tv Washington Journal CSPAN November 29, 2009 7:00am-10:00am EST
are going to take a look at president obama's foreign- policy. "the economist" describes it in many ways but uses two words in particular -- subtle and not leave. what do you think about president obama's foreign- policy? for democrats, 202-737-0002. for republicans, 202-737-0001. for independents, 202-628-0205. you can twitter us at twitter.com/c-spanwj, e-mail us at email@example.com. this is the leading section of "the economist." the headline this morning, the quiet american. "subtle or strategic diplomacy"
the world will find out with his speech on tuesday. "a weakness runs through his foreign-policy. it looks to many that he has dithered, and of the liberated on afghanistan. managing squabbling officials and twisting the arm of, you karzai has accomplished -- twisting the arm of homage karzai -- hamid karzai, which will he be? clever or week? does this president have a strategy backed if necessary by force to reorder the world? or is he merely a presidential version of aldern pyle"?
we wanted to use some of the words from "the economist" this morning to frame the discussion. sopolinski jake or weak and naive. -- subtle and strategic or week and naive. lower in the first column, going into the second, the clever retort is that diplomacy is that about instant gratification. "mr. obama has resettled the dysfunctional relationship with russia, boosted the g-20 as a global forum, and this week israel announced a partial settlement freeze. you can hardly accuse him of being timid.
in three speeches he set out a new foreign policy that rejected the view of his predecessor. he needs to regain it -- he seeks to negotiate deep cuts in nuclear weapons and make peace between the arabs and the jews. how much can you ask for in the year of war and recession"? president's obama's -- president obama's policy, week or naive? our first call comes from silver spring by the democratic life here is a good morning. caller: good morning. polls right now show that the whole world is there, completing with the last eight years it is like 75 people. he has done a good job.
host: how would you describe his diplomacy? caller: good, everyone is cooperating with us. day-by-day, it is working. host: all right. tyler, texas. republican line. go ahead. caller: yes, i think he is very naive when it comes to foreign policy. we need to get in there and get the enemy. host: we are taking our question this morning from "the economist." the editors go on to talk about how they came up with the editorial this week.
"as the months dragged on the case for being weak is showing its hand. the president has hardly live up to his promise. with the patience and dedication that the task requires, with a big exception he has not been able to show that he could back up his rhetoric. pragmatism is welcome after george bush, but it carries risks. critics on the right are wrong to carp at his attitudes towards emperors." frederick, maryland. your next. caller: what kind of question is this?
i cannot believe you are putting this on television. i think that lately you have gone a little overboard. you have got people like that guy who said he wanted to shrink government so small that you could drown it in a bathtub. host: back to our question. caller: this goes to the question itself and what c-span is doing with its questions. the american public is naively -- naive to think that this is a legitimate question. host: you do not have a question about the president's foreign policy -- opinion about the president's foreign policy? caller: he is doing better than president bush. host: naomi, republican line. caller: he is sophomoric. host: why do you say that?
caller: someone that could go all around the world thinking that they could charge -- charm these dictators as a man raised by his mommy and grant money who told him he was so special. host: when it comes to foreign policy, what approach should use? caller: he should not make america look weak, which is what he is doing. host: baltimore, up next. we are asking about the president's foreign policy. subtle and strategic or weak and naive? caller: i think he is subtle and strategic. i am concerned about the earlier caller said -- and said that force is the american way. that is horrible.
we should be able to compromise, talk with each other, and except differences. -- accept differences. for americans to be that forceful, i am more scared of them then i am of what others can do to us. host: when you say that we should be trying to talk, talk about the president's speech that he is making on tuesday. what are you expecting to hear from the speech and how does that apply? caller: i do not want him to go to war. unfortunately that is a big part of life sometimes. you have to use of force.
i think it he has discussed this for awhile with us. the previous administration has gone in without talking. if i know that i have to use force sometimes, it can be necessary, but i think that the way that the president did it was too way up -- all of the ideas and thoughts. i have to give him the credit for least looking at other options. host: missouri, you are next, maggie, republican line. caller: hello. i am disappointed in a lot of things that are going on. that on foreign policy it seems that the leaders he is being so overly nice to, and i think that it is good to be nice to people.
i do not want the americans to come off as rude and ugly and all of that, but the leaders that he seems to be bowling down to and, like i said, overly nice too, are the ones that are communist and hurt their people. i do not understand why he has this need to of kind of feel like he has to show some kind -- kindness to them by bowling and all of that. -- balloting -- val weighing -- bowing and all of that. host: the question we are trying to make this morning on his foreign-policy, how would you sum it up? caller: he is trying to please everyone and coming off as being weak.
host: all of bridge, new york. democratic line. -- olive bridge, new york. democratic line. caller: in the last week i have become one of the statistical unemployed. host: what was your industry? of caller: i worked at a small college in new york. host: sorry to hear that. caller: thank you. the second thing, i think that that article becomes null and void, they used the word to dither. if you look at editorials from the past, did there is not a word. -- dither is not a word. but these magazines and editors are being influenced and it is disgusting.
what do i think of the president's policies? they are presidential and we are not used to someone being presidential after that last 80 years of bush. host: going back to the editorial, "it looks to many as if he has dithered, not the liberated." julian, california. diane, democratic line. caller: peter, is that your first name? host: pedro. caller: good morning, pedro. as far as the article goes, very subtle. number two, i do not think that we have a foreign policy in place. he just went to these places, he did not come back with an agreement for many of them.
you do not compare how you raise your children to how you run the world. dithering is a good comment. he is dragging his feet. general mcchrystal has been asking for two months now or longer. in is not in place. we look like fools sitting in the white house, people are watching the white house, showing how good the security is. we do not even have security in the united states. foreign policy is that a zero. these men need to be protected. we may not want to have war, but this has never been declared a war.
my ex-husband was a silver star in the marine corps. my fiancee was a captain in the navy. we are allowing this country to look like fools. it has got to stop. military men are trying their best, they need to be protected, we need more troops, and every time there is a news report saying that we are going to make a decision, he is taking too long to make this decision. host: we will have to leave it there. thank you, diane. front page of "the washington post" talks about what is leading up to the speech. "9000 marines beginning final preparations to deploy in southern afghanistan.
the marines will be followed by 1000 u.s. army trainers to train the afghan army and police force. the new forces will not start moving until the president lines of both strategies at west point on tuesday. the editors of "the washington post weigh in this morning -- washington post" way in this morning. "if he is going forward to stabilize the country, mr. obama needs to make the case strongly. americans and afghans wonder if the president believes in the war. among his challenges tuesday, putting those doubts to rest. phoenix, your next. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have the same comment as
earlier callers, the debate is being set as a lose lose situation before the president. either he is an e -- an idiot or he is moving too slowly. what i would like to point out to your viewers is how other is a blitzkrieg against every president that opposes the israeli agenda. when george bush in 2006 opposed the israeli agenda, there was a blitzkrieg. the media, used to blackmail american politicians, now he is the most hated president. there is a blitzkrieg against the bottom -- against obama because he does not want to about palin to the jewish masters that print the dollars. host: you may want to stay tuned
for our product -- our program at 9:00 today. dover, delaware. on the president's foreign policy. jerry, are you there? caller: i am here. can you hear me? host: yes. go ahead. caller: thank you for c-span, first of all. i the it is ridiculous to say that the president of the united states is dithering when he is investigating the situation in afghanistan. it is an extremely complicated situation. i think that before we commit any more troops or change the strategy, the president wants to know what the possible results are. that is a sign of good leadership. a good leader is thoughtful and
they look into this situation before they commit american troops and lives. thank you very much, have a good day. host: "the washington post's" talks about afghanistan clos. "g-20 leaders are expected to meet to set up a timetable for afghanistan. gordon brown said at a news conference "president karzai has to except that there will be milestones by which he will be judged, benchmarks by which the international community." grove city, florida. this morning our question is the latest from the economist. "the quiet american.
the world is about to find out appeared well grove city, maryland. go ahead. florida. john. caller: good morning. and curious to find out if you have done any homework on [no audio] host: are you there? caller: yes. what was the response when the lawyers of collied shaped, -- will years of khalid sheikh mohammad subpoena thaed the president? that should be interesting, as we have given terrorists more rights than americans. everyone keeps saying that we have to protect the military. wake up for a second, the military is protecting us.
give them the things they need. let obama, who as a senator fought president bush for four years, harder than he thought terrorists. it is a bad day in america when we let a guy like obama run the country into the ground. essentially you are watching the growth of hitler here in america. essentially tell all your neighbors, if you want to cut me off that is fine. if you do not want to hear the truth, that is unfortunate. host: you have major point, we will move on. this is from twitter -- so easy to comment on being president when they do not have to make the decisions. john, go ahead. caller: good morning. i am not sure if it is subtle or not even yet. i think it is in the
formulation phase. i believe this, at least we have an experienced person running the state department's that actually implements the strategic perspective of america on friends and foes. i think that president obama needs to show his leadership. sometimes that means he will have to hurt somebody. his subtlety is a sign of weakness. but at least it is not arrogance. but i do not think that he can help everyone. he has to come to that bottom line. to help america and to make america's presence known in the world, he has to be a little more decisive and a little
harder on friend and foe. host: "the washington times" this morning has a piece on the president. "a former member of the anti- terrorism centers says that the stakes for the president have never been higher. for the president, this is huge. up until now this has been a legacy war. once he makes his decision, now the war becomes his." philadelphia, and next. -- , next. caller: how in the world could we be thinking that obama is not subtle? look at the policy chan -- policy change in iran.
during the bush administration we had no sanctions or conversations. they said that nothing happened in russia and china, but obviously something did happen to get the sanctions. but we have the biggest war machine in the world. what if we pulled of the soldiers and constantly bomb to thed them? who would be happy? i like a quiet man, he is thinking his way through. i think that obama is doing very well. he just have -- he just has to make sure that he watches what is behind him, not just in front of him. host: "the quiet american" in
the -- "the economist" this morning. next caller. caller: of course he is subtle. the news media and everybody, they are trying to do a replay of bill clinton. they are trying to look for a weakness. who could forget the last eight years of george bush. speaking of, why is it not in that news media about the investigation in britain, everyone there testifying that bush made a predetermined decision to go to war? why is that not in the media? why are you talking about obama's foreign policy? host: laura, from twitter --
george w. bush things with his gut, brock obama things with his brain. i prefer the brain when it comes to thinking. next caller. caller: i think he is definitely naive. host: why? caller: i look at it this way. i want him to succeed, but his foreign policy, when he was in china, he should have talked about the freedom of the people , the rights of the people, letting china know how he feels. he did that do that. instead he buttercup to russia and china. he has got to take a strong stand.
he has got to start taking a strong stand. host: what does a strong stand mean to you? caller: to face reality in life. the there are countries out there that hate us and will do anything to kill us. he does not take that stand. he did not want to call terrorists terrorists anymore. they are terrorists. i mean, it all comes down to terrorists. people out there that will kill us. host: the senate this morning, exploring the 2001 escape of osama bin laden. "a little-known military special operations command piece of history, the consequences of not
sending american troops in 2001 are still being felt by several previous accounts. general, frank and donald rumsfeld did not put a large number of american troops there, unless they feel resented by the afghans. " michigan, larry, democratic line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i remember harry truman. he had numerous models. one of them was walked quietly and carry a big stick. this is what i think should happen with what is going on. he should contact all of these leaders and bring them over here and get them in that conference
room and tell them -- here is what we are going to do. and if you do not agree, i am going to keep you in this room until you do. and then i want you to go back to your country can tell your people, and that the taliban and al qaeda, they should understand. they are not messing with some ragtag country. what this country has accomplished in the blink of an eye was what i thought about when they brought home the shuttle yesterday. one of the commentators said that they sent it up and brought it home 129 times. host: ok. we will leave it there. knoxville, texas. running out of time. caller: tenn., actually.
host: sorry about that. caller: no problem. love the show. i was leaning more towards the subtle side. i think it is rather refreshing that he is willing to humber and -- humble himself on the world stage. we have not had a president that has been willing to do that in quite a while. i would also say to the lady that called earlier, she mentioned that he was battling down to only communist leaders, and i would mention that the prime minister of japan is not a communist leader. i guess, you know, that is all i can really think of. host: we will leave it there. health care, afghan and local policy, many issues, our roundtable is coming up with james joyner and adele stan.
they will join us momentarily to talk about these issues. first, what is coming up on sunday shows? >> topics on most of these sunday morning shows include afghanistan, health care, and the economy. "meet the press" is the exception, they will be focusing on faith and the charity. on abc, george stephanopoulos will be talking with bernie sanders, as well as lindsay gramm. on "fox news sunday" they have the senate minority whip john kyle. former arkansas governor mike huckabee will be on as well. on "face the nation" you will
hear carl levin, bob schieffer of, these gaza father of -- dee dee scazafava. and on cnn, david o. b, as well as tony blair. you can listen to all five of the sunday morning talk shows starting at noon on c-span radio. nationwide on xm satellite radio 132, on the web at c- spanradio.org. >> on this vote the yeas are 60. having voted in the affirmative,
the motion is agreed to. >> with that vote, the senate has moved its health care bill to the floor. follow the entire debate and have it would affect access to medicare, live on our companion network, c-span 2. the only network that brings you the senate, gavel-to-gavel. >> regulating the internet, one of the topics on monday with meredith at well baker, on c- span to. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us now, two folks who have never been on this program before. our guests are adele stan, she is the washington bureau chief at altinet. our other guest is james joyner.
the topics will be wide and varied for this hour. the president this week is going to talk about afghanistan. what are the larger interests of the president on tuesday? of guest: one, what are we trying to accomplish in afghanistan? it still remains unclear, eight years into the effort. at one point will we have satisfied that our reasons for being there? can we transfer out of it? second, to what degree can those goals be reasonably accomplished? of how can they best be accomplished in terms of strategy? finally, under playing all of this is the politics of it. he is fighting people on the left in his own party, who want
him to get out and are tired of the entire mission. then he has got people on the right that are pressing him to double down on the effort and do more. despite what he said during the campaign and his initial decision to send more troops and be very committed, he has got a lot to deal with. host: what is the message he has to deliver on tuesday? caller: he has to make it clear to the american people -- guest: yes make it clear to the american people what they stand to lose by pulling out of afghanistan. our afghanistan policy is not simply about afghanistan, it is a lot about pakistan, which is a dicey subjected diplomatically. we keep talking about what happened to afghanistan, but i
think that the bigger concern is what happens to pakistan if the taliban takeover in afghanistan and right across the border there is so much difficulty. host: both of our guests will be here for a wide range of topics. if you want to ask them questions, here is your chance to do so. for democrats, 202-737-0002. for republicans, 202-737-0001. for independents, 202-628-0205. again, you can twitter us that twitter.com/c-spanwj -- at twitter.com/c-spanwj an e-mail us at firstname.lastname@example.org -- and the e-mail us at -- and -- us -- e-mail us at journal@c-
span.org. guest: the democrats have a very vociferous left wing, progressive base that is very much anti-war at this juncture in afghanistan. he is going to have to make some case to them as far as what the peacemaking role is in staying. he will have to frame it in terms of achieving peace, not victory. if he cannot do that, he will face a lot of resistance. these folks have elections coming up in the house. they are going to have to face their constituents. host: james joyner, all republicans going to be on board? caller: -- guest: i do not know what he is going to say, but the general answer is no, they will
be against him on any issue at this point. host: troops in general are policy overall? guest: both. trial balloons indicate that he is going to give the general mcchrystal some large percentage of the number of troops. i think that if he does that, the republicans will largely support that, they will find some other issue to quibble on, of that he is not going far enough, by not giving the additional troops or whenever. host: more about our guests, james joyner, what is the outside of the beltway blog? guest: it started off as a collection where i would post 15, 17, 20 things each day, things that interested me. it has evolved into me making
fewer posts and having a longer analysis of it. additionally i have co-authors that do the same thing. the host: what is the political bias? guest: denn i was a pretty mainstream republican logger back in 2003, bantam libertarian. i think that our national politics have changed so much, it is hard to categorize. judging by the comments i get, i have alienated people on both sides. host: adele stan, tell us about your web site. caller: we are a mix of original material that the staff produces, and we aggregate's the best of the progressive web.
alternet has a lot of and original material, -- a lot of original material, and also things from smaller sites that you may not have looked at. host: if you want to check out these websites and doing the program, we have linked to both of them on c-span.org. our first call this morning, florida, democratic line. good morning. go right ahead. caller: good morning. i would just like to say that i am a 16th generation moslem on my father's side. my father has just come down with lymphoma. i wanted to say to all muslims out there, pray for my father,
he is one of the most peaceful and the preaching thinking -- thinkers i have ever known. it is a sign of strength and intelligence that the president is taking his time in afghanistan. it is very complicated. also, acts vice president cheney is one of the most despised in the country's history. i find it very sad and now he is allowed to comment on the national media the way that he is, using words like dithering to describe someone in the
highest office in the land. host: we will leave it there. caller: first, up i extend my best wishes to your father. it is a terrible thing that he is facing. i know that dick cheney, it is quite interesting -- guest: i think that dick cheney, it is quite interesting, he is terribly despised and yet he can still sucked up a lot of air. the media, by their nature, they like tension, they like an argument. so, cheney gets to make his argument. but the consensus is that it was a terrible failure in afghanistan on his watch. today's "the new york times" magazine talks about the legacy of the chain, and how he really ran the show on foreign policy.
and here is what we have got for it. host: here is the cover of the magazine -- joe biden could be the second most powerful thighs president in history. james joyner? guest: the cheney is interesting and controversial, and in commercial media that is what sells. in terms of the dithering issue, the problem is that yes it is a complicated issue, but i think that obama taking a long time to decide is somewhat problematic, you have troops in the field that are dying every day for a mission that he has said is essential. more problematic is not so much the time, but the public nature of the decision making. it is partly the media environment that we live in, but it seems that every day we are
reading about the internal wranglings of the administration and the calculations that are going into it. again, you have got troops in the field but are being asked to put their lives on the line every day and they do not have the sense that their commander in chief is on board with the mission. that is the dithering issue, more so than the thoughtful analysis of what is a complicated issue. host: las vegas, independent line. go ahead. caller: how are you doing them as far as the president, if he is listening, he will be chastised for any little thing that he does. if he sends the troops to afghanistan, which i hope he does, sending not as many as general mcchrystal ask for -- say that he sends them over and
it does not turn out well, he will be criticized and people will say that he should not have sent them. he is going to be criticized for every little thing that he does. we know that. people tend to be a selective memory is about what george w. bush left behind. you have got to be realistic up front. george w. bush left our country , god knows how long it will take to fix it. i guarantee it will take a minimum of four to fix the financial debacle on wall street. the war in iraq that he was so very just wanted to go into iraq. maybe it has something to do with a personal vendetta that he had with saddam hussein,
involving his father. guest: it is true, probably, that the president -- president will be criticized on the left and right for anything that he says. it is the nature of the presidency and politics. in terms of what he inherited, it is what he signed up for. he ran for president, he was elected president, now he is president. the nature of that is that you pick up the ball and you run with it. sure, he has got big problems to solve, but they are his to solve. host: one of the papers this morning talks about the afghan situation, do you agree with that? guest: i do. i also think that afghanistan is
very different. in terms of domestic politics, it became johnson's more, then it became nixon's war -- johnson's war and then it became nixon's war. once he lays out a strategy that leads to a victory or not, it becomes his. i think of the caller is correct in saying that there is nothing he can do that will not be criticized, that is absolutely certain in this environment. i think that there has been a dangerous narrative advanced in the last several years where to be patriotic, really it is since 9/11, to be patriotic america can only do right. whenever it is we are doing, it must be right. i think that we will find that
sentiment rising more strongly. host: wyoming, minn., a republican line. you are on with our two guests, james joyner and adele stan. caller: i am a first-time caller or what ever. i am a little nervous, but my first comment, as far as dick cheney and george bush are concerned, the media should not give coverage to war criminals like them. president obama needs to start telling the truth about the war in afghanistan. there is a gentleman on cnn that has been in iraq and afghanistan since these wars started. there are no terrorists that we are fighting in afghanistan.
it is a war between pakistan and india and we are there to try to defend india from all of the people that are being sent in to cause trouble. we are there to protect them both, i do not know how we are going to do that. they both have nuclear weapons, so i guess we are kind of screwed. as far as troops, i do not think that the president should be sending any more. we should allow them to fight it out. it is their civil war and we should allow them to fight their own situation. it is not worth our troops a dying, we have lost enough and given enough. my question is, should we not be talking to the president about getting out of there? guest: i do not think that he is going to call to talk to me about it.
whether we should get out or not, i tend to think we have done about as much as we can achieve over there. but you cannot just leave. some sort of phased withdrawal is in the cards at some point. most likely because of the politics we are going to see something of an escalation, i would be very surprised if he throws us a curve ball other than that. i think that we will start on the road to withdraw all fairly soon. -- winstrol -- withdrawal fairly soon. guest: india is the other significant player in this situation and we almost never talk about them in relation to the entire situation. but it is not as simple as the
caller suggests. in kashmir you have pakistan versus india, but in pakistan you have the entire jihadist movement, much of it is a class tension. it is not quite so simple as just protecting india. we are also protecting, we believe that we are protecting, civil society in pakistan. they do have nukes, it is not in our interest to have the taliban making major gains. they are on the brink of something close to a civil war. a couple of weeks ago there were bombs going off across the country. host: this is from "newsweek,"
the argument is why dick cheney should run in 2012. "there can be no ambiguity about the will of the people. what we need to have is a full and frank exchange on issues, then a vote. this would offer a bracing referendum on competing visions. a victory for dick cheney would mean that america wants unilateralism and not multilateralism. host: i think then it is not likely that happened. if dick cheney was going to run, he would have run. he quit the job with no intention of doing it. he served the job as city had no intention of a further political career. it was on popular of him to do what he thought was right for my policy standpoint. damaging what was a pretty good political reputation. he had been a fairly well
respected guy, not really thought of as an ideologue. it is this idea that elections are a referendum on one stark policy charley against another, which is not the american reality. years ago george will described the american look of game as a contest between the 50 yard lines. we run campaigns, use polarizing language about the consequences, but the reality is that our -- is that president obama's foreign-policy is what the bush foreign policy became after rumsfeld and dick cheney were out of our. he wound up with a fairly
negligible difference in actual policy given the options. the styles are quite a bit different. host: a lot of democrats would love the sea barack obama run against -- guest: a lot of democrats would love the sea barack obama run against the cheney. -- love to see barack obama run against the cheney. but he is making a political point about our politics. however, dick cheney is not the right guy if you want to draw those distinctions, he does not even represent the base of the republican party at this point. the base of the republican party is more than tea party movement, smaller government, deficit- cutting, instead of a big spending administration. i do not see where dick cheney represents any constituencies. host: three years out the gop
did not offer a political nominee. a gallup poll on 2012, haley barbour and tim pawlenty as far as front runners. guest: i think that is probably right. there was talk of rick perry in texas, there was talk for a while of mark sanford in south carolina, although i think his shot is now gone. no one out there seems to be an exciting figure. no one like ronald reagan in 1980, or george bush even in 2000. palin, huckabee, those folks have strong support in small portions of the party. i think that date from -- mitt romney it cites no one.
-- excites no one. i do not think anyone knows to tim pawlenty is outside of minnesota. host: next caller, good morning. caller: financing, what do you think? do you think that 3% government assured financing would help to stabilize the economy? are your guests for the war tax? guest: i do not have the expertise on the effect of 3% rates. in terms of a war tax, an interesting idea. ross perot floated it in 1992. it makes sense, right? if you are going to engage in a war, it must be paid for. if there is no draft, you want
to make sure that people have some skin in the game. practically i do not know that it will make a lot of sense. i do not know that you want to raise taxes during a recession. i think that it would be a bad time to raise taxes across the board. host: having the war beyond budget is a good thing, it is about accountability. we were going to raise taxes, i would like to see them raised on rich people to pay for health care. host: what does rich mean for you? caller: i think that the millionaire taxes a fair tax, individuals making more than $500,000 and families making more than $1 million, it is fair
to ask them to chip in more. guest: they are already chipping in more. in our history we have had rates as high as 90%. reagan inherited what, 70% at the top? now it is somewhere between 36% and 39%. i think that there have been some equity issues. at some level of income you could of a higher level of income, but some degree of graduation is necessary, practically. you have got to pay for this somehow. host: -- guest: you have got a widening gap. there is a huge jump between what constitutes the middle and what is off. host: manassas, virginia. you are next.
charles, republican line. caller: by m calling -- i am calling to talk about the cheney, every week he comes out and talks about something. host: go ahead. caller: he talked about the president dithering on decisions in afghanistan, i would say that when dick cheney allowed people to take his place in going to vietnam, what did he say about the the ring? he ruined the the republican party and he should be ashamed of himself. all the good luck to our troops out there. god bless you. host: if i could put one more thing into the mix, on the front page of "the new york times" they talked about those who were in trouble, refinancing at a lower rate. the headline is that there is
pressure from mortgage firms on loan relief and there is a campaign pressure coming out tomorrow for reduced payments on troubled homeowners. financial institutions say that the banks are not doing a good enough job, the firms should be embarrassed. the government will try to use shame, publicly naming institutions that moved too slowly." what about that as a strategy? . .
guest: so, we will see. guesthost: what do you mean by ? guest: when you look at who was hurting in the country economically, i think the far right has been much better at talking to those folks then have the progressives. the one piece of the right wing critique on liberals and progressives that i grant them is that we do tend to be a little elitist and like to talk to each other about what is good for everybody.
in the meantime, we think we know what is going on with the economy because we're not rich people and have had our 401k's tank. but when you look at how the unemployment figures skew, byblos some college 9%, people with only high-school diplomas is 11%. the tea particles are talking to them although we are not. guest: estrange over two fronts. the idea that it is somehow the responsibility of bankers to bail out people in bad economic straits is odd to me. if we're going to have a social safety net should be the government to provide it, not private businesses. it becomes difficult to make that argument when the bankers themselves have been welfare
recipients. i oppose it, but we have done it now. if we wanted them to grant concessions you would have thought it would be a thing of the bailouts instead of asking them afterwards. guest: wasn't credit supposed to loosen after this bailout? guest: presumably part of the lesson of the crisis is you should be more careful in who you lend money to, that you should lend it to people who have some decent prospect of paying it back. guest: so you think the government should have thought about it before lend to the banks? guest: i'm a capitalist. banks make bad loans and are not getting paid, then they can go bankrupt. you sell-off those assets and someone begins a new bank with them. the idea that taxpayers should be on the hope to build those people out was a bad idea., bad
idea host: back to new york, on the independent line. caller: enlisting to the conversation and have to agree with ms. stan most of the time. the one thing i like to correct that she said a while ago when she said that vietnam was a johnson and nixon's or, it is an issue in my husband and his friends or, as is the war now in afghanistan. people said it they are confused and compare the two wars of vietnam and afghanistan -- they are nothing similar. i thought that our mission was very clear in afghanistan, to cause great harm to people who harbored al qaeda the cause us great harm. because of dick cheney forgot about it and george bush for eight years, does not mean that the mission changed. it became very expensive.
now that pakistan is a problem and an issue, and they have nuclear weapons, it has become more of an issue for us to cause these people great harm. i am not pro-war at all. i have the 20-year-old son in college in the last thing that i want to see is my son over in another country fighting a war. but these people cause us great harm and we really need to put an exclamation mark at the end of our action. as far as barack obama is concerned, he can no longer invoked present -- he has to make a decision. i like to see him make an assertive decision. guest: there was a lot there. i appreciate what she is saying about the veterans. there is a distinct difference
between afghanistan and vietnam because al qaeda was based in afghanistan and launched an attack on this. where are the from her and is about -- this thing about the mission is important. i do think that the mission really has it changed your should change. it did go from getting al qaeda, which is of course a smart thing to do -- but at this point you have such a mess on the ground that if you do not do some measure of civil society building, you wind up leaving behind a mess very similar to that which gave rise to the harboring of al qaeda. we did this before. except that we did not do with our own troops.
in the afghan war between the soviet union and the afghan people we empowered many of the people who are fighting now. then we just left the playing field once the soviet union was defeated and left the bunch of weapons there. i think that the mission really has changed. host: as far as the president's speech has concern does he have to provide some notion of an and the game? guest: of course. whether or not he will concede that the mission has changed i do not know. nation-building has become a dirty term. nobody really wants to talk about defeating the taliban. you need to create a civil society in afghanistan. host: how specific does he need
to be? guest: i don't think he will be very specific. presidents usually are not. he will set general goals, increase the troop commitment. he will have to explain why it is important that we fight. " we hope to achieve there. the problem is, those issues are very complicated. more fundamentally, the degree to which we can achieve those goals -- i am not sure that afghanistan to return then to what we want to turn it into in short order, much less that the u.s. army and marine corps are the best mechanisms. but that is where we are. we do not have the infrastructure with usaid and those other things or the ngo's
project think are problematic in their own right. we are left with a charge of carrying now missions. guest: without the troops how you build roads, schools, create institutions that will build a society that will be the bork against extremism? guest: building society is not traditionally a military mission. military is about the application of force against an enemy. it becomes much more difficult when you're trying to do something more elusive than that. host: if you're just joining us we have two new guests to our program today. the editor in chief of the outside the beltway blog, that is james. andadele stan is from
alternet.org. thanks, bob on the democrats' line. caller: i'm a little concerned about the debt attempattempt ofo declare this as obama's war after a few days. and the most simplistic terms second think of is like a bunch of hooligans getting in the white house, the early trashing it -- the early trashing it, and calling in a tractor tcontractoo come in and clean it up. saying that it is enormous now. that is how looks to me. dick cheney is the 800 pound gorilla in the room. the man is guilty of war crimes. i don't know why everyone keeps her dancing around it. he has let holder go after those guys and we will survive that too.
that is all i have to say this morning. host: one more call, in gainesville, fla., on the republican line. caller: good morning. i suggested maybe they should go to the no-flight zone they had in iraq. it did seem to work. some kind of variation on that. you know, we need to get out of iraq and afghanistan. also, how about oprah winfrey in 2012 as vice president and president in 2016? host: let me just take a shot at something -- glenn beck will hold a series of town halls, and you have lou dobbs -- what about this celebrity complex into politics? guest: i hope that it will show
that it is easier to get ratings on television and get elected to president. it brings entertainment to the field for a while. the legitimate candidates are already lining up money quietly. it is a contentious time with a lot of divisive issues out there. we can debate things based on the issues they bring up. i don't think any of those are serious handecandidates, at leat i hope not. guest: well at least oprah winfrey knows how to make money and handle business. the beck thing is really interesting. he is not just a media personally, but rupert murdoch's community organizer. he can lose all the advertising
and i think you will still have a tv show with a couple of million viewers. he is truly organizing to turn people out at marches. that serves as rupert murdoch's anti-regulatory agenda. i think that he is unique in this whole spectrum. dobbs is just a crank with the platform. i do not see him being a serious candidate. he probably can provoke a nasty conversation on immigration. host: and going after senator mendendez's seat in new jersey? guest: yes. caller: i'm curious why the news media never tells any truth when
it comes to the republican party. actually they have live from the gate. -- they had lied from the gate when it went to both iraq and afghanistan. the interests they are fighting for our these big oil companies. i remember when george bush was promoting the war. someone asked, one of the news people ask what would pay for it and he said iraq has a lot of oil. they never bring that. actually, it is a losing battle. those people have been away for thousands of years. they continue to be what they are. we should get our men out of there, bring them home. if you want to invest in $70 billion per month, put it into our country to defend ourselves and our allies. otherwise it is a waste of our time. host: either of you?
guest: i think that the caller made his point quite well. host: from this section of the paper this morning, talk about the public option. she says surveys so that -- show that a majority of the public supports it. but it is not considered as important as lowering costs. guest: certainly the first part of that is right. depending how you ask the question is either an unimportant -- if you simply ask it in terms of choice, sure, one not? if you ask it in terms of the government substituting for insurance companies, i think people are more leery of it. people do not really trust
government that much on many issues. guest: but then of course you have medicare which is the government health program everyone pretty much likes. i think with the public option is true. in terms of how the question is asked. but can you draw down costs without it? that is the part of it, the case that has not truly been made to the public. the role of having a public health insurance plan in creating competition to maintain lower costs -- i do think there will come a point in the debate taking place in the senate when the public option may not look quite so public. guest: the problem is the cost issue is almost red herring. where we would likely implement a public option -- it looks
like we will solve part of the problem which is that there are a lot of people who lack insurance at a given moment. trying to direct that makes sense. but the overarching issue is our health care costs, the per unit cost of these things is escalating tremendously. it is not clear that anything that will come out of this situation is going to lower costs. we will increase the number of people who are covered by the garment without really doing anything to bring down the cost of the medical side or creating an incentives. guest: if you have a mandate for health the people must be insured -- where healthy people must be insured, that should lower the costs through increasing the pools.
this is a grand experiment. people think tseem to think that this bill will be the end of deal. this is the way to get the program started and then you tinker with it. i would have loved to see medicare, people from 50 up to 64 be able to buy in with a premium. then you get a lot of the more sick people from the planet and you have a healthier medicare. guest: we are creating the czar patrick. people on my side of the aisle like the market, but we do not have a market-based system. there is a huge public-sector with medicare, the military which are interfering in the market in a substantial way. then you have insurance which most people do not pay for
directly. you do not think about your income be lured by a certain amount. when you go to the doctor all you really care about is your co-pays and deductibles, so there is no incentives anywhere. guest: you have your monopolies with these insurance companies who still have the antitrust exemption. it is inexplicable. guest: nowhere have we took about doing obvious things like allowing health insurance to be sold across state lines. it makes it harder to have competition. guest: i thought the republicans were all for state's rights, allowing the states to set their
own conditions and limits? host: to what degree will the stupak amendment define the final bill? guest: it will be a big bill. they have a lot of muscle. however, you have a more pro- choice body in the senate. it is anybody's guess now how will all play out. guest: yes, i think that is right. host: detroit, your next. -- you're next. caller: good morning. i'm just reminded of this self righteous think tanks like nazi germany under hitler and the soviet union and gorbachev.
you three i think represent the self-righteous, sick nation that will go just like the nazi germany and soviet union because you are delusional, have no idea about the rest of humanity in the world, live in white, colonial world. please, i welcome you to the 21st century new free world order. there's no more room for the white race to commit genocide and holocaust around the road. host: colorado, good morning. caller: in this season of things giving praise before c-span and allowing citizens to have a voice. here in lakeland , fla. we inwoman power to rise up in republicans.
we have a woman candidate to open up her office tomorrow, paula. we will see womanpower rise up in 2010 even in pakistan and afghanistan. we want to maybe put olympia snowe in as a candidate for president 2010. we could use cohen or leach as other possible candidates, but the modern republicans have to rise up and have a plan that follows teddy roosevelt. paula dockery here will be a start in florida for woman power. host: that may fall with the question. why of this note for caller: president because she has experience and represents a moderate approach to government, balancing both parties. i only ashost: i only ask that
because of the senate debate. guest: i'm a lifelong feminist and am all for woman power. i remember when geraldine ferraro was given the deep slot on the democratic ticket. i think the problem with moderates -- yes, and i think we all miss the moderate republicans, is that it is hard to get up a lot of enthusiasm for moderation. enthusiasm generally goes to people who have a bone to pick, who were not seeking the middle path. i think it would be good for america even though i would not be voting for olympia snowe most likely, good for america to have a moderate choice. our politics are cyclical. one side wins, the other side wins.
the more extreme, the more difficulties arise. guest: that is right. there are not many moderates. some of those mentioned are likely not to be in the party anymore come hegel, the boss of my boss at the olympic council is in the private sector. he is probably as likely to work in the democratic administration as to seek office again. bill iis right that it is hard for them to get the general nomination. the first half to get past your true believers in the party, those who show up in the primaries. the powells and hegels -- olympia snowe is sort of at the left edge of the republican party, but even the moderates, they do not have a huge support base. guest: the religious right took over the machinery of the republican party 10-15 years ago
and that is an argument for people to get active at the local level of their parties. host: belafonte, ohio, sunny on the independent line. caller: good morning. i would like to know when we put all these troops in afghanistan -- [inaudible] guest: i don't know if it would affect afghanistan as much as iraq, but it is a wild card. there has been talk for gears about bombing missions on iran. i think we have gotten to the point with obama in there now that the talk is no longer that the u.s. is doing it against israelis may do something but with netanyahu it is more likely.
i think it is still not likely. guest: his larger point, anything happens anywhere in the world right now. we are so overextended between the iraq and afghanistan conflict. we really do not have troops to put out there. that is a big issue. we're not yet really talking about that. host: we have one more call, tucson, ariz. on bithe line for democrats. caller: i want to talk a little about health care and say that i am tired of politicians literally playing monopoly with human beings live spigot republicans can say all they want that they want to bring change, tort reform, and such, but george w. bush was president for eight years and did not do one thing to outperform. now the democrats are trying to
push it through because human beings are more important. if you want to talk about cost, we spend more than other countries. we have the worst health care system of all these industrialized nations. how does that happen? i do not understand why we're not talking more about solutions instead of criticizing? i want to ask adele if you think it is because of all the money that insurance companies give to campaigns? i'm disgusted with the healthcare debate. guest: yes. the health sector lobby has huge influence, not just on republicans. primarily on republicans, but it is not the only thing influence
in the debate. if you look at where senator charles schumer get his money, he gets a lot of health insurance dollars and is pro- health insurance reform. really, you have a more stark in the logical divide about the role of government and regulation. we tend to be a little too literal when we look at who is giving to them. if it is the healthcare sector giving to someone, that is it. you have to look at how the issues are framed. in some of these groups the focuses more on climate change, but they know that they can get an emotional response on health care. so that when the climate change bill comes up they will have an
emotional basis for that. guest: lobbying plays a role in nearly every issue area. people who benefit from things. most people are perfectly happy with their health care. most of us are insured. most of us get excellent care. the problem is the uninsured, people at the margins of the system. guest: people who actually get sick, though, james, that is where the rubber meets the road. guest: i'm not sure what your argument is. when you get sick in the u.s. you have pretty good care if you have the money to pay for it. for most of us, money means insurance. you get the cutting edge techniques, cutting edge equipment, well-trained doctors and nurses. guest: but people get dumped for getting sick, too.
that is a major part of the reform. host: let me give you one more chance to talk about your respective website. stan is head of the alternet. guest: will look at at guess theafghanistan, health care debate, and the question about stupak. i looked at the anti-abortion amendment to the house bill on health care. and i posed, i do at least one article per week. at post on the blogsite every day. host: alternet.org. james, how often do you post? guest: several times per day, even on the weekend.
host: what will you follow this week? guest: certainly afghanistan. my day job also involves blogging for the atlantic council, a foreign-policy think tank. my site is reactive, almost like running a newspaper. i do not tend to have an editorial plan because i do not know what will be out there. host: coming up, we will talk about some of the senate debate on health care. first we want to give you a look at today's political stories through the eyes of political cartoonists.
republican commissioner at the fcc. "washington journal" continues. host: for the next half hour we will take open phones. part of our goal this morning is to also take a look at the senate health debate, this time looking at the politics of some of the major players. to see how the debate here in washington, d.c. is affecting them back come. first, to give you a sense of where we're going is joining us on the phone, the editor of "the
arkansas times." when we hear about the senator we hear about the context here, but what is happening as far as health care debate in your home state? guest: it is the debate of the hour with millions spent on tv advertising by both sides. lincoln is widely perceived to be in difficult circumstances for the election next year, but because of generally low poll numbers to begin with but made worse by of being in the middle of the healthcare debate in an uncertain position. the front page of your paper today, it says that it has her in the hot seat. talk a little about what happens when she goes home and what our reporters saying about her decision to advance the debate? guest: in my view she made a politically poor decision by putting herself in the position
of being seen nationally as the deciding vote on whether the debate would open. in the past open debate has been generally routine, but the opponents of health care will stretch it out as long as they can. she held back to be the 6oyth deciding vote and he did so with a speech that said she would filibuster a bill that includes a public option. this makes people mad on both sides. the people who want the public option of which there are significant number in arkansas were mad at her for her continued intransigence. the people who did not want healthcare reform to pass it off or mad that she voted in favor of open debate. she managed not only to not help herself but probably gave her a poll numbers another small not. host: of those who are critical are the many from outside groups or from within the state? guest: mostly from outside
groups. there has been an enormous amount of money spent by major lobbyist. the biggest has been a group identified as being funded primarily by the pharmaceutical industry. it has been and must fall. you cannot turn on tv during the holiday break not see ads criticizing her or another from the congressional district. host: who have been her largest critics on the ground there in your state? guest: the republican party sees an opportunity next year. as many as nine have been announced as potential opponents of hers. stated that way it tests pretty unpopular among polltakers in arkansas. host: as far as are run next year, what do her numbers look like now? guest: the numbers at this point show her trailing anyone who runs against her, including some republicans who no one has ever
heard of. it is a measure of anti- incumbency sentiment. she has not really begun campaigning. her numbers are in that high '30's to low '40's. she has amassed four million dollars. the most interesting question in arkansas is whether a progressive candidate might emerge to challenge her in the premiere. host: are there those within the field of progressives who may emerge in your opinion? guest: i cannot predict, but lt. gov. bill halter could be called progressive democrat. he the driving force behind the adoption of the state lottery last year which has proven wildly popular. he associated himself with a highly publicized for clinic in little rock. all was said to be non-prison it was certainly help to be an illustration of the great need
for better health services in the u.s. -- it was widely said to be non- partisan. people are talking to him behind the scenes. the news is that he is thinking about the race in any context is of to move blanche lincoln into a more progressive position. not during the thanksgiving break. it is interesting that she was not publicly visible then. she does have a family. there are some in arkansas on the democratic side who would like to see her reelected who do not think she has watered her roots enough in arkansas, spending enough time at home here. host: max has joined us on the phone and if you want more information arktimes.com
concerning senator lincoln and other things. thank you for your time. we will have an open phones, talk about another candidate in the debate, senator colombia's know. we will talk with our reporter from the state of maine in a few minutes. first, your calls. this caller is from missouri. caller: i want to talk about the debate on health care. it really kills me that us as americans in 2009 seem to put health care as finances. if we take greed out of this and said that every single american citizen should have the right, just use common sense -- because for years the republicans and democrats alike have been against changing health care. it kills me to have friends and
people who do not have jobs right now -- the unemployment is over 10% right no -- manufacturing will never come back. the chinese and russians have taken because our technology has superseded everything we can do. every single american should have health care. why is it that people who sit back to think that every person has a job making $50,000 or $60,000 per year? they do not. host: david on the republican line from las vegas. caller: i'm calling because the healthcare debate is kind of funny. we have republicans who are getting all the money from health care. democrats getting all their money from the lawyers. so we have no way of ever getting any real compromise on a real health care initiative because of all the lobbying and
money all these politicians take. maybe someday we can figure out how to get rid of all the lobbyists, that we decide to actually do something for the american people instead of doing something just that they can keep their jobs -- might get something done in this country. i believe this two-party system is the major reason we have problems. we have two groups of talking heads and everyone else just follows in line and are just basically puppets to the majority leader and the minority leader. and we never get anything done. maybe we ought to think about getting at solved first. host: from "the baltimore sun" this morning, the afghan picture is rosier. he writes that in recent days the administration has praised the country as having taken skills and idealism of its
officials. west virginia, on the independent line. caller: hello, first of all the democrats started out negotiating from a point of weakness when it took single- payer off. then when it had organizers during the summer time volunteering for american nobody was talking about a trigger until august. the liberals in the democratic party need it to stop bowling down to the conservative
democrats. the democrats have republicans in the democratic party. we do not need the republicans or the conservatives to stop on this initiative because we have republicans in the democratic party. the people like a byayh to get hundreds of thousands from the insurance company and his wife sits on the board of an insurance company making $2 million, and they said that does not influence their votes? the democratic party sends out things to ask for money because of rush limbaugh when they have sold their soul to give olympia snowe. i did not to vote for olympia snowe to be president, so i will not give the democrats
another penny. host: new jersey, on the democrats' line. caller: why is it that the congress always exempt themselves from any bills they passed? maybe you could explain that to me. host: what do you mean by that? caller: a time congress passes a bill they exempt themselves from the loss within the bill. so they are not required to adhere to what they are requiring the rest of americans to adhere to. this is a common occurrence in every bill. no one ever talks about it. host: i will leave it at that. kansas city, kan., dan, on the republican line. caller: i want to talk about the healthcare debate. i travel internationally.
i have a different perspective. i have been to about nine different countries since obama has been not to. i asked people within the country about their systems. canada and the rest are in europe, from sweden down to italy, germany, england, and even greece. all pay over 50% of their income to the government. yes, all of them do receive it free health care, but if you listen to them describe it, that the health care would be considered abominable by u.s. standards. i heard the lady earlier talk about 47 million and keep throwing out that number. that originally began around 30 million. it gets to be over 45 when you include illegal aliens.
i actually sat down to read the 1300 page health care bill. you will find interesting things people have not brought up to talk about yet. things like the government being able to get your bank account to levy fines. stuff you would never think of anything about u.s. as a free society. people better look long and hard at other countries and talk about this bill in great link before giving it one sixth of our economy over. host: when you travel, do they have any thoughts about what we are debating on as far as changes? caller: the well-off once, quite a few of them travel here to receive health care and surgery's. they know that the best health care in the world is in the u.s. canada is the closest, 90% of
their entire population lives within 100 miles of our border. and you can afford better health care jump over the border for it. i asked a group of salesman at that if they heard their legs on a saturday playing basketball, when would they get to see a doctor? and they said two or three weeks. they said if they can get to their job, they go on but dole. the government pays them while they're waiting to see the doctor. i can't believe what people are even debating over. host: we will leave it there. we'll talk with some reporters on the scene following legislators who are playing an importer role. one is senator olympia snowe of maine. and another is a reporter, susan young.
guest: we looked at her as your typical politician from the state of maine, very pragmatic, trying to balance concerns about the cost of the health care expansion and overhaul compared to the desperate need to get it done. host: how would you compare how you view it to the average person in the state of maine following this? and those who support senator olympia snowe? guest: those who support term while they are vocal are a small group. i assume when we talk about supporting the senator we're talking about her voting against bringing the bill forward for debate? the majority of mainers did not agree with that. host: has she made any public appearances during her time over the break? guest: yes, but not town hall- style meetings. she is well known for what she
calls her walks through communities and the meeting one- on-one with constituents. i'm sure that she is hearing a conflicted message. host: any sense of what she is hearing? guest: there are those who are strongly in favor of an overhaul with the public option. there are those who still pusher to support the public option, but has also heard from those who are very concerned about the cost. host: has there been any polling in the state as far as how the citizens generally look at this debate and what they want the public option? guest: polls have shown about 60% support the public option. it is all in how you ask the question. if you ask the they want a government-run health care, the number would be lower, but if
you ask them if they thought the insurance company should be given more time to fix the problems, people disagree with that also. host: as far as the media campaign, which is spoke to an editor from editor from lincoln's reelection. we have seen. ads out there. have you seen them in your state as well? guest: yes, from those supporting the public option to those like the u.s. chamber of commerce who are strongly opposed. host: talk a little about those republicans in the state of maine. how have that they've responded? guest: the republican party, like other places, is somewhat split. there are those on the conservative and who are encouraging the senator to hold the line and not even consider voting for a reform measure. then there are those who are
more moderate to liberal in the party who support her efforts at the working towards compromise and finding a lower cost way to do it, probably without the public option. host: does she do it from a position of strength as far as electability? guest: she was reelected in 2006 with over 70%. her challenger was not strong. and despite some efforts nationally to warn her that her moderate stance is not appreciate, it seems to be in the state of maine. she is highly favored with her ratings here. host: she joins us from usthe bangor daily news." tampa bay, fla., thank you for waiting. caller: i think it will have to pass the house reform, the public option.
we have nothing but a monopoly with the health insurance companies. my wife and i will pay $1,200 every month for no reason. because she is 62 years old they discriminate. she is healthy 100%. it is because of the age. secondly, the doctors after five years cannot of college -- they abuse the system the most of them. there will make the medicaid go bankrupt. if we don't do anything about it in 10 years we will not have medicare, probably sooner. host: west palm beach, fla. caller: thank you. i have a solution to the deficit. as we are one nation a matter what party you are in, i think we need a two-year
moratorium on tax-free foundations and entities such as tax-free foundations. if these multi-billion dollar industries would pay a flat rate of taxes for two years, we would solve summit problems that this country has. that is my suggestion. host: by target these organizations specifically? guest: most of our monies have gone to the income of the kennedy foundation, the gates foundation -- because they are tax free, it is hidden money. you put $40,000 in a kio and you hide your income tax free. it is nice in good times, but we're very, very far from good times. if we want to unite this country
again, there is nothing more united than the fact that no one wants to pay taxes. well, let's do a two-year moratorium on these foundations, and all the rest of the 503's and 502's. some of the charges even have hedged funds. either that, or send auditors into these so-called tax-free terrible things. let's find out what is really going on. host: "the baltimore sun" this morning, but reporters, pricey hospitals are wary of reform, urban and academic medical centers such as the top-ranked johns hopkins and others with their world-class trauma center are more mature to run than community hospitals.
host: iverness, fla., on the republican line. caller: i appreciate your taking my call. there is such an outcry on this nancy pelosi care. why couldn't we put it to a vote for the people? if we want to reform or not? host: you mean a straight referendum during a national election, or something like that? why do think that will be necessary? caller: we will find out if we really wanted or not. it is mostly democrats trying to push it through. republicans want it and some
democrats do not want it. i'm curious if there were to put it through a vote, would it we find are really at the american people want this or not? host: ok. we have the pleasure of also being aired on bbc on sundays. good morning, gordon, from the u.k. caller: hello. i would like to comment on the man who said that in britain we pay 50%. that is total nonsense. when you are employed you pay about 15%. if you are unemployed, and you cannot pay, but normally you get a contribution free. if your self-employed they pay a
set fee. but 50% is rubbish. host: so, you pay 15% as long as you are employed, and what you get in return to access services? can you see a doctor right away? caller: yes, absolutely. if you are not employed anywhere you go to see a doctor. if you go to see a doctor and you get another from your employer and you get sick pay out of the fund. the national insurance that was set up in earlier years has been revised since. host: how many in your family are eligible for health care? all the members of your family? caller: yes. host: how many members, sir?
caller: i am on my own at the moment. i have a son is an adult, a daughter as well, and my parents -- before i began work our was also covered. everyone is covered. host: as far as the 15% is concern, has that risen over the years or remained stable? caller: it did go up, slowly, and not a lot. it depends on how much you are earning. there is a cap. host: and that amount is on top of any other taxes you would normally pay? caller: yes. you'd have to pay income tax. host: that is gordon from manchester, england. thanks for educating our folks about the system there.
one more call from oregon, on the caller: democrats' line good morning. i would like to say things to gordon for that input on great britain. having been an international flight attendant for 25 years i have been around the world, and i have seen the health care in other countries. i would say that is an expedited process. a few years back i could not get a seasonal flu shot in the u.s. because we were short supplies. i was able to go on a layover in amsterdam, walking to a medical clinic, and got my flu shot there. it was great. host: how which did it cost you? caller: it was 9 year reruos, $2
former republican presidential candidate. on face the nation from cbs. bob sheafer with senator services committee and former house majority leader dick army and congressional candidate and republican strategist edgy less i and c mark ndsann state of th with richard galu ger and jack reid from rhode island and house appropriations chair david and tony blair. you will listen to all five starting at noon eastern on c-span radio. 91 fm here in d.c. channel 132 and on the web. c-span radio dot org and follow us on face book and twitter.
host: "washington journal" continues. the executive director of jay street to start off with. what isj street? >> pro peace lobbyist seeking to get u.s. active engagement to bring about a diplomatic solution between the conflict in the israel and broader arab world. "táhat compare to a pack and li? >> we started this organization because we feel the voice of progression of jewish psq)icans feel israel is best interest is served by solving the conflict and american's interest and that voice hasn't been heard adequately. we're a missing voice in this discussion representing what we see as majority jewish american. host: as far as organization there was a recent announcement out of israel saying there would
be a few settlement? >> i think administration had it about right. certainly this is a step in the right direction. however, three thousand units are already under construction and that will be public buildings and schools that will continue. eraldnue. f jerusalem in what the palestinians were led to believe. this is not fully meeting the standard this were led tz need to achieve. while it's a move toward toward restart negotiations with the palestinians. >> as far as full involve meant what needs to happen? you mentioned p couple of them?
why is jerusalem an important part of that? >> it's almost certainly going to be a capital if there's a solution there would be a palestinian capital in the villages that are east jerusalem and the western would be in west jerusalem. any time they move more people in it makes it that much harder to envision how to achieve that two stay solution from the palestinian point of view thatrj an issue that has to be determined in the final ey you any lateral negotiations risk and makes it harder to achieve agreement. >> why do you think the decision came now? >> well i think there's probably been nine or ten months worth of american pressure let's say to get the israelis to stop.
they have said they would try to do something to help ps has beenas in real political trouble and this was probably the best of the israeli political system could put forward without bringing down the government. host: our guest will be here until 9:30. call (202) 7f7-0002 or (202) 737-0001 and (202) 628-0205. for independents and you can also if you follow us on twitter e-mail at journal. c-span.org. do you believe he'll retire as board has a h said in the last couple of week? "táhey postponed the e election and he'll stick around through that process. there's interesting reports in the media about the possible
release of a jail leader and potentially a leader of the palestinian people and you know there's been a loá of question about who would come after president has beenas did he did lead and that might be part of the answer. >> if there's someone to follow him who do you áhink it'll be? >> it's very unclear who. is asalam, a lot of israelis hae had confidence in what he's doing to rebuild the staáe but he's the not a member of a political party and he runs the country in the sense, like a c o'no o'noo but if it's not him there's a lack of clarity of what would come after. >> as far as foreign policies aspects to the united states. how would you grade the team in
place specifically wiáh issues through israelis and palestinians? >> there's no question when senator mitchell was appointed we all thought, here's the man who installed the hundth year old conflict in ireland. who better to solve this one and work together bring people together. it wpj very exciting. on day one the point meant and engagement by the administration. r give an a for u effort in terms of the time. intensity and work that's gone into it. great on the base of performance and outcome but it's incomplete. the senpáor, special envoy mitchell had said he's had 800 unsuccessful days talking to the various parties in ireland and it only took one day of success and we're still waiting for that. it's an incomplete grade at this point. host: first call is from san
marek os texas. democrat line. caller: my question that i wanted to ask was, i mean the problems in the middle east have been doing on fju hundreds of years. do you honestly think there's going to be solution. the hatred seems to be deeply in grained for there ever to be a solution to this problem and my additional question, how large is the jewish lobby in america? i know a lot of c-span callers claim there's a lot of influence by a pack and such groups but i want to know what's the the jewish population and how much money gets funded through you? guest: the thing, there's many myths about the conflict that i think need to be addressed. one of them is this is an
irreconcilable conflict that's been doing on for hundreds of years. immigration what was then palestine that became israel rep&ly only started hundred years ago. there's a history of jews and muslims living together in peace and living together in very flouris$ing times economically and culturally over the century. the notion that this is 100s of years conflict that has no hope of being solved i think is a myth that arises. there have been wars and conflict over the last 60-90 years, let's say, but i don't think it's longer than some of the others for instance northern ireland that have been resolved through diplomacy. host: our next call is from helen. go ahead. england. caller: hello. i want to put a different spin on this. i saw something on the television here about all the sorts of jews that there's a lot
of trouble between ordinary jew% and orthodox jews that won't join the military, don't work. have lots of children and they're the people that are being put on the settlement - on the (alestinian land. so you have problems between each other. i wonder how you're going to solve this if you have thousands of people who don't work, who won't fight and you have lots of children, and all they do all day is study religion, how are you going to resolve this? guest: i think that's one part of a very complex picture. i think - if i can pick up on one of your comments. who is actually living in the settlements on the west banks. the folks out there are really of two kinds neither of them being the truly ultra orthodox that study and don't work. those folks tend not to be
moving into the furthest reaches there. the first kind of people are those that are economic settlers who really have economic and mortt(tt and commute to jobs in the land of israel. within the 1967 borders and i think that percentage has been estimated at times 30 to 40%. so with the proper economic back within the lines and u think that's again, something that needs to be de mythology. not all the folk there's are there for ideological or those reasons. host: if settlements are part of the center and israelis give up one thing, what do the palestinians have to do to achieve peace? guest: the most important thing is a real commitment to end violence and stop use of terror
to recognize the state of israel's right to exist. those are the conditions laid out for the parties. in this process of the final negotiations i think the biggest compráájut the palestinians will have to make rj to give up the notion of the land within the 67th borders known as right of return. i think that will be the most difficult. many palestinian families still have the keys to their house sitting on the mantle. might of been them or the older folks that left and some of the older folks have their memory of living there. that's the most important compromise. host: who in the political establishment is going to do that? host: within the palestinia's that'll be the fine step so none of the leadership has publically come out and said this. model peace agreements have been signed by people currently in
"táhey have signed model agreements that include no right of return and economic that there's a recognition of something that happened here that did have a harm to the palestinian people and right way to address that is through preparation. >> corpus christi from jay street. james on our independent line. your next, go ahead. good morning. caller: yes. host: go ahead. caller:give me enough time to express this question. i saw osama bin laden's last release and he said as long as america supports israel and has troops on muslim land the war must continue. this illustrates the cost to american taxpayers of you support of israel. i'm sympathetic the situation of the jews and i'm old to or
enough to remember the hol o kaus and i understand the situation but do you think it's fair to ask the american taxpayers to continue to support israel and in kerr the wrath of the muslim world and lead us into expensive wars and endanger us by terrorism attacks. are you being fair to the american taxpayer? guess guess i think th guest: that's one of the reasons we started jay street. to end the conflict. it is used sinically and manipulatively by people like osama bin laden to build they're infrastructure. he didn't give one eye bit of
about the palestinian people until he found out they could be used as a tool. there hasn't been compassion about the palestinian people by those that use the conflict. "táool. whatever reason, it's america's interest to take ate way as a tool and that's why jay street has come into existence advocate for american leadership to end the conflict and take that away. host: have you talk to senator mitchell? guest: he's not met with advocacy but many staff at the state department and white house, in fact at the recent national conference. the national security advisor spoke and picking up on the viewer's question he said if there's one problem in the world his top priority for the president to solve would be to end this conflict. host: before that what did the
term jay street come from. guest: iá's the missing street on washington's grid, we're filling a gap in the political gap of washington. host: tony from florida. caller: good morning. i'm a born again christia' of jewish origin. the bible old and new testament is very clear, it says that in the last days where the jews have had no homeland i will give them a homeland so. you $ave born again jews and you have christians ands who jews who believe that israel has a right to exist. a country probably the size of rhode island. the muslims say they want this "táhem, but it isn't.
they know mecca is they're holy land. why can't the muslim as us to exist and leave us loan and really my question is, do you think we can stop god from forming the state of israel in the last day? guest: well i live in the here and now and actual world where politic and people take place and the palestinian people lived in this land. they were then for whatever the exact history no longer living this is a land shareed by two people's and we need two countries for those two people's and that's really the only solution if the real world solution with real political leadership. host: religion play into it at all? guest: yes. in this country i think so. for the christian evangelical community has really taken israel's side and that's real political force in this country and i think that's had an impact
on the political space towards leadership to solving the conflict. host: nina your next. good morning. caller: yes. i was calling to ask this gentlemen, first of all, the settlement issue is the only one that is - that comes between peace between the palestinians and israel and the government is hell bent on refusing to do that. and also what gives israel the right to go into gaza and destroy homes just bulldozing them. ki&ling 1300 israelis and at the same time, having only ten people killed on the israeli side. that doesn't make any sense.
i mean, america gives weapons to israel and is this what you do with them? guest: it's a complicated question. the first part of your question, you said the settlements are the issue and really they aren't the only issue. they're an issue. there's a number of complex issues we discussed the status of israel and exact borders of the final agreement between the two sides so there's a number of very complicated issues. our belief is that it's time for those issues to start to actually be discussed and let's get beyond the discussion about t$e settlement agreement. as far as gaza i think it's important to recognize that while the response by israel may have been militari&y harsh and jay street was critical of that.
israel had the right to do that. they were getting bombed. there's a lot of suffering in gaza and there's no commerce and all sorts of history and reason but the only way out of this is to talk to the future and how to resolve the conflict and bring it to an end instead of looking backward. host: how's iran factor into this? guest: huge. the israelis would rate it's a the number one threat to them. the public and the government views it. eye iran has funded and they're sort of exploiting the conflict and opportunities for their own strategic game. president obama said if we can resolve the conflict it takes an away some of the tools iran is
using as interest to both america and israel. host: stories about possibly a ran leave the treaty. does that factor? guest: absolutely. there's a range of concerns most leading to the nuclear capacity. we strongly support what the president has been trying do diplomaticically to get iran to agree to an arrangement but if iran doesn't do that and chooses to defy the national community there needs to be international action against i ran sanctions. we don't believe in the effectiveness or the military action. we do not believe sit in either israel's interest or the united states to be a military response to this. we "o favor multi lateral sanctions. host: cynthia.
caller: when jorge washington left office in his fair well address he referred the neutrality proclamation. our founders vision for this country was a neutral country. we should have never involved ourself in supporting israel unilaterally an in providing the weapons and support. we bought a lot of enemies and by the jewish lobby and that's why we've been throwing all the money and weapons at israel and i'm for neutrality. our security interest has not been served. now we have the muslim world mad at us. there's a book called hundred years together. it's been suppressed the united states. and it's about the jewish influence in their society and interests that effects they're culture and way of life.
i wish we would mind our own business and i wish israel would too and stay out of our government. thank you. guest: i think there's a lot of millionths and incorrect information about how lobbying works and how we get engaged. in this town the national rifle association are influential lobbies. groups that understand how to work in washington and promote they're point of view and they're effective. i think there's a very fine line and i think you may have crossed it between analyzing what's an effective lobby and actually becoming, i believe turning into antisemitiz m for jewish people if you go back 50, 70 years the reason why the united states and rest of the world recognizing israel and provided them with the opportunity rea&ly had nothing do with the nonexistent lobby and i believe the world is
more complex than perhaps you're aing it to be. i think the united states has to be engaged with the rest of the world and i t$ink the allowance with israel could be and can be and will be a productive and positive force for the u.s.. >> james asked do you think the president has the macksy to effect change? guest: it will require some. i hope so. we will find ourselves having serious sustained high level leadership because i don't think it will be resolved without it. so, i hope so. host: florida. good morning? caller: so glad you brought up "t&obbying. a pac is the number one lobbying group that has the most control of the con dwres man. it'sai pac and no one talked to talk about the fact there's been
cases of israel's find on america and they have been ties to a pack with that. i was sympathetic the israel cause and finding a homeland but the more that we have tangled alliances and more money is running out, the more i've gone to research it and i like the other caller, i don't agree that this is in the united states's best interest to spend millions of u.s. tax dollars a day to a small country the size of rhode island. each citizen should be a "tsr&lionaire now. that doesn't help us. i'm against tangled alliances and also talking about the treaty, iran has notified the united nationj of making nuclear power and it wasn't like we discovered it.
however, nobody wants to talk about the fact that it's a big secret but it's not really that israel has undeclared nuclear weapons and my fear is that they are going to have some false and there's a lot of miss the leader of iran, when you look at the translation he didn't say he wants to wipe israel off the map. he said he wants to end the rule. there's a big rule difference. guest: i do think the un on friday. basically it was said that the eye ran yens have 100 percent complying with the un. there's no argument from the un point of view that iran is in take action and iran is not in compliance and has been defying international efforts to reveal
what they're doing. i think there's little support for the notion that iran has been in compliance and i think that's big issue for them going forward. host: caller talked about lobbying efforts. twitter asks. this is the issue. giving billions to israel and them using it to fund muslims. guest: the military for israel a lot of viewers have to be aware. much of it was used to purchase weapons and arms produced by americans and do promote american jobs and the american economy so there isn't at this point direct economic pááráup'ce to the first world economy. doesn't need the economics but what it does get as do many other american allies is it gets military assistance that much of comes back to fund american jobs. 3 billion in military assráup'ce goes to israel.
host: jeremy is with jay street if you want to find out more. look it up. jay street dot org the website. "táhank you very much. coming up we're going to talk about the pending trial in new york of those suspected in connection with 9/11. voice of a family member. one of the family groups out there on this issue. first of all did want to talk õabout the news makers program. it is with energy director steven chu and here is a little bit from the interview in which the secretary talks about >> think the intent of the president to load up by a lot of cabinet president in cope energy hague energy is to show it's very serious about the energy climate issues. number one. co pen huge energy as prime
minister rasmusen has said. now that congress po won't be ae to address the bill until after, it's a frame for all countries. the prime minister proposed that doing from what can you expect there? going in this framework that will say, this is our goal, this is going to be towards legally binding treaty. we're not going to get there in co pen huge energy but this is the step we need to take to get ther i'm frankly concerned. say to where we were five years ago. it seems very positive.
host: that is energy secretary on our news makers program right after thij program at 10:00 and you can see it again at 6:00 this evening. joining us from new york is tim brown the cofounder of the 9/11, never forget coalition. when you and those in your group heard about those suspected of 9/11 cosr'g to trial in new york, what was your reaction? >> i was immediately sick to my stomach. it's unfa thatable that administration has gone down this path. it brought back memorys to me of the pain and suffering that we went through after september 11th. and i asked myself why are we doing this and why are we putting families, the fire all of new yorkers through this again. it is to us like september 11th
part two. host: is it only because of the venue chosen in new york or the type of trial that will take place? guest: sit both. certainly it is the venue. we'll be giving, a tremendous stage for the jihad to a spouse ake fun the jihad to a spouse of the way we live here and our constitution and for us to bring them, someone caught in a military battlefield o' a foreign land into civilian cou)t is unprecedented. these terrorists were not arrested by police officers in the united states of america. they were we timed o detained u rules of war and now we're going to try and fit that into a civilian court and i don't understand why we're doing this.
host: have you heard from mr. holder about the decision? guest: he has never acknowledged nor as mr. obama acknowledged or asked the families about this decision. the families were left completely out of it. immediately when we sent a letter or actually not we, i wasn't involved yet. the families of september 11th over 300 family members sending letters to him questioning the "táo this day has never been acknowledged. host: no one from the white house or attorney general? guest: not at all. host: if you want to ask mr. brown about this. republicans (202) 737-0001. (202) 628-0205 for independents. you can twitter or send it to our website. your organization is planing a
rally this saturday? guest: yes this coming saturday at noon at folly scar. where the trials will allegedly be held. we we'll have a ra&ly there. when we asked people to join us within 24-hours we had over 100,000 signatures signing on with us to the letter to the president. we have thousands throughout the counáry. many, many in this area in the new york tri state but the people throughout the country have a thousand family members or more. we have five or 10,000 first responders throughout the country and this is growing tremendously. this is a great grpáj roots effort. it exceeded even our expectations in the beginning. but we're going to be there and take this ball. we have the courage to do this and we'll tell the president and administration and congress they
need to listen to the american people. host: you hinted on this. someone on twitter, joe describes himself and says why is it that someone wouldn't be put on trial? what's the alternatr+e. guest: right. but in the proper venue a military convention. established in congress in 2006 and supreme court approved and also approveed by the an obama administration. it's a great venue to try the terrorists to bring aware criminal someone captured on a foreign battlefield into civilian courts and give them the protection that every american enjoys under the u.s. constitution, that is what is upsetting. not the simple notion that we'll bring them to trial. host: delray, florida. first
call from sandy on our democrats line. go ahead. caller: good morning. i'm very confused about this whole affair. it seems to me, this is not for the american people to try. i think this is aware crime. and that clearly they shouldn't be taken through t$e go again. our nation shouldn't have this problem and i don't understand with all the laws that we have can this slip through our fingers like this. i'm with you on this. guest: thank you so much sandy. this is a nonpartisan effort on make it out to be apart san effort. it's not. see senator web from virginia has stated he is against this. senator lieberman from connecticut agrees also as well as many republican senators and
so this is a nonpartisan thing and i appreciate your support with this. host: next call. somer set in the united kingdom. should be a military court or something like that. it's basically you get more rights and all sorts of things. that's what i have to say. guest: thank you for your support. i think the numbers show the gallop poll said 70 percent of americans agree with our position. i think there's a slippery slope here and we're going to hold they're feet to the fire on this and also the congress. congress will have to answer to their constituents on this and we'll make sure that happens. host: as far as actual trial, has anyone talked about security during this time?
guest: senator schumer a week ago, read a request from the police commissioner. ray kelly, that was 75 million dollars for the first, just for the first year for the nypd to adequately ensure the safety of new yorkers. they are the best. they're not strangers they lost 23 police officers on september 11th and their heart is in this too. the request was for snipers and dogs and security such t$at we have not seen sift 11th. i (p&l it part two. it's being held in the same neighborhood that was - that the terrorist attacked us. only a few blocks from world trade center over to the federal courthouse in goly square and we'll put these people through this terrible thing agar'.
host: republican line. plain view, new york. caller: yes, i have a comment to make. i feel that the trial is being held in new york because they really want to try bush and cheney and their policies and this will be exhibited at the trial. it's not really to try - they couldn't do that in the military tribunal and also they couldn't catch osama bin laden and that was the big deal obama made so instead they'll do, ksm. he'll have accolades ability that. i say bring the trial to chicago or washington d.c. if they're so happy. let them pay 100 million a year. it's really about trying to the previous administration. thank you. guest: okay. i wouldn't agree with that. i wouldn't disagree with it.
i don't know that for a fact. obama and holder have disregarded the families and they have disregarded new yorkers and aj i said before, 70 percent of americans are with us on this issue and they're disregarding 70 percent of the american people. i'll be interested to see if obama's popularity numbers continue to slide over this issue. a guaranteed basic right by the un. we should try them here. guest: that's fair. he's one of 30 percent of the people that think that. i disagree with that. i think i'm a lot closer to the issue than most people are. i'm actually a survivor. i was under the tower two when it came down and i was one of the few lucky people that got out. i'm very close with the families here. i disagree with that. i think they belong in a military commission where obama
and holder said that was a terrorists but not all of them. i don't understand the split. host: s tulsa, oklahoma. caller: morning mr. brown i want to ask you a question. i keep hearing over and over. he was caught in pakistan and turned over by the pakistan government to the united states. several of those guys tried in new york was caught in pakistan so i don't want to confuse the issue bus i feel like you should just tell the people the truth. that they were caught, most of them were caught in pakistan. õksm so go get your facts. guest: let me ask you a question.
when the pakistan people turned them over who did they turn them over to? caller: the military. guest: oh, the military. caller: listen. fbi was apart of the truth. so what. pakistan should be trying them. guest: pakistan should be trying them. caller: yes. they were caught in pakistan. guest: i don't disagree with that at all. they perpetrated the worse act of war on the united states ever and at least in our lifeáimes you can argue pearl harbor. those are the two biggest events. they murdered, or killed 93 of my friends. i have an issue with this and i don't mind having them in our custody but they should be tried in a military commission and not in a civilian setting to get all the rights from the u.s.
constitution. i don't want to argue the facts of pakistan should have held on to them. maybe that's true. i don't know. host: texas on our democrat "t%im, good morning. are you there? one more try. pushed the wrong button. caller: mr. brown, your no longer on fox so. it's president obama sir. and relative to attorney general holders comments to the republican senate meeting basically what he was saying was grow a pair. we're a conáuráutional republican. we our position in a world is the reflection of our application as the constitution. we don't fear it. we want to elaborate on it and show the world that we're indeed a nation of laws and we have no fear whatsoever of trying the
most dangerous despica!le human being in open court because that's what we represent as america. guest: right. it will be a circus trial. it'll be a show that obama and company want to put on for politicp& purposes. these terrorists were detained and they were brought into military custody. they should be tried in a military tribunal which president obama has already said is a fine venue to try terrorists so why is he taking four, why is he splitting and taking four of five in civilian court and sending the rest to a military court? why is that split? host: he's left but we go on to ohio. allen. caller: good morning pedro. mr. brown, i appreciate what you're saying and what's going
on. the last caller don't know too much about common sense and fear. he's got them twisted around as most democrats do and this is political and shows you in exexperience this president has. a recession r# he wants to pass the extensive healthcare which is ridiculous and took too long on the afghan stand and he knows it and he's making games and needs to man up. you can call him president obama. mr. obama. he's still obama and we like what you're doing and erick holder, you know he come from % the lu clinton administration and we'll have the same problems from the 90's. these people are out of touc$ with reality and real people in this country. host: tim brown, how is mayor bloomberg weighed in on this? guest: he's come down on the side of president obama and
holder. i don't know his motivation mind that. i know that he respects the office. he's in office. he's the mayor of new york city and respects the office of the president. and in probably wants to work with them. i don't know what goes on in a great mayor. he and ray kelly. the commissioner of the police department i have great faith in them keeping this city safe. "táry these war criminals in a civilian court and give them the same protections that you and i have as united states citizens. host: warren, ohio for the never forget 9/11 coalition on the republican line. allen, are you there? allen from ohio? caller: am io on.
caller: i have to u support the gentlemen. this president has abandoned the american people 100 (ercent from healthcare to afghanistan, to the um... you know this thing hq said he was going to have transparency in his court. he's just misleading our country down. i initially called him a piper jaffraye piper. i codify that with he's also with the 40 thieves they're just republican line. bill? caller: first of all, i'd like to about your statement about new york police. i lived there for five years and i guarantee you, your more afraid of the police than you are al& of criminal use got
there and you got a lot of criminals. i left the state. i couldn't stand it anymore. your scared to death to walk down the street. the police will jump you. another thing - hosá: caller, go ahead. caller: i would like to say crimes you're talking about. what about our war crimes when we were in vietnam at the when captain cali killed 300 people. order i'd our senators to do so. host: you have any response to that? guest: i'm not familiar with what he's talking about with the vietnam situation but i'm with the new york city police department on this. they've been tested like no other police department in the world has been tested by terrorism. they're testing every day by terrorism and they have done
under mayor july annie. giuliani. they have done a great job keeping us safe here and admire them r# people are afraid of them, i'm sorry. they need to defend us and that house they do it. host: have you talked about how much staffing this will require and where the folks will be held while they're in new york? guest: i've heard rumors of labs that they would be held at the metropolitan corrections institute. i'm not sure i'm saying it right. the prison downtown and that they would be taken underground to the courthouse. that's fine. and that's a great security plan but we would have snipers on the roofs and dogs in the streets and traffic would be shut down and exits off fdr and subway exits will bq shut down.
it will impact people that live in chinatown example. it'll bring the le+el of security we had immediately that'll be back again. host: su son from fort worth, texas on the democrats line. caller: my understanding is most of the guys were not actually captured on a battlefield but the military obviously has not been able to carry out the trials for them. so i congratulate holder for at least getting something started. you know, and we've done it before in the united states in new york and these guys are in "t(rison and what i want to kno is, why we have spent billions of dollars down there in gup'tanamo. that's where we need to put our "táqp)ch in to find out what happens down there. guest: they've spent billions in guantanamo to try the
terrorists and that money has bqq' spent but what president obama and erick holder want to do now is spend that money again here in the united states to create the environment here where they can try them. we have the ability in gann the mo' and we should try them there. host: that was fort worth. the caller mentioned we've done these things in the united states before. guest: that's an interesting misleading statement of administration. they claim 140 terrorists have been tried in civilian courts in the united states. okay. ask them and this is a question that senator graham asked of attorney general holder in the judiciary hearing he asked them, how many terrorists that were captured in a foreign battlefield have been brought to trial in civilian court in the
united states, and there was because of sile silence. he did not know the answer. senator gram answered the question by saying, none. this is the very first time we're trying do this. to bring someone captured in a foreign land as aware criminal, being brought here to civilian trial and mr. holder is creating very dangerous precedent by doing this. host: our guest is tim brown. 9/11, never forget. you have the website if you want to check it out for yourself. õwhite fish, montana. dominique. good morning. caller: yeah, the skiing is good up here right now. actually. mr. brown, um... i think that there's a bigger question going on here.
guest: sure. caller: is it a bunch of guyáh% in a cave that will make us deviate from the constitution like we have for the last 8 years? and forget what our forefather's fought and died for which was the preservation of our judicial system. i've been in the military and when you go before a court marshall, nobody outside knows what's going on. come meet secrecy and that's been going on for the last eight years and while we continue this, the people of the world are seeing america has been changed by these guys in the caves. and when we show everybody that we're scared and we want to take these people to trial and show them that our system works and show everybody what rush limbaugh and glenn beck and all the fear mjjtj have been putting to us every day that our system doesn't work and can't work and never will work, and so
i have faith in the american system. i have faith in the american people and faith of people in new york city. i've lost lots of friends in the war. you know what else? i'm not giving in. i would like to take the people to court and jail some day that started vietnam war for the phoney reason they started it for. host: mr. brown? go ahead. your response? guest: i also have great faith in the civilian court system of the united states of america for those folks who are arrested on our soil by law enforcement. but if we are taking people into custody and our military or cia information remember lands that belongs in a military court where we can protect the classified information, those courts are set up for people
that have been through being detained by the military through interrogations. these folks were not read their miranda rights. they were not told to remain silent or have a right to a speedy trial. all of these things going to come up in court. this is going to be a mockery of our system here and we're giving them the stage to do that and we're also giving them the stage to mock the victims of september 11th and that's where i have a real problem. they're going to mock the firemen, the police officers and they're going to mock the civilians that were killed. they gave their lives for our country and why are we giving them this platform to do this again? host: onq more call, has to be a quick one. stan t stanton, island. caller: i- lost my two nephews
in the tower and i want justice. it's k not about money it's abot justice for the souls that died on 9/11 and idea vote the rest of my life so 9/11 is not a day of volunteerism. that offended me. host: tim brown, tell us what folks if they go to your site what information they can find? guest: 9/11 never forget.uforg. we'll be at foley scare. and we'll have great speakers there and this is the beginning of a national campaign we have people from all over the country that have signed up with us. example senator speck or the from pennsylvania wants to televise these trials, civilian trials in new york. i'm just amazed at the stupidity
of the way people are thinking. we already have over 6 thousan" the people in pennsylvania with us and utz find senator speaker and tell him he's wrong. host: thank you are for your time. tam, david mark of the po will itlitco and the airline pilots association and a look at cyber security and jay williams the mayor of youngs town, ohio to talk about economic issues also joined by ed helms on the "washington journal". starts at 8:00 am. we'll see you then. . .