tv [untitled] CSPAN June 28, 2009 7:30am-8:00am EDT
i'm not up there with the bigwigs, down here with the people who pay taxes and go to work every day. so if you're talking about cutting jobs that is a concern of mine. health care, that is a concern of mine. i work for a company now that i have to pay basically the full coverage for my daughter to have insurance although i am covered. i might make a little more money at this job, but i actually lose it and having to pay for those benefits. as a country, if we're going to have a leader we must understand that we cannot expect for him to come out walking like a baby on his birthday. we have to give him time. everyone is pulling at him saying what is this, where is this, where is that? we have to allow him time to address everything. we have major concerns, iran, the war's going on. if he will focus on anything he needs to be able to get to the people he has delegated to do certain things and make sure
that their report card is up today. he is the principal. host: we approach your calling and went to get some of the viewpoints in. we will also speak about iran in a little bit. we will talk about the media and tomorrow and speak with the editor in chief with sync progress concerning congress of the white house. in this case matt is mccann the specific point that the media has a letter with president obama. he cites some statistics. the writer has worked for a couple of gop senators. this is from "the philadelphia inquirer," and this is one of them. there's definitely a bias for the president --
we have a caller now from franklin, new hampshire. caller: a think it is the type of media, as far as the visual, sound, the radio -- he sounds good and looks great and is easy to sell, but the further you get away from where you visually watch him and listen to him -- i believe in print. i religiously read "mother jones" and as far as i'm concerned by this is all in the eye of the beholder. but if you take away the spotlight and the sound and you get to the text -- that is what journalism has failed the american people with the most. we're looking for a 32nd psalm by. we do not really care about the real details. host: and earlier caller mentioned a gay-rights issues.
"the new york times" has this story. the political shifts on their rights are lagging behind the culture. for 15 minutes in the oval office one of president obama's top campaign lieutenants tell the president about the herd, anxiety and anger that he and other gay supporters felt over the slow pace of engagement with gay issues. but on monday 8250 day leaders are to join mr. obama in the east room to commemorate publicly the 40th anniversary of the birth of modern rights of the gay movement. by contrast, in march 1977 when they first met someone in the white house it was when president jimmy carter was nowhere in sight. the conflicting signals from the white house about his commitment to gay issues reflect a broader paradox. the politics of gingrich remains
full of cross currents. the next call from pennsylvania on the republican line. the media love affair? does it exist caller: of course, it does. anyone who read the article in the philadelphia paper -- if you did not know it before, there is. the man is definitely, or the media is definitely in bed with a man. host: let me ask you for your example? caller: an example of this? host: yes, to support your point. caller: well, if you read the article, the people, the results are -- a thing people should read the article. if people cannot pick up the newspaper and the cities of america today and see what
they're talking about here, then, then, then they do not know how to read. let me read something quickly from thomas, one of the most important -- for success in politics is the ability to make a nonsense so not only plausible but inspired. barack obama has the tower. we will be lucky to escape catastrophes into which other countries have been led. -- barack obama has that talent. that is right on the money. host: jacksonville, florida. caller: ok, my opinion on this -- this question has come up sometimes during the election until the present. there is a love affair with him, but not a positive one. i get a lot of my news from watching you all or maybe cnn, or talk radio, but my point is,
i cannot understand a country who is so upset that his not lashing out of another country about how the people feel about the president, but in this country, look at the lack of respect that this president gets. several of your callers you may ask them to give an example on how that feel the media is in love with him but you never correct them that he is liar. i think that is a rude, bold statement, but these american citizens to lash out at the president -- if only have one who can read and they are upset with that. the have a president who takes his time to speak to the people, to inform the people and not want the people to be in the dark and ignorant, but we are upset about that? america who wants to be the land of the free, but it is amazing they are so harsh and rude to the president of this country. let's show some respect and support to the president, mr.
president barack obama instead of being so down-rating and sitting back. host: we appreciate your thought this morning. a couple of updates from iraq. here's a world view peace from the philadelphia paper. it says troops are pulling back on tuesday. she suggests that new violence is likely and maybe some progress. she adds that all u.s. troops are supposed to be out of iraq by the end of 2011. she goes on to talk about the various groups that might try to incite violence. what happens next? in my phone conversations with several iraqis it's as the bucks will encourage new funds. it's as many will test the ability of the iraqis to take on more secure the bird. back to "the washington post" for this headline says that iraq will seek foreign oil bids and is poised to open its coveted
oilfields to companies this week for the first time in nearly four decades, a politically risky move. winchester, on the democrats' plan. some caller: i think there is a love affair with the present. i see none of the major networks going back to any of obama's promises in the campaign. originally he promised everyone would have health care. the only fair people i can find right now is fox and a c-span, thank god for both of you that you can hear both sides. host: debbie, on the republican line.
caller: can you hear me? i really think there is a love affair because for many years just the physical appearance of the president's, the first ladies, those things were not pointed out. the nice lady before, i agree with her that there should be respect for the president. george bush did not get a whole lot of respect and that man should have. as seems now that the obama craze -- what happened with the american indians? the man was talking about his a can-kicker? american indians do not get anything and now they're talking about slaves getting reparations?
i do not quite understand why. why would they go back to -- they should go back to the beginning, do not start in the middle. i think it is very unfair that iit is obama, obama, obama. host: let's go on to the next caller. caller: i don't think there is a love affair with obama. he is basically what is news. the media is going to chase wherever the story is going to get them the most attention from the most people. most people are paying the most attention to obama. his most famous present we have had in 12 years. what was shocking to america and
the world to see the presidential seat for so long taking a couple of elections -- all the terrible things that occurred as a result of the republicans running the entire country. as a result of so many bad decisions for so many years so many republicans left their own party. now when you put the republicans on it sounds like angry, bitter people who have not informed or educated themselves. byatt perhaps trying of the media there are those who could inform them more clearly about the extreme contrasts that the worlrest of the world is observing and thank god, most of the nation is observing as well. host: we will talk in a couple of minutes about regime changes around the world and how they happen. our guest will focus on iran. he will be jack goldstone of george mason university at
about 745 a.m. eastern. in the meantime we will get an update on iran now joining us by phone from to buy. -- from dubai. is the middle east correspondent for the los angeles time. when did yoyou last leave iran? guest: friday morning. the situation in iran is extremely tense right now. it appears the protests have died down. there was a series of mass protests as well as sporadic rioting, clashes in the streets among security forces and demonstrators as well as the sydney-official pro-government militias. -- semi-official pro-hamas
militias. there is a sweeping crackdown. supporters of the mousavi . there are many people being harassed. many people have heard the news. yes debate eight staffers of the british embassy, local iranian staffers have been arrested and presumably some continue to be jailed on charges or accusations that they were fomenting this recent unrest. host: it says the government is deeply concerned about the arrest of british employees in tehran. if it is getting in the quieter on the streets what does this mean? what is next? what are you looking for? guest: not to toot my own horn but we have a big story today on
the front page about the very question. if people go to the website the can see it. what happens next? it is about the prospects for that. since the protests have died down it does not necessarily mean that the discontent and anger unleashed by this election marred by allegations of fraud will go away. many people are considering their options. many people have gone back home and are thinking about what can be done. they have many choices to make. are they willing to go up against this government? this government is showing it is willing to use a lot of force to crush this kind of dissent. if no-- if they are willing to o against the government will then make symbolic gestures? that is different from the kind of hard core grassroots organizing it would require to create a political movement.
people must the side. they are still evaluating and traumatized by what has happened. -- people must decide. there presuppositions have fallen away. host: we read that the fissures within the government are even greater. could you describe what is going on at the top? guest: there are complicated dynamics at play. basically, you have this rift between two old guys, france, the supreme leader, friends, ayatollah khamenei, and the other ayatollah who is a powerful iranian power broker who happens to chair the committee that oversees the supreme leader. you have both these guys who have different visions for which would they want the country to go and very different views on
foreign policy and domestic affairs. ayatollah khamenei wants to maintain the fiery spirit as at the beginning of the revolution where is rafmanjani to reconcile with the west and wants a more gentle, social atmosphere, more in tune with the modern times. so, in each of these guys has their supporters and their camps. each has -- they're both clerics. they have both their clerical and that they're in college. host: the story on the web we took out says that ahmadinejad answers obama's criticism with his own. what is the back and forth all about and what might be like in
coming weeks? guest: i am not sure. to a large extent it depends on how far the obama administration will go to satisfy domestic critics on its handling of the iran issue. it makes it tough for the obama administration to reach out to iran and they're behaving in this particular way, not just the allegedly fraudulent elections, but also the kind of harsh response to opponents. you have human rights groups like amnesty international and human rights watch talking about scary things in tehran going on right now. people arrested at their homes, people trashing houses. seizing people and putting them into prison, allegations of torture and abuse. it makes iran even more radioactive than before and
politically very hard for obama to say, hey let's talk about the nuclear issue. who wants to be seen ago she was someone who has such a bad reputation? host: what were the circumstances under which you left iran to go to dubai, would as we look for guest: down the road it seemed to me that the iranian authorities were inventing this fantastic scenario for all these foreigners and a dual nationalists were involved in this best conspiracy to foment this bill that revolution in iran. there was a whole bunch of tv shows with these absurd allegations about what was behind this uprising in iran in
new knowing the way that the iranian government works and new debts and they wouldn't be looking for characters to cast in their fantastic -- but it works i knew that there would be looking for characters to cast in their fantastic movie. host: borzou daragahi, thanks for your time. it has been a pleasure to talk to you today. joining us at the table today is jack goldstone who directs the center for global policy. do you seek regime change happening in iran? guest: not right away. of the regime has shown itself willing to do whatever it takes, use whatever brutalities and propaganda to put down these protests. in the short run they seem to be winning. host: for the longer-term what you see? guest: things will definitely change and the regime will have lost its opener of popular support. it has revealed itself as
a tough, militarist regime. popular discontent over the long term is likely to grow rather than diminish. we must be patient. in poland at the solidarity movement began in 19 80s and took years. host: here is a sea of people. there is one little passage in here i want to draw to your attention. he writes that the difference this time for these things have begun in the past were put down is that the clerics are divided. take us more into that part of the story in brought in it to the prospect of regime change. guest: that is correct, although simply say that the clerics are divided is not sufficient to give you the full picture because the real major player here is the revolutionary guards.
the clerks have by and large come down on the side of resistance to the regime's harsh repression, but the power of the revolutionary guards has grown dramatically in the past five years. almost two-thirds of the minister's, ministry of the interior and defense are held by members of the former revolutionary guard. the ties between ahmadinejad and privilege to guard is very strong. something like a coup d'etat for the nationalist military groups in the military are pushing the clerics out of government. host: we invite our viewers to phone in with their questions and comments for jack goldstone of the george mason university.
our guest is the director of the center for global policy at george mason university. you have written about the steps necessary for regime change. and an overthrow of government anywhere. what are the steps? guest: divisions among the ruling elite is the first. it is severe grievances that fuel the mobilization of the population. but one key step we have not yet seen is defection of the military. during the regime of the shaw the military was relatively provincial and did not see a strong need to defend the shah in the protest group. but the revolutionary courts seem to be defending their own place in the government at this time. host: what about pressure from external forces? countries outside iran in this case? and then plug the media into all this as well.
we heard guests talking about the media being forced out but then you inject water and other types of social media. guest: even twitter unfortunately is being shut down by the regime. i originally thought everyone was taken by surprise by the manipulation or strange results of these elections, but i now think the regime was planning for opposition and prepared to school to. the speed with which the motion was poured onto the street with much of the equipment they needed to control -- which the militia were poured onto the streets seems part of a plan that must have been in place before. we see a regime prepared to fight. they are effective. the twitter and internet helped in the beginning, but 10 days, 12 days in, all that is fading. host: let's touch on some
historic examples. what sticks in your mind from the past as we look at the situation in iran today? guest: the hopeful examples would be the color revolution's like the orange 1 in the ukraine. in this case of see this now more like the soviet union in the early days of the 1930's when there were moderates, successors of london who wanted to make a revolution a little more gentle -- of lenin, more gentle with the world and then stalin his supporters who wanted to purge anyone who did not want communism. i worry that we see in khamenei a push like that of stalin for. it does not mean that we will have 30 years of this regime because things happen more rapidly in the world now but the struggle might last months or years.
host: hears from the sunday news magazine. the first phone call is from st. louis on the democrat's lead. caller: this is nothing but another fine example of our government interfering in other governments, turn to overthrow the. we have a long history of our murderous cia of overthrowing governments and killing their leaders. the only reason we have this much attention on iran is because of the $500 million george bush allocated to destabilize the election. you people need to get off this. we need to overthrow this terrorist government in this country. haven't we murdered enough people? host: the collar touching on the milan. guest: the caller is right historically. the united states has done in the past lots of nasty things including nasty things to iran. we shut down a civilian airliner
by mistake in supported saddam hussein even in his use of chemical weapons. there is every reason for iranians to be suspicious of the united states doing bad things. but there's no evidence of this at this time. president obama has gone out of his way to ensure that the united states is keeping its distance. it is interesting to me that the regime has ski coated the british rather than the americans and the last few days. host: the president has taken some criticism for his comments or in some people's views, lack of strong comments. what is your take on his posture? guest: he is in a very difficult situation. ideally, he would act as ronald reagan did in the last days of communism, that is dealing with the soviet union as the established date, but at the same time criticizing its policies and offered support to dissidents. it is more difficult in iran
because we have not had established relations for 30 years. do we begin to establish them with this regime just as it is acting worse than ever, or not? host: to baltimore on the independent line. caller: morning, i have a question for you, mr. jack goldstone. we hear a lot in the news about iran and its nuclear ambitions. we obviously want no arms race in the region, but here's my question. does that mean that eventually israel will have [unintelligible] for its nuclear ambition that it already has? guest: welcome of the nuclear arms race in the middle east is something that the world and of the obama administration would like to prevent.
there are widespread belief that israel has a nuclear weapon although it has never been announced or publicly determined. iran of course, is greed in the technical capacity to someday build such a weapon. people differ as to whether they are on the verge of being able to do so or are years away. my concern is that the behavior of the regime now will make them appear to the world much more dangerous, much more frightening should they acquired the capacity for nuclear weapons. the people that we refer to in iran as moderates or reformers were no less interested in having iran acquire capacity to protect itself with a nuclear weapon. after rock, they are surrounded by american troops and other enemies, but i think -- after all.
but i think that the moderate reformist or that the more dangerous iran looks, the more they invite be at televisio-- ty invite retaliation from is true. -- from host: israeour guest has written nine books. he was educated at harvard and has taught at northwestern and of the california institute of technology. he is now director at the center for global policy at george mason interested. if you look at the subject of the segment, regime changes. take us back to the people. we read this morning that it is somewhat quieter on the streets. what most people be thinking? those who have been possibly be used? guest: