he's completely out of touch. >> i'm candy crowley. and this is "state of the union." -- captions by vitac -- www.vitac.com the remaining 39,000 u.s. troops in iraq will be out by december, the fulfillment of an obama campaign promise, the end of a war, the beginning of the unknown. >> i think that they deserve great credit. at the same time, we are now leaving iraq completely which is the number one priority of the iranians. >> another journey into the unknown is full throttle in libya now, after the brutal death of its brutal dictator, moammar gadhafi. only two days earlier, secretary of state hillary clinton was in libya, pledging support to the transitional government. her reaction to gadhafi's death caught on camera while in afghanistan went viral. >> wow. we came, we saw, he died. >> earlier, i spoke with secretary clinton, who was in uzbekistan. secretary clinton, thank you so much for joining us. i want to start with iraq, and clearly the biggest concern here is that with the exit of u.s. troops, iran will move in where the u.s. is moving out. i want to bring to your attention an interview that cnn's fareed zakaria did with president ahmadinejad. >> since there will be a need in iraq for training and support, will the iranian government be providing greater support in that area? >> translator: i think we should have done it sooner, maybe seven or eight years ago. >> i assume the u.s. would not look favorably upon the iranians training the iraqi army and police? >> well, candy, thanks for asking about this, because i do believe there's a lot of questioning and to me, it is very clear to make three points. first, we are continuing a training mission in iraq. that has been agreed to. we will have the same kind of training and support mission that we have with many other partner countries around the world. what we will not have are combat troops and bases. now that was really a decision put into motion back in the bush administration, and president obama has demonstrated great leadership as he has made it possible for our troops to leave, as was promised, and by the end of this year, but leaving behind a training and support mission, along with a very robust, diplomatic presence, also envisioned by the agreements reached back in the bush administration. >> how many troops are we talking about? >> i also think it's important to underscore -- well, but let me just finish. it's also important to underscore that iran would be badly miscalculating if they did not look at the entire region and all of our presence in many countries in the region, both in bases, in training, with nato allies, like turkey, so i'm used to the president of iran saying all kinds of things, but i think it's important to set the record straight. >> can you tell me how many troops we're talking about staying there? is it beyond the usually contingent it's around an embassy, and can you tell me the level of your fear that iran, whether it's in supporting troops or not, is going to be an increased presence in iraq as the u.s. pulls out? >> well, yes. the support and training mission is in addition to the usual marine contingent, the defense attache and other normal relations between our diplomats and our department of defense representatives. this will be run out of an office of security cooperation. it will be comparable to what we've done in many countries, where we handle military sales, the iraqis are buying military equipment from the united states, and we will be working with them as we work with jordanians, colombians and others around the world, and i also would underscore that it is not our only presence in the region. in addition to a very significant diplomatic presence in iraq, which will carry much of the responsibility for dealing with an independent sovereign democratic iraq, we have bases in neighboring countries. we have our nato ally in turkey. we have a lot of presence in that region. so no one, most particularly iran, should miscalculate about our continuing commitment to and with the iraqis going forward. >> madam secretary, 57% of americans said in a recent poll that the war in iraq was not worth it. do you think it was? >> well, i think we can either look backward or we can look forward. i choose to look forward. an enormous amount of sacrifice was made by americans, most particularly our young men and women in uniform, many of whom lost their lives or suffered grievous injuries, and then of course, i'm particularly proud of our diplomats and the other u.s. government representatives in iraq. so we are where we are right now. we have a plan in place. there's been an enormous amount of effort in conjunction with the iraqi government. the iraqi government is looking forward. they're trying to chart a new course that will give them the kind of independence and sovereignty from everyone, including their big neighbor, iran, and we're going to support that. it's very much in america's interests to do so. >> so i'm going to take that as you'd rather not answer that question as to whether it was worth it. let me move you to libya, where the u.n. -- >> i think i'll leave it to others to argue. >> okay. >>ily' leave it to others to argue. my job, president obama's leadership is leading us forward which is where i think america needs to be. >> okay. let me move you to libya, where the u.n. is calling for, wants an investigation as to how moammar gadhafi died, the circumstances, who killed him, what he died of. is the u.s. interested? is it a matter of consequence to the u.s. how moammar gadhafi died? >> of course it is. and we strongly support the u.n. call and we also strongly support the transitional national council of libya's call for an independent investigation. because as libyans move into the future once again, they need to do so with a sense of unity and reconciliation. they need to hold each other accountable, those who do not have blood on their hands must be made to feel safe and included, regardless of whether or not they supported gadhafi in the past, so we believe in the rule of law, and accountability, and such an investigation would contribute to that. >> will the u.s. put pressure on the transitional government to hold accountable the convicted pan am bomber, al megrahi? >> we have certainly raised it in every meeting with the leadership. as you know, candy, there will be later on sunday an announcement of a new government, so once there's a government in place, we will renew our calls that megrahi, who should never have been released in the first place, be returned to serve the rest of his sentence for the terrible crime against those passengers on pan am 103. >> you've spoke within members of the transitional government. has this come up? >> absolutely. i've raised it a number of times. there's not yet a government. that's what we're waiting for, a government to be put in place, the transitional national council said they would wait to declare the liberation of libya, until they were sure that sirte had been taken from the regime loyalists. they would then announce a government. that process begins today. >> and finally, let me turn you to pakistan, where it seems to me the u.s. has spent many, many months warning pakistan to crack down particularly on the hakani network. folks in the administration publicly and privately say they believe the intelligence arm of the pakistani government is, in fact, a supporter of the hakani network which has attacked the u.s. embassy in kabul, among other things. is your patience wearing thin with the pakistani government? >> well, as you know, i led a very high-level delegation of u.s. officials, including chairman of the joint chiefs, general dempsey, now director of the cia, dave petraeus and others, and we had intensive discussions, and i would make three points. first, the cooperation on security that we have received over the past years from pakistan has been absolutely essential, in our efforts to defeat and disrupt the al qaeda network. secondly, the pakistanis themselves, as you know, have suffered enormously from their military actions against the terrorist networks, and of course, that's not only been military losses, but civilians, to the total of about 30,000 over the last decade, and finally, we are very clear, we need to do two things together. we need to squeeze the terrorist networks, including the hakani network, out of their safe havens, preventing them from being able to plan and carry out attacks across the border, and we have to, on the afghan side of the border, squeeze and eliminate safe havens of those who move back and forth, and who use safe havens in afghanistan to attack pakistan, and we have to have a very firm commitment to an afghan-led reconciliation peace process. we're about 90%, 95% in agreement between the united states and pakistan about the means of our moving toward what are commonly shared goals, and we have a work plan and a real commitment to making sure we are as effective as possible together. >> secretary of state hillary clinton, thank you so much for your time. safe travels to you. when we come back, my interview with vice president joe biden. >> no one's guaranteed anything in an election. this is going to be a tough election. the country is inherited very difficult political and economic times. fix it or find a new job, all right? i got it, i'm sorry. these people, huh? you know i've found that anger is the enemy of instruction. you don't know the egos that i have to deal with. you're probably right. thank you! whoever you are. i'm pretty sure that was phil jackson. he's quite famous... million championships... triangle offense innovator... [ male announcer ] the audi a8. named best large luxury sedan. nice wheels zen master. thank you...todd. ♪ (announcer) everything you need to stay balanced on long trips. residence inn. consumers er wanchai ferry orange chicken... over p.f. chang's home menu orange chicken women men and uh pandas... elbows mmm [ male announcer ] wanchai ferry, try it yourself. since ameriprise financial was founded back in 1894, they've been committed to putting clients first. helping generations through tough times. good times. never taking a bailout. there when you need them. helping millions of americans over the centuries. the strength of a global financial leader. the heart of a one-to-one relationship. together for your future. ♪ we caught up with vice president joe biden this week in new hampshire, where among other things, he filed the official papers of president obama to run in the state's primary next year. biden opened the day at plymouth state university, pushing for support of a jobs bill to help states keep or hire policemen, teachers and firemen. >> there's 30,000 unfilled police jobs nationwide now. people wonder why crime is going up in particularly difficult areas. more cops on the street means less crime. if you're, fewer cops on the street means more crime. >> biden argues voting against the jobs bill means more rapes and murders. it set the conservative blogosphere into motion. >> vice president biden made a number of comments i believe were over the top, to me, the vice president is attempting to use fear tactics on the american people. >> reporter: let me tell you the things, in case you haven't seen it, that make the blogosphere, the conservative blogosphere explode, just ask you a really direct question. >> sure. >> reporter: is it your intention to say, when you give these speeches that if republicans don't pass the president's jobs bill, they will be responsible for increases in rape and murder. >> well, no. here's what my point is. it is a fact, ever since i wrote the crime bill 20 years ago, we've put to rest the notion that if you have more cops, there's less crime. when you drastically cut the number of police in cities, which is happening all across america, crime goes up. that is a fact. now, they either are going to figure out how to help those cities the way we want to help them or some other way, but if they don't get help, crime is going to continue to go up. it's that simple. it's not an ideological point. it's not a political point. it's just a physical reality. >> and i guess their point is, again the conservative blogosphere, some of your colleagues say it's like he's blaming us for increases in rape and murder and let me just add to that, that the crime rate in 2010 was down 6% for serious crimes. >> that's true about the crime rate but you didn't have the immasculation. in camden, new jersey, the police forces are cut by almost half. there's a cycle here. when the economy tanks, when foreclosures increase exponentially, when homes get abandoned, drug outfits move in, arsons go way up. you have increase -- and that drives down property costs. that causes a spiral, that drives down revenue available for the cities and counties. they lay off more cops. the more cops laid off, the more crime that occurs. so the question is, we have an answer. what is their answer, or do they think the federal government has no obligation? i respect it if they think that, but the truth is, we can fix this problem now. >> you don't see it as unfair politics? >> no. this is reality. >> trying to attach this to republicans? >> it's a sill bit like saying we had a major flood. we think we should go in and help people rebuild their homes. they may say no, that's not the federal government's responsibility, or if you do that, we ought to cut their aid to education or something. we just have a different value set. that's all. >> reporter: let me ask you the misery index is out today, that's the inflation and joblessness. >> yes. >> reporter: indexes at a 28-year high. the average income for individuals is about $1,300 less than it was three years ago. you have unemployment 9.1%. worst quarter for wall street in terms of investments and trading this past quarter than the death of the recession. what's your bumper sticker here? how do you sell this for a re-election? >> bumper sticker says let answer get the economy moving. that's what the jobs bill is about. the jobs bill is not just about the individual jobs. it's getting the economy moving. we are moving. we've created 19 months in a row created private sector jobs, public sector jobs are down by almost a half a million. i mean excuse me, yes, about right, about half a million and the second piece of this is a lot of what's happening on wall street now is a consequence of their concern of what's going on in europe and the eurozone, but we can control certain things, and all those independent, vast majority of the respected independent validators out there say if we pass this jobs bill, the gdp will grow by 2%. >> reporter: let me stop you there. bloomberg did a thing and you quoted moody's, but bloomberg did a survey of more than two dozen economists and they said probably, that it will be better than nothing for sure, that it will help the economy maybe keep us from a double dip but the jobs are more around 275,000 next year, maybe 13,000, is that enough and when people say yes, everybody wants the jobs to come back, but you all have had now two and a half years and they're not back, how do you sell that? >> look, we have brought back jobs. we have brought back or saved well over 3 million jobs so far, and so the fact of the matter is that's not enough. look, candy, the six months before we took office, the bottom fell out. there were 5 million jobs lost. before we got the first bill passed another 3 million jobs lost so we started off with an 8 million job deficit that wasn't of our making, and what are these guys now saying? the way to create jobs is go back to what we did before, continue to cut taxes for the very wealthy and unregulate wall street. >> aren't people also saying look we did almost $1 trillion in stimulus spending, and you all at that time said oh, unemployment won't go above 8%, gdp will be higher than it is now and it isn't, and so now we need another leap with the jobs bill. >> nobody can look you in the eye and tell you that the recovery act and that stimulus did not create jobs and did not do very good things for the economy. the problem was in the beginning, the economists said that in fact we wouldn't go above 8%, because they didn't know until this last quarter that the economy shrunk in the last term of the bush administration, almost 9%. everybody thought it was more like 5.5%, and so the point was, we were all operating off of what the blue chips were looking at, and the numbers were wrong. but the fact is, if we hadn't had that stimulus, we would be in a position now where we would be in a double dip recession some time ago. >> do you think that's good enough to reelect the obama-biden team? it would have been worse? >> that's not the argument it would have been worse. it is better, number one, and number two, everything is a choice. there's a clear choice emerging here. >> how do you bring independents back? you've seen that huge dive, i think in virginia where the president was the other day, 34% of independents is what supported that and independents brought him virginia and you see the same thing across the country, just don't think he's been bold enough, they don't think he's had good enough leadership, he's been strong enough. how do you convince them to come back? >> i think first of all convince them to come back because at the end of the day, everything is an alternative, a choice. >> reporter: you're saying this guy is worse? >> no, here is what we're for and here's what they're getting in the way of us being able to do. if we continue to do what we're doing, it will continue to get better. that's why it's so important that this jobs bill be passed, so there's something positive occurring. look, things were moving, and they were even moving relatively well this last spring, until we got downgraded because these guys played roulette with are we going to make a deal on dealing with the debt. >> so you think they're the whole reason, it wasn't the uncertainty? i mean it wasn't, you think republicans were responsible for that? >> i think the fed -- yes, i think the republican -- look, let me make it clear. we could have had a much more significant debt reduction package, but the republican leadership could not sell it to this new republican party. this is not your normal republican party. it doesn't mean it's good or bad. it's a different republican party in the house of representatives. it's different, with a very different view than mainstream republicans have had going into this, and until we get a republican party, it's going to be hard to figure out who can we compromise with. we're prepared to compromise just like on the jobs bill. give us an alternative. >> they did, they had a mccain alternative as you know. >> and independent validators said it wouldn't create any new jobs. where -- and look, well, i'll leave it. >> go ahead. i can tell you were just about to say something. i'm sure i would have loved that. when you look at the gop field right now, who is the strongest candidate? >> candy, i have trouble figuring out my own field you know, and i have no idea. you know -- >> would romney be tough? >> i think they'd all be tough. i think whomever is our opponent will be tough. >> a lot of people used your quote about, listen, you know, they certainly have a chance. >> sure they do. >> extrapolating that you think they might win. i think that's a jump. >> look, i think it's a gigantic jump but the flip of that is they're not someone looking at the camera and being honest, hey, elections, no one's guaranteed anything in an election. this is going to be a tough election. the country has inherited difficult political and economic times. why wouldn't it be tough? elections should be tough. there are tough choices. >> but you think -- >> i think we're going to win. i think we're go