recent indiana republican primary to richard burr.. mr. shaw focuses on senator lugar's foreign policy were the chairmanship of the senate foreign relations committee to deliberations on arms control. this is about 40 minutes. >> greetings and welcome to indianapolis. my name is brian howey and i published politics indiana and in this capacity i had the honor and privilege of not only traveling with senator richard g lugar to hear of all the way to siberia to a dataset, albania, but also had the opportunity to travel with the author who is going to be speaking tonight and that is john shaw who is current in congress since 1991 for market news and has written his third vote featuring senators lugar.

i have to tell you a story that isn't in the book here. john and i followed "the sun" under from moscow are to siberia to a chemical weapons destruction facility. we ended up in the renowned town of cucumber, russia and then as senator lugar and sandman when not to do my act where the nunn-lugar act has stored highly enriched uranium from cvs whereas, john and i ended up with officials who briefed us on what the senators were going to see. then we boarded a plane and headed to odessa. on the flight to odessa we had a briefing that senator luke are and sam nunn participated in.

we ended up in odessa and then at the airport with a motorcade participated in. we ended up in odessa and then at the airport with a motorcade through a dataset we ended up in odessa and then at the airport with a motorcade through odessa with sirens blaring and ended up at the london sky a hotel. after a brief time here, we traveled through an area of a very gritty part of the city, through the longshoremen area down to the boys see -- black sea, with the senator was shown monitoring equipment on ships that would coincide ships coming into the harbor, monitoring and looking for highly enriched uranium. and then that night, we went back to the london sky hotel, had dinner with the senator, in which we talked about everything from what we've seen in my out earlier in the day to the united methodist conference of the united methodist church and into indiana. it was a wide-ranging discussion

that night, john and i ended up in the london sky of our. it wasn't quite something out of "star wars," but i think the motorcade and all the sirens that protestant town p. the interest of the intelligence community that centered in odessa. ukraine is only one of seven or eight nations that borders the black sea. as we sat in the bar, every time i looked up at the smoky figure on the other side of the bar people seem to be looking at me. and then there was a group of people at a table and they started asking us questions, like where are you guys from? who were you with and where are you going? >> we're going to go to london. the guy said there's no flights from here to london. i remember john sein were going to actually go to albania fares. and then it became apparent that maybe these folks are looking for information and maybe we

shouldn't be dispensing so much. but that was one of the finer moments that i share with john shaw as he researched this book. i'm going to turn the show over to him now so that he can explain the third okies written. this one on senator lugar. so john. >> ryan, thank you for the kind introduction and a little trip down memory lane. one part of the story that wasn't mentioned was when i set when we go to albania eye, brain kicked me for shazam to the table and i then realized that probably wasn't the smartest thing to be saying to strangers. so thank you so much for hosting -- cohosting the event tonight i'd also like to thank kathleen angelo at the store who is cohosting. i very much appreciate that. i'd like to thank marche davis and his team at indiana

landmarks for allowing us to use this incredible facility. it's really beautiful. i'd like to thank rebecca homeland and her colleagues from iu prize, indiana university press who have been wonderful to work with. it's really been a pleasure to work with them. what i am here to talk about tonight is this book which brian mentioned called "richard lugar, statesman of the senate." when i talk to people now, the first thing he asked me is how did you time this so well? the book is coming out just weeks before one of the most eagerly anticipated primaries in indiana and many, many decades. and the truth is, i can pretend that this was great timing, but it is almost a total accident. i've been working on the book for a number of years and i work full-time covering congress for market is international. between working a full-time job in covering senator with a full career, this has taken a long time to write.

it's coming out now an interesting time of course. the senator is involved in a very contentious, typical primary. i've got a sense of how charged the atmosphere here is. this morning i went to a coffee shop and a guy was waiting on me and we started talking about indiana politics and i mention i'd written this book on senator luke are. the first thing he said is approved lurker or anti-lugar? my response is i hope it is fair to lugar because when i try to do is present to book about an important senator and describing how he goes about his work. i began this book in 2006. i just finished another book which brian referenced called the ambassador and i spent a couple years following the work of sweden's ambassador to the united states, a man died in a of john wiseman. john mr. baxter's diplomatic corps in washington. he was incredible diplomat who found a way to get tiny little sweden on the map in washington.

as i finish the book i wanted to find someone else who could give me a little insight into how washington diplomacy, washington foreign policy work. so i thought of of course senator lugar. i grew up in illinois and a senate westerner followed his career over the years. i'd been covering washington since 1991 and covered as well. so my thought was to not read it for a biography, but she's sort of a case study about how he senator can shape foreign policy. my idea was to interview him extensively and get a sense of how he approached his job to travel with them both in indiana and overseas as brian mentioned and also interview some of his colleagues and get a sense of what they thought of senator lugar. as far as those interviews go, i had some incredible interviews with vice president biden, senator mcconnell, governor daniels, former senator byatt, former congressman lee hamilton.

to ask about the senator. one thing really striking is the type to benefit tell me about it kluger. almost everyone used the word statesmen. that was interesting because the frequency by which people use that term, but also given how rarely it is used now in american politics. in an interview i try to probe and get a sense of what they actually meant by the term and a lot of them didn't have real precise definitions. but as i thought about their comments and bought him a young, i developed a working definition of what a statesman is. it has four or five elements and i want to just kind of briefly present and this maybe provides a bit of a context of talk about the senator's career. the first one is a sense of working in the national interest, the long-term national interest that goes beyond the next election. i think it also requires a willingness to take a political risk. as we all know not a lot of

people are eager to do that. a third element is a willingness to work with the other parties or perhaps that is even more rare now an american politics. another element is a willingness to break from your target, to disagree with your own party when you feel like they're on the wrong side of an issue. yet another component is a willingness to work on issues that do not have the short-term political payoff, to work on programs and policies, to do good work when no one is really watching. and again, that is the rarest thing in american politics. the final thing is an ability to deliver and get things done. you can have the loftiest intentions in the world, but in the any need to deliver and produce and i think that is also a critical element of statesmanship. now in this book, you do not argue that lugar is the perfect statesmen. there are parts of the book are

positive, parts that are negative. i'm sure there's things in this book he disagrees with pretty strongly. what i want to do in structuring the book is starting with the biographical chapter to put his life and career in some contexts. the first part of that was to describe his eight years as mayor of indianapolis, a very consequential time, spent time trying to understand nuances of a major experiment in urban government that he undertook in the late 60s. so i tried to give a backdrop of just where he comes from politically. then i traced his senate career. he was selected as you may know in 1976 for the first time in his early career was sorted out yet, disciplined, no major break truce. but i think the tipping point of his career occurred in 1984. to be influential they are stored as two traps can take. the first is a leadership track to become a republican or democratic leader.

a second is to develop a policy expertise and become the chairman or high-ranking member of a committee. interestingly, lugar began trying to pursue the leadership track. howard baker was stepping down as republican leader and there is a five person scramble to succeed him. senator lugar did not make that come of it due to and turns he became the chairman of the foreign relations committee starting in 1995. combat is kind of a strange way redirected his entire career and he became and has become one of the leading spokesman on american foreign policy. he's also an agriculture committee and works hard and agriculture issues, but i think his thrill of his foreign policy. the perfect self focuses on areas the senator has worked on. i describe some of the things he did in his early career, but the

focus of the book is the projects he was working on when i was interviewing him, which was 2006 until 2011. in the books they describe his work on energy issues, global food issues, arms control, efforts to overhaul the american foreign policy apparatus. a very technical, complicated nuclear agreement with india in an international treaty. i won't go through all of those of course, but i think the takeaways and almost all of these areas the senator has worked in a practical, disciplined, dogged way to get results. he's a conservative republican, but he has not been particularly partisan and you straight to work with people from both parties to actually solve problems. probably the signature issue of lugar's political career, which brian alluded to is the nunn-lugar at, created in 1991

when the soviet union was imploding and a program to locate, secure and dismantle weapons of mass destruction from the former soviet union. it has been brought into improved biological and chemical weapons and also expanded to other parts of the world. just a year or so ago the senator went to africa and viewed how the program is working in a couple countries they are. the nunn-lugar program probably has over performed. people refer to it as a mini marshall plan in terms of a program with good, solid intentions, well-managed accomplished things. we only spent about a billion dollars a year on the nunn-lugar program and people think we should spend more for it. the senator has been nominated a couple times for the nobel peace prize. that will be remembered as one of the cores of his legacy.

i think his involvement is in iraq and afghanistan wars will be remembered in a more complicated way. my own view is that the senator has had some very intelligent and even forward-looking things to say about the iraq war, but i don't think he had a lot of influence and there's two reasons for that. i think first the bush administration was not particularly interested in congressional insight into iraq and if he read some of the memoir is coming up now for the bush administration, it is very clear that the congressional reaction to the impending war was not a particularly great concern to the administration. but i think a second factor is the senator opted to voice his concern and reservations in a private, quiet way rather than force a public confrontation.

this gets to one of the great dilemmas as a lawmaker because recent history with examples to struggle in and the best way to shape the administration's view on a controversial issue. in the mid-60s, william fulbright, the foreign relations committee disagreed with the johnson administration's conduct of the war in vietnam. fulbright tried to persuade the administration to change course privately. didn't work. he held public hearings in 1966, which really galvanized the public debate on vietnam. but in the meantime, completely marginalized and within the chavez administration. disney want to talk to them anymore because he had gone public and broken with the administration. at the same time, mike mansfield, at the same sort of reservations. he kept his concerns quiet, was very supportive publicly and yet

he also didn't help a whole of impact on the debate. so i think the senator faced kind of an acute dilemma about what to do, whether he should stay quiet remake his concerns now in quiet talks or go public. i talked to them in the course of this book many times about his views than he felt that he would have more and by taking a quiet approach. it's certainly a legitimate point of view. there are people who disagree in yankee could've gone and should have gone in a different direction. one of the best airfares i had was chuck hagel, former senator from nebraska who was a huge lugar fan. he believed the senator made a huge and important mistake in not forcing the issue. he said he was very clear the administration was not going to respond to private treaties and the only way to get action was to go public. bucher disagreed, but one should

note that several years into the war, in june of 2007 he went to the senate floor and gave a very memorable speech in which he basically said the administration's policy in iraq is not working. we need to change gears. many took that speech as a tacit addition to try and work with the administration privately and failed. if the experience in iraq i think is not -- will be remembered as a disappointing chapter in the senator's career. i think one of the good chapters is work on the arms control treaty with russia that was approved in 2010. in here with the classic lugar, complex treaty. he viewed it as part of the arms control agreements that the reagan administration had understood the nuances of the

issue and decided he was going to work with the obama administration because he was in the american national interest to do so. candidly he was not treated well by senate republican leadership, by senator mitch mcconnell said luker was the lead person and also brought in jon kyl, his deputy. so you have a very ungainly arrangement in which both luker and kyl were involved. it seemed like republicans were turning to pile on this, even those luker, but i didn't most people simitian had a greater understanding of the treaty, took a much more balanced approach to the treaty. but it was classic lugar in a sense that he worked hard on it. he was completely a gentleman, didn't react to mcconnell and any adverse way. worked very, very hard on the issue. he actually sent out a number of dear colleague letter is on this treaty and they almost serve as

a kind of model of what the senator can do. just a remarkable series of letters, which layout with the treaty was, what proponents believed, were critics believed in his view. it was just extremely fair-minded sort of work that we sort of hoped that lawmakers would provide, but it happens too rarely. i talk a little bit about the current campaign because obviously it is a campaign that has grabbed both the national attention and international as well as indiana, where it's something that's been viewed with great interest. and it is something that i had to wrestle with because as i was finishing up the book in 2011, the one big question i have to ask myself and try to be fair, which is how can it be a successful senator, very popular at home, respected throughout the world is fighting for his

political rate. i won't presume to tell people in indiana but debates are happening or what's going on here, but it seems to me the senator has faced some headwinds that are easy to understand and recognize. i think first it is the sense that congress, as we all know, is deeply, deeply unpopular. opinion polls for congressional approval or in high single digits. there is a guilt by association waits that incumbents have to work through. the senator's brand of republicanism which i defined as fiscally conservative, but internationalist foreign policy. that is no longer in the ascendancy. it is at least temporarily pushed aside for a different type of conservative sunsets more focused on social issues.

these are the issues the senator really haven't talked about a lot over his career. i think the third factor that's why in senator down or causing his reelection some difficulty is that his whole tone is that of a moderate, simple, gentle person. i think it is a tone that works wonderfully in washington. it is the way you solve problems, but it is in some sense out of sync with more at the confrontational anger if you will, demanded some of the republican base. so his whole temperament is a little bit out of step. and also it's a simple back that the senators cast some votes to put them in the mainstream of congress and even republicans in congress that have been identified as some in the republican party is not partisan. the arms control treaty i just spoke of a few minutes ago as

one. some of his foes on the nominations is another. luker's view as these are in the judicial mainstream of president should have the prerogative of putting supreme court before the senate unless they are disqualifying elements come in the senate should confirm them. so that is sort of the back drive. it is interesting because it didn't senator has known and pray and i were talking about this briefly. it certainly has no since 2010 that is going to face a tough reelection this year. he's done a lot of things you'd expect them to do. he's raised a lot of money. he spent a lot of time, spends a lot of time in indiana, under all sorts of an even more under here. he's also shifted his, if not policies, rhetoric. he has become far more partisan, former confrontational, barely a

week passes purim on the e-mails where he is planning a precedent on health care or keystone or something. so i think he is taking -- he is moved to the right to sort a b. more in step with the tea party moved. my own view is find a little surprise the senator has not run more aggressively on his record. i think he is one of the most significant senators of the last quarter-century, certainly in the foreign policy. he has his considerable, impressive history and in the background i think the people of indiana have been really proud of. it seems rather than embracing this record and just explaining it passionately and unabashedly, he's been pulling back in seems like the campaign has become more tech school, were negative.

and i actually like to recommend that people read a wonderful essay by brian wrote last week about the campaign in which he basically said it was time for both candidates, both senator lugar and richard murdoch, state treasurer to up their game at the tactical square machine and bickering over precedence issues, taxes and murdoch's attendance at meetings and just layout the agenda on things that fiscal policies, foreign policy, health care, et cetera. it will be very interesting to see if in the coming the senator does run fully and aggressively a statesman of the senate. so let me just stop there and i would be glad to take any questions you might have for any comments on the campaign. said thank you very much. [applause]

questions from anyone? i think ebert got to the microphone and pass the microphone around, that would be great. thank you. >> when did you actually start on this project specifically? about five years ago was that? >> my first trip to the senator was in the fall of 2006 in which he was running unopposed. so that was -- she just so you have the political world shifted, at that time he was running unopposed, chairman of the senate foreign relations committee. republican president. and actually one of the challenges of this book, one of the real challenge is this even though you have senator lugar who has had a pretty steady career, political landscape around them has been shifting constantly and it's been trying

to hit a moving target. the senator's career has spanned pretty steady and political circumstances surrounding them and have changed at the period >> it probably doesn't fit in with your states and approach, the mentioned briefly the agriculture committee. back in the 80s i know he did kind of a snicker job on jesse helme so he could get to be a committee. but it's been very active there and have the freedom to farm out of corn and beans went down another senators got skittish and appealed it. it's another significant contribution. >> that's a good point. i mention the grass worked on the chairman of the mentioned in the 90s. msu men should become a passive freedom to farm. i i talk about agriculture, but

the focus of the book is more in foreign policy. i will say i also spent times writing about the senator's relationship with jesse helme, which has banned a difficult one. luker was the chairman of the foreign relations committee for an 85 to 87 when the republicans won control, helme used his seniority to take control of the chairmanship, and effectively forcing luker into the second ranking position and it was at that point you back to agriculture. the battle between luker and homes is an interesting one and it's been something that is shaped luker's career. >> john, talk about the vulnerability of foreign relations chair. you mentioned other than jesse holmes, why don't you go into a little detail on that? >> it is a committee that has

been politically difficult to beyond. in fact, when i first interviewed them, no one has a photograph of the political vulnerability is the chairman of the senate foreign relations committee than dick lugar. he knows the history and from william fulbright who i mentioned earlier, frank church, there's just a whole slew of people in the foreign relations committee. charles percy who lost the position. so something the senator has been aware of her one of the chapters in the book is called tending to the homefront, in which i try to describe how the senator has tried to keep his political strength at home solid to allow him to work on foreign policy issues. he does a lot of things to connect the world of foreign policy to the life of indiana, specifically speaks to live and work on trade issues, which is the way he sort of connect

people's foreign policy and the needs of people in indiana. so he is well aware that history and up to now has been able to survive it, but we will see what happens come march 8 in the primary. >> john, i just want to begin by saying what an excellent speaker you are. that is evident ticino your subject really well. my question is and maybe just touched on that, but how does a farm boy from indiana get so passionate about foreign policy? >> well, that's a wonderful question and there's two kind of simple answers, prosaic answers of the sort of point to that. the senator was saved at this time as they rose scholar real eye-opening experience for each traveled extensively to the u.k. and elsewhere i really saw the

world through the eyes of others. he cites his work as davos scholar as being hugely important. he also speaks a lot as a young naval officer, working for a gentleman who is to create sort of grand strategists in foreign policy. as a young naval officer in a small way past me that his mother cat stance on that small, tangible indication of what a different place in a different world captivated him and actually brought the world outside of the united states the way for him. >> another answer to that question must be those of us who were old enough to remember world war ii when you live with foreign policy news to 1989 to 1945, it just becomes a daily

habit. >> it is not an abstraction. it becomes real because that award was so all-encompassing in american life. so that is an important comment as well. one other point and i just mentioned briefly in one of the things that i struggled with in writing the book and i gather it has come up a little bit in this campaign is the senator's relationship with president obama. it has become a source of some contention and controversy. my own feeling and it actually talk to the senator about this. he first heard of barack obama in 2004 when he was a young state senator running for the u.s. senate in illinois and was struck edifact that there was someone running for office who is interested in foreign policy, talked about it, mr. obama referred to lugar very positively. he likes the nunn-lugar program. so when obama jumped into the stratosphere after his boston

speech in 2004, i think senator lugar kept a closer eye on them and when he was select it from a barack obama in 2004, they wrote the letter and said he was then the chairman of the foreign relations committee said to be a good asset to this committee. i think lugar liked the fact he was interested in foreign policy. he brought energy and star quality to the committee. so obama joined the committee in 2005 and they worked together and took a trip together. a mentor in his death in a campaign, senator bucher endorsed john mccain as you might expect. he also was careful not to disparage obama. in fact, weeks before the 2008 presidential election, he gave a very interesting foreign-policy speech in which he talked about the obama and mccain approaches to foreign policy. it was a very even minded speech in which he was praising both

for certain things than critical votes. it is a sort of thing he sort of hope your public officials do. look at something and call it straight. even then there is criticism from republicans who felt that he was not sufficiently critical of obama. since barack obama was select dead it came to office in 2009, they try to work with the president when he could. despite the campaign rhetoric we hear in indiana, i again senator lugar is neither barack obama's best friend or his worst critic. it is a conservative republican and disagrees with them most of the time, but has been willing to work with them when they got us in the national interest i know that has become a subject of some discussion, whether he's barack obama's best friend in the senate. my own view of the relationship is a complicated one, make this

point. i've been surprised the obama administration has not drawn on lugar more often for insight and counsel in a really surprised the bush administration did not counsel more because here you have someone to succeed with the republicans, have seemed on the race to see about the world. jill biden likes to say that senator lugar has forgotten more about foreign policy in most u.s. senators ever learned. said the bush administration has this incredible resource here and buy they did not drawn him more frequently and more often it's astonishing. senator hagel is very passionate on the subject, too. he said he was trying to help the president, but no one called very often and it was frustrating. >> can you talk about the lugar

by relationship and how that has progressed since senator biden's presidency? >> they were colleagues together for 35 years or so on the foreign relations committee. they have opposite temperaments, as you probably know. senator lugar is quiet and soft-spoken and an does not like to draw a lot of attention to himself. vice president biden is more flamboyant, talkative person. but they have a respect for each other that's very interesting. again, they have this ability to decide what issues they could agree on and to focus on those. they knew when they were things that they did not agree on that they wouldn't harp on it. one of the most interesting moments in that connection occurred during john bolton to be a u.n. ambassador and there

is a certain moment with the foreign relations committee was considering the nomination and blake and again there was a republican and affection. so it was clear that bolton was about to go down. it basically turned. i'm not sure senator lugar at the moment for whatever reason quite capos going on, but biden basically whispered in his ear come you don't want to call the roll call here. you're going to lose. short-term thing would've been to let it pass then have to nomination collapsed. i think there were colleagues for the long-term and thought it was important not to hope the senator out on issues that could have been embarrassing to him. >> thank you very much everyone for being here. it's been a pleasure to chat with you and it will be very coming very interesting for everyone to see how the next

couple weeks turn out in what the world looks like after they make a primary here in indiana. thank you all very much. appreciate it. [applause] >> the fact is in our world, which is often remarkably stifling when it comes to thinking about writing, about politics and the national security state, would use to be called foreign policy, but is now more actually thought of as global military policy, we definitely need some rooms when asked of me the rooms are very, very small. we need people willing to try to step back, ready to make their

way out of the massive trees and actually taken that was. my book, the united states of fear is really when one guy and that's her room could produce any of reading, writing, talking and considered the american world in absurdities accepted as ordinary reality. are those of you who read, i write long and i'd love to run dreamworks by others, despite what everyone thinks about brevity, attention spans and the internet. for chairman at top or ricci two pieces from the book, both however in the shorter side. the first tc is really my thought about guys in rooms. i read it back in march 2010, will be for military was out of iraq just after the supreme court issued issued a united. but it was utterly clear the floodgates had been open so wide that it might be called the

politics of the rich in america would soon become simply american politics. i called it on being a critic, all the world's a stage for us. in march 2010, i wrote about a group of pundits and where journalists eager not to see the u.s. military leave iraq. that appeared on the op-ed piece of "the los angeles times." and then began wandering the media world, one of its stops curiously enough with the military newspapers, stars and stripes that the military man can just e-mailed response. read your article in stars and stripes. when was the last time you visited iraq? a critique and 15 well-chosen words, so much more effect than the usual long e-mails i get an espy was interesting. at least it interested me. after all as i wrote back i was then a 65-year-old guy who had

never been anywhere near iraq in and undoubtedly never would be. i have to assume my e-mail has been sometime possibly more than once and disagreed with my assessments. first-hand experience is not to be taken lightly. what after all do i know about iraq? only reporting i've been able to read from thousands of miles away for analysis on the blogs of experts like juan cole. on the other end, even from thousands of miles away, i was one of many who could see enough by early 2003 to go into the streets and demonstrate against an onrushing disaster of an invasion but a lot of people theoretically far more knowledgeable than any of us consider just the cat's meow, cakewalk of a new century. it's true i've never strolled down a street in baghdad or basra armed or not and if you want to read about the american experience in iraq. it's also true i have spent hours skipping with iraqi first

step foot on one of the vast american bases of the pentagon's private contractors built in the country. nor did i sat me from writing regularly about what i called and still call american cigarettes, when most of the people who visited those pieces didn't consider places with 20 male parameters, multiple bus lines, fast food franchises, guards and who knows what else to be particularly noteworthy structures on the iraqi landscape of so with rare exceptions with common regard. and certainly no expert on shiite goonies. i'm probably a little foggy in my iraqi geography and i've never seen the tape for his or euphrates rivers. on the other hand, it occurs to me a whole raft of american pendants, government officials and military types who have done all of the above, spent time up close and personal in iraq or releasing the american version of the same could not have arrived at them or conclusions

over the last many years. so first-hand experience, value as it may be for court reporters like the washington post another "new york times" or patrick of the british independent is the be-all and end-all. sometimes being far away, not just from iraq, that from washington and all those thinking that goes on there from the visibly claustrophobic world of americans over policymaking has its advantages. sometimes being out of it experientially speaking allows you to open your eyes and taken a larger shape of things, which is often the obvious, even if little noted. i cannot thinking about a friend of mine who's up close and personal take is military commanders in afghanistan was they were trapped in an american-made talks incapable of seeing beyond its boundaries, i've seen afghanistan. i have no doubt that being there is generally something to be desired. but if you take your personal binders with you, and often hardly matters where you are,

taking about a stars & stripes readers questions, the conclusion i can come to his face. it is not just where you go. it is also how you see what is there a no less important who you see that matters, which means sometimes you can actually see more by going nowhere at all. an iraqi tragedy. when american officials open their eyes and check out the local landscape, no matter where they've landed, all evidence indicates the first thing they tend to see is some solace. that is they seem to bury this is an american stage in this native that reason countries we've invaded and occupied aware in pakistan, somalia and yemen to conduct what might be called semi-war on so many big players in american drama. this is why in both iraq and afghanistan military commanders and top officials like secretary of defense robert gates on national security adviser james jones continue to call so utterly unselfconsciously for putting an iraqi or afghan face

on whichever word is being discussed. that is to follow the image to its logical conclusion, putting an iraqi or afghan mask over his face that they recognized however inconveniently or embarrassingly as american. >> watch this and other programs online at books tv guide work. -- booktv.org. ..