hea

there have been chicano families living in the united states when the united states was not the united states, when new mexico and texas were part of mexico and before that even, before even the spaniards arrived. filipino and chinese families here whose ancestors worked on the transcontinental railroad and came here 150 years ago. white people who came here as migrants from europe. all of us work. all of us have to work. that's how we put bread on the table. but i think we have to be real about this, and that is that without the labor of migrants in our economy here, the economy here could not function. so to those building contractors who hire the people who clean the buildings here in new york, do you think tata they pay -- that they pay for the needs of the workers' families in the towns that people are coming from? they depend on this flow of people into new york city to do this work, but do they pay for what it takes those up toes to keep on producing workers that are going to come here? who is it that builds the homes in oaxaca? who is it that builds the schools and pays for the