Return to Transcripts main page
In the Arena
Calls for Weiner to Resign Increase; Grading the Media; Obama's Economic Woes; Afghan Drawdown Set for July
Aired June 07, 2011 - 20:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ELIOT SPITZER, HOST: Good evening. Welcome to the program. I'm Eliot Spitzer.
Tonight, the pressure on Congressman Anthony Weiner is getting fierce. As the scandal surrounding him continues to grow, the most powerful Democrat on Capitol Hill is making his feelings clear.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. HARRY REID (D), MAJORITY LEADER: I'm not here to defend Weiner. That's all I'm going to say.
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: What advice would you give him if he asked you?
REID: Call somebody else.
(END OF VIDEO CLIP)
SPITZER: And it is coming from all sides. The most powerful man in the House of Representatives is also turning his back on Anthony Weiner.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. ERIC CANTOR (R), MAJORITY LEADER: I think it is up to Congressman Weiner and his constituents to make that decision. I don't condone his activity. I think he should resign.
(END OF VIDEO CLIP)
SPITZER: Tonight, as the congressman headed home from work, CNN producer Adam Reese told Weiner about Eric Cantor's remarks.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ADAM REESE, CNN PRODUCER: Congressman Cantor called for your resignation. Official call for your resignation.
REP. ANTHONY WEINER (D), NEW YORK: Careful, guys.
REESE: How do you feel about that?
WEINER: He's entitled to his viewpoint. Careful. REESE: Would you consider it?
WEINER: I'm not resigning, no.
(END OF VIDEO CLIP)
SPITZER: New details about the scandal surrounding Congressman Weiner in a moment, but first, a look at some of the other stories we'll be drilling down on tonight.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SPITZER: Afghanistan. Is it time to go? President Obama sure seems to think so.
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We have accomplished a big chunk of our mission.
SPITZER: But Secretary Gates isn't so sure.
ROBERT GATES, DEFENSE SECRETARY: What's the cost of failure?
SPITZER: Sebastian Junger says there are risks if we stay too long or leave too soon.
And mercenaries in the Middle East. E.D. Hill reports in a new private army of Americans. Do they pledge allegiance to the flag or the highest bidder?
Then who's minding the store? Another key member of Obama's economic council is leaving. With the recovery going backwards, who should the president turn to for answers?
(END OF VIDEO CLIP)
SPITZER: Now more on our top story. There has been talk about the fact that Anthony Weiner doesn't have a lot of friends backing him up on Capitol Hill, especially now. He's an abrasive sort. Not the glad-handing, back-slapping politician type. Yet Anthony Weiner in recent months found a friend in of all people Republican Congressman Jason Chaffetz.
Jason, thank you for being here. Congressman, you know, Anthony Weiner has become a friend and sort of a political odd couple. As a friend, what would your advice to him be?
REP. JASON CHAFFETZ (R), UTAH: I don't see any option but to step down. I like the guy. I've gotten along with him. I've sponsored bills with him. I've done some fun things on television and whatnot with him. But there comes a point where you just have to say, I'm sorry, but there is also some consequence to this.
And this is about the trust that he has -- with the American people and specifically the people in New York, but I just don't see how you can go on for this. SPITZER: Well, again, folks know I made that decision to resign, just get that out there on the table, but let me play devil's advocate in terms of Anthony Weiner for a moment. He is saying -- he hasn't been shown to have committed any violation of the law as of yet. He has done things he has acknowledged. He has confessed his error.
If your threshold is now you acted in a way that casts ill repute upon the House of Representatives, aren't there an awful lot of other members who should be told the same thing by both Eric Cantor and -- I don't want to put you on the spot -- you or other Republicans?
CHAFFETZ: I can only look at what's happened in my -- just over two years in the House of Representatives. I can tell you on the Republican side of the aisle, John Boehner has actually done some things behind the scene that are pretty remarkable. You had Eric -- Representative Souder, you had Representative Lee, when they had scandals, literally within hours both of them stepped out.
I don't know that Speaker Boehner did anything directly, but I tend to think that he was somewhat involved somehow. And those gentlemen moved on. And the body itself, I think it was better for the body. And that's the ultimate question. What's best for the Congress is really what ought to be first and foremost.
SPITZER: Let me ask you this, does your discomfort and your sense then -- you speak to him, you're saying this to somebody as somebody who has been a friend of his.
CHAFFETZ: Yes.
SPITZER: If he had acknowledged his wrongdoing immediately, instead of dissembling, lying to the media, would that have changed your perspective about the obligation on his part now to resign?
CHAFFETZ: I think it plays a big, big role because time after time after time what I saw him repeatedly say is, I was hacked. I mean what he said -- now he's saying was a lie. And not just once but multiple times.
And, again, I haven't spoken to him directly, I put my arm around him and say, you know, Anthony, please, do the right thing. He's got to make this decision. I'm not trying to take a cheap shot at the guy. I just think that the body of Congress -- we've got to raise the bar, not lower the bar.
SPITZER: Well, I think everybody would agree with that sentiment and everybody would hope that would be what happens.
CHAFFETZ: Yes.
SPITZER: But let me ask you in terms of raising the bar. Let me ask this. If you were to look at what Congress has done in terms of imposing sanctions on members of Congress who have acted improperly, not necessarily illegally, would expulsion be the proper remedy if Congress had to vote? If he doesn't resign, would you vote to expel him from Congress? CHAFFETZ: Well, that's a difficult thing. But here on national television saying, yes, I think he probably should resign. And I don't want to put the Congress through having to go through months of this at a cost of I don't know how much money and how much pain and whatnot. But, you know, he's going to have to look to himself to make that decision.
SPITZER: If the ethics commission finds he did not use any public property, no public phones, you know, offices, does that factor into this or was it the behavior itself?
CHAFFETZ: Yes. Well, I think it is the -- look, you have information, sensitive information about war and about classified material, and there's got to be some degree of trust. And you have somebody openly admit that they were lying, that they were breaching that trust to such a magnitude that he did. It makes all of us uncomfortable speaking about this.
Because I'm not trying to cast ill repute upon the guy, but at the same time, I worry that here we are talking about this instead of Afghanistan, these other things that really, really matter.
SPITZER: Look, I think again everybody agrees with you about this being a distraction.
CHAFFETZ: Yes.
SPITZER: You are close to him. It is -- people kind of made fun of it on both sides of the aisle. Have you spoken to him since all this erupted --
(CROSSTALK)
CHAFFETZ: I have not. I have not. And we've been on -- in a district work period this week. I'm sure I'll see him next week if it's still there. And it's very difficult. It's sad. It's just sad. I feel for him and his family.
SPITZER: What is the personal side at every level --
CHAFFETZ: Yes.
SPITZER: But not to put you on the spot, you're here, I'm thankful you're here on the set, in New York City, you're not far from Queens where he lives, you're going to get in the cab and say, look.
CHAFFETZ: Yes.
SPITZER: He doesn't have many friends right now. The silence is deafening, is the old cliche. I mean do you feel some obligation to get in the cab and go knock on his door and say, look, do you need some help?
CHAFFETZ: If he wanted somebody to chat with privately, I'd be more than willing to do that.
SPITZER: Right.
CHAFFETZ: If he's watching the show, Anthony, I will -- I'd come chat with you. But I don't know what to say. He's going through some things that are difficult to relate to.
SPITZER: Are you surprised that the Democratic leadership, and I know you don't want to take shots across the line, but are you surprised the Democratic leadership hasn't shown any support for him at a personal level and emotional level? It has been kind of stark how icy cold the reception has been.
CHAFFETZ: Well, I think, you know, Nancy Pelosi did the right thing referring it to the ethics committee. But that's going to be very costly. I can just tell you my own experience seeing John Boehner exert some leadership, I thought he did a remarkable job. These things with Souder and with Lee, they were done within hours. And --
SPITZER: Right. Well, I mean I think the time issue, the cost is obviously a factor as well from a taxpayer's perspective.
CHAFFETZ: Yes.
SPITZER: We all pay our taxes. Don't want to see them spent on this.
CHAFFETZ: Yes.
SPITZER: The ethics commission investigation takes a long time.
CHAFFETZ: They take years sometimes. So yes, it's a ridiculously slow process but it's very methodical and you want it to be that way. You're dealing with the constitution. Somebody who's duly elected so you've got to be very, very careful.
SPITZER: But then that does raise -- to come full circle. Is it due process? And you might say, look, he was elected, he has a job to do, due process isn't really the threshold here. But is it due process for everybody suddenly to be rushing to judgment saying he might not have broken the law. It was a grotesque act, he -- it was wrong, he's apologized, but expulsion you believe is the right remedy here.
CHAFFETZ: There's no question about whether or not he lied, there's no question about whether or not he's misleading people. He's admitted that that -- and so kind of case closed on that. I think you now have to move to the next part which is, what is the right thing to do?
SPITZER: Any way for him to remedy this, to resuscitate his reputation or his relationship with the Democratic or Republican or both -- leadership of both parties in the next short period of time to somehow salvage --
CHAFFETZ: It's really hard to see. Because at the ultimate, right at the center of this, is trust. It's trust. SPITZER: Right.
CHAFFETZ: And that has been -- I don't see how you bring that back together.
SPITZER: All right, Congressman Chaffetz.
CHAFFETZ: It's tough. It's tough.
SPITZER: All right, Congressman, thank you so much for being here.
CHAFFETZ: Thank you.
SPITZER: All right, Congressman Weiner's fellow Democrats aren't directly calling for him to resign, but they sure are making it clear he doesn't have their backing. And that's just what they're saying publicly.
But what's happening behind closed doors, for that, let's go to Washington, our senior congressional correspondent Dana Bash.
Dana, the pressure on Congressman Weiner doesn't seem to be pushing him out at this point. Have you seen anything new on the horizon, any second shoe that's about to drop, new fact that make you think something would change dramatically in the near term?
DANA BASH, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: At this point, Eliot, no. But I can tell you in talking to Democratic lawmakers and senior Democratic aides today, that is -- they're holding their breath, waiting for another shoe to drop. And they say -- the people I talked to say that would obviously be the final straw, depending what it is.
You talk to Congressman Chaffetz about the fact that he says -- he just announced on the show that he thinks that Congressman Weiner should resign. He is now one of two people saying that publicly and from my reporting even privately.
I am told, Eliot, that even though the Democratic leadership is very unhappy with him, to say the least, that there has been no private call to say, OK, Anthony, you got to go. Publicly, though, there are moves being made. For example, Nancy Pelosi, the House Democratic leader, yesterday said that the House Ethics Committee should investigate.
Today, she went a step further putting a letter out formalizing that. She didn't have to do that. She doesn't have to do any of that. But it is a political move according to one senior Democratic aide I talked to that adds pressure for him to go.
SPITZER: You know, it is remarkable, Dana. There has been such icy silence from the Democratic leadership.
You know, Anthony Weiner, as I said a few moments ago, is an abrasive sort by nature. That is -- BASH: yes.
SPITZER: -- what many people appreciate in him, his style was to be aggressive and to make his point with a certain fervor and energy. But you would think he would have had a few friends on the Democratic side of the aisle who would have stood up and said slow down the rush to judgment. Not a single word to that effect that I've heard at least.
BASH: No, and, you know, first of all, just the fact that nobody is coming out except for Harry Reid who was already at a microphone today, and publicly saying anything about this, it's very hard to get people on the phone to talk, not for attribution, but first of all, you're right in terms of personality.
I talked to a couple of Democratic lawmakers, people who like him, today. But say, look, he's angered them because of grandstanding on issues like health care, because of the fact that he is openly critical. Sometimes he has a point. But he's openly critical historically of the Democratic leadership, of the White House. That's number one.
And number two, you know, I can tell you just going back to last week, Eliot, talking to members of the Democratic leadership, they were urging him, begging him, please, get the facts out there, get the accurate story out there because it's drip, drip, drip, and it is a distraction. And he didn't listen to them and they are really, really angry about that.
SPITZER: Yes, you know, it's interesting, Dana, because at one level, all the things that made him popular with the public and the media quite frankly a few months ago when there was contentious debate about health care, now we're rebounding against him and creating zero reservoir, absolutely no friends left for him to turn to when he needs the help.
Dana Bash, thank you so much.
BASH: Thanks.
SPITZER: The political leaders in both Washington and New York still finding their footing on the scandal, what role is the media playing?
For more on that now, joined by Dan Abrams, ABC legal analyst and founder of Mediaite.com.
Dan, thanks for being here.
DAN ABRAMS, FOUNDER, MEDIAITE.COM: My pleasure.
SPITZER: Well, let me ask you point blank. This came not from the traditional media. It came from, you know, the part of the media world that is often scorned that is denigrated. Is this the media's shining -- the great shining moment or is the media's rolling around in tawdry issues? How do you grade the media? ABRAMS: Well, look, I think that the media was initially skeptical because it was coming from Andrew Breitbart. The mainstream media was saying, you know what, we don't know if we can trust this guy.
This wasn't really reported much the first weekend. The mainstream media kind of ignored the story. A lot of the blogs did. And Andrew Breitbart was saying, why is no one listening to me? Why is no one listening? And as more evidence came out, more photos came out, I think now the mainstream media is looking back and saying, look, he was right and we probably should have started covering this earlier.
SPITZER: Look, to a certain extent, I think Anthony Weiner got the benefit of the doubt. He was putting out pretty, you know, vehement denials and accusations of hacking and because he was always viewed as somebody with credibility. They credited this.
ABRAMS: But they weren't quite vehement. Right? I mean they were always sort of nuanced.
SPITZER: Right.
ABRAMS: I mean from the beginning, it was that he was saying he was hacked. He still hadn't answered the question, did you send it? Then he responded saying, no, I didn't send it. But then when the question was a specific question, is that you? He couldn't answer that.
SPITZER: Yes.
ABRAMS: And so immediately people start wondering, come on, what is going on here? And then these additional photos come out and this new woman comes out and then he was -- he had no choice.
SPITZER: The worst of the -- the use of the word certitude at that moment, it all began to unravel.
Let me ask you. The media does have a certain way of saying, if you lie to us, we will get you.
ABRAMS: Yes.
SPITZER: If Anthony Weiner at the very first moment had stood up and said, let me be open, let me tell you, that this is a chapter in my life, I'm not proud of, here are the facts.
ABRAMS: Yes.
SPITZER: Would he have been able to overcome this or is this the media saying the greatest sin here is the lie?
ABRAMS: Yes. I mean he had a better chance, a much better chance. I mean when you see him in interview after interview, not just lying, but lying in a way where he's indignant at the questions, you deem to ask me that question, I think that's a really tough position for him to be in.
I mean, look, let me ask you, I'll turn the table on you for a moment. I mean you're someone who we know --
SPITZER: Wait a minute. This is a --
ABRAMS: I know. But just quickly -- I mean I would think that this is something that you know about, about -- you come out, you make your statement, you come clean, I mean do you think that that helped your situation?
SPITZER: Look, let me be very clear. I sympathize with Anthony Weiner. I know he is going through torment like virtually no other, but his greatest sin from the perspective of the public was not being truthful at the moment of crisis.
Because what that showed unfortunately was a flaw in his judgment, in his belief, even up to that point that he could somehow continue to deceive and I think that, as it goes back to Congressman Chaffetz's point just a few moments ago, that trust and bond has now been broken, that additional time, not just by the behavior, but by that additional lie on top of it.
ABRAMS: Now I think you benefited from that to some degree coming out early and then -- look, the question is going to be, honestly, I think that it's going to be a matter of days now.
SPITZER: Right.
ABRAMS: I think when you see the pressure that's being put upon him, we're not even going to get to the ethics investigation.
SPITZER: Well, let me ask you about that. Just --
ABRAMS: Yes.
SPITZER: Benefits (INAUDIBLE) to anybody, just so that's clear. But I think your point is exactly right, you also are an attorney. Do you think that he has broken the law? An issue that has sort of been lost in the haze of this.
ABRAMS: Not based on anything we have seen so far. Based on anything we've seen so far -- but this is the problem with an investigation.
SPITZER: Right.
ABRAMS: Is that it opens up a lot of other information that might not already be out there. I mean that's, to me, what Weiner's great fear is right now is, OK, I'd like to think this is behind me. But, A, there could be more pictures that come out. And, B, there is a new investigation that's going to start here and that could just mean more information and more information and more information coming out.
SPITZER: To say the least this is a Pandora's box that he certainly does not want to remain open. And it is a mess.
ABRAMS: And I think the only way to close it is to resign and then think for himself, OK, what do I -- you know?
SPITZER: Yes. All right.
ABRAMS: What's going to be the next chapter?
SPITZER: Dan Abrams, as always, thank you for being here.
ABRAMS: My pleasure.
SPITZER: Coming up, two years ago, President Obama assembled a high powered team of economic advisers and every one of them is walking out the door. More on that in a moment.
But first, CNN's chief political analyst Gloria Borger is here.
Gloria, you spoke to a politician who is not seeking higher office. Tell us about him.
GLORIA BORGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Right, Governor Mitch Daniels of Indiana who decided very recently, as you know, Eliot, he's not going to run for the presidency. He cited family concerns.
But I went to the state capital and visited with him and it is very clear to me that this is somebody who is not bowing out of the national policy debate on economic issues.
SPITZER: All right, thanks, Gloria. Looking forward to it.
Before we go to break, one more prominent New Yorker weighed in on the Anthony Weiner scandal today. And Donald Trump, as usual, did not mince words. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, ENTREPRENEUR: Many people have been asking me about Anthony Weiner, the congressman from New York who had big ambitions and wanted to run for the mayor of New York City.
The fact is I know him very well. He called me all the time looking for campaign contributions. They would never stop. He'd give me all sorts of phone numbers. Fortunately I don't think I ever called him.
The fact is Anthony Weiner is a bad guy. He's a psycho. And when this came out, I was not surprised at all. I'd watch him in interviews, I'd watch him on television, I'd hear what he had to say, and you could see he was like a boiler ready to explode.
(END OF VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) SPITZER: It's the economy, stupid. That's how presidents get elected or reelected. And for President Obama, the economy just doesn't seem to be cooperating. His economic advisers have been fleeing.
Look at that screen. Every one of them, Jared Bernstein, Larry Summers, Peter Orszag, Christina Romer, and most recently it was announced, Austan Goolsbee, all of them leaving.
And you know what, the much ballyhooed daily economic briefing the president was going to get, it's gone. Unemployment is going up. Job creation down. And there doesn't seem to be any real plan to deal with it. So Republicans are jumping all over this.
Here's what Mitt Romney told Piers Morgan last night.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MITT ROMNEY (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Right now the message that you're hearing from Republicans is government is too big, it's too intrusive, and the economy is a wreck. People are in crisis and the president doesn't understand it.
Just the other day, the president said, look this 9 percent, 9.1 percent unemployment is just a bump in the road.
This isn't a bump, Mr. President. These are Americans.
(END OF VIDEO CLIP)
SPITZER: Joining me now from Harvard, CNN's David Gergen, and from Los Angeles, former labor secretary Robert Reich, author of the book "Aftershock."
Welcome to you both.
David, let me start with you. Isn't this getting untenable at a political level for the White House not to have a specific, articulate clarion voice saying here is what the answer is going to be to these economic problems?
DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: I think that the Austan Goolsbee departure does leave that void and Tim Geithner, in fairness, I must say, not everybody has left. Tim Geithner is still there as treasury secretary. He was there from the beginning.
Gene Sperling moved up to become the head -- to take Larry Summers' place. He's been there from the beginning. And, you know, Ben Bernanke has been there from the beginning, so of course, over at the Fed.
But I don't think everybody has heard jump shipped or left them. But I do think that the Goolsbee departure has left a void from the spokesman side. And I really think that it signals that maybe this administration is not going to rethink its economic policy. They're just going to ride this out. And as we discussed last week, I think Bob -- both Bob Reich and I would argue, you've really got to think about putting some more steam back in this economy.
SPITZER: Yes, Secretary Reich, let me come to you, but you have been there in the thick of the politics of this when you served in the Clinton administration, when the economy is not going well.
We'll get to the substance in a minute or so. But just as a matter of politics, don't you think there has been a notable absence of articulation from the White House about what the White House is going to do and also, to use President Clinton's famous phrase, you know, who's saying I feel your pain right now, where is that sense of empathy coming from, if anywhere?
ROBERT REICH, FORMER LABOR SECRETARY: You know, I think, Eliot, that the president does have to get out in front on the jobs situation. I don't think the new White House can any longer pretend that the economy is on a recovery path. I mean the recovery really has stalled. There is every evidence of a major stall here.
And the president has got to say, look, here are my ideas for getting us out of the stall. Even if those ideas can't go very far. Even if Republicans will oppose them, he has got to, not only for the purpose of helping average Americans, but also for the political optics.
He's got to actually show that he is being active and proactive with regard to jobs and wages.
SPITZER: You know, I think you just said something so critically important, Secretary Reich. The likelihood is that anything the president would propose right now of any order of magnitude, whether it is in the form of a stimulus, or even, you know, government spending of any form, tax breaks or anything else, the Republican Party would object to it, but doesn't he need to stake out his position if only to create the tension between what he is saying and what the Republican candidates, the presidency are saying? Right now there is none of that tension.
And David, let me come to you. Doesn't he need to create that sort of tension between himself and the Republican Party?
GERGEN: Yes, I do think he does. And, listen, on the question of whether the economy is stalling out, of course, Ben Bernanke, the Fed chairman, gave a speech today in which he argued that we're still slowly on the mend, frustratingly slow. But I think growth is going to grow in the second half.
So there are some legitimate disagreements about sort of where we find ourselves. But I'm totally with Bob Reich in thinking the president needs to be much more empathic. He needs to be much more concerned about the pain that so many people are feeling. And I think he has to hold out the prospect that if this continues, he is going to make some policy changes. But I don't think he can just sort of simply say this is a bump in the road. I do think it leaves him vulnerable to the kind of Romney attack you just played from last night.
SPITZER: You know, Secretary Reich, it seems to me -- I heard, David, that the speech by Ben Bernanke today, and of course he said, yes, I mean, gas prices are up and we had the Japanese tsunami and earthquake, and then he said the third reason things are slow is because things are slow. There are not enough jobs being created. It seems to me he's confusing the disease and the pain we're feeling. I mean how do you solve it?
You know, Bob, what would you do if you were sitting in the Oval Office, to say to the president, here is what you've got to do right now to jump start this economy?
REICH: Well, Eliot, there are several things that could be done. Again, they may not get through Congress, but if they could get through, they would help a great deal. Number one, for example, exempt the first $20,000 of income from the payroll tax. At least for a year.
That would put money directly in people's pockets. That would give employers an incentive to hire additional people.
Number two, provide the states with at least loans so that they did not have to basically fire so many teachers, firefighters and others. That would, again, help maintain employment. The states are right now on the road to doing -- basically firing large numbers of government workers.
At number three, what the federal government could do is have a WPA, basically something like what was done during the depression, because you've got almost half of all of the unemployed have been unemployed for more than six months.
This is a huge army. A larger percentage by the way than we had during the Great Depression. A huge army of unemployed. They're just sitting there. They need to have jobs even if they're public sector jobs.
My point, Eliot, is that there are many things that could be proposed that could be done, but -- and the president has got to take that kind of control.
SPITZER: Look, the one thing I would add to that litany of options would be something to do with the mortgage crisis which is still dragging down the housing market, such a critical component.
David, let me come back to you.
REICH: And there -- and --
SPITZER: David -- let me go to David for a second. Time runs short, unfortunately. Have you heard anything -- I don't want to ignore the proposals or lack of proposals from the other side of aisle. Have you heard anything new and creative from Tim Pawlenty, from Mitt Romney, any of the -- Jon Huntsman even, any of the established Republican candidates, anything other than the traditional Republican mantras?
GERGEN: Not so far. Not so far. And one would hope that they -- I do think there is a deal to be cut here. I do think that the president should take up Bob Reich's point about payroll tax holiday. If he were to cut taxes some in the short term, either Republicans will obviously grab hold of that, but you know I think the president would have -- given the new deficits that would occur.
I think he would have to make some deeper concessions in the long term on the deficit side. I personally would also like to see him consider an LCCC. You know the work project administration that Bob mentioned created eight million jobs over eight years. The Civilian Conservation Corps created one million jobs right away for young people to be out in the woods, building national park and that sort of thing.
We've got a huge problem on our hands with these young people who can't find jobs coming out of school.
SPITZER: You know, Bob, taking it as a given that you're going to disagree with anything you've heard from the other side, as a matter of intellectual disagreement, of course, have you heard anything creative coming out of the Republican side, anything that at least makes you stop and think and say, you know what, that's worth thinking about because it's a new twist on this? Anything that intrigues you?
REICH: Eliot, Eliot, I've tried my -- I've tried my hardest to actually listen and be open minded, but it's the same mantra. I mean they seem to say the same thing they've been saying for 60 years, which is that small government and lower taxes are all we need and deregulation -- throw in that -- and we'll get jobs back.
Well, there's no evidence. I mean that did not work during the Great Depression, it did not work in the 1950s, '60s. It didn't work in the '80s, it didn't work in the early 1990s. There is no reason to think that the Republican mantra of small government, lower taxes on the wealthy, and deregulation actually helps.
We do know, though, because we have a lot of evidence that some of the things that I have suggested, other people have suggested, maybe a little bit more government spending right now, while you have to stimulate the economy because consumers are not going to do it, is critically important and, yes, you've got to -- you've got to have a credible plan for reducing the long-term budget deficit. But the critical most important thing is jobs right now.
SPITZER: All right, Robert Reich, David Gergen, always great to talk to you. We will be continuing this conversation in the days and weeks ahead, no doubt.
Coming up, President Obama is feeling the heat to bring the troops home from Afghanistan. Sebastian Junger has been on the ground there. He has a lot to say about what's going on there. You'll want to hear it. Stay right there.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SPITZER: Back in 2009, President Obama announced that we would begin a reduction of U.S. forces in Afghanistan in July of 2011. Well, July is practically here. And it is not clear what kind of drawdown he's talking about.
Writer Sebastian Junger has spent a lot of time wrestling with the complexities of Afghanistan. His new book "War" is an account of his time embedded with American platoon in the Korengal Valley, site of some of the most intense fighting.
Sebastian Junger, welcome.
SEBASTIAN JUNGER, AUTHOR, "WAR": Thank you.
SPITZER: So what is your test for when we should begin to withdraw significant numbers of troops from Afghanistan? When and how do we measure success such that we can turn responsibility back to the Afghan army for its own security?
JUNGER: Well, in the past couple of years there has been a significant surge of something like 30,000 troops in the southern part of the country. You know, I think those troops probably served their purpose. They certainly degraded the Taliban's capability tremendously. I imagine that the drawdown will begin by returning some of those troops.
How do you tell success? It is a complicated thing. I mean first of all, for sure, we would not have killed bin Laden without our bases in Afghanistan. You're not going to fly the SEAL Team Six out of Virginia to do that. You need the forward operating bases, the intelligence gathering.
Just recently we killed another al Qaeda top operative, Kashmiri. If we want to continue degrading that operation, bin Laden wasn't the only problem. Those guys are still out there. If you want to continue degrading their capabilities, we're going to have to be in Afghanistan.
A success, I think, ultimately is when the -- two things, when the Afghan government becomes viable and has enough integrity and viable enough to take care of the needs of the people. But likewise, the Afghan people themselves need a government that they're proud of and, frankly, willing to fight for and die for.
We, the NATO forces, have not given them a responsible government. It's corrupt. It's basically a criminal syndicate. And we can't leave until the Afghans -- I think that their government is worth fighting for.
SPITZER: You know, Sebastian, it's fascinating to hear you articulate those premises or those boundaries for our withdrawal because I think most people having read your very powerful writing and seeing the movie you're involved in, "Restrepo," would have thought you would be in favor of a more rapid withdrawal.
Because it seems to me you are saying not only do we need to deal with al Qaeda, which was the stated first rational for our presence in Afghanistan, but we need to be involved in nation building and the traditional sense of sewers, houses, the infrastructure of a nation.
But you're saying something even more subtle. You used the word the government is a criminal syndicate as though somehow we need to get the corruption out of the Afghan government before we can leave.
Describe, as I've seen you do it before -- describe the actuality of the corruption, how granular it is from the bottom all the way up to the top in Afghanistan.
JUNGER: Well, you know, it's from top to bottom. I mean at the local level, policemen are demanding bribes from the Afghan people on up to district governors and provincial governors, right on up to Hamid Karzai, who -- I'm going from memory here, but there was a criminal -- a corruption investigation that was tracking down some very prominent people in the government, friends of Karzai, and the leader of the -- the head of that investigation was put in prison because of the investigation.
I mean, you just can't -- you can't do that. That's not fighting corruption. It's aiding and abetting it. And the United States, first under Bush and now under Obama, they didn't -- we didn't like it, but we basically ignored it. And I think there's -- we've come to a point where we have to really twist Karzai's arm, really threaten serious consequences if he does not tackle this terrible problem of corruption.
His government is stealing -- is robbing the Afghan people, robbing them blind. And if I were --
SPITZER: Here Sebastian -- here's my question for you.
JUNGER: Yes.
SPITZER: Because you make such a powerful case in a world of unlimited resources where we had no other concerns in the world, but let me pause at this. The corruption in Afghanistan is so endemic, it is so much a part of the culture as it were. Afghanistan was just deemed the most corrupt country in the world by something called Transparency International that studies these things.
If you're saying we need to have 100,000 Marines there until we reach that threshold, my goodness, that sounds as though we're going to be there for as long as we've been in Europe after World War II, 40, 50 years.
How is there ever an endpoint if that is the objective?
JUNGER: I think we have to -- listen, I'm not urging that we keep 100,000 Marines there, you know, forever and ever. What I'm saying is we have to threaten real consequences. If NATO forces leave, Karzai is dead. I mean he's not going to survive the implosion and the bloodbath that will -- and the civil war that will happen in that country if NATO forces withdraw.
This is the lowest level of civilian casualties in that country in 30 years, precisely because there are international forces there. I think one thing we could do is very publicly say if you don't tackle corruption, we are leaving completely, and I do not think he would call our bluff. I think he would finally have to deal with that problem.
SPITZER: All right. Well, that would be -- certainly be a high stakes game of poker, be interesting to watch.
All right. Sebastian Junger, always great to have you with us.
JUNGER: Thank you.
SPITZER: When we come back, Gloria Borger's interview with the Republican who isn't running for president. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BORGER: He was widely considered one of the Republicans' best hopes for winning back the White House in 2012. That is until he said no thanks.
I sat down with Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels at his office in the state capital. He says he could have beaten President Obama, but it was his family that vetoed the run. Daniels says he has no regrets and the first question I asked him was about the process of making a very personal and difficult decision.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
GOV. MITCH DANIELS (R), INDIANA: Oh, it was almost surrealistic. I mean, I think it takes a certain amount of presumption to think of yourself in those terms and I never had, hadn't thought of running for president. But I felt some sense of responsibility to people who thought we had something to offer. And I hope I didn't let them down.
BORGER: So you're not doing it, but do you think somebody else can beat Barack Obama in this Republican field?
DANIELS: Absolutely I do.
BORGER: So who do you think has a good chance?
DANIELS: I wouldn't rule out anybody that's out there talking about it right now. But certainly among those who are most discussed, Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Jon Huntsman. These are really talented people with a lot to offer the country.
BORGER: On a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being the most vulnerable, how vulnerable is Barack Obama?
DANIELS: I think he's toward the upper end of the range, 7, 8 -- I don't know how to calibrate. But clearly their economic policies have failed. Debts that are coming really are of terrifying dimension.
BORGER: When you were considering running you took on your own party. And at a conservative convention in Washington in February, I'm sure you remember it, you talked about the kind of pitfalls of purity and politics.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DANIELS: Purity and martyrdom is for suicide bombers. King purist is remembered, but his nation disappeared. I for one have no interest in standing in the wreckage of our republic saying, I told you so or you should have done it my way.
(END OF VIDEO CLIP)
BORGER: In a way, were you calling for a truce on social issues of which tends to divide voters and -- while you pay attention to the more pressing financial problems?
DANIELS: I did at the national level.
BORGER: Right.
DANIELS: I said that maybe as a matter of priority we ought to just agree to disagree for a little while. I likened it to a threat to the national security, which it literally is and said that if a foreign army, you know, came to one of the borders, we'd all put aside our other disagreements for a while, and join arms as Americans to repel it.
And I think that the danger that we -- that we are facing is every bit as severe as some of those military threats we faced before.
BORGER (voice-over): Daniels was George W. Bush's budget chief and they called him the blade. In Indiana, he's turned to state deficit into an $800 million surplus, irking some conservatives by raising sales and cigarette taxes. And if he were still in Washington, taxes, as in tax reform, would be on the table.
(On camera): Well, let me talk about the Republican budget proposal, because as you know very well, it takes on Medicare. But it doesn't do anything on the tax side.
DANIELS: Here's what I think about taxes. We need a lot more tax revenue, revenue, dollars in hand. We'll only get them if we have a period of strong growth. The question is, how can you change the tax system to make it more pro-growth and more pro-jobs, and we all know what the answer is.
Wipe out a lot of the preferences which incidentally tend to favor upper income people, and lower the rates, make a lower, flatter tax system that -- with far fewer distortions of economic activity. You know, people who are --
BORGER: That's what the deficit commission suggested.
DANIELS: Yes, and I think --
BORGER: And some Republicans including Paul Ryan did not sign on to that.
DANIELS: Yes.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. PAUL RYAN (R), WISCONSIN: We go about $10 trillion deeper in the hole.
(END OF VIDEO CLIP)
BORGER (voice-over): Ryan is a Daniels friend and protege. But Daniels has a different formula. And isn't shy about saying that Ryan did not go far enough.
DANIELS: I think Congressman Ryan has made tremendous contribution. And nobody should criticize his plan unless they have something of similar dimension of their own to offer up. But his plan is not perfect. It didn't mention Social Security. And that has to be -- we have to have a new Social Security system for the future, for the next generation.
He didn't mention defense. And while defense is a nonnegotiable, the physical safety of Americans must always be protected with assurance, I personally would have preferred to see an even more pro- growth approach to taxes, one that has lower and flatter rates, and therefore by creating a lot of new economic activity we'd create the revenues we need to pay down our debts.
But on balance, it's still the best plan out there, the cheap shots on Medicare are going to happen, and that -- we have to have that debate.
I personally believe that it demeans the American public to say that we are so juvenile or so dimwitted as a people that we cannot see an economic iceberg that is right ahead of us. The American people -- we ought to give them more credit than that.
BORGER (on camera): But our polls show, when you look at the Ryan budget, the American people want to cut the deficit, but don't touch my Medicare, don't touch my Social Security.
DANIELS: I know all this. But the conversation -- he's just gotten the conversation started. And of course we heard all the nonsense, all the really reprehensible demagoguery about grandma over the cliff. It's all wrong, of course. In terms of either what Representative Ryan has suggested or the facts of life.
Again, the enemies of Medicare and Social Security are those people who say don't touch them because they're not only going to ruin those programs, they're going to ruin the American dream. So --
BORGER: But let me take you back to 2010, though. The midterm election of 2010, when the tables were turned, and the Democrats had made changes in Medicare as part of health care reform, as you know, savings in Medicare, and Republicans were out there on the campaign trail saying they're going to hurt granny, your phrase. Same thing?
DANIELS: Yes. Well, fair point. I did not think it was an especially proud moment for our party. I couldn't help but savor the turnabout being fair play after decades of Democrats ruthlessly misrepresenting Republican positions and misleading people that somehow we can really afford these things exactly the way they are.
It was only fair that they get a little dose of their own medicine, but no, I agree with you.
BORGER (voice-over): Daniels says he would have tried to replace bickering with substance. But he never got that far. No matter who called to try and persuade.
(On camera): Did your former boss, President Bush, try to get you to run?
DANIELS: He was encouraging about it. But, you know, so were --
BORGER: What did he say? What did he say?
DANIELS: Well, that would be between us, but I'll just -- there were an awful lot of people I respect that approached me about it. If they hadn't, I never would have thought of such a foolish notion at all.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BORGER: A foolish notion? Maybe. But what about a vice presidential bid? I asked and he said it's improbable and then tell me it wasn't a very useful question.
So was that a no? Not exactly. Quote, "It's a definite nonanswer," Daniels said. So there you have it.
We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
E.D. HILL, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Mercenaries in the Middle East. We've seen them in Libya where Moammar Gadhafi has hired guns killing his own people. And now in the United Arab Emirates where hired Americans are building a fighting force of foreigners for the royal family.
Eric Margolis has insight into this troubling trend. He's the author of the book "War at the Top of the World" and joins us now.
Thanks for being with us.
ERIC MARGOLIS, AUTHOR, "WAR AT THE TOP OF THE WORLD": Pleasure.
HILL: You know, the company hired by the UAE is called Rapid Responses or R2, and it's being run by Americans, hiring this entire battalion of foreigners to train them for the royal family there in case of labor unrest. Is this something we've seen before?
MARGOLIS: Well, we have. You know, use of mercenaries or otherwise known as private contractors in our parlance has become very common. The U.S. has employed tens of thousands of mercenaries in Iraq and now in Afghanistan. CIA has its own 5,000-man mercenary army, it is reported. And it is a standard function. They've been active in Africa for decades.
What we're seeing now is interesting, though, as the first insertion in the Gulf of a Western -- apparently Western dominated or run mercenary force whose job is to, A, protect the royal family in Abu Dhabi. Secondly, what they call labor unrest is not labor unrest. It's angry workers who feel they haven't been paid. It's the threat of a Bahrain-style uprising. And possibly some intervention by Iranian forces.
HILL: Well, here's what the UAE says when asked about this. They say, quote, "All engagements of commercial entities by the UAE armed forces are compliant with international law and relevant conventions."
So you're just talking about this being unique in terms of this -- of being in the Middle East here now. Well, say we swap UAE for Libya. You've got a -- you've got someone who is leading a country, whether it's a royal family or other, and they hire guns to come in and turn them against their civilian population for whatever the reason is.
How do we know when that crosses the legal line? I mean why isn't that a terrorist attack or something that NATO or the American military would take action against?
MARGOLIS: Good question. You know, the U.S. has been saying for years that many of the people that's holding in Guantanamo prison are illegal combatants.
HILL: Right.
MARGOLIS: Because they don't belong to any army, and they don't wear uniforms. Well, what do you call all these mercenaries that we're using? What do we call CIA killer hit teams that are being used in Afghanistan and Pakistan? They would seem to fall under the same definition.
The bigger problem is to whom do these people report in the Middle East? Everybody thinks that Mr. Prince, who has been accused of running this, he denies it --
(CROSSTALK)
HILL: That's Erik Prince, who had founded a company called Blackwater, a lot of people are familiar with the name Blackwater. This company, R2, says that he is not affiliated with it in any way. There has been some debate about that. But --
MARGOLIS: Correct. But he's moved to Abu Dhabi apparently. I doubt it's to learn how to make Bedouin ceramics there. He's a former Navy SEAL. A very capable operator. And it's obvious the royal family is building a protection force.
HILL: Yes --
MARGOLIS: And they also be used to intervene in other Arab countries.
HILL: But you talk about the loyalties. And I guess that's the very troubling part of this, at the heart of what's happening here for me. If you have Americans going in there, hiring, training, operating their own battalion of foreign fighters in a foreign country, say, the United States military or NATO or anyone else that we're affiliated with, decides to take action against, civilians are being killed, we decide this is s-- you know, atrocities being committed. We're going to take action.
We potentially are setting up having American military going against fighters trained and operated by other Americans.
MARGOLIS: Well, there is that problem and there's the bigger problem as secretary -- Defense Secretary Gates pointed out recently that we have an out of control shadow security government or apparatus in Washington of all these private contractors, mercenaries, interrogators, et cetera, et cetera.
HILL: Do they live by any rules?
MARGOLIS: We -- nobody knows how many --
HILL: Do they have any rules they have to adhere to?
MARGOLIS: No. They don't work by any rules. No. They're very much like these black dark pools of investments that brought down Wall Street. They're rogue operators. They're under nobody's control. And they're not under the control of the American military.
What happens if they start massacring villagers? I mean to whom do they report? It is a very messy situation. The regular military men, I used to be one, don't like this one bit. And I don't think America's role in the world should be hiring mercenaries. Many of whom are former gunmen, right-wing paramilitary gunmen from Colombia and South America.
These are not the people you want to be associated with.
HILL: And I believe the Colombians are a large part of the force that is being hired right now by the Americans in the UAE. It is certainly a change in how we are waging our battles over in the Middle East. And it doesn't seem like this is going to stop anytime soon.
MARGOLIS: Well, the --
HILL: Eric --
MARGOLIS: We are just -- sorry. HILL: We have to take a break.
MARGOLIS: They're going to hire 5,000 more in Iraq as well.
HILL: And we'll see what happens in Afghanistan as we start pulling out.
Eric Margolis, thank you very much.
We will be right back.
