x lisa


Set Clip Length:

contract in afghanistan that moves more than 70% of the goods and materiel that u.s. troops need at their remote fire bases, moves it all across afghanistan. the military in kabul looked at this $2 billion plus contract and found payoffs and corruption. one u.s. official telling us, and we quote from what he explained to us, that when they looked at it there were concerns about, quote, fraudulent paperwork and behavior, indications dollars were flowing to criminals and the enemy. what we are talking about is a web of payoffs. the contractors who run the trucking companies, hire subcontractors, the subcontractors then pay or police and security officials who pay off the taliban or criminals so that their trucks get safe passage across insurgent zones in afghanistan. is it realistic at this point that any of this will ever change. we spoke to a top analyst about this. >> when you have the, you know, extent of corruption that we may have seen with some of these contracts, that's clearly not acceptable and they have to change the way they are doing business, but, you know, like i sai

of the wars in afghanistan and pakistan. >> still not getting serious. >> i went away from fuzzy. >> is that like jerry at trick math? >> yes. >> are you surprised they don't have a deal today? i actually really -- i mean, i really thought -- >> i would be shocked if they don't have a deal in the next two or three days. again, republican freshmen may have a big ideology difference with barack obama and his world view, and the divide is no greater than ronald reagan's was with tip o'neal in 1983 when they sat down, and they did a kneel. yes, you differ with barack obama and the democrats, but -- >> usually you are good at seeing somebody's angle. like you know what their angle was. what is the angle here? i don't get it. >> these republicans believe this is their only opportunity -- >> are they so stuck to the contract with the tea party they cannot think outside the box for the good of the country? seriously? >> can i finish? you asked a question and i need to finish. they understand one thing. >> what do they understand? >> they are dead right about this. this is their best chan

to take the trillion dollars save from the drawdowns of wars in iraq and afghanistan, apply that ta the biden framework. i talked to harry reid's office today. couldn't get a yes or no answer on that. i did get out of leadership aides they're not going to impb kblud the entitlement reforms that president obama had offered. there's no raising of the medicare eligibility age. there's no means testing. you're looking at steep domestic discretionary cuts.ç >> sounds as though what harry reid is you can tag about doing is taking the most volatile issues off the table for now. but is he putting up enough that's actually hard wired because if you talk about notional savings from wars that haven't been drawn down yet, a lot of things can happen between now and then. >> that savings started showing up when president obama presented his first budget it's always been seen as a little gimmicky. the house guys have been very reluctant to count it. it's not money that we're planning to spend. after their guys felt like they were sort of misled during the cr fight about how much was being saved,

in discretionary spending. also a lot of money from war money. he's saying as afghanistan and iraq wrap up, there's about a trillion dollars in savings. that's kind of controversial, brooke, because republicans don't count that money. but bottom line, $2.7 trillion all in savings cuts. you might like all them. that's what he's saying. he has a longer term committee in here but it would just make recommendations for long-term reform, really would have a vote on that but wouldn't force those reforms to happen. >> so i want to look at this plan here that you now have. i want to look at what supporters would say and also opponents. from everything i've been reading trying to keep up with all of this, the big difference here from the democrats' side there's no mention of revenue increases, correct? >> huge concession from democrats. the whole time democrats say there must be revenue on the table, republicans say they can't be. now democrats are dropping that huge demand. here is what supporters would say. this plan gets it done. they would say we're out of time. we're in the going to push for all of o

Excerpts 0 to 7 of about 8 results.

(Some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)