here i'll be careful to keep a strictly english accent in answering this question, i think there's also a big political argument, too, which is if you really want the state to be the servant and not the master, it does seem a national id card turns the relationship around in quite an ununhealthy way, and that is perhaps a more emotional reason. i think we're allowed a mixture of argument and emotion. any other questions? i know i've got some press interviews to do. yes, sir. >> in light of what you were saying about personal freedoms, i was wondering where you stood on the ideas of people holding morally abhorrent views and in some sense that's their freedom, but in others we want to suppress that, so how do you square that away? >> i think it's a debate that

dose back for centuries, but i think the fundamental argument in britain should be that we're in favor of freedom of speech, that means we have to uphold the right of people whose views are repugnant to us, but the line we need to draw is one that it says it is not right to incite hatred or violence. and i think that's the key line to draw. so when it comes to something like the bnp, i'm not in favor of banning them. i think we should open their ludicrous arguments to public argument and show them to be the bunch of retarded racists they undoubtedly are. but if ever they move over into incitement to violence, they are breaking the law and should be prosecuted. i think there's a really difficult argument that we have to confront over the issue of particularly islamic extremism where, and this goes a little bit i hope not against what i've just said, but let me just try

the argument out on you. for years in this country we've rightly banned groups that incite violence and incite terrorism because that's against the law. but we've taken rather more relaxed view for groups that are not absolutely inciting someone to violence, but they are inciting them to extreme hatred, groups, for instance, which are active on a number of university campuses. and i think there is an argument that says, look, in a liberal, democratic society where we want to have a strong culture of inclusion from people of all faiths and cultures and races and creeds, we do have to stand up for a belief in democracy and an intolerance of intolerance. and i think the argument for banning some of those groups that may not incite violence although on occasion they do, but they incite extreme hatred and are trying to set people against each other. i think there is a case for

saying they're fermenting extremism, and they should be ba.d i would argue that i think the government has been a bit backward on this, and they need to push that agenda forward. thank you. one last question. >> i think the issue of -- [inaudible] -- are you going to give the opportunity for things like councils and police to give a response and say, well, there's a particular reason that we are performing particularly bad, particularly due to demographics in certain areas of london? that really does skew statistics. >> yes. >> so if you can tell me -- >> i completely see that. i mean, i think there's a pragmatic answer to your question, but there's also a sort of philosophical one behind it. the pragmatic answer is, yes, of course. let's take survival rates from complex heart surgery. you will find that some of the best surgeons do, obviously, the most difficult cases and so have some of the not necessarily the

best survival rates. and so you do need the opportunity for public servants whether it's a school to explain, well, our intake was different this year, and that's why the results were different. i was doing particularly tough cases, and that's why my survival rate's dropped. so i think there is a pragmatic answer, but the philosophical one you've got to work out which side of the debate you're in. either you trust in people's innate good sense, that actually we're not just a bunch of idiots that look at the league tables and say i'll send my kids to the best results, what's the ethos, what's the culture, i basically think -- and that's what lies behind this whole speech -- that in the end if you trust people, give them the information and trust them to make the right judgment, you'll have a stronger and better society than one in which you say let's give them limited information and pat them on the head and say, there, there. give them too much information,

and you might be misguided. i think we've got to aim towards the maximum disclosure society, trusting people the most, and allowing as you say this debate to take place in public where people can explain themselves. it's something the mps are getting used to belatedly, you know, in explaining expense claims, for instance, and i think the expiration and free debate and trusting people in a free society, that must be how essentially we make our country stronger. thank you very much indeed. i've really enjoyed coming to speak today, and thank you for your questions. thank you. [applause] >> we take you live, now, to the white house for today's briefing. expected to get under way in just a few minutes. we're waiting for spokesman robert gibbs to arrive. while we wait, here's a look at some of today's headlines from the washington journal. >> yesterday for the new washington times radio. as dick cheney on monday expressing concern that the pending pullout of u.s. troops from iraq cities could reverse

the military progress made by american and iraqi force there since the george w. bush administration and the 2007 surge. a quote from the former vice president saying that i hope the iraqis can deal with it. also this morning from inside "usa today" is iraqis celebrate the u.s. troop pullback. one of the details is that the iraqi government has declared today a national day of sovereignty, six years after the u.s.-led invasion that toppled saddam hussein, and the story can be found below the fold of "the washington post," six years and three months after the march 2003 invasion, the u.s. will withdraw its remaining combat troops from iraq cities and turn over security. however, "the washington post" pointing out that while there is still more than 130,000 u.s. troops remaining in the country, patrols by heavily-armed soldiers in hulking vehicles will largely disappear from baghdad, mosul, and other iraq urban centers. more from dick cheney yesterday

on washington times radio that became the front page story this morning on that newspaper also available online at washington times.com. >> i'm a great believer in ray odierno, and what he says concerns me that, you know, there still is a can'ting problem. he, obviously, is doing what needs to be done in terms of keeping the u.s. commitment to get out of the cities, but it would look like, one might speculate, that the insurgents are waiting and as soon as they get an opportunity, they'll begin to launch more attacks. i hope that's not the case. i hope, certainly, that the iraqis can deal with it. at some point they've got to stand on their own, but i would not want to see us waste all the tremendous sacrifice that's gotten us to this point. >> the comments of former vice president dick cheney which is the subject of this morning's front page story in the washington times, and you can

hear more at washington times.com. let's get to some of your phone calls. first up is a caller from alabama, good morning. welcome to the washington journal. >> caller: good morning. >> host: you're calling from lake martin? >> caller: yes, i am. >> host: and your reaction. >> caller: i just got off the phone with my son who was in iraq in the beginning, and we were just talking about, i said, son, you were in the march to baghdad, and now, you know, they're having a celebration over there today, june the 30th. so i've, i'm a c-span junkie, i've called several times, i know i've been emotional, i know sometimes i've just been a mother, but i am so proud of my son. he's with combat camera. i always get online and see all his pictures, his photos that he's taken. >> host: is he still there now? >> caller: yes, i just got off the phone with him.

sky has been a god send to parents or loved ones with soldiers over there because every morning i'll look on the computer, and he was online, and we just got to talking. he's packing up. his base was camp war eagle, and they're closing several bases, so i'm hoping that he will head to baghdad july the 5th and be in kuwait july the 20th and, you know, he'll be stateside and, you know, he's been on several deployments. i'm just ready for him to come home. >> host: how long has he been over there? >> caller: oh, he had a 14-month deployment this last deployment, so he's been over there a while, and the temperature there is 130 degrees during the day. i live in the south, so i'm not going to complain when it gets to 94, 96 here because he's enduring 130 temperature degrees, and i've called over the years since 2003 about this, but i'm going to behave myself today, and there's no tears

today because it was just great talking to him and even though we have different political views, his boots on the ground over there has given me the opportunity to not be shy and call this program because i am a c-span junkie, and i know my mother instincts, i have been emotional time and time again on this program. but i love him, i'm proud of him, and i'm just wanting him to come home because i think he's, every base i've been on from fort lewis in seattle to fort bragg to fort jackson he did his training at fort meade, and these soldiers, everyone's got to understand they're so, they love what they do, and they do it for love of country. >> host: i'm going to stop you on that point, and thank you. don't be a stranger. the video we're showing you, by the way, scenes from baghdad and

other iraqi cities, this national day of jubilation as declared by the iraqi government part of the phase-out of u.s. troops beginning from the metropolitan areas including mosul and baghdad. john is on the phone from north carolina, good morning. your reaction on this june 30th. >> caller: yeah, i think it's a good day for the iraqis. the invaders are pulling out of the cities, and if cheney and all neo-cons, let them put the uniforms on and go over there. thank you. >> host: john, thanks for the call. jack is joining us from minnesota. good morning. >> caller: hello? >> host: go ahead, caller. >> caller: yeah. my thoughts are it's about time. by the way, please don't cut me off -- >> we leave this washington journal segment to take you to the white house for today's briefing. >> did you see the video on the white house web site? [laughter] oh, i wish you could see the

look on our face. wow. good throw though. >> [inaudible] >> i think, i think the new media guys did some editing. >> you want a delay? >> i should be after that. [laughter] yes, ma'am. go ahead. >> we want to start with honduras. has the u.s. been in contact with honduran military leaders to insist on the president's return to power? >> i know that state department officials have been in touch with president szalai ya, i do not know the extent of their contact with military officials. obviously, there's a special meeting of the oas scheduled for later on this afternoon, and we'll continue working on this situation. >> is there any other acceptable solution other than his return to power? >> not at this point that i think people have in any way contemplated, no.

>> is he meeting today with anybody in the state department or white house? >> i believe if he does come today or tomorrow he will likely meet with officials from the state department some of whom, as i said, have been in contact. >> [inaudible] >> not that i'm aware of. >> that was the first of questions, if he does come to washington, as he says he would like to do, would the president meet with him? >> i think he'd be likely to be seen by state department officials. >> so no plans for the president -- >> no. >> all right. and secondly, could you give us -- it's not that far, a little bit of a head's up on what the president hopes to achieve at the g8? >> let's do that later. we're going to do a briefing call on that. i think it's important to go through the whole arc of the trip. we'll go through the russia stops, the g8, because there's some stuff on the schedule that sort of is built around g8 but not part of that official

program as well as the stop and go. >> [inaudible] >> it will, i think, be tomorrow afternoon. that's when it's tentatively holding. >> we understand the president's going to talk a little bit about iraq this afternoon. >> yep. >> can you give us an idea of what he might say, and why does it seem like he's down playing it? is there some reason why he doesn't want to talk too much about it, or what's the calculation? >> no. i don't -- i mean, i don't know why. the president's going to speak about it. and i don't know that that minimizes in my way. i think you saw, i think officials were on the cnn just this weekend speaking in the form of ray ode yea know who's, as you well know, our commander on the ground. so let me without getting into the semantics of that part of

it, the president will discuss that, obviously, this is an important step forward in this process. we are today handing responsibility to the iraqis for, for an increased level of their security situation as well as the responsibility that cleary is going to come -- clearly is going to come with needing to continue to work on and solve their political reconciliation problems. as we get closer to september of next year for the drawdown of our combat troops and then ultimately the end of 2011 for the later stages of the sofa agreement. so again, i think this is an important step. i think the president will talk about why it's an important

step, but why we also have to remain vigilant in monitoring the situation and, again, working with continuing for general odierno and am ambassadr hill working with all of those involved for political reconciliation, and i think finally, ed, he'll discuss today the reason we're at this point. and that is the courageous contributions of our men and women in uniform. and what that's meant for our ability to be, to be meeting this historic date. >> on that point does the white house believe that the u.s. has won the war in iraq or has now been put in position to win the war? >> well, i think without getting into those characterizations i think it is, this is an important step forward. it is an important step forward for the iraqis to govern their

own nation. it is an important step forward in our ability to ultimately draw down our combat troops and leave iraq in a good situation. and all of that has led -- let us invest more of our resources in afghanistan. >> [inaudible] -- ever declaring victory there? >> we'll keep the banner printers from doing anything crazy. yes. >> you talked about the americans, but what about the iraqis? five americans were killed on the eve of the handoff. are you confident in the iraqi force's ability to take on the task? >> more importantly, general odierno's confident in their ability as we move forward. i think as general odierno has said over the course of the past few days it's not surprising that we've seen high-profile

incidents in which extremists seek to kill innocent civilians in order in many ways for them to try to convince their followers that, that, that what's happening today is a result of their actions. and, obviously, it's not. we will continue to monitor the situation, as i said, and at this point it looks like these are fairly isolated incidents as we've seen the level of violence as a whole continue to decrease across iraq. yes, sir. >> treasury today froze the assets of a hong kong company relative to north korea's missile regime. is this likely to be considered a threatening action? is there concern that it might be taken as a threatening action by north korea? >> well, i hesitate for any

number of reasons to speak for the north koreans and what they may or may not -- >> speak to what the consideration was? >> well, let me do characterize some of what north korea. north korea has made some -- they've usually, they've, they've stated a lot of bellicose things. they've threatened to do certain things. a lot of times what they've threatened to do they follow up on doing. but this administration whether it is through sanctions and monitoring of north korea moving, potentially moving any sort of arms out of their country through proliferation what ambassador rice negotiated in past through the u.n. security council is part of it as well as a stepped-up role in

insuring that we are cutting off any potentially harmful financing as in this case. again, we have, i think, been fairly explicit with the north koreans about what the responsibilities that they entered into that we expect them to live up to, and i think today's action demonstrates the seriousness of what we intend to do to address it. >> right. the question had to do, however, with any consideration that was given to the kind of reaction this might provoke. >> well, i can, i can assure you that, obviously, we take lots of stuff that's factored in, and you can assume that we've took that into account and decided that the best thing going forward was, were the actions that were taken today and that the continued monitoring of what's going on during the situation. >> [inaudible] >> yep. >> do you have any more details on ambassador goldberg's interagency trip?

>> we have some stuff from last week that i can get you on some of his stops. >> [inaudible] >> no, not at this point. yes, sir. >> rather than get into win or loss, would you describe the mission so far as a success or failure? >> well, i think -- >> classified, i know there's political reasons, you mentioned -- >> it's less than than, again, i think we should, i think the way we look at this is there is progress that is being made. obviously, the security situation has improved. i think the, i think president obama talked about that throughout last year. and again, i think we're taking important steps on two fronts. one, our ability to get our own combat troops home, but also to give the sovereign nation of iraq more control and ultimately more responsibility. we continue to -- let me say

this, the administration believes that despite whatever happens today in that step forward that this situation can, bears constant monitoring. because there are, there may be rough patches ahead. we understand that. there are important elections that will happen over the course of this year and important steps that have to be taken on the path toward political reconciliation in order for the promise of today to be met by all iraqis. >> walk through the differences between the administration's decision to sort of to take a position on what's going on in honduras and the more hands-off approach with iran? i know they're two different countries -- >> i think that's probably the understatement of the week. [laughter]

>> [inaudible] >> well, i would suggest you have your plane come in a little lower and look at maybe 10,000 feet. i think part of the reason that you saw the administration come out is to address any rumors that we were in any way involved in this. i think that's important, and i think what was important was as all in the international community and the oas have done despite whatever you, despite whatever political disagreements you might have there is, there are dem crapt contact norms that have to and should be followed. >> can i follow up? >> yeah. >> is there any plans by the u.s. government to recall your ambassador to washington? >> not at this point because the administration believes that having him there is important for an important player on the ground in seeking an ultimate

solution to the problem that we face now. april? >> following on chuck and ed's question on the issue of victory or lack thereof in iran militaryically -- >> iraq. >> excuse me, i'm sorry, forgive me. on the issue of iraq, during the bush years there was a debate. one side of the point said, look, we can never win this war militarily, it's a several-pronged approach to include the military as well as the political issues. now, is this administration subscribing to that, and if so, how could this war be won militarily? >> well, without getting into whatever agreements or disagreements were had inside the previous administration, i'll leave that up to members of the previous administration which in some ways seem to be having those arguments still, the president has always said and said this for probably the

past at least two-and-a-half years that there wasn't only a military solution to this problem, that unless or until there was a political solution to this that, obviously, thety mennishes of a political solution have to happen in order for this country to move forward. >> so once the political solution is settled, we could maybe claim victory in iraq? >> well, you know, i don't know what you call it. we're focused on a stable and secure iraq that is governed by iraqis and the southern country of iraq, we're concerned about getting the brave men and women who have served on tour after tour after tour in iraq home to their families in accordance

with the time frame that the president and the commanders have laid out. and in accordance with the status of forces agreement that was negotiated and signed with the sovereign nation of iraq. >> former president bush took this nation to war with iraq. many people realized they would be sacrificed. now years later the sacrifice people are saying is great. one reason why this president was elected president is because he said he would pull troops out of iraq. people still, though, want a period behind it to say all the sacrifice was worth something. will there be something saying we won, victory at some point? >> again, i'm not going to get into that except to say i think the president on any number of occasions throughout the campaign was asked if, if the sacrifice of men and women in uniform some of whom have paid

the ultimate price, tens of thousands of whom have been injured, whether that was worth it? of course it was. anybody? you guys getting shy today. [laughter] >> to continue on iraq. to what degree did the surge, did the president believe the surge played in creating an atmosphere now where the emphasis in iraq tends to be more on the political than the day-to-day security? obviously, day-to-day security is of ongoing and crucial concern, but ken pollack and michael to name two say 2009-2010 is really the year for politics in iraq. to what degree was the surge playing in creating an atmosphere -- >> let me give you the answer i think he would probably have given to this question as it was asked probably more than a year ago. he, i think, would say, obviously, increasing the number of troops in that country improved the security situation.

but understanding part of this was the answer i gave to april, the surge was to lessen, to improve the security situation so that the political reconciliation could take place. so while the security situation has improved, we still have a lot of work to do on the political side of this equation. i don't know whether 2009 and 2010 were the original years in which that was contemplated. i do believe that as the president said, as i said to april security and military alone was never going to put us in a position of being able to leave the country and to make progress. >> and yesterday you said that you'd try to get back to us on vice president's rule in iraq policy. can you fill us in on that? >> sure. yeah, the vice president will, has been asked by the president

to oversee the policy and in working with general odierno and ambassador hill in, in working with the iraqis toward overcoming their political differents and achieving the type of reconciliation that we all understand has yet to fully take place but needs to take place. >> well, what does that mean, oversee? in what way will that change or enlarge his interaction with the president, with general odierno or ambassador hill? >> well, i, i mean, obviously he spends a fairly decent amount of time with the president. >> right. >> i think the meetings that i've been in in different parts of the building on iraq the vice president has always been an active participant. i think given his knowledge of