people? if 100% of people are covered -- overall, those patients, we have to encourage them to come in and get their health care. the bottom line is every american has to have access to health care. i think we all agree on that. there has been a heightened debate on health care. there is enough common ground. let's deal with the costs, which are out of control, in many cases. let's make sure every american has access to affordable health care. host: dr. bernadine healy, thank you. we will take a look at the middle east in our final segment. joining us will be -- he would join us from new york. he is neil macfarquhar. we will be right back.

>> to a house subcommittee takes up the issue of insurance industry oversights. this could threaten the financial system. live coverage begins at 10:00 a.m. eastern. the senate commerce committee considers nominations for the federal communications committee. that will be live at 2:30. both hearings are also on line. >> discovered an unfamiliar side of our first president. we will be live from mount vernon estate on the assent of george washington. join our conversation on sunday, july 5. >> how is c-span funded? >> i have no clue. maybe some government grants.

>> advertising for products. >> public money, i am sure. >> how is c-span funded? 30 years ago, it was created by a public service. no government mandate. no government money. >> "washington journal" continues. host: our guest joining us from new york is neil macfarquhar, author of the books "the media relations department of hizbollah wishes you a happy birthday: unexpected encounters in the changing middle east ." welcome. guest: great to talk with you. host: give us the sense of your history in covering the middle east. guest: i grew up there. i often call it taxes on the mediterranean. i was in an oil compound.

after college i went back and studied in cairo. i became a correspondent there. i worked for about 40 years as a correspondent. i was with the associated press. and then five years plus as a bureau chief for the new york times. host: your book has a subtitle about unexpected encounters in the changing middle east. guest: i think there is a desire -- a lot of people talk about how we understand the region is out of step with the rest of the world. they know there's more freedom in other countries. they no civil society is stronger. they are trying to find ways to find ways to open up to have rooms of freedom of expression

and freedom of assembly, all of the things we take for granted. the book explores some of the efforts to achieve that. host: you talk about areas looking for freedom and democracy. center your thoughts on what you see going on in iran. guest: i think it's exciting that people have taken to the streets in such big numbers. there has always been a social defiance in iran. one example is the fault watwa t over dogs. islam says dogs are on cunclean. so they pump out these fatwaas all the time. people as an act of defiance get

dogs and treat them as pets. it has gone back and forth. the dog supply is limited. they are abandoned -- they cannot sell them in many places. people come up and whisper in your ears, "i have a german shepard," like it is drugs. iranians to look at ways to defy the government. there have been street protests. they have -- they have never reached critical mass. the question looking at the numbers yet spike in teheran is will it change the system? host: do you think it would? guest: it is just too early to tell. it is the -- they have dented the nature of the supreme leader.

and khamenei, ayatollah khomeni who founded the revolution, he had unparalleled authority and great charisma. and the current supreme leader has never had his religious credentials and never had his charisma. he was shrewd about maneuvering. he managed to project a strong image. over the weekend, he came in and said it is a defiant results and congratulated the winners. he jumped the gun. you're supposed to wait three days before the results are certified. people said, wait a minute, we do not believe the results. mir hossein mousavi sort of said and wrote a letter that, do you believe in these results? it was a subtle way of saying we

do not think the supreme leader's authority is the final word. it kind of put a crack in the system. host: our guest is with us until 10:00 if you want to ask kim questions. 202 737-0002 for republicans. 202 737-0001 for democrats. 202 628-0205 for independence. tell us how you got the title of the book. what you want people who read the book to learn about the middle leasebacks guest: on the title, i was trying to project the idea that is not a policy tome. i have lived there for a long time. i like to people of the region. our image is one of violence. we were looking for a title that captured the idea about change. a friend suggested one idea.

in the southern parts of beirut, to make you fill out a lot of paperwork. one thing they ask you is your birthday. on my next birthday, up pops an e-mail message at hezbollah.org. that is how we got the title. i was talking about image. there is a big gaps between outside perception and inside reality. someone asked what inspired the book. i was a guest at a dinner party. someone said, aren't there any normal people, people we can relate to? i said, yes, there are all kinds. i went through in my head a litany of stories i covered over the years. various palestinian uprisings. the fallout from 9/11.

we have to concentrate on the big stories. what gets lost in some of the aspects of daily life. and so i wanted to go back and fix that and talk about the famous chefs on tv. the famous musicians. there is a profile of a sex therapist who has a chat show on kuwaiti cable, kuwait satellite tv. what arabs talk about and questions they ask about their society. host: title once again is "the media relations department of hizbollah wishes you a happy birthday: unexpected encounters in the changing middle east." neil macfarquhar is our guest. caller: since you were born, you

know there has not been peace in the middle east. and now you have been over there and have seen that, why is there no peace in the middle east? guest: it is a complicated question. they are young countries and young societies. after world war ii -- the arab- israeli dispute is part of that. it has dragged on for so long. there have been occupation since 1967. it is kind of a bleeding sore. governments have not done -- the arab governments use that as an excuse and a half to do heavy military spending and the need a strong military presence. they use those so-called armies

there used to sue in theory liberate the palestinians to oppress their own people. i think the solution is to end the occupation. it will make a major difference. host: jersey city. we talked to james. caller: good morning. i do not think people are seeing the piece -- they're making iran to look like a bad guy. israel and iran at one time had an alliance which was against said don and against the russians -- it was against sad dam and against the russians. it seems that we are endorsing all of this writing.

the votes have been stolen. they said this before the election as if there were anticipating it. guest: james, you have a good point about iran. it is the role of iran in shaping defense and the influence has been kind of exaggerated. the palestinian issue has never had very much resonance among the iranian public. the regime uses it to try to attract popularity and works to a certain extent. people want someone to stand up to the united states periodically. in solving the occupation, i think it will defang a lot of the radical movements. they can jump up and down and scream all they want and no one will really care. in iran, after the israeli

hezbollah war, israel said they would send a lot of aid. those hit by earthquakes rioted. they said, you have not rebuilt houses. while sending money to the south of lebanon? to your other point, in terms of the demonstrations, there are questions about how the election came out. the people who run around have always used the turnout as a sign that they are accepted and that people like the islamic system and that they believe in it. it always have used the turnout as that kind of gauge. if you listen to the press conference on sunday, he was talking about the 85% turnout.

if the turnout turns out to be hollow, it looks -- that is why the outcome is so important. host: we have been showing people on twitter there is a special section set up. army forces were entering to iran. talk about the influence of social media sites in the coverage of what has been going on. guest: the government was worried about it, so they shutdown text messaging. a lot into nine -- a lot internet sites were shut down. obviously, it is a huge organizational tool. twitter is up and running. people compose messages on that. it is interesting in looking at other countries where there have

been attempts to organize protests. the right to assemble in other countries is banned so they get around that using the social media networks because they can organize and the government cannot stop them. it is a big leap to jump from their to a regime change. i do not think that is what the young people want. people do not want that kind of upheaval. they just want the system to work. host: madison, florida. caller: you have touched on the question to some degree. to what extent the other arab countries fear iranian power. and whether the level of education rises and weather it portends a desire for more individual freedoms. guest: there is always a

mistrust of the iranians. they are the ancient enemy. the whole kind of persian enemy is still alive in people's minds. after iran converted to islam, they became shiites. a lot of cities look down on the shiites and -- a lot of sunnis looks down on the shiites. saddam was afraid his shiite population would change sides. they did not. their arab identity was much stronger. i think the iranians and the government there have managed to create a certain appeal by criticizing the united states and lashing out at israel. i do not think that the appeal

goes much beyond that. in terms of freedom, i think one of the things i talk about in the book is the aljazeera of fact. in this country, aljazeera is often criticized because they gave a platform to osama bin laden. you were hearing it called all osama all the time. as a reporter, i used to have aljazeera on all the time. they would find dissonance whether it be libyans or someone else working in lebanon on and who was in jail. it was an incredible tool for finding now what kind of opposition did exist in the arab world. one example in the book, a friend of mine's mother was watching al jazeera one day.

they do a good job of covering the globe. they're watching peru. is that how come there are no election returns in the middle east? it starts people to thinking and contrasting the systems that exist in the arab world in other places. people are like sponges on those kinds of issues. they know they need change. the difficulty is to create the tools to get it. host: what you believe barack obama's influence on the middle east will be? guest: he hit a lot of the right notes in trying to repair the image of the united states and to talk about people in their own language, their own terms. it signals that somebody is

listening. when the united states tries to intervene directly, it is often rejected and seen as a throwback to colonial times or trying to interfere in sopping that is not their business. but when the talk about issues and the need for civil society, it does shift the debate. that was one criticism. i talk to some friends in egypt. that was one thing they felt he when lightly on, the need for expanding civil society and human rights. he probably did because he did not want to insult his host. he has been in power for so long. but that switch in tone has the ability to influence events and make people more amenable to the idea of change and that kind of thing. host: florida, democrat line.

caller: good morning. my question is the president is cautious back in his discussed yesterday. some people are asking that he should be more demanding or more forceful in condemning the elections. why do we believe the election was rigged? we are not sure. would you recommend for the president to do considering we are not certain of anything? guest: i think you're right. we are not certain. there is a protest going on in iran. there seem to be a large number of people that are convinced the election was rigged or stolen. the united states -- there was no international observer there. there is no sort of basic

evidence on which to base an argument on. a lot of it is playing with statistics. i think also, i don't think direct intervention would be welcome. if the united states said you should have a new election we should rerun the vote. even people in sports say, who are you to interfere in our election and our internal affairs? just by speaking out in support, people are raising questions about the best route. if we had a close election in our own country and europeans were weighed in and saying if it's fraud, we would have been outraged. the support people who are raising challenges, but you

cannot really tell another country how to run their elections. host: viewers often say why should we be so concerned about elections in other countries. why should we as a network or a people pay attention to these events? guest: the united states -- no system of government is perfect, but the united states has a pretty good one. over the years, we have always sort of had an image of free society and society with a lot of opportunities. i think it was robert kennedy who said any time someone stands up for injustice, a tiny ripples of hope goes out. although it isn't in the united states's business, it is helpful for people who are struggling to

create better human rights and room for freedom. but that the united states signals it is listening, that people speak out and say there are some basic human rights and some basic justices in the world that everyone should be allowed to exercise, including freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. some activists in other country, knowing that someone is supporting them to be able to move forward. host: our guest is neil macfarquhar. wilmington, north carolina. we hear from ray on our independent line. caller: what a great concept. i think the dog approach is very beneficial. i am 62.

i would like to make a quick comment. how quickly we forget. we intervened iraq and the cow successful that was. -- and look how successful that was. how d.c. the future of boots on the ground -- how d.c. the future of boots on the ground journalism going? guest: i think my colleagues in tehran are doing in valuable works. it makes a difference being there in place obviously then trying to reported from outside or just talking to people with no real substitute for being on the ground. it is difficult. it costs a lot of money. " is committed to the news. -- i think ""the new york times"

is committed to it. it is needed to support that. it is an open question. host: john from georgia. caller: yes. these are a couple of points and would like for you to respond. under what condition would they use their nuclear arsenal? bu field they would use nuclear weapons in their response to i ran -- to iran? also, the policy concerning israel. israel has attacked the united states. they have aspired for that as an ally. could you explain to me one thing is real has done to help the united states in any war

outside the past intelligence to get to their means. host: what you mean that israel has attacked the united states? caller: they have attacked the shield of the united states. guest: he is referring to the liberty incident. i hope there is no attack on iran. if you want a difference in iran, it has to come from inside the country. if you attack them, you will cement that regime in place for 100 years. it plays into the thought that martyrdom is the greatest cause and it will all band together. even now with the elections, the whole world says you have to do something and you would see an adverse reaction in iran.

if you change, it has to come from inside the country. in terms of israel, it is a double standard. people point that out where i worked at the un all the time. the united states bush's heart and other countries and kind of ignores the nuclear weapons from israel. in the era of communism, israel was always seen as a ball worked -- as a bullwork in defending those interests. but there is a new sentiment being expressed much more publicly. it is creating too much turmoil, the source of too much turmoil. host: what do you make of the presence of hezbollah in the light of elections? guest: hezbollah, it is a

political party. the reason is successful is the shiite population and in south lebanon on was neglected by the central government for years. hezbollah provides schools and social services and that is the basis for its popularity. it does stand up to israel. it gained a lot of popularity in 2006. israelis went over the border and said they would defang hezbollah. that made them more popular. hezbollah says they will reap liberate jerusalem. there is a game show and the answer questions about the occupation. if the answer right, there is still little map showing them headed toward jerusalem.

hezbollah has little chance of liberating jerusalem, but there is an emotional appeal to that region and to muslims, particularly sunni muslims. the to solve the problem, it will take away hezbollah's regional appeal. i think it will become another lebanese party among many. host: one more call. caller: hello. i did work in iran. i work in the school of nursing. i was there from 1959 to 1961. i watched the television reports from iran today. i was struck by how they demonize the united states for the overthrow in 1953, which