they maintain the power once they got it. a lot of this is close in the argument of what's good for america, but there's not a whole lot of policy prix in there. >> robert, thank you, good to see you. enjoyed so much talking to you. robert draper, please by his book. thank you very much. [applause] >> this event took place at the 17th an knew book festival in austin, texas. for more information, visit texasbookfestival.org.

>> michael gordon appeared on c-span's "washington journal" about the end game since the occupation in iraq in 2003. it's about 40 minutes, and it's next here on booktv. >> host: been over a year since the last troops left iraq, and look back on the more than 8 years of conflict there, joined by "new york times" national security correspondent, michael gordon, author of "the end game: inside struggle of iraq from

george w. bush tobackback." start with the title of the book. what was the end game of last year? >> guest: part of what i wanted to do with the co-author is capture what happened since the surge. there was a number of books on the surge forces in iraq in 2008 and what happened after that, but i was interested in, i think, the real question is what kind of a iraq did the united states leave behind after sacrifice of 145 american lives lost, temperatures of thousands wounded, and hundreds of millions of dollars spent. what was the american policy towards iraq, and what's iraq look like today? that was the question i sought to address, but i covered the entire scope of the war. >> a year op, or, i guess, in december 2011, what had we achieved, and a year on, have we achieved that? >> well, by the time of -- by december 2011, there was a number of elections in iraq

which was to the good, but iraq had not fully become a democracy in the sense there was not a peaceful transfer of power from the current regime led to another prime minister. that's a true test of a democracy is whether there's not merely an election, and russia has elections, i serve there, but whether there's an election, another candidate wins, and power is handed over to that candidate. iraq is in the at that milestone yet. what we had in december 2011 was a relatively stable iraq, a lot of hopes, but, i think, unfortunately, the situation in iraq has deteriorated politically over the past year, and, also, iraq has been less aligned with american interests and more aligned with actually iranian interests in as far as the serian conflict is concerned. >> host: phone lines open now so feel free.

democrats 202-585-3880, and independents, 202-585-3882. let us know if you received in iraq as well, and your thoughts on what's happening now. phone lines open. i want to go back to the political situation in iraq. talk about prime minister nuri al maliki and what his role is today in iraq before the segment started. you said he's not saddam hussein. >> right, he's not saddam hussein in the fact that saddam was an extremely brutal dictator who killed tens of thousands, used chemical weapons against his own population to maintain hold on power. he's nothing like that; however, he does appear to be an articrat in the making. what's happening in iraq now is a political crisis, but you

wouldn't know from the news coverage. the media basically abandoned iraq. he's been cracking down on a lot of the political opponents, and just a week ago, he did something in our system that would be extraordinary. security officials from the ministry of interior detained the security detailer of the finance minister of the government because he's a suni, and member of the -- >> host: showing the viewers a story on the issue. >> guest: it's got worse since then. you have demonstrations in the lumbar province, and i think the estimates are 50,000-100,000 people demonstrating all through the weekend, and they also cut the highway from iraq to jordan

so you have a very polarized and distraught political situation, and, unfortunately, the american situation. a country's whose future is uncertain, and, certainly, it could become in my assessment, but the battle really is not lost. the american government, the obama administration's trying to do what it can to stabilize things, but it's lost a lot of influence with iraq with the departure of american forces, one thing the american forces did give the united states was more clout inside iraq. >> talk about the release of a man accused of killing american soldiers, this issue that you write about in your book, the end game, but also news that came out in november about the relief of ali musa; is that

correct? >> guest: yeah. well, there's a number of events that i think worked against american interests in iraq, and the case you cite is one of them. he is not an iraqi. he's a lebanese-hezbollah operative who was sent into iraq at the best of the iranian's cud force because hezbollah is supported by iran for the purposes of training shiite militias fighting american troops. he was captured by leaders in a raid conducted by the brits in which there was an american presence held in detention by the united states, but then under the status of forces agreement, he was handed over to the iraqis. >> host: this agreement we were not able to extend? >> guest: right. really what the obama administration hoped was that he would either be extradited to the united states for some form of trial, but probably by military tribunal.

they requested extradition. that was denied. they hoped he would at least be detained further in iraq, but he was under pressure from the united states to keep him and under -- by the iranians to release them, so what he did was held them through the american election which he thought was a favor to the obama administration even though they did not ask for that, and then he released them. it's one of a number of steps that had been taken which cuts against american interests there. >> host: here's stats on the iraq war. u.s. troops killed 4482. u.s. troops wounded 32213, estimated cost from abc news, $704.6 billion. after all of that, those numbers, people ask why wasn't the u.s. able to extradite him back to the u.s.? even after all we spent, we content can't get him back?

>> guest: that's not the only problem. iran is selling arms to the asad -- assad regime, and trying to insist the planes land for inspection. they have just done two inspections, and one plane was empty from damascus. it's a good question, and i think the answer is a complicated one, but i would say two things, in any country that is a newly emerging country, there is a sense of nationalism that you have to contend with which is legitimate. they have air own government and leaders. you can't dictate to them what to do, and there are a lot of states in the region that have their -- trying to meddle in iraq, the iranians big time, turkey, gulf states, trying to exert influence inside iraq, but, also, a big part of the answer is, really, what's happened to the united states? the american government is conflicted on iraq. the obama administration,

itself, was ambivalent about whether to keep forces in iraq beyond 2011 or not, and, in fact, president obama campaigned on the ten in a minute that he had extra kateed forces from iraq completely, planned to, the military hoped to keep 5,000 to 15,000 there, including to fight al-qaeda, so, you know, when the american government, itself, does not see iraq as a priority, and it doesn't at this point in time, and i think that also limits the amount of influence you can have inside that country. >> host: taking your calls on this subject. the war in iraq and what's happening in iraq. now we're with michael gordon of the "new york times". the phone lines are open. we'll go to mohammed from new york, new york on the democratic line. good morning. >> caller: good morning. the question is looking back ten years later, does michael feel any sense of responsibility, if

not to say shame, for the iraq war, articles in the times with jew dit miller, does he owe an apology to the families of those killed? iraq? thank you. >> guest: well, you're referring to the wmd coverage, the coverage of the issue of weapons of mass destruction in the "new york times" prior to the war, and because you're familiar with it, you're aware that i reported the cia assessment that iraq was trying to acire materials to make nuclear weapons, but be aware i reported another assessment that was not the case, and the bureau of intelligence and research that this was not the case, and so i reported both sides of that debate before the war, and -- >> host: an issue you cover in the end game quite a bit of how

the end game strategy changed over the course in the war in iraq. >> guest: american intelligence on wmd was wrong. the cia intelligence was wrong. there was no american -- it was not only wrong in the bush administration, but it was wrong towards the end of the clinton administration because they thought iraq was rebuilding their weapons of mass destruction arsenal, and there was no american agency that did not think iraq had chemical weapons. there was a debate whether they pursued nuclear weapons, but the intelligence assessment, declassifieded, the national intelligence assessment, readers can see it for themselves, that it's wrong. it's one of the big intelligence failures. a lot of the american leadership at the time to include current secretary of state clinton, kerry, biden pretty much voted on the war of the basis of faulty intelligence. >> host: wild and wonderful on twitter says "bottom line, is

iraq more stable or less of a threat in the region?" >> guest: it's less oppressive because it's hard to imagine a government more apressive than hussein. he's a man who killed tens of thousands of people and used chemical weapons against the kurds and started a war with iran that killed hundreds of thousands, invaded kuwait leading to the first american war with iraq, desert storm. iraq is at this point in time less of a threat to its own people, less of a threat to the region, but not fully stable and not yet a mature democracy. >> host: a couple comments on the war in iraq photo dude saying, "iraq veteran, current situation predictable, can want

impose western values on middle eastern countries." one other note from michael, "iraq was a gift for haliburton and bush contractor cronies." if you want to take either one of those. >> guest: well, i mean, iraqis have representative government of a sort, and the question is whether it's going to be a fully democratic one or not. they have a parliament and elections. elections, by the way, deemed in terms of the counting of the votes, to have been fair by observers who saw them, and so i think it's a little chauvinist to say that people in the middle east are not capable of building a democracy. i mean, they have been -- that's exactly what's going on now in places like egypt and other places. they may not get there, but a lot of people are trying, and there are a lot of iraqi, you know, iraqis are shia, sue --

sunni, kurds, a multisectarian society. i caution people about generalizing too broadly about iraq. i mean there are iraqis who do want to have a connection with the united states and who do want iraq to become more democratic, but they are involved in a political struggle to that end. >> host: let's go to mike now from massachusetts on the independent line. good morning, mike. >> caller: good morning. question for the gentleman. i'm a beirut veteran scwels -- as well as an iraqi veteran, in the first iraqi conflict, and i agree with what he has to say other than the weapons of mass destruction. when we went in there in early 1990 in desert shield, we had

intelligence that there were weapons of mass destruction movedded to the syria border and some into the iranian border, and my sisters and brothers who served in that war see now this sunnies of iraq siding with the shiites of iran, and the same in damascus and what's happening there, and i see beirut veteran seeing the same thing happening all over again, but in a different geographical area, and it's basically, from my intelligence, what i saw, i did 30 years in the military, retired and disabled right now. i see the political hedging against the military side, and i know for a fact that these weapons of mass destruction irregardless of what the marines that went over and did the

investigation said. >> host: mr. gordon. >> guest: well, the caller has a good point, and the reason the issue of weapons of mass destruction is complicated is because saddam had the weapons. no doubt. he used them against the kurds and had them in desert storm campaign that the caller participated in. he had chemical weapons, scud missile, and i was there then. he fired them at saudi arabia and israel. he had bilogical weapons and makings of a nuclear realms program, and, in fact, israel bombed a reactor and seventh back that program. he was a man who had a fairly substantial wmd arsenal much like assad has in syria today, and the task after the first gulf war was to dismantle that arsenal, and part of what led to the debate wmd of the second

iraq war, the 2003 war was a lot of people in the united nations and american government were not satisfied that the weapons that he did have had been fully e eradicated and hard to prove a negative. we now know by the time the 2003 invasion occurred, this one substantial arsenal basically deteriorated into nothing or had been removed. that was not understood at the time in part because for a period of years, there was not u.n. inspections in iraq. >> host: how many times did you go over to iraq? >> guest: i'm not sure i remember exactly, but i was -- i covered the first war, the 1991 war, and i wrote a book about it called "the journal's war," and then i was there for the invasion in 2003. i got to baghdad on april 12th,

fell on april 7th, the place in chaos, but, you know, in a funny way, it's never been as safe as it was in those first few weeks because the population was stunned, didn't know how to react, the insurgency had not yet got its act together, and then i stayed through that kind of long hot initial summer, and then i wrote a book about the invasion, and then a different book, and then i came back, and then, let's see, in the summer of 2006, i spent that in onbar, where the insurgency was, and in fallujah and places in between. i was in baghdad before the surge, after the surge, and then i participated in most of the surge operations in the prosince south of baghdad, and there was a big fight in sadar city that e spent a substantial amount of time in. i feel like i've seen it, you know, at the beginning, before the surge, during the surge, and afterwards. my most recent trip back was

over a year ago, and it was actually to interview prime minister and the officials in the iraqi government who gave me a lot of their time. >> host: coauthor of "the end game," also reported in war zones in afghanistan, kosovo, chest knee ya, and based in panama for four years. going now to ron from ohio on the independent line. good morning, ron. >> caller: good morning, gentlemen. mr. gordon, i'm curious, do you feel that the united states and the west as whole have a misunderstanding of history and sense of history as far as the sunni and shiite conflicts in the region? second part, was there any attempt to point out to the muslim tribes and nations that we did go into bosnia to defend

muslims? >> host: mr. gordon? >> guest: well, i think the caller makes a number of interesting appointments. one, you know, there's, i mean, i'm a journalist, not an advocate for the american government, but there is a criticism that the united states by the military operations and in different countries somehow oppress muslims, but if you look the the record in the bosnia conflict in the 1990s, basically, the united states led a nato intervention to protect the muslims against bosnia muslims against serbia aggression, and then in afghanistan, one could argue that the toppling of the taliban in 2001, and i was there for that too, was a benefit for the afghan people, certainly for the women of that society, didn't like being ruled by medieval

cult, and then, and then the, in terms of iraq, you know, overthrowing the united states -- the united states did overthrow a dictator based on maybe its misreading of intelligence and wmd, but it empowered the shia majority allowing them to exercise, well, to be part of the government in a way they could never have been otherwise. i think at this point in time, so many people have served in iraq for so long, i mean, talking about a conflict that started in 2003 and we still have a very largest embassy in the world there. there's a fine grain understanding among american experts about the differences between sueny and shia, and long the sunni and among the shia, that's not the issue. i do think that one thing that works against the united states is there's very often a short term mentality to long term

problems, and a place like iraq is not going to change in one or two years simply because we have an election cycle or we become impatient or we decide that we're going to focus on something else. if you want to main tape influence there, and i believe it's in the united states' interest to have influence. it's in our interest to have influence there, then i think you got to look at it as a long term proposition and approach the problem that way. >> host: you talk about the large number of americans in iraq, 1.5 million military personnel who served in and around iraq from 2003 to about 2011. a question from twitter, "we never hear reports about oil in iraq. i wonder how the chinese oil contractors are doing. take us to today in that issue. " >> guest: i'm nonan expert

there, however, iraq is a major oil bruceer, and it's now outstripping iranians, interestingly enough. particularly, because of the sanctions against iran because of the nuclear program, and that's not dpactly to the interest -- exactly to the interest of the iranians. it's not the case, by the way, iraqis do it for the benefit of the iranians and a lot of time it's for their own self-interest. it's a major, large oil reserves, and they now have been outstripping the iranians, and there are -- >> host: expected to continue to grow? >> guest: they are growing, and they are -- >> host: not in full capacity yet? >> guest: no. they actually need a lot of infrastructure improvements because they their oil infrastructure, when i first got there in 2003, and i went around the military and the oil fields, we first thought that the infrastructure had been sabotaged by sue damming, but

later it was clear that was it was just old. it takes attention. there's tension in iraq between the kurds with their own substantial oil resources and dominant arab population over how to divvy up the proceeds and that's become a problem in retarding the development in some of the energy production there, and, also, it's another factor making the system volatile. >> host: another question, do you think the u.s.-iraq experience is directly related to u.s. he hesitation on syria? are we finished policing the world? >> guest: it's a good question. i think the syria situation is a very different one from the iraq situation. really, syria, in a funny way

reminds me of the bulcans from the snows. there's an internal conflict which is really horrendous, more than 40,000 to 50,000 serbians have died in it. it's different in this respect, nobody, not even syria,ments the united states to invade on the grounds and take over syria and administer it. that's not the issue in the case of syria. the issue in the case of syria is whether the united states should do -- should supply weapons to factions that are fighting the regime that are aligned with our interests or not, and if we don't do this, won't the more extreme elements in the region support the radical islamic rebels fighting assad, and our stake in syria is we want the people to prevail closer to our interests than those of the radical muslim interests, but, yet, we are not

supporting them materially. there are reports from syria saying there's a fair amount of resentment on this. one fact i want to point out is al-qaeda in iraq, which is an affiliate of al-qaeda central and was a big threat in iraq, is now heavily involved in the syria con thright under the front, and one reason it's able to do that is because we took our forces out of iraq in 2011. if we had just several thousand forces there working with iraqi special operations forces, i believe we could have attenuated the growth of al-qaeda in iraq, this iraq, and its influence in syria. it's an inadvertent consequence of the removal of all american forces at the end of 2011. >> host: your book gave insight into the syria connection as you call it, general david petraeus at the time repeatedly sought to visit

damascus during the bush administration over the war in iraq. talk a little about that. >> guest: yeah, i mean, in the book i had to assess the generalship of general petraeus and his predecessor, general casey and those who followed him, and i actually got access, not through petraeus, certainly, but to some of the communications he sent back to the pentagon, his sort of weekly letters, and i came to the conclusion that general petraeus did a good job in iraq, and the surge he oversaw worked militarily. it didn't work fully politically for a variety of reasons, but worked militarily. one thing petraeus understood was that al-qaeda, that volunteers coming to join al-qaeda in iraq were coming to the damascus airport, crossing the border, going into iraq, and syria intelligence knew this. they pretended they didn't, but they did, and what he wanted to

do was go to damascus with stan mcchrystal in running special operations activities in iraq and confront assad with this and say, look, we know what's going on. this is going to come back to haunt you one day because people who came in through your country into iraq are going to be going out the same way, and one day they are going to have their sights on you so if you -- you might be in your own interest to stop the flow of the foreign fighters as they called them, but there was a debate within the bush administration, and at the time, the white house was trying to isolate syria, bottom line, petraeus was never allowed to make the trip. >> host: and assad is facing some of those same fighters today. >> guest: yes, he he is. this is -- some of that would happen in any event, but, yes, he's facing -- it's sort of an -- it would be poetic justice if not for the possibility that these people could end up in a

position of authority in syria, against our interests, but, yes, some of the same people he let in to fight in iraq are now flooding into syria to fight him. .. like it is and jordan and israel. i'm so concerned but i just appreciate c-span so much. this is the first time i've ever been able to call. and i thank you. and i wondered if the man from

the times had heard about this. and i would like to see them report these kinds of things and the time. >> host: well, i think l caller raised a good point. we have reported someful things. -- a lot of them are home years ago and driven out of the country well before, you know, any of these american war there. and one of my colleagues "new york times" colleagues found one of the few remaining in baghdad. he wrote a story about it. he was so petrified about being found out that it was all worked through a series, i think he immediate area and he had to interview him in a indirect way. that's the climate there. the caller is right there's been

persecution, not by the government, but, you know, there's a lot of secretary passions there. al qaeda is there and particularly in the northern part of iraq and the north province there's pockets of christians or sort of hanging in there. so, you know, that's definitely a problem that the united states and international community, you know, needs to be aware of, and in terms of the amount of turmoil we're seeing today in ish what would you compare it to from what we saw over the eight years when we were there? >> guest: right. it's many times better than it was prior to the surge for the level of violation is astronomical and the car bomb threats are incredible.

there would be huge bombs going off on a regular basis calling large numbers of people when al qaeda was doing is create a civil war within iraq which they almost succeeded in doing between sunny and -- the whole thing would fall apart and fill the vacuum. it's better than -- when i went around there i went to places with rather minimal security "the new york times" in the red zone, not the green zone. never been in the green zone where i would have never have gone. that said, some 4,000 people were killed in iraq in 2012. by our standards the level of violence is still rather high. >> host: a report today. gunshots wounded two people sunday at demonstration in weern iraq when body guards protecting

a sunny politician opened fire to disperse protesters marking the official casualty in a week of rallies. the demonstrations reflect increasing sectarian tension in iraq which is struggling to maintain -- a year after the last u.s. troops withdrew. these reports we're seeing still on a daily basis out of iraq? >> guest: what you're talking about is a direct result of the crackdown against the own finance minister. he's from -- [inaudible] and has been massive demonstrations there involving tens of thousands of people provesting -- protesting this. it's a crisis that basically mall lack i can has the power to resolve if he's so inclined. what i think he'll -- he'sing to do is the elections coming up in the spring.

his tile is another there's sunny official who is taken refuge in turkey. it's part of the instability in iraq today. the american ambassador there has been involved in trying to tamp down and contain, and walk back some of the steps. so far it's not been successful. >> host: do president obama and ma lack i can talk? >> guest: rarely. what president obama basically delegated the iraq file to vice president joe biden, and vice president joe biden -- >> host: when did it happen? >> guest: 2009. yeah. 2009. first part. biden had the lead for iraq policy, and a lot of this is reflected in my book. there was a debate, really, over

how much to get behind mall i can. and the ambassador at the time thought he was the man we had to work with. that his rivel, didn't have a good chance of making it to the prime minister post. notwithstanding the fact that he won more elections in the seat. there was a debate where joe biden came u down in favor of working with him and maybe a necessary evil or just a man that was going to be there. so when things really get hot, or when there's a crisis, vice president biden called about the iranian flights. but it seems like his calls seem to have less and less influence. >> host: let's go to lincoln on the republican line. >> caller: good morning. i have a comment and a

question. i being a person getting in contact with many people from around the world, i have a few friends in egypt and kuwait. i'm worried about my friend in kuwait. he goes to one of the blind schools over there. is there a possibility that the iraq might actually reinvade to kuwait any time soon? >> guest: no. >> host: what are the current relationships between iraq and kuwait? >> guest: well, i understand the question, there's still issues between iraq and kuwait, but iraq's military lacks the capacity to to anything like that at this point in time. they can do internal security. iraq is no air force. that's one reason it's so easy for them to fly to the territory. we took our air force left.

we are selling them f-16. but iraq, you know, there was an operation in 2008 that ma he commanded called charge of the night. basically if the united states military hadn't provided a lot of enablers like air sport, intelligence, and whatnot, he probably would have failed. so i also don't think that he has any point to focus on kuwait. the focus at this time is syria. he's worried that the fall of assad will em bolden sunnies within syria and kurds within syria and in turn sunnies and kurds within iraq and the correlation of forces will turn against him. that's his occupation.

>> host: let's go to thomas from saint james, florida. on the independent line. >> caller: good morning. i'm from san that bell,, island florida. a question for you, mr. gordon. president bush promised that iraqi oil would pay back the united for the conduct of war of liberation for iraq, and that has never happened. yet no one speaks of it in the media, no one speaks of it in the government. further more, it's my understanding that no american company has any role in the rehabilitaion in the iraq oil fields where the sharing of the profit from that rehabilitaion. do you have any comment about that? >> guest: i don't recall president bush any understanding in iraq would compensate the

united for the cost of the war, and this i'm not an expert on the oil area. there are multinational companies in iraq exxonmobil is just made a deal if you consider curd stan park of iraq. it is part of iraq to explore the oil fields there. i think the iraq's investment climate and the reason the companies don't go in is not because they're being discriminated against, it's because the the investment climate, the legal architecture that you need to get people to put serious money in kind of developing country. there's been a bit of a movement from some of the concern in the part of iraq to the kurdish part

of iraq where they feel more comfortable. but that in turn is exacerbated tensions between kurds and arabs. >> host: michael gordon the coauthor of the "the endgame: the inside story of the struggle for iraq from george w. bush to barack obama" you can check out his website at michaelgordon.com. thank you for joining us today. >> guest: thank you. i thought the questions were very good and i gave the best answer i could provide. >> host: we appreciate it. is there a non-fiction author or book you would like to see featured on booktv? send us an e-mail at booktv@c-span.org. or tweet us@twitter.com/book is tv. >> i wrote the new book. and i did it becauselet see, i was talking to katherine lopez the national review online and she asked me why i wrote it.

i said, you bet it is an awakening. stuns me that half around half of the american population completely fell for this empty mantra of hope and change. the obama administration was going to be that transcendent administration. that brought us all together. that is why president obama earned the white house. because he said he was going the great uniter. remember that beautiful inauguration address? it was glorious where he said to conservatives, i want to listen to you especially when we disagree. okay. nice, beautiful. beautiful idea. and he was going meet with conservatives in congress once a week, that was a great idea two. he meet twice. twice, two times. three days after the beautiful speech, the conservatives in congress came to the white house and they had a meeting and eric

can cantor, are techlated the conservative perspective on increasing taxes we shouldn't do that. and you know what obama said three days after i want to listen to you? he said eric, i won, you lost, i trump you on that. then about a week later, he said i want the folks who got us in to the mess to do less talking. and a lot more listening. you can talk a little bit. i want you to stay on the sidelines while we try to clean it up for you. unbelievable. gone with any notion of unifying the country of bringing us together. instead there came the steady mantra of attack and vilify the other sides. no idea. just like his 2008 campaign for president was not idea-based. it was hope and change. glorious speeches with no substance whatsoever. the only substance he was going

unify us. be the post partisan president. almost immediately it was conservatives are hostage takers. they are the enemy. they care only about millionaires and billionaires and not children with autism and down syndrome. what was the approach? why did obama and his administration just come in wanting to vilify the other side with the intense hatred? it was bringing to the administration that philosophy of a community organizer. for years obama has said i'm still a community organizer just at the national level. well, this was the one qualification that i think obama brought to the administration, if you can call it a qualification for being president. was that he was a community organizers. he was a darn good one. absolutely. he was known by the fellow community organizers as the master of agitation. this is really important because this is the essence how he

afused the world. he would go a community and he would identify an enemy for the group and community. he would stoke the animosity and generate this anger and hatred. while everybody is riled up hating some organization or person or whatever it is that he focused their attention on, he ran through his agenda. no discussion, no need for any debate or discourse, but he was all based on distract everybody, get them focused on some entity, and then ram through whatever you want. look, that's exactly what he has done at the national level. there for the past four years, there's been no philosophical back and forth. no dynamic free and exchange of idea. i wrote it not because i'm attacking division in politics. i'm all for it. anybody who watches fox news, i

love it. i'm -- when it is based on idea with that is the essential recommendation of our country. we are free to have the exchange. they were not sitting around singing. they were duking it out with a very different philosophy. because they were able tow have the mutual respect and have this -- it wasn't always respect. it because they were able to fight it out based on idea and philosophy. we now live in the greatest most prosperous nation on the face of the earth. their idea, the best ideas were able to try yumple. because reason was left free to combat ideas not that great. we are losing the ability for reason to be free to combat bad ideas. do you ever hear the obama administration defend, why it works to raise taxes on small businesses or on individuals who

have more successful? do you ever hear them say from an economic standpoint there is how we generate more income? no. it doesn't generate more income? it will only jen rate less. instead of trying to articulate a defense of the economic policy. they rip us apart and divide us. they vilify conservative as hating poor people and the middle class. the class warfare thing ripping us apart based on economic status, i was silting there watching obama give a speech the other day, it was actually a couple of months ago and he said twelve times the middle class in the speech. what is with pigeon holing us the middle class? he loves to say i want to help you, you americans, you people get in to the middle class and stay there. okay. first of all, why is it the

president of the united states responsibility to decide what class i should be in? i should have dreams to achieve whatever level of income and greatness that i want to. and this country provides me the opportunity that i have a good shot of achieving my creams. play by the rules, work hard, have some hood spa. you can. you can build it. you can achieve greatness. this president, instead tears us apart and ville lonnizes those who succeeded. you know what he said the problem is in the breathtaking greed of the few. that's an amazing thing. to condemn those who have achieved success in our society. we honor success in this cull sure. he vilifies it so he can ram through the notion that we need to punish them with higher taxes. there's justification. there's something wrong with

them. we must punish them. no economic racial for it. you have conservatives arguing for lowering taxes since we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world and the racial for why it works. why from an economic standpoint that produces more prosper fip how it works under ronald reagan. how jack kennedy how it d it and how it worked. you don't hear the same coming from administration. they can't argue the facts. facts don't back them up. they can't come forward and have an honest discussion about the objective. conservatives will argue our objective is to elevate everybody by increasing prosperity. by unleashing the private sector from overbearing not reasonable but overbearing government regulations so everybody can prosper. we believe there's an unlimited ability for prosperity. the left believes that it's a

fixed amount. it's a pi. and everybody -- pie and everybody gets a slice. that's not how we see things. you don't heart left articulating a response to that discussion because what obama wants to do is force redistribution, and if e he were honest about that his goals not just equalizing everyone but bringing them down. because that's what happens with when you try to equalize income. you bring everybody down. instead he tries to turn conservatives in to the enemy. and let me tell you, it's increed belie effective when it's not met with powerful -- found articulation of our ideas. we have seen that when there's a vacuum on our side that hate biment rhetoric programs

through. i want to talk in particular suns we're the policy ?iewt i want to talk particularly about this whole notion of a war on women. obama hasn't kept his hateful rhetoric to class warfare or the war against women. it's dwiegd young people, turning young people against old people. turning old people against business and division. dividing us based on race. racial tensions are higher than ever perhaps in the country in terms of trousering one another and thinking the best of one another. he's deviced us based on immigration saying that conservatives are the enemy.

how he tried to pit americans against one another. ly saying up there's a war against women happening here. but it's not coming from the conservatives side. it's a shame we're using words like war against women. eat h i'll get to that in a minute. the reality is that the administration used that health and human services mandate not to have a discussion about religious liberty and what religious organizations should be compelled to do, but instead to use it as an opportunity to say, we told you conservatives hate women. they want to take women back to the stone age and deprive them of their -- they call it reproductive justice, because they were conservatives do not believe that religious organizations should be compelled to provide insurance program that covers something antithreat theatrical to the

belief. because of that racial explanation conservatives despise women. they are engaged in an assault. this is the language they used. conservatives are involved in an assault. we are actually waging a war against women. women's health needs are increasingly under attack by conservatives. that's what they say. the language is pretty serious stuff. my favorite. i have to give you favorite the war on women. congresswoman sheila jackson lee talking about this conservative -- get it. we are attacking women because we hate women. our assault on women, she said, quote, i think the next act by conservatives will be dragging women out of patient rooms in to the streets and screaming over their bodies as they get dragged out of getting access to women's health care. seriously. okay. seriously. that's what we're going do? it is unbelievable.

there's no fact, no nothing to back up such a profoundly misleading statement that only is put out there to incite hatred and mistrust. a mistrust of our intentions of our goodness so when any issue comes up in congress or in the public discourse, statements like this and statements that the president said, our administration has said, will nullify objections from the conservatives on any issue. particularly on issues relating to anything related to women. which, of course, for the left runs the gamete between a an b. abortion and birth control. that's all they seem to care about, according to them. the silence is intended to silence our side. sometimes it's pretty effectively particularly among conservative men and look at this and say i guess i can't talk about issues relating to

women. you know what? oh my gosh, they have to talk about issues related to women. those are issues that affect everybody. womens are concerned about the same thing that men are concerned about. let look at what the left is saying about women. let's look how tal rant and open minded the left. you can watch this and other programs online the booktv.org. here's a look at some upcoming book fairs and festivals happening around the country. then during the second week of

march booktv will be live from the tucson festival of books in arizona. among several authors featured are timothy eggen, christ shan i'veson. also in march, the virginia festival of the book begins on wednesday the 20th and runs through sunday march 24th. the annual event features several authors including douglas, philip, and congressman john lewis. please let us know about book fairs and festivals in your area. we'll add them of our list. post them to our wall at facebook.com/booktv. or e-mail@booktv@c-span.org. we're working with jefferson "snow-storm in august." what happened in washington, d.c., in 1835? >> francis scott key was the bring attorney and the city

authorities lost all control of the city. it was the beginning of the conflict over slavery. the ideological conflict over slave i are and the white population started attacking the free black population that was active in the antislavery movement. it was wide spread disorder. he was responsible and it was a humiliation for him and the city. >> it started with a man named arthur bowen. who is that? >> a servant 19 years old in the home of anna marie, a well-known women in washington. he was alleged to have attacked her in her bedroom at night with the ax. it was sensational news of the alleged attack that set off the white population to attack the black population. in fact, there was no attack. >> how did they find out ? >> eventually arthur went on trial and all of washington was

startled when mrs. thorton rose to the defense of the man allegedly tried to kill her and said, i know this boy, he broke in my house, i know he would never intend to harm me. he was drunk but he never raised an ax against me. he was convicted anyway. because of her per sis end desire to free him, she managed to get a pardon from president jackson and arthur bowen was saved from execution. >> pardon from president jackson. what was the connection to the president? >> she was the widow of the man named william author thorton the man who designed the u.s. capitol. he was a friend of george washington and thomas jefferson and friends with dolly madison and james madison. she had the ability she used her connections to rescue this buy from death row. >> so you a particular title

snow tomorrow? -- snowstorm in august? what was that. the name that local people gave to the riot after wards. the riot one of the targets of the riot was a man named beverly snowe. a man who had a restaurant here in pennsylvania. very successful and the idea of a successful free black man in the capitol, the slave holding capitol of washington infuriated white people. and so the rite was about -- riot was about him and his success and about arthur bowen. so after wards people called it the snowstorm. >> what was the result of this in regards to francis scott key's career as an attorney. >> he was an ambitious guy. and the riot took the wind out of his sails. it was a humiliation of him. he lost control of the city. he continued to serve as