[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> he has met this morning with the prime minister of russia. in the meantime, here in washington, al franken is sworn in today. the democrat from minnesota will be sworn in at 12:00 eastern time. that will give senator reid 60 votes. some say that is not all it seems to be. we'll read about that as well.

the white house hospitals are reported to be near a deal for cost savings to overhaul the nation's's health care system. secretary clayton is expected to meet with the ousted leader of under arrest. it is the seventh of july. -- secretary clinton is expected to meet with the ousted leader of honduras. independence, 202, 628, at 0205. we look forward to your calls here. independence of minline -- 202-- 0205.

u.s. today put it this way, u.s. and russian summit yields crucial deals. "the new york times" as it as their lead story. this is a first step in a broader effort intended to reduce the threat of such weapons drastically, and to prevent their further spread to unstable regions. this is president obama's first visit to russia since taking office. this new treaty, to be finished by december, would be subject to ratification by the senate and could then lead to talks next year on more substantial reductions. they go on to write that the progress enacted to reestablish ties between the two l.b.o. countries, a year after

russia's 4 with george of let the relationship more strain than at any time since the fall of the soviet union. they sealed the deal allowing did united states to send thousands of flights of troops to afghanistan through russian air space each year. armor the deal sets -- arm deals limit. russia has 200 -- 2787. the new numbers would bring the lowest -- the numbers will work to 1500. they could be quite significantly cut. china has 186. france has 300. first call from lawrenceville,

georgia. mary on the democrats' line. >> good morning. host: good morning. caller: i just wanted to talk about the president. i watched him close to 4:00 this morning, and it was fantastic. i was so proud of him. host: what did he say or do that made you proud? caller: the way he presented himself to the russian people. the way she was received actually. -- the way he was received actually. i really believe he made headway there. they know we're not out to get them. host: thank you for calling. the second part of this visit dealt with a speech and economic graduation ceremony.

that is something we will show you later today. president obama also met with putin. they formed a "basis of a good relation." after the meeting, a senior administration official described obama's reaction this way" i would say that he is very convinced that the relationship is making positive headway. " what do you make of this nuclear deal? caller: i believe any deal that limits nuclear weapons is a good deal. i also think president obama must address and russia's violation of the assault treaty, which i do not know if you are familiar, but it banned nuclear warheads. russia has currently several in

operation that can carry up to 10 individual warheads, which means that they right now have the upper hand. we do not have that missile defense in europe, but they already violated this. what about that? that is my question. host: let's hear from evansville, indiana. donna you are on the line. what do make at this deal? caller: i believe the responsibilities of them -- i believe the responsibilities are very well taking care of by the united states. i believe all these countries trying to get nuclear weapons is buried dangerous. i think being concerned about the countries that have the weapons and had been very responsible is not as important as getting -- as checking

countries that are not responsible, the ones that have the terrorists. i think that the united states should guard themselves. they have allies and israel -- in israel. they cannot protect those that are life-time allies. host: "the new york times" points out that it is an overdue, it's very modest step toward ridding each side of obsolete and extensive cold war legacy weapons." the number they are proposing for delivery vehicles is shockingly low. ralph peters talks about a

desperate deal. "obama's moscow giveaway." the litany of agreements and frameworks implied that the united states benefited from all of the bus. we did not. we got nothing of real importance. but the government of the puppet master vladimir putin, virtually all it wanted. in moscow, this was christmas in july. kevin you are on the independent line from michigan caller:. caller: what the public does not know is they have a missile system. we had only one anti-ballistic missile system. it was dismantled about 25 years ago. why they are doing here is a

token gesture. they should be concentrating on anti-ballistic missiles. host: what is the purpose than a token measure? of the cut in the long run to make it look like -- caller: in the long run to make it look like we're doing something. if you are going to spend money on technology, do it for anti- ballistic systems. who exactly are we protecting here? it is the economy. people need jobs. who are we protecting? the rich, corporate fat cats of the world? why are we doing all of this when we do not have a strong

economy? people are not working. they do not even care what he is over there for. callerhost: let's hear from a cr from maryland. good morning. caller: at the bible says that -- the bible says that you did not need nuclear warfare. god will do that. this is a waste of time. [unintelligible] it is a very good step in the right direction by the president of the united states. caller: i appreciate you calling. republicans call this #--

we asking about this headline out of moscow "us and russia in nuclear accord." the issue is still hanging a out there. as far as some of the details by numbers," usa today" put it this way. nuclear weapons would put them at 1500 and 1675 deplored warheads each. -- deployed warheads each. russia has 13,000 total warheads. the u.s. has at 9400, but most

are not operational. they possess more than 90% of the world's nuclear arsenal. there is a lot of work to do on a new treaty. the verification process will be very complex according to gary samore. caller: thank you for taking my call. i think there is no real reason why russia and the united states need or should be enemies at this point. china, with 1.5 billion people, increasingly is spending money on weaponry, both nuclear and conventional. i think china poses a threat to both russia and the united states. it has a stronger economic base. it really almost will to work

rush of -- will dwarf russia and the years to come. i think the more in u.s. and russia can cooperate, the better. we did win the cold war. eastern european countries are now free. what gorbachev, if he had been stoned, could have started a nuclear war over the new claretian over russia. they have the missiles then. they did not disappear. the soviet union went into the night and gave up their empire. now europe is united, and russia should be made part of europe, and cooperation should be the name of the game, because there are too many threats, whether

from terrorist organizations or from china. i again emphasize the threat that is posed by 1.5 billion people, and people who are going to need space to live. so i think it is natural, and the more we can do to cooperate, the better. host: thank you for your thoughts this morning. you can follow us on twitter. the second step is to start having a nuclear-free zones, starting with the middle east. one viewer writes. now to an independent scholar, robert. what do you think? -- now to an independent color, robert. -- independent caller, robert.

caller: the united states has been using hawaii to intimidate everyone. i think it is a very good thing that obama -- i think she was born in the occupied territory of hawaii. there is an issued share of freedom for people. the people in every place and need to not be occupied by whether it is russia, america, or anyone. i think this nuclear weapons is to -- to get rid of it is good. first they need to come to hawaii. without having a free hawaii, you can never have peace in the world. we stand in the middle of everything.

we have no business being there. we wanted to have a big thing with the spanish/american war. caller: i appreciate you taking this call. first of all, did the president read what he signed? host: why do you ask? caller: and he does not read anything else. host: what are you referring to their? washington documents, proposal, anything else. caller: we need are mellon's -- military weaponry. we need safety first for the security of america. i love america. i believe in america. caller: -- host: thank you for

calling. the president met with vladimir putin and spoke at this economic school in moscow. here is one of the right ups. "president obama said it the two countries are not destined to be antagonists." he said the speaking in the russian capital. also helping to reach the whole nation. "progress must be shared," he said today. we have a caller on the democrats' line. caller: thank you for taking my call. for the president of the united states to go over to russia like that, for the russian president to give him what he needs, he

gave the president a good point. we should be happy with what the president got from russia host: here are the words from the russian president at the news conference. >> we need to keep going, and where we need to keep going in the future, but also, we have reached the basic levels which will help cooperation in these basic areas. this is a very, very specific issue in the sense that this statement that was just signed with my colleague, and it says that our countries can have between 500 and 1100 delivery vehicles, and between 1116

hundred warheads. these are the new parameters, within which we will now carry on our dialogue, and with we are hoping to achieve the final agreement, which will be incorporated into the new document treaty. we have also agreed that we are going to end the defensive capabilities of both countries, and should be viewed upon together. those cut republican caller -- host: republican caller on the line. caller: we see him as a person who understands the world policy. russian president said, he was just totally impressed that the -- that america is trying to talk to the world again and reached out globally. host: independent caller on the

air pyridine caller: thank you for taking my call. i cannot help but when i see the pictures of obama walking in, it looks so offstage. i hate to say, the more i see how his team is setting things up, it reminds me more of w. the real issues here is north korea. if you want to talk about missiles, they filed seven missiles at us on the fourth of july. -- they fire setd and missiles at us on the fourth of july. -- they fired seven missiles at us on the fourth of july. i would like to see us focus on north russia is an issue, but that seems like 20 years ago it was a big issue. right now it is north korea.

i would like to see the administration take real action and fix that problem. these but no opportunities in russia do not do anything for security. host: "us and russia to reduce arsenals." here is what obama had to say. >> we have taken important steps forward to stop the threat of nuclear weapons. this starts with our own nuclear arsenals. as the world's two leading nuclear powers, we must lead by example. that is what we're doing here today. we had signed a joint understanding for the agreement that will reduce our nuclear warheads by up to a third from our current treaty limitations. this legally binding treaty will be completed this year. we have also agreed on a joint

statement on nuclear security corp. that will help us achieve the goals of security of and vulnerable materials and within four years. together these are important steps forward in implementing the agenda that i laid out in prague. host: "obam'as low-key push it n moscow." this was from the top russian aid at the national security council. statements made by obama during his closed-door session the debt of reflect the low-key measured

approach the new u.s. administration has adopted toward promoting democracy and human rights around the world. this was affirming the president's agenda. that was enough -- that was in "the post" today. caller: i went to comment on the president going to russia. i think it is great we have a president that is focusing on our relationship with the world, because foreign it relation is very important to our country. this is a great start. from a year, i could just imagine the wonderful things that this president can do for us. you know, the way i see it, i know there is a lot of problems in the world and stuff like that, but we have to take things

one day at a time, and the house to start with for renewed relations -- foreign relations, because there is the reason we are called united states, and that is because we believe in being united. we just have to take things one step at a time committed i think it is great -- we just have to take things one step at a time. i think it is great he is moving towards this. host: "arms control and needs amnesia." was a headline today regarding this treaty. mr. obama praised the agreement as a step forward, away from the suspicion and rivalry of the

past. the president held it as a reasonable compromise this agreement has the potential to compromise u.s. security, depending on what happens next. here is one more tweet this morning. we can reduce these weapons and still remain very powerful. as we take this next call from pennsylvania, democrats line. what do you said? caller: i would say that obama continues to display -- are you talking? he continues to display that humility, modesty, and balance in his foreign-policy that was promised by george bush, that never really happened, in fact, the opposite. i think we can look forward to probable good news with obama's

foreign-policy. i want to make one other point. i continue to be dismayed by the inability of the regular host on c-span to use the word democratic when they are talking about the call and lines. democrats is a republican majority of the term. you used it this morning. it has been used multiple times over the last few months. people at c-span to use the term democratic for the parties that i have belonged to for 60 years. host: another call from the democratic line. caller: think you for taking my call. i am watching you guys every money -- i have been watching you guys every morning for the past six years. i love this program. i would like to say something about president obama, of which i have recently heard lots of

people called in, just like the previous caller hussain obama. i do think he is doing a great job with everything he is doing, especially with the situation overseas. i just wish he would keep on doing what he is doing, so he can show the republicans have wrong they are always criticizing his plans. host: caller, to the thoughts about the nuclear deal. good idea? bad idea? what do you make of it? caller: i believe it is a great idea, and it will be a positive in the future. as long as we have superpowers like them, we will always be on the positive side as far as

showing our image towards america and the world. host: one last call on all of this. your vote, virginia. -- norfolk, virginia. caller: i think it is good that the president can, for state with the russian people, but my whole thing is our economy. i would like for the economy to be handled, instead of doing a whole lot of world travel. [unintelligible] we have things being decided over press conferences, why cannot -- why can't the countries around the world

region has come we're going to move on to health care. -- host: we're going to move on to health care. here is a comment from henry waxman. he was on this program yesterday. here is what he sees as the need for health care reform. be right back. >> is lots of people say, why we doing these big things when we are faced with historical recessions in our economy? president obama has said that this is the time we need legislation in both of these areas. people are losing their jobs in record numbers. as they lose their jobs, they lose their health care coverage. what we have at 36 million uninsured, it is probably closer to 50 million.

it is a real problem. a lot of people work hard and do not get health care available to them because their employers cannot get health care to them. this is the time to say we cannot afford the system. we have to hold down the cost. it is hard to hold down the cost of health care if people show up in the emergency room without health insurance coverage and they have to be taking care rep. you have to shift the cost to those who do have insurance, whether it is public or private. that just means they have to pay more. if we have a system where people can choose between competing plans, either a private insurance plan or public insurance plan, a choice, a choice and competition is good. -- a choice in competition is

good. it is not a great system to pay for every test that every doctor wants to impose. a lot of it is wasteful spending. host: at the table is grace- marie turner, president of the galen institute. what is the prescription? guest: i went to promote a more informed conversation of free- market ideas for health care reform. this would be to get patients and doctors in charge of decisions and provide health insurance for everyone, but to do in a way that gives people choices and options in the private marketplace. host: henry waxman said now is the time for health care reform. what is your take?

guest: that is right. 4 in 10 changed jobs every year. -- change jobs every year. he will wind up with people having times of uninsured. we are going to make a big dent in the people without health insurance if we go through this public plan. host: what do you want to see happen? guest: one of the people rigid one of the things we see are the people that are uninsured are set at of the system. -- one of the things we see are people that are uninsured are shut out of the system.

we also need a more competitive market. this would allow people to buy health insurance across state lines. we need a stronger safety net, so that people who have trouble getting health insurance with pre-existing conditions can get health insurance, but give them a choice of private insurance and not have to send them into public programs. host: we invite the viewers to call ain with questions and comments for grace-marie turner. the debate is kicking back and now that congress is back in session. there are lots of headlines in the papers today about headlines. "white house and hospitals are reported to be near deal." that was inbev -- in "the new

york times." what do you make of this? guest: it is really a series of hearings that the white house this but to get the -- has put together. it is companies and industry saying they will try to reduce costs by 1.5%. there really is an effort to bring the private sector to the table to produce savings. the problem that legislators have is that it is very difficult for the cbo to score that. it is a good thing for the economy to make sure we are getting a better value for our health care dollars. it is also a disconnect to make sure the system is benefiting

taxpayers. host: "white house open to deal on public health care." that was inbe the "washington journal." when you hear this from the white house, what do you think? guest: they realize that -- the public care option has so many complexities. all of the focus has been whether or not government will create its mon plan. -- whether or not the government will create its own plan. i think they have realized if they do not figure out how to

bring more people to the table -- a study has shown that if the government plan option were made available to everyone and it paid at medicare rates, and 119 million people would lose their private coverage. that is a really big issue. something they are trying to deal with. they are trying to get people another option, and still not have some many people lose private coverage. they really have to negotiate on this. host: force called for our guest is from new jersey. -- first call for our guest is from new jersey. this is the democrats' line. caller: are retired from a federal installation approximately five years ago. -- i retired from a federal installation approximately five years ago. at that particular time, i took

an incentive package and i was bringing home about $1,300 per month. not a substantial amounts, but it was something i took because of the fact that there was an incentive involves. i thought i could get something to supplement my income. since that time, even in spite of the fact that when i was bringing the monthly 1300 per month, my health care costs have increased substantially to the point where i am clearing about 500 and some change where my pension is concerned. it has made it very rough, but in addition to that, i have also tried to get employment, but it seems as though most of the employment that has been available to me, in spite of the 40 years of experience in a particular field, the

competition that i am dealing with has primarily been from other countries. it seems like a lot of the countries are more or less looking at individuals that fit more regulations, rather than pick up someone who has a substantial background. host: thank you. your reaction. guest: he is realizing he has to get a job to get health insurance. how much better would it be if you could get health insurance that you could take from job to job? hewitts be not -- you would not have to have health insurance if you lost your job. if there were held subsidiaries

available, that would offset some of the cost. -- if there were health sessa there is available, that would offset some of the cost. -- if there were health subsidiaries available, that would offset some of the cost. you need more choices and direct subsidies to help you deal with their premiums. host: of our guest is president of the galen institute. how is it funded? desk of a mixture of philanthropic contributions, and companies in the private sector and al, and a lot of individuals. -- guest: a mixture of

philanthropic contributions come in companies in the private sector and a lot of individuals. the sec did your best defense of your position. guest: we do not have a properly functioning system. we have people who do not have health insurance, and are in a market that is difficult for them to get group coverage. what we need to do is provide more robust competition. it does not mean that if someone is sealed into the emergency room that the doctor is when to lean over and said do you want a cat scan or mri? what kind of deductibles what do you want to pay? what are the trade offs? somebody is going to make this

tauruses, and i would rather it be the individuals and families making those choices. i would like to see them be able to take health insurance from job to job. host: let's hear from the independent line. caller: my son has his own policy at 22-years old. he needed to be a stitches and went to primary care. -- he needed two stitches and went to primary care. we went to urgent care and we got the bill from it. it costs $1,000 to put two stitches in. that is the problem with health care, the cost. there is no transparency. health care coverage used to pay $125 for stitches.

host: grace-marie turner. desk at the health-care sector represents -- guest: we really do need health care reform. in your case, what we need is more options and more competition so that the urgent care centers realize that people understand the cost. so that people will make sure that when they do have an option, -- and there needs to be a more competitive option. things like medical clinics and retell health care clinics are helping to lower the cost of health care and give people more options other than going to a hospital emergency room. we do not have a consumer- focused health care.

everyone thinks that insurance will pick it up. the private sector picks up a lot of the bills at public programs. the prices are very distorted. you are right. host: 1onone viewer writes, we have enough flexibility already. guest: they are highly regulated. you wind up with the state regulating what it will cost and provide. people really do not have a lot of choices. in some states they do. like an iowa, they have lower cost. -- like in iowa, they have more choices, which means it will work cost.

-- lower costs. host: speak to insurance industry reform itself. how the companies go about their business. what would you seek? guest: , again the need to have fewer regulations. -- again, you need to have fewer regulations. people need more choices so that they can have more options with coverage let them make the trade-offs and decisions, not legislation. allowing more engines into the market. many say we only have two or three health care choices. we do not have a robust,

competitive market. give people more choices, and the market will respond with more competition. people need refundable tax credits, but some sort of subsidy to even the playing field so that everyone is getting the same deal in purchasing health insurance. host: steve is on the independent line. caller: my name is steve opini. basically, my interest in this is i was a business major when i went to school, and basically if the private sector is doing so well, they should be able to compete very well against the government, so what is the problem against having a private and also public solution?

guest: the problem with the public plan is the government does not know how to run an insurance company. it would contract out billing. the government policy tools to get prices down is government cost authority. -- the government's tollols to get prices down is government cost authority. we would see a significant decline in the quality of health insurance, and what would happen is you would wind up squeezing private health insurance out of the market. your only choice will be the government plan, which means you will not have competition. the government will decide what services and procedures will be available, but maybe what providers will be able to use.

a public plan will drive public auctions out. -- public options out. i think a government plan is going to be much less responsive to the consumer. host: let's here from atlanta. caller: of my complaints about health care -- my complaint about health care is to be more direct in analyzing certain parts of it. my case is the pharmaceutical companies. i have a lot of medical problems. it is true that i can get medicine for $4 in some places. those are the prescription drugs. my problem comes with the over- the-counter drugs. i have noticed that so many of

the companies have boosted the price is so much, particularly i can get the medicines i need for the month for $12, but one over the counter drugs that i need cost me 30 -- $13. it seems these companies are playing a game where they are giving you the illusion of helping you, but in actuality they are gouging the prices of the over-the-counter drugs to compensate for the money they are losing. i think there should be war regulations of the pharmaceutical companies. guess that that is a tough one. -- guest: it is a tough one. we need to do a cost benefit analysis of how important the drugs are to you. it mayor barry will be you could

pick a plan and negotiate with companies to help you with your over the counter drugs and that could be part of your insurance premium, but you will pay through it one way or the other. one other problems we have with our current health care system is that it costs are not transparent, and people do not understand the full cost they are paying in order to have the illusion that the premium is the full cost of the drug. with the generics from walmart and target id is drugs for three -- it is drugs for free. the visibility and competition will help drive down the cost. i think we will get to system -- to the point where we do not have any cost for health care. i think this is realistic. i think we need to give you more options.

host: here is a comment from henry waxman. he was on this program yesterday. >> we have an unsustainable situation in health care. we pay more for health care in this country than anywhere in the world. we have 46 million people uninsured. people cannot afford their health care can the cost is increasing so rapidly that is bankrupting the federal government. president obama has stated that we need to reform the system, hold down the cost, and make affordable, high-quality health care coverage available to all americans. in the not so distant future, many will say what was that i'd all about? -- what was that fight all about? host: grace-marie turner.

guest: they are bankrupting the federal state government. a lot of people are concerned about creating a new health-care plan that would add further to the cost of government-provided health care. i believe that we need a uniquely american situation -- solution. president obama has said that we need to build on the strengths of our current system. europeans really do look to americans to see how we are getting our system more responsive to consumers, rather than to bureaucracies. we could ration care like they do in canada and other european countries, but americans will not tolerate that. we need to get more efficiency into the system. we need to give people more

choices at the kind of coverage that will work for them. part of that is greater transparency of cost. it does not necessarily mean paying more. host: republican column. -- caller. richard you are on with grace- marie turner. caller: i am trying to formulate my question. i call to talk about malnik practice. i am a lawyer. -- i called to talk about malpractice. some people are getting better at it and more people are getting fooled. i think, for example, i consider way into this comment. the fact of the matter is the

doctors who are at risk and the insurance companies that insure that that are at risk essentially do repetitive work. the same kind of defense is for the same kind of people over and over again. they are efficient and effective. the plaintiffs' attorneys that have to sue on behalf of each individual plaintiff have to make a defense that is different for each person. not all of those attorneys to take those cases are expert in that particular area. once the case goes to court, after many years and thousands of dollars that has to be put up, usually by the attorney, it goes before a judge and a panel will decide if it has merit. then after a trial between a

great law firm and perhaps is struggling law firm, a jury of peers, average people, sit there and listen and make a decision. they determine whether there is malpractice. it is not lawyers that are causing this problem. if people are convinced after all of that that someone is entitled to compensation, it must be pretty bad it 2000 people every year are dying in hospitals, just imagine what is happening in the offices. does cut there is a proposal for health court -- guest: there is a proposal for health court. it would move into a different system.

i think that there are new ways to look at this. we cannot ignore the problem, but we knew it -- we may need to set up a different system so that we can have more expertise, faster decisions, early offers, that could help everyone. this would help reduce the cost of malpractice that doctors feel is driving up their cost of practice. host: do you feel that a public option is a violation of the 10th amendment and this is a state's rights issue? guest: i had not thought about that. one of the issues that is on the table and congress is that instead of having won a federal plan, that the states have more authority to figure out how they can provide greater access to health insurance. that is really its.

-- that is really it. idaho, utah, and number of other states have figured al have to provide greater access to health insurance to people who have difficulty getting insurance. we need to figure out the problem we are trying to solve. do we want to figure out how we can rely on the expertise of the state, and give them new incentives, to be able to provide more affordable, more accessible health care, especially for people who had difficulty getting coverage. i had not thought about the 10th amendment issue. host: there was a article published by the galen institute president grace-marie turner. guest: we received contributions

from broad support. if people agree with the position we take, they are particularly interested in the approach that congress, senator tom coburn, and the senator from california had proposed because it embodies a lot of the proposals we have been talking about for 15 years. it seems worthwhile to talk about this initiative that does solve a lot of the problems. host: time for a couple of more calls. kevin is on the line now. independent caller. caller: hello. i would almost think, here we are in america and we always try to take care of people who cannot work in all of these different state-funded programs in different things, why can't we come up with something that

would bring it back to the private-sector? we have 47 million -- to my understanding -- we have 47 million people without health insurance in america, but why don't we take those people who were having trouble getting it or do not have it and turn around and give them or at least try to go to a private -- shop around for a private insurance company that would give them an opt in, opt out type thing? guest: i think this one of the -- i think this is one of the reasons it is really interesting. if you shut out of the system, we will provide a refundable tax credit, which means you get that

money even if you do not owe that much in taxes. about $2,300 for individuals to purchase private health insurance and give people the resources to purchase private insurance. if people as you say, do not opt in and make a conscious choice about the coverage they want, then the policy of for them by default is on the table. if they choose not to make the decision, at least everyone is covered. we can do this and still get people the opportunity to pick the coverage that works for them, rather than something that is dictated to them. it is all about putting money on the table to help the uninsured and giving them a better safety net so that people who have trouble purchasing health insurance on their own have a place they can go to get a

policy. host: last call from washington, d.c. go ahead. what is your name and comments? caller: there are a couple of concerns that i have. one of the problems is this profit mode. i currently have two home health-care programs -- two health care programs. i'm saying to you that i have more confidence in what i received did the government programs, and what i do receive through a private system. my wife would love to opt out of the private system because of the type of service we are getting. this idea of better services is not true. the problem i am having is that

because of the profit motive -- profit mode, that is not the case under the program here in the district of columbia. when she says the private sector is more efficient, i think what we have talked about is maintaining the status quo in keeping a system that is inefficient in effect. .

banks are getting stingy on credit. in the first four months of the year, the latest data available, banks issued 10 million new credit cards. that is a drop from last year. those are some of the headlines. >> here is a look at the president's schedule. he will meet with prime minister vladimir putin for breakfast and meet with former president mikhail gorbachev. later he is expected to speak at the new economic school. on wednesday, president obama travels to italy for the g8 summit. he will also stop at the

vatican in rome. the president wrapped up his trip on saturday when he flies to africa for a visit to the capital of ghana. check out c-span.org for more details. >> the u.s. government? >> i do not know. government-raised? >> it is not public funding. >> i want to say from my tax dollars. >> 30 years ago, america's cable companies created to spend as a public service. host: our guest now is major general john altenburg jr., a former appointing authority for

military commissions from 2004 to 2006. military commissions, what does that mean? guest: it is one of the four trial forms. court-martials are the ones that are most familiar to people. and there are also other forms included in these, and military commitment -- commissions are one of the least known. host: you will be testifying in front of the senate arms committee. when will you be telling them? host: guest: they are asking -- guest: they are asking us to propose legislation to an amendment. they have modified some of the here say provisions, changed some of the terminology.

essentially, expanded the detentions. most are in line with the expanded protection. for the most part, but i believe this is a step in the right direction. host: the topic is the future of military commissions. democrats, 202-737-0002. republicans, 202-737-0001. independents, 202-628-0205. major-general john altenburg jr., former appointing authority for military commissions. what exactly was your position during those years? guest: that position now is characterized as convening authority. they are responsible for

deciding which cases go to trial. they recommend when the prosecution goes to trial. the convening authority makes a decision whether they should be a capital referral or not host. host: how much of a role does this commission play with military detainee's? guest: there were about 200 there, over 800 since 2001. commissions have only affected 20 of them. right now only 12 of them are involved in the military process. host: what else should we know about this process as we deal with these proposals? guest: the most important in to

know -- and this was lost in the bush administration -- is that there is not a need to have military commissions. there was not a need in 2002, no requirement to have them now. if you capture someone on the battlefield, you can detain them until the conflict is over. the first question should be why did we rush into military commissions in 2001? i do not know why they rushed to establish military commissions. for the most part, military commissions are conducted after the war is over. all i know is they rushed, published the presidential military order, which was flawed, to say the least, and put us on the road to delay and

expensive litigation. -- extensive litigation. that is the first thing that people should understand. once we capture people on the battlefield, we detain them until the war is over. i do not think most people would contest in that. host: take us deeper into what happened on the hill, at the senate arms and services committee. how can we understand what they are doing? guest: i am not sure how significant it is. the military commissions act was a giant step forward. it does need some changing. there were people in the government at the time that wanted to make recommendations earlier, which they are doing

now. host: how do you assure a fair trial? guest: you ensure there is a process that protect individuals who are accused. ensure the people involved are potentially -- professionally competent. that is an interesting question because it brings to light for me the fact that even when the first military commission came under order, ultimately, they would have produced fair trials, but that is only because of the individuals involved. the process itself did not require a fair trial because there were possible loopholes that people could have driven through.

the military commissions act was a step forward in ensuring that the process itself was unfair. we need to make sure of that even more so now. host: first phone call for our guest. caller: if i was caught on the battlefield in afghanistan, in the wrong place at the wrong time, how could i prove my innocence? if there is no trial, how can i prove my innocence? host: we will let you answer. guest: that is a great question. it brings to light the fact that we did not have tribunals

before, like many felt we should have. there is a process in the geneva conventions that provides for making that assessment, making that determination, is this person and on privileged belligerent, should they be considered to be detained? this is why we have some of the problems we have at guantanamo. host: next phone call. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to know why we did not dustoff the policy we established in world war ii and

put it into effect. we had a whole package that was tried and true. it worked. host: let us hear from major- general altenburg. guest: i agree with you in part. i agree there was a process that worked. quite frankly, we needed to update it for the 21st century because we had not done military commissions since 1948. the problem was we mired ourselves in a presidential order that was premised on a 1922 presidential order.

the presidential order in 2001, however, failed to account for the 1951 ucmj, the 1983 amendments, and significantly, the case law and development from the 1970's, 19 '90s. none of that was taken into account when they created the new system. what we should have dusted off is the current ucmj, made a comparison of what worked in military commissions today, from today's manual, not using the 1942 quarter as a basis. host: here is a tweet from one of our viewers. guest: i think not. i think the way the military

commissions are set up, they will be open, almost all the time. i know that was certainly the intent of our office when i was involved a few years ago. there may be some time in the future where the judge will have to close the hearing to the public because of some classified information. host: where are these typically held? can you describe the process? guest: commission that we are seeing now are all planned from guantanamo. the president is planning to close guantanamo, and so if they succeed, that answers where they will be tried. everyone i know who has visited

has said that it is truly state of the heart. even if they are able to close guantanamo, in terms of moving detainee's, i believe there will be a strong desire on many involved to conduct trials there anyway. host: what do we know inside the facility when someone is brought to trial? guest: it is important to note, while it was a pretty rough place when it started, it evolved to become a model prison. two concrete facilities based on plans for federal presence in the u.s. now we are stuck with this legacy that this is a terrible

place. everything that is provided for the detainee for the last several years has been state of the heart. but we are stuck with this black mark on our reputation. -- state of the art. host: can that impression ever change? guest: who knows? it is tougher internationally to overcome that impression. host: next question for our guests. caller: i agree with your premise. this is my issue.

how come when generals, when you are in the army -- i know that you cannot go against the president -- but why do they not right memorandums so we have some documentation? forget about the one in cuba. we have some all over the world. at least in cuba it is legitimate, there are close so that we can bring them to our court system. the evidence makes us look bad. the cia budget should be monitored a little bit. but the military needs to -- think about the general pace. he goes to war with no

equipment. then he wants to pray to jesus. when they are in office, when we need them, -- when we had a president, he was against them. host: go ahead. guest: there have been books written, talking about military leaders that did not come up in the vietnam war. i think that you will find that there have been many outspoken people in all federal agencies, especially the military, that have discussed these types of issues. that they oppose policies of the government years ago, but when the final decision is made by

the authority, unless unethical, we are obliged to concur and move forward. most of us disagreed with not conducting tribunals in afghanistan, yet policymakers felt else will lay, and we had to proceed. host: resting, virginia. colonel lay on the phone. -- reston, va. caller: i do not understand why we have over propagated this thing. -- over complicated this thing. it seems that the gene in a convention requires that anyone

captured on the battlefield not wearing a uniform, etc., that his status be determined by a board of three officers, if i recall. those officers decide if he is a detained prisoner, or a prisoner of war. if he is a detained person, they basically go through the process of having basic human rights. any procedure and that he undergoes will be determined by the detainee policy. of course, we are going to give him human rights, but he has no constitutional rights, except that to which we give him. why is it so complicated? in vietnam, we took care of it pretty easily.

host: let us get a response. guest: he has described it pretty accurately what the process is, and how it should be. he is right. we have over complicated it, mainly, because we did not do it the way that we should have in 2001, 2002. he is right. those three officers quickly making a determination on the status of the detainee. we were caught up on the determination by the president that these people are either taliban or al qaeda. the geneva convention lays out the provision for tribunals. is not difficult to do, it is not an onerous. it is something the military can do easily but the administration

determined that we were not going to have any tribunals. host: next phone call. caller: good morning. i'm calling from louisville, ky. my question is about the general of sudan. he is also a general. the congress is supposed to bring him to court for creating genocide in darfur. for someone like that, he started as a soldier. i am confused why he is not supposed to be in court. he was supposed to be in court in 2008 and there is still a genocide in darfur.

i want to know what is going on. guest: i believe the international criminal court is working on this. i believe they will be seeking action host. host: here is another tweet. guest: i doubt it. it has happened in the past, it's happened in the civil war, and some of them were validated. host: broken arrow, arizona. good morning. caller: good morning. i read a book called "to ever

presidency" recently -- "terror presidency" recently and all of my knowledge is based on that. if i heard you correctly, you said something like we could became prisoners of war as long as the conflict itself lasts. given the indefinite nature of the war on terror, do you see any issues rising specifically from the length of the war, and to you have any comments on that book, assuming you have read it? guest: i am familiar with the book, and his service to the

nation was extraordinary. it's still this, as a commentator. to respond directly to your question, yes. it is a detention and authority issue to keep people detained until the war is over. this is the kind of analysis that ought to have been occurring in the last several years. when the enemy is a non-state actor, when there is no capital to capture, no territory to occupy, how do you determine when the war is over? that is a valid question. instead, we have been debating the right to a speedy trial, the master criminal law process, instead of the detention policy.

"0ñi believe this misses the ma. what we should be discussing is international law, the rights of a detaining power to detained during a war, and then perhaps we should be revisiting the notion that you can detain indefinitely. at guantanamo we have these annual reviews that are unprecedented. host: one more question from the twittetwitter. guest: they are detained as military prisoners. i do not think anyone in the military characterizes them as terrorists. there are people who are captured and held as belligerence. host: nekton on call. caller: i am hoping c-span can

put something on that addresses the single payer issue. on this subject, i followed this detainee issue. based on my reading, documentary's i have watched, we have captured, and detained, and abused, and even killed innocent individuals. i wonder what you think we should do in terms of an apology? we are caught up in the ridiculous bribing of tribal leaders. guest: first of all, i am not sure how much that was. what there was, should be condemned. did bad things happen, where there abuses? i think we should be asking how we reacted to that behavior.

in that context, without getting into a field where i do not have much experience, reparations and apologies, i do have some experience with disciplining the force and people -- older people to accountability. what is not widely known is the number of court-martials end of the proceedings that have been taken to punish people who did not commit the types of offenses. host: we are speaking to major general john altenburg jr. thank you for your time. up next, clean energy and the economy is the topic. we will be meeting the mayor of broadneck, pa. john fetterman -- braddock, pennsylvania john fetterman.

>> robert mcnamara passed away yesterday at the age of 93. this coming saturday, but tv will the air the program from 1995 where she discusses his book "in retrospect." he also chronicles the measures enacted by government leaders and why he believes in retrospect their decision was wrong. >> the u.s. government. >> i do not know.

i think some of it is government-raised. >> probably donations. >> 30 years ago, america's cable companies created to spend as a public service. -- c-span as a public service. host: our guest is the mayor of braddock, pennsylvania john fetterman. he will be testifying before the senate today. what will your message before the committee? guest: is basically a spokesperson for the devastated areas. these areas that have lost hundreds of thousands of jobs.

this is basically a surrogate to testify that we need this bill passed because it will lead to a clean energy revolution that will lead, in turn, to a manufacturing jobs renaissance. host: give us a background on braddock. what is its history, what is its community like? guest: we are about 10 miles west of pittsburgh. we are a very distinguished and historic place. we were a community of 20,000 residents that now has under 3000. we had, in fact, the last remaining steel mill in the region operating. we have suffered more than anybody in the state. 90% of the community is gone.

host: you have these old steel mills in the community. what would you like to do to the town, as it like to clean energy? host: there is a lot that can be done. -- guest: there is a lot that can be done. i am not here just to represent braddock. there is so much that can be done in terms of green energy. we have a great chief executive of the county that is working on a marine engineer and we are hoping to partner with local companies in research and technology. host: we want to invite the viewers to call in.

we are taking the issue of clean energy, tying it to the economy. of course, congress is working on a climate change bill. john fetterman holds a master's in public policy from harvard. tell us about your own past. guest: coming out of graduate school, i was afforded the opportunity to manage a huge program that works with disaffected young people, helping them with a ged's, job placement, and it evolved from there. host: when you talk about repurchasing old land, what is the proper balance that you see?

between local, state, federal, how does it all work? guest: we are very proactive in our part of the state. we are hoping for not only stimulus dollars, with these shell already projects, but also with these innovations that should be coming with the passage of this legislation. host: how much money are you anticipating in your area? guest: i do not have the exact dollar amount, but we have they read -- as a region will certainly benefit from the legislation. host: milton, indiana. good morning. caller: you were talking about how everything is affecting the steel mills in pennsylvania. with this new climate change bill, there are a lot of industries in indiana that will

be devastated by the energy bill. a lot of it will have to do with cap and trade. it is going to cause people to lose jobs in the long run. reena jobs -- green jobs are unsustainable. we will end up in the same boat, whether it is five, 10 years down the road. guest: i would respectfully disagree. i cannot tell you how many labor organizations, particularly the united steel workers, that have endorsed this piece of legislation. we had a campaign in different parts of the country where i am featured in ads with steelworkers who have already lost their jobs. for example, u.s. steel canceled

a $1 billion expansion in our area because of the fall in demand. one last point. and these are not green jobs. i know that gets bandied about, but these are quality jobs. this will create a lot of quality, basic, blue-collar jobs, that you can raise a family on. these are not necessarily esoteric engineering jobs. these are jobs that many people in the country have lost. host: next phone call from maryland. caller: good morning. i am originally from ohio.

i do not believe in the use cold-fired anymore. i believe it is the electric arc. you commented that there were tons of steel in each windmill. one not try to refurbish some of the steel mills -- we need to make steel in this country. if we do not make steel to do these green projects, where are we getting the steel from, overseas? guest: i could not agree more. what sense does it make to reduce our carbon footprint if we are outsourcing this production to china? of course, this is all contingent on being u.s. steel. it is going to benefit american workers.

host: give us a broader look at your region in pennsylvania. how many towns are there like you in the area? guest: of course, we are unique. i have not come across another community that has lost 90% of their population, but certainly, 30, 40%. we are in any area and that produced a significant portion of the world's steel. naturally, when steel production got outsourced, we never really got the help that other areas received. we are not asking for the proverbial handout. we are asking for the handup

that can bring some manufacturing jobs to the region. host: how many jobs do you envision, if things work out here on the hill? guest: hopefully, thousands. what is good for greta: will be good for the entire area. we are a group of small communities who are struggling with thede-industrialization -- the de-industrialization of the area.

host: we touched on the original stimulus bill. you said that you did not want a handout. here is a twitter question. guest: i do not think so. i think it comes down, not necessarily reopening steel mills. we are talking about taking a piece of land and start anew, building new buildings, housing on this, and turning them into an engine of prosperity and adding to the tax base. when you lose 90% of your population, there goes your tax base. we want to be purpose of this land to bring us back from the brink. host: elaine is on.

caller: i wonder if they have considered getting help with this way. there are so many unemployed people, people who have moved out and might want to move back, if the government said that they would do something. employers, and go down to the employment office. tell us your need for workers and we will still pay unemployment, you pay the rest. let's put people back to work. people need to go back to work. this would work in any small industry. i need this many people for this and that. then you would have the people to work i do not understand why we are paying people to stay home i am a small business.

i have so many jobs and i would love to hire people for. but i am on a limited budget. i am sure every business could find a few people and get people off of unemployment so that they can have a future. host: thank you. guest: i come from a family of small business. i am very well versed in the mechanics of small business. it is just a massive infusion -- private dollars always follow public dollars. that is really not the case. we need public dollars brought about by the stimulus in order to bring things forward, not only in our region, but regions

in ohio as well. communities that were in municipal bankruptcy are now thriving because of the tax revenue. this is something that can be done at a national level with the passage of this legislation. host: who is the largest employer in your town right now? guest: i would have to say the hospital, but most of the residents work elsewhere, of town. host: average income? guest: about $17,000. that puts us at about the bottom of the income index in the allegany area. host: next phone call. caller: first of all, cap and

trade is not about foreign oil, it is about coal and the baseline production. most of the carbon emissions comes from coal-fired power plants. if cap and trade goes through the senate, this will destroy our last piece of 70 by limiting cheap coal production. it is very telling because they do not want to replace coal with efficient nuclear power. no one is commenting on that. guest: it sounds like you have your opinions of reformed out, and i respect that. in terms of the nuclear reference, personally, i grew up in a few miles from eight- mile island. personally, i do not have much

comfort with expanding our nuclear capabilities because that will generate an lot of collateral issues. with respect to coal, clean coal technology does exist. this bill does not suggest that cold war fossil fuels, in general, are going to go away. this is more about moving away from our dependence on foreign oil and our inability to put a cap on carbon dioxide pollution, which most everyone agrees is altering the climate h. host: another question on twitter. guest: absolutely. folks that would oppose this try to pit economic growth with concerns with the environment. well, you cannot have both. that is simply not true.

we need to move past this bickering. this is a working man's job. in the past, -- in fact, and one of the steelworkers and i worked with in the campaign to not consider themselves green, tree huggers -- they probably have a negative image of them. you do not need to wear patagonia to be one of them if not this, what else? what do you suggest? every time we hear about detroit they are falling into more and more chaos. as the mayor of a community who is near the finish of that time were decline, i can tell you is not a fun ride. we need to make some positive steps, and i think this is a

once in a generation opportunity. host: tell us about your americorps experience. guest: i worked in a very historic neighborhood in philadelphia, the hill district. i started a computer programming program. from there, i went to graduate school. in terms of clean energy, i used this analogy. when i was a can, i got a computer for christmas. there is not much that you can do, but now i am getting questions from the internet. think about the wealth that the internet has created. no one could have seen that wealth creation, technological advancement. it is the same thing with this bill. it will lead to similar wealth creation and innovation in this country. furthermore, china and india,

who many believe will follow our lead -- it i does not matter if they do. they will need to shut down before the olympics so that they can see the sky again. we know this is a prime example to start exporting this type of technology to china. host: how long is your turn? guest: each term is four years. we just were reelected. i will be around as long as they will have me. it is the best job i have had. host: next phone call, california. caller: the question i have been asking a lot of people is, we

buy this oil from everyone. they do not like us. i am trying to understand, if we stop buying their oil, is that going to make them like us better? another thing -- the loss of oil we buy from them, we can't -- less oil we buy from them, the last things we will have. there are a lot of things that use oil. guest: i do not agree with his logic that they will like us last if we do not buy their oil. no one is suggesting fossil fuels, especially oil, is going to go away soon. the bill would not even take effect until 2012.

even the most ardent supporters of the legislation will suggest that we will be free of fossil fuels, certainly in my lifetime. this is just a matter of capping carbon dioxide emissions, bringing them down, creating research-based innovation in the country, which will hopefully translate into quality jobs. we will tie in research and development jobs, as well as blue-collar jobs, which many towns have lost. host: it is pretty close in the house. the senate is beginning its process, will be holding a hearing on the process. how close we are you watching the legislation? guest: i do not spend much time in washington.

certainly, i was glad that, representatives voted for it. i hope it passes. i believe that it will. i think we need to continue to get the message out. this is our last, best chance to reinvigorate the middle class through producing these quality jobs through this legislation. host: here is an e-mail. guest: again, that is a partisan dig. there are republican areas that are hurting just as much as democratic ones. just because you do not like the

messenger, whether it is al gore, myself, do not go after's. what we are arguing is not in dispute by most reasonable scientists and experts. i never understood how this became a partisan issue. we need to move past partisanship and realize climate change is a real fan. if we can reassert our leadership in the clean energy area, like this bill would allow us to do, it would be a great thing for the entire country. host: the wayne county, west virginia. thank you for waiting. caller: i am a retired union coal miner here in west virginia.

west virginia is basically being destroyed by the coal industry. they are involved in mountaintop removal mining. there have been over 1 million acres of mountains completely leveled. 62% of our streams are contaminated, or are about to be. the majority of this mountaintop mining coal is being exported to canada or china. our biggest problem is we have a single economy. in 1970 there were 120,000 union miners working in the state. today there are less than 14,000, and the majority of them are operating in mountaintop removal mining. at what price are we destroying the economy and state of west

virginia, and how do we stop this? mountaintop removal mining is against law law according to the clean water act, but they are not being enforced. they are supposed to put the mountains back to the original contour, but they do get some exceptions from the corps of engineers and west virginia det. we want a diversified grain economy. these mountain ranges that we are destroying our some of the most complex ecosystems in the world. as a matter of fact, and they survive the ice age. they are destroying them every day and there is nothing we can do about it because our political leaders support the coal companies who have the money, who control the media stations. guest: i certainly appreciate to

hear a working person from west virginia that has his eye on the bigger picture and realizes there is environmental degradation going on, and fundamentally believes this production technique and legislation will be a significant step. 20 years from now, that type of mining will be prohibited in rules will be enforced. coming from a region where i have been told you could not tell if it was midnight or noon based on the amount of pollution in the air. now, certainly, the world did not come to an end, but we've lost a lot of jobs that were shipped overseas to countries that did not follow any regulations. but now me want to be a leader. those buried in london to practices are being used in china and india, and they are not sustainable. we need to be in a position

where we are exporting that technology. host: next phone call, alabama. tina, good morning. guest: i disagree with what you have said. al gore is a hedge fund manager. the 150 acres that you are talking about in your community, will you get that by eminent domain, or do you own it? guest: is owned by the company who purchased the land. the county is in current ownership. host: anything else? caller: no, we're just praying for our nation. host: next phone call. caller: c-span seems to know pretty good about what we are trying to drill.

every time they started to drill, the environmentalists came in with an injunction. being familiar with the coal business -- i spent 35 years in the business -- and i sympathize with you, but he is not telling the whole truth. when the coal business was taken over by big business, that is when everything went to pot. we produced three times more coal now with 14,000 miners than we used to with half a million. the mayor needs to go back a little bit and find out that 119,000 scientists are saying there is no global warming caused by carbon dioxide. host: final thoughts?

guest: we disagree on the political spectrum. just because you would not want to have a beer with al gore does not mean that the research that he has brought to light -- it is not even his research. this is a global consensus that climate change is real. some people refuse to believe that, despite the opposite. some people still believe elvis is alive. we need to come to a bipartisan solution for climate change and new energy. john mccain supports cap and trade, too. again, the campaign on this notion of weaning us off of the energy dependence from other countries. this is a very pragmatic bill. it would not pass otherwise. this is not green peas, this is not an extreme environmental group.

it is a pragmatic piece of legislation that the business community had put in. we need support from both sides of the aisle. i would urge the person to reconsider your position. whether you believe in global warming or not, this is about blue-collar jobs. . he feels the confirmation hearings for supreme court

nominee sonia sotomayor are beginning to early. he is cited as saying the party may throw procedural roadblocks to delay the planned hearings. meanwhile the senate judiciary committee is getting in new member, senator elect al franken, saying he expects an awfully emotional day today as he is sworn in. the minnesota democrat takes the oath today on the bible of the family of the late senator from west -- minnesota. on the other side of the capital, ranking republican daniel i set releases a report on what he says other real causes of the financial crisis. the report accuses fannie mae and freddie mac of lowering mortgage underwriting standards in order to drive up the national home ownership rate, paving the way for today's financial crisis. roll call reporting on democrat john murtha us as for the past several years the pennsylvania congressman has been given -- has given more than $3 million

in earmarks to a company in his district to build an underwater swimmer detection sonar system for the navy to use to protect its docks and ships. but the company, kdh defense system sews bulletproof vests and has never built a sonar system and has no expertise in sonar. president obama's new foods a panel develop new rules for eggs, poultry, beef, and some vegetables. the new standards, aimed at reducing salmonella and e. coli is part of a government effort to make food safer to eat. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> "washington journal" continues. host: on your screen, a photo on the front page of "the washington post." robert s. mcnamara on the left and president lyndon johnson on the right at a party noting his departure from the pentagon. it says mcnamara, a brilliant

student, compulsive worker and school for the sixth goal for -- skillful planner and organizer. i want to spend some time this morning getting your thoughts on the career and life of robert s. mcnamara who died yesterday. democrats, called -- to a 2-737 -- host: here is part of the right up on "the washington post." headline says terribly wrong handling of vietnam overshadowed record of achievement. robert mcnamara, 93, the former secretary of defense whose record as a leading executive of the industry and chieftain of foreign financial it was all but erased from public memory by his reputation as the primary architect of u.s. involvement in the war in vietnam, died yesterday at is on the washington. the family said he suffered a fall three years ago but did not

provide a specific cause of death. he was secretary of defense during the presidency of jfk and lyndon johnson. in that capacity he directed a u.s. military buildup in southeast asia during the critical early years of a vietnamese conflict that escalated into one of the most divisive and awards in u.s. history. when the war was over, 58,000 americans were dead and a national social fabric have been torn asunder. before taking office as secretary of defense in 1961, mcnamara was president of ford motor company. 13 years after he left the pentagon in 1968, he was president of the world bank. he was a brilliant student, a compulsive worker and a school for its skillful planner and organizer who is manifest talents carried him from modest circumstances in california to the highest levels of the washington power structure. he was said to have built a record of achievement and dedication in business, government and public service that few of his generation could match. taking it your called on the

death of a robert mcnamara, 1916 to 2009. the republicans, democrats, and independents. here is "the washington times" editorial. of the many stories being told after the passing monday of age 93, we are reminded of his last few months as secretary of defense. president johnson announced he has moved to become president of the world bank. november 29, 1967. but the secretary did not leave the defense department's of the end of february of 1968. this excruciating three month lame-duck period witnessed some of the most erratic offense of the be of no more, including the tet offensive and the siege. the leadership back them -- the leadership vacuum during that critical period was damaging to the u.s. war effort, and in his autobiography, mr. mcnamara claimed ownership of the events. dismissing them. good morning.

hello, atlanta. on the democrat line. caller: how are you doing? you made some excellent points. check this out -- you just said that the guy it was saying he was not in when the tet offensive -- he was in limbo. i don't know about you, but wasn't he running the show before the tet offensive? all of a sudden when he left the department of defense, everything is on somebody else. but let me ask you this real quick bit there is a correlation -- it does not matter if you are republican or democrat, but a correlation of people who are extremely smart who does not have common sense. he did not have common sense and our previous defense secretary. one more question as well? the guy you had on a minute ago, could you have more "blue- collar do not matter if it is democrat republican. host: linda, independent line.

what do you make of the career and life of robert mcnamara? caller: well, he engineered the vietnam war. this always happens when news is reported in this country -- like in iraq and vietnam, the losses of american lives. but nothing is mentioned about the losses of the victims, the civilian victims, and the landscape in this country is that we invade. and the millions of people have been damaged. agent orange just devastated the landscape. no telling how many cancer victims there are in viet nam from that. mcnamara lied to lbj to get that were started. he is just as guilty for war crimes as rumsfeld and cheney and bush.

i voted for barack obama -- but if they don't take those people into account for war crimes and even post humorously -- post to mislead, then i do not know if i would vote for him again. host: thanks for calling. a lot of folks remembering robert mcnamara. of ed, "the washington post." he served in the panic kind from 61 to lead to 65 -- he served in the pentagon from 1961 until 1965. noted for his extraordinary intelligence mr. mcnamara was a shrewd political manager. from day one, all white house requested to go through his office. when he set deadlines for comments he never extended them. he set the stage for consolidating procurement of common items in the defense supply agency to strengthen the department's bargaining power. he had me hang on peg boards and

is covered from all the hats, belts, shirts, ties, the underwear, and even toilet seats for the army, navy, air force and marines as a backdrop for his meetings. after embarrassment and everyone knew the defense supply agency would be established. decatur, georgia. john on the republican my beard of a cut he lived to be 93. that is fine lifetimes of 18 or 19 year-old who died in vietnam. kennedy, johnson, mcnamara all live, bush lied and now obama -- seven soldiers died yesterday in that nothing war in afghanistan just like vietnam. are we going down the same path again? host: he also writes that mcnamara was devoted to the kennedys. when the president was assassinated and robert kennedy picked the grave site back in merced, "joe, i want to tie up that land for president kennedy so that no one can ever take away. i want to make damn sure we own

it." is in the middle of arlington cemetery -- i once a legal opinion nailing the title down. i want to sign the deed that sets the land aside forever. ramsey clark, then head of the justice department's lands division, did the title search. texas. good morning. marcel, you are on the independent line. caller: at least he apologized for the vietnam war. he gave an apology. i think we have to credit him with that. there may have been a little small threat of communism, so maybe a little justification. but there is no justification for this war in iraq. do people think bush will apologize for his war? to me that war is the worst thing we have ever done because there was no justification that i could see for the war in iraq and now it has been escalated in

afghanistan beard my question is, again, there is no justification for this war and when we are going to quit. host: a caller from minnesota. tom is on the democratic line. caller: good morning. my feelings was that he was a fellow who fell victim to a military culture. that they could never fail and anything that they undertake, and that it would be shameful for them to do so. i think that president obama is potentially falling victim to the same culture, the same meaning, that you can never fail in any military undertaking. because of that we are pursuing a futile effort in the middle east. it is doomed to failure. now, robert mcnamara, i think, had maybe well intentioned, was

a member of that military industrial thinking that presupposes that america has to be dominant in everything that it does. and rather than just a member of the world community. so really being in this position over and over again of an empire where we end up causing enormous pain are around the world. we killed over 3 million vietnamese. host: thank you for calling. " the new york times" writes in this way. robert mcnamara, architect of utah war, dies. he was the most influential defense secretary, server and president kennedy and johnson from 1961 through 1968, he oversaw hundreds of military missions, thousands of nuclear weapons in billions of dollars in military spending and foreign

arms sales. he enlarged the defense secretary's role, and dispatched troops to enforce civil rights in the south. "he is like a jackhammer," johnson said. as early as april of 1964, a democrat from oregon called vietnam "mcnamara's my work." he did not object. "i am of pleased to be identified with it and do whatever i can to win it." have a million american soldiers went to warn his watch, more than 60,000 died and 42,000 more would fall and the seven years to come -- more than 16,000 died, and 42,000 more would fall in the seven years to come. caller: i would like to see from the things -- he is a man who puts his belt and his boots on and just tries to get the job done. and no one is perfect. and everybody trying to point fingers, maybe they ought to put their belt of their boots on and at least attempt something. host: looking at the front page

of "the richmond times dispatch" as the report. sugar valley, ga., michael on the republican line. caller: thank you for c-span. i agree with the mississippi collar. robert mcnamara, he made mistakes. as they said when bush was in office, but stops there. with kennedy and johnson -- my fellow georgians, of killing millions and so forth, but we have a job to do and we did it and i appreciate you letting me talk. host: you to cut, new york. d'avenant on the democratic line -- utica, new york. devon on the democratic line. caller: seemingly hypocrisy. we talk about other countries in regards to the power the military has verses their

government or in tandem with the government. we did not often discussed that in terms of america. we were certainly warned about the military-industrial complex. host: thanks. take a look at " the boston globe." robert mcnamara, a vietnam war's anguished architect, dies. if you look at the opinion section of "the wall street journal" today, but global view column, for mcnamara to obama. dwight eisenhower famously said that, in preparing for battle i have always found that plans are useless but planning is indispensable. robert s. mcnamara, who spent many is think about the vietnam war, first as an architect and then as a critic, and getting it wrong when both ends, was a man would leave mainly in plans. mcnamara, who died yesterday, will go down as a cautionary tale for the ages, and perhaps none more than for the age of obama. whatever else the slick -- distinguishes lbj boss agrees

aside from barack obama's new foundation, " this too is an era of soaring rhetoric, big plans and the alice of regard, issued by an ministration convinced it can apply technocratic top-down solutions to huge and unpredictable systems. of the banking, auto and health- care industries, for instance, or the climate. these are people deeply impressed by their own smart, the ones from the phrase the best and brightest has been scrubbed of its intended irony. "the wall street journal" there. new hampshire, george on the republican line. caller: how were you? i served in vietnam in 1968 and 1969 as a combat photographer. and i would do it again that i believed at the time as a child watching the hungarian revolution on tv, i believed in what they were telling us in terms of containment, the need for it and what the domino theory meant. now, when the war concluded and

the domino theory became domino fact and all of those people lost those lives in southeast asia, everybody runs up and says robert mcnamara's war. it wasn't. it was simply an era of the time and if we were to go back we would repeat that mistake because our policy, national effort, national security was based on i would say the articles on which the war was based -- containment and the domino theory. thank you for giving me my few minutes of fame. host: ok. over to larry now on the democratic line from maryland. thoughts on robert mcnamara. caller: good morning. thank you for your time. i would just like to say that i think mcnamara was wrong. we lost 58,000 lives, and it does not count the hundreds of thousands of people wounded who are still walking rounds out of there. i served two years in vietnam.

from 1967 to 1968, the tet offensive and a whole list. but mcnamara was definitely look wrong. he could have done something about it. we need a more forceful politicians when we are doing the being -- when we are being led down alleys. america needs people can stand out to their own people, if that makes sense. host: the total in "the post" today, robert mcnamara, 1985, the year his memoir was published. it has various comments and quotes from people including jimmy carter, henry kissinger, and others. if you look inside you will see various quotes and photos of people. niel sheehan takes part of this

-- takes part in this retrospective. he writes, i ran into him in 1962 in vietnam. he gave this extremely optimistic press conference. i said to him, mr. secretary, how can you be so optimistic so soon? he said, every indication we have shows we're winning this war. robert mcnamara to me was a haunted man, haunted by the ghosts of the war in vietnam and never manage to exercise it. it was the defining experience of his life and the most defining challenge. he tried to exorcise the ghost of the war with his book on the war, and exorcisms didn't work. mcnamara had an extremely powerful ego and he couldn't bring themselves to apology -- apologize for what he'd done. he wrote what was an excuse, it took the form of a purported explanation came across as an excuse. he was a man who wanted to do good and tried to do good, but he could never get over that experience of vietnam. when a public man fails in an experience that big and feels a responsible for the losses, tens of thousands of lives cup --

lives, he never gets over it. texas. good morning to you. caller: good morning. i'm wondering if you had ever seen the documentary, mcnamara's war. host: tell us about it. caller: if you watch it, you will learn a lot how bush and cheney and the rest of that crew led us into iraq. they took a lot of lessons from mac and america. -- from mac america -- that the mayor of. -- mcnamara appeared the harbor, which was a complete lie. and if you watched that you will become very educated on how the vietnam war started, how it ended and it is still setting to think. i have three good friends who were in their late teens who are laying dead today because of the kind of -- it is just sick of

it. host: minnesota. you are on the line. randy, democratic line. caller: good morning. i wanted to call and say that one of the things i noticed, even though i never agreed with the war, mcnamara was extremely intelligent. one of the big mistakes we make in this country is we take these leaders and we allow them to do these things instead of putting them in places where they can do us the most good. >> america did what he was told to do. he did it very well. he went on to other careers. and he did very well in them also. and we keep making these same mistakes. i. a lot of friends who died from agent orange. -- i buried a lot of friends. we will continue to make these mistakes unless we make fundamental changes in the way we tell these people come of these intelligent people, to do these jobs in d.c. and other parts of the world. who knows what would have

happened had this were not happened, where we would have been in the cold war? host: joe galloway, war reporter, on the death of robert mcnamara appeared -- max mara. he writes a regular column for mcclatchy. he writes that robert mcnamara knew the cost of everything but the work of nothing. back in 1990 i had a series of strange phone conversations. he practiced every conversation with this -- i do not want to comment on the record for fear i might distort history. then he would proceed to talk for an hour doing precisely that with answers that were disingenuous in the extreme. when they were not bold faced lies. upon hanging up i would call niel sheehan -- the only disagreement i had with

haberstam was a question of which one of as stated in the most. in retrospect, it was haberstam. when he published his first book, haberstam went on a journey following him on his book to work around america as a one-man truth squad. mcnamara abandon the tour. one last call, hawaii, bruce, democratic line. caller: i would like to thank c- span and yourself for finally bringing some perspective -- bringing prospective from people who've looked at this closely. niel sheehan and joe galloway. in the title of sheehan's books should have been in robert mcnamara possible, bright and shining lie. the word joe galloway used was disingenuous. actually his book was to me an excuse, it was a cop out to mistakes and poor judgment and

never once was an acknowledgment of outright lying about enemy troop strength, secret pentagon predictions. to me, he may have started out as a good man but he was definitely afflicted with what i would call narcissistic grandiosity, in ability to see himself in the role of a person being defeated and losing in a cause and been a failure and i think he carried that right on to his death. the question about his book, a recently saw an interview whether he -- when he was asked whether or not people demanding that the profits in the book go to victims families of people lost to the war and he could not even answer that question clearly, saying he may do so, he may not do so. i feel sad day for the fact that the man may have died very lonely and guilty and was suffering from a psychological pain. but i'm glad that you read the

two people and it buys anyone who never read "bright and shining lie close " to read the book. host: thank you for calling. qu two otes. former president book of the world bank rights that he was the greatest president of the world bank. -- is the focus from private to people and to concern about poverty. i always regarded him as a compass for my work. i hope that as an influence on the bank never dies. henry kissinger writes briefly -- robert mcnamara was a noble man would agree services for his country in the world in a turbulent period. published in "the washington post" in its retrospective today. coming up, our final segment. we will spend about 30 minutes with stephen cohen, author of a book on u.s.-russia relations. we will take more of your calls. we will be right back.

>> robert mcnamara passed away yesterday at the age of 93. he served as defense secretary during the kennedy and johnson administrations. this coming saturday we will re air a two-hour book notes program where he discusses his book "in retrospect: tragedy and lessons of vietnam." u.s. policy, reasons for the outcome and possible opportunities for u.s. withdrawal. he chronicled measures enacted by government leaders and why he believes their decisions were wrong. see it saturday at 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. >> how is c-span funded? >> the u.s. government. >> i don't know. i think some of it is government. >> it is not public funding. >> probably donations. >> i want to say from me, my tax

dollars. >> how is c-span funded? 30 years ago, americans cable companies created c-span as a public service, private business initiatives. no government mandate, no government money. >> "washington journal" continues. host: u.s.-russia relations, on your screen is stephen cohen, a professor of russian studies at new york university. stephen cohen, first come as the president visits russia this week he says he wants to reset u.s.-russia relations. what does it mean to you? guest: it means to me something different than it means to the american media, i think, and perhaps even president obama. the argument i make in my book is that since the 1990's, we in effect have been in a new cold war with russia. the details i will go into, but if you accept that analysis that things have just gotten worse and worse and worse since the

end of the soviet union when we thought the cold war was over forever, then what it means that obama went to moscow to try to and the new cold war. yearbook host: is entitled "soviet fates and lost alternatives -- "soviet fates and lost alternatives: from stalinism to the new cold war." begin with a new cold war and moving forward. what has been the russian reaction and how has that led to the current state of affairs? guest: of well, in my view, between 1988 -- well, in my view, between 1988 and 1918 -- 19913 leaders gave us a chance to and the walt the cold war, mikhail gorbachev, prison ronald reagan and first president george bush. each said repeatedly, including reagan, the cold war is over. they exaggerated a little bit. i remember it well. i was at some of the meetings. but they were very close to

making it a reality, a historic opportunity to end a cold war existed i think in my analysis that that opportunity was lost during the clinton administration because it reinterpreted the end of the cold war. it was no longer a mutually- agreed negotiated end of the cold war but a great american victory. there for the clinton administration treated russia as a defeated power. and it would promises. the first and most important and lasting was the promise not to move nato toward russia. everything that happened since, all the bad things, all the bad feelings and disappointments, the suspicion in both capitals, stem from those clinton administration decisions. an interesting thing is that president obama, who now ends up with this mess, as someone in washington called it, surrounded himself with clinton administration former appointees and officials from the

beginning, of course, with mrs. clinton. whether those people can now go back to what happened in the 1990's and say, you know, that was not wise, now we understand, is an open question. host: 0 calls for our guest, stephen cohen, are welcome. here are the numbers -- phone calls for our guest. host: our guest is stephen cohen, russian studies professor at new york university. he has written several books. before we get to calls, as we look at the front of " the new york times" you see a photo of president obama meeting with the president of russia. we know the president met with the prime minister of russia today, vladimir putin look at the relationship from each end, beginning with the u.s. and russia. what does each side want from a relationship at this point? guest: it is very clear what

moscow wants, and once it so badly that without it there is not going to be a good relationship with russia appeared moscow wants the end of -- the issue with russia. moscow wants the end of nato expansion and it wanted no membership for ukraine and georgia. that is the single most important thing. i think somewhat misunderstood is the second thing. they don't want that missile defense system. the plan was to put it in poland and the czech republic. but i think that is secondary. the reason they are so upset about the missile defense system is they see if linked to the expansion of nato. and as they see both the expansion of nato and the initial system as american military power coming at them -- and the missile system. obama agreed to link the discussion of offensive weapons -- both nuclear and nato bases -- to defense of weapons. i guess that is a euphemism for

these missile defense systems. in that sense, moscow got a symbolic concession today. but i not sure it will turn into an actual agreement. they simply agreed to talk about it. host: the first call, houston. roxanne is on the independent line for stephen cohen. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i have traveled to russia for two months. it is an extremely corrupt society. i did an international adoption there and i was astounded that every petty bureaucrat in russia really is on the take. the kgb i think pretty much still runs the country. but as far as russia's position about us staying out of their back yard, with the death of robert mcnamara, i think we need to look back and see that the best and brightest and most capable people are not

necessary -- necessarily the wisest. the wisest was george washington and mr. adams and our founders, and if you read their papers, and their vision was a country of neutrality. and we need to go back to their wisdom. and i think stay out of russia's backyards, stay out of their backyards. thank you. host: stephen cohen. guest: your caller touched on a profound division. what is america's rightful place in the world? as you know, the wilsonian tradition was we go everywhere with a mission to transform the world into democracies on the theory that the world can only be safe if its people are democracies and the only the liable allies and partners are democracies. if other people believe -- other people believe that the united states should not become

entangled in to the affairs of other people unless it directly threatens our national security. it is not exactly as a nation -- isolationism but it is more of kind of an awareness of our own limitations. the late george -- who was thought of as the late 20th- century authority on russian used to say in that the hardest thing for a nation to do is to understand the inner workings of another nation. and if you trespass, you are asking for trouble. we trespassed in post-soviet russian in the 1990's. the backlash against america goes on today. in fact, if you ask where vladimir putin, a harder line than boris yeltsin come from, he was a direct product of what happens in russia in the 1990's in which the united states played a role. host: president obama spoke to graduates at a place called the

new economic school today. the topic, of course, economic issues. here is a short piece of what the president had to say. >> as we keep our own commitments we must hold other nations accountable for vehrs. whether american or russia, neither of us would benefit from a nuclear arms race in eastern asia. that is why we should be united in opposing north korea's efforts of being a nuclear power and opposing iran's efforts to acquire a nuclear weapon. i am pleased that president medvedev and i agreed upon a joint threat assessment of the ballistic challenges -- ballistic missile challenges of the 21st century, including from iran and north korea. this is not about singling out the individual nations, but it is about the responsibility of all nations. >host: north korea, iran, is there a partnership between the

u.s. as it relates to those countries and their nuclear programs? guest: russia, contrary to what was thought in the past, has no influence in north korea as we speak of. it is china. only china could rain in north korea, if any country can do it. iran is a different matter and a more complicated one. in no way does the kremlin wants iran to become a country with nuclear weapons. russia is must -- much closer to iran. if iran could deliver a nuclear weapon, it would not be across the atlantic or the pacific. it would be short range missiles. and that would make russia but more will. if iran could reach israel, it could reach russia. they don't want that to happen. but it is important we talk about these issues come of these disputes, because we feel russia has not done enough to bring iran around to the american point of view.

we have to see things through the russian eyes. iran is a neighboring country. secondly, it is the only large neighboring country in that direction that is not a candidate for nato membership, this expansion of nato has gobbled up all of these countries near russia. so russia is grateful for that. but the most important thing is this -- and many names -- and maybe many of your listeners don't know that. the russian federation has about 25 million islamic citizens. wash it itself is an islamic country. russia sits literally at the crossroads of islamic civilization and western civilization. iran has never done anything to provoke or agitate among russia's islamic citizens anti- russian babe year, not even the war in chechnya, it's terrible, bloody war.

for that, russia is not only grateful but it feels it has to show reciprocity. we used to say when i was a kid, russia is caught between a rock and a hard place. it does not want iran to become a nuclear weapons country. in that sense, it agrees with the united states. on the other hand, it is not in a position to threaten iran. it is not in a position to pursue an extremely hard line toward iran because that would undermine russia posset national security. -- reischea's national security. the first that is to understand russia's problems. we get it. we now understand but how could we help you? russia would say, well, if you promise not to push nato any further to our neighbors and not to put missile defense on our borders, we would be a little more relaxed about some tension in our relations with iran. all of those issues are linked and there does not seem to be in washington, or maybe anywhere in this country, many people who

think about linking the issues at least as russia seized the linkages. we only see them as we see the beard host: sylvester, ga.. bowl is on the republican line. you are on with stephen cohen. caller: i would like to ask a question speaking of the issue -- history of russia. hasn't it always tried to play a dominant role in asia and europe because it cuts the two continents and they want to influence specifically: because they resent the idea of expanding nato into poland? guest: i separate the poland issue but it is rather recent. but you are absolutely right about the other. russia calls itself a eurasian country, it sets both in europe and in asia. even after the breakup of the soviet union, russia is the largest territorial country in the world. what this has created in the political class is a division.

one group of very important russian political -- members of the russian political eat the leaves russia belongs with the east or at least not with the west. some placed between west and east. another group of russians believe that the feature has to deal -- do with the west. that would include democracies and the traditions we value. therefore, the way we treat russia tilt's directly into the struggle. if we treat russia in a way that seems to push russia away -- nato expansion, or if we call them names and say you are not like us, you are an evil empire, it pushes russia away and strengthens those who don't want to be part of the west. the situation is, as president obama verizon moscow yesterday, -- arrives in moscow yesterday, the anti-westerners were in the majority because of a new cold war that i described in my new book. but it is not too late.

and therefore i think president obama and what he does with american policy toward russia, will end up for better or worse, playing a historic role. a lot depends on the policy he pursues toward russia appeared that is not clear yet to me. host: stephen cohen is in new york city. our next call is from michigan. thomas on the democratic line. caller: how are you doing? a comment and a question. i agreed that china is the key to getting nuclear -- north korea to give up its nuclear program beard but russia, like he said, closer to the west and to the east. but china is east all the way. if we can get russia to see things our way, could they help us what china and china could work with north korea to stop the nuclear program? guest: it is a thought, and it

ought to be discussed, not between you and me but somewhere in the white house. but here is the situation as perceived in washington and moscow. washington now sees china as potentially a much greater threat than russia because it is so big, the economy has been doing relatively well. now we switch to moscow, and this may surprise people, but the single most important bilateral relationship for the russian political feat today is the relationship with china. there is a 4000-mile border with china. china is dependent very heavily -- not dependent, an exaggeration, but it very much needs russian oil and natural gas and russian needs things from china and both are anti- nato and anti-nato expansion beard and russia had bad -- bad relations with china in the '60s, '70s, and 80 possible now there is a deterrent.

we get excited when the russian president reads american president but they need china three, four, five times a year. they referred to each other as strategic partners. code reischea use that strategic partnership to say to china -- could or should use that strategic partnership to say to china, listen, this something about north korea. maybe. it is not that kind of relationship. it is based on the recognition in moscow that china will do what is in its interest and understanding in china that russia do the same. there is not this kind of american edge, let me tell you what is in your interest. that doesn't go down. but the idea you raise i think it's serious. probably it has been pursued by people in russia -- washington. but the chinese are not willing to give up a very important part play if they can play it fully. and that is reining in the north koreans.

most of the question has been out there about who is actually in charge -- host: question is who is in charge here in russia. he met with the prime minister, mr. putin, and a former top leader at least in name. what is your view of that whole range that there? pete guest: let me begin by saying that, though i did vote for president obama, i was aghast at the negative remarks about putin had of the trip. that is what leaders do in public. they look like they like each other. the reality -- and i have to lapse into a kind of scholarly historical explanation, but it will be quick twice in modern history, russia has had a two- headed state. two men at the head of the state. each time it led to conflict and both times the state collapse. the first was 1917 and the

second was the collapse of the soviet union in 1991 due in part to the conflict between boris yeltsin, the president of russia, and gorbachev, the president of the soviet union. the russian political class of not like this arrangement. partly because they think it is unstable. the other reason is that the russian political class wants to know who is boss. the russian political class is obedient, but at least it wants to have a good relationship with the boss. it does not know who is the boss. it is asking itself the same question we are. here is the problem -- into a tivoli we know, no matter what the constitution says, -- intuitively we know, that putin is still the strongest leader in russia. i do not think medvedev is a puppet, that is too strong. but putin is number one. on the other hand, medvedev as president sits in the kremlin and the route russian history, power has resided in the

kremlin. so the russian elite itself is not certain of what is going on. this arrangement, with this ambiguity, cannot and will not last too long. either it will become clear what the arrangement is -- i have a friend says, you are wrong, this is good for russia because it is the beginning of separation of power. there are countries where under the constitution, the president of france has power, the prime minister has power. russia never had real separation of power. it has all been in the executive. the separation of power is a step toward limiting power, which is a step toward democracy. maybe that will happen beard i will keep my mind open. maybe it will grow into an institutionalized way to empower parliament, for example, because putin constitutionally is beholden also to the parliament. but it has just begun.

it is brand new. and the potential for a positive development, pot clinics separation of power, and potential for instability, and we don't want that because they have weapons of mass destruction, i think they are equally great at the moment. host: back to the phones for stephen cohen in new york. independent line, mark, from fairfax, virginia. caller: i just want to see how you guys react to this common. i thought the first george bush pushed away russians by not helping retain, store, and defused the nuclear weapons. i thought it destabilize russia and the rest of the world. i want to hear your comments. guest: if your caller is still with us, i do not think i understood the questions. what do you think the first president bush did not do enough of?

host: i think he is gone. sorry about that. guest: let me just say a word about the first president bush. historians give him credit, considerable credit, that when the berlin wall came down and the communist regimes in eastern europe, which it been under russian control for so long, began to topple like dominoes, gorbachev made a decision to let them go. the first leader in russian history chosen reform at home over empire abroad. now, there was the opportunity theoretically for the united states to move right in, even militarily, to take over eastern europe, but the first george bush exercised enormous restraint and constraint. he did nothing provocative, for which gorbachev was grateful and i think history should be grateful, too. at least at that crucial turning point in history, the first george bush deserves enormous credit.

was cut you deserve a chapter to gorbachev -- host: you deserve a chap -- reserve a chapter for gorbachev appeared what you saying here? guest: it is a short chapter. it is my judgment that gorbachev brought russia closer to democracy when russia was still part of the soviet union that russia had ever been before or had been set -- has been sent. the prevailing view is that russia came closer to democracy after the end of the soviet union in the 1990's and that democracy was reversed by putin when he became president in 2000. i think that is incorrect historical appeared not an ideological issue. sibilate if you look at what happened -- election -- simply if you looked at what happened coming election, free press, freer in 1989, 1990, 1981 and -- so the de-democratization came

after gorbachev and the 1990's. that was a lost opportunity. and i had a chance to take several strides forward on the road to democratization and they did not did it -- and they did not. the other was, gorbachev and president reagan and then the first president bush came that close to end the cold war and that opportunity was also lost. i call it gorbachev's two lost legacies. host: president obama is said to be meeting with gorbachev today. what is your sense? is it a courtesy call, is there a message? guest: i have known mr. gorbachev for now more than 20 years. and we developed a personal friendship. my doctor thinks he is her godfather. we don't do godfather's in our family, but a says okay and

always getting hurt not such great advice about how to conduct her young life. i may be a little biased about gorbachev. i think that president obama's visit to him was the right and respectful thing to do. obama knows what gorbachev thinks. the two men have seen each other before and gorbachev's views are well known and i am sure are brought to obama's attention. but when clinton was president for eight years, he never once met with gorbachev, the man who really changed the world, who ended communism in that part of the world, who gave us a chance to end the cold war, and he didn't do it because boris yeltsin, who was then president of russia, hinted gorbachev. he feared him and hated him. so out of deference to boris yeltsin, clinton never met gorbachev when gorbachev was in washington or clinton was -- that was the wrong thing to it.

-- to do. when a man achieves something great in history, respect is required. so obama is doing a great thing. he is showing respect for a man who created the world in which president obama now lives. for better or worse, but it happens. host: cumberland, maryland. judith, republican collar. you are on with stephen cohen. caller: i am kind of worried about our continuing medaling in nato with countries like georgia and ukraine. and i am beginning to think that nato is just a pile of fluff. i don't think it is capable of doing anything. i would like to see us stop pushing nato expansion. i don't think we should do it. what do you think we -- what happened vis a vis georgia which

i have an -- which i believe has an undemocratic and unstable leader, and the same it in ukraine. why do we keep meddling in these countries that are so unstable and really not worth our time, energy, and money? guest: i don't know the why of it, otherwise a completely agree. i just don't know why. it has been counterproductive and dangerous spirit let me just footnote what you said. pick -- and dangerous. let me just footnote what you said. what we call the russian- georgian war in that little province of georgia last august, august of 2008, was equally a proxy american-russian war because we created the georgian army, we trained it. american trainers were traveling to the georgian -- think what happened. for the first time ever -- these two great nuclear powers were

fighting a proxy war right on one of the other's borders. it was the expansion of nato that brought us to that terribly great danger. the other foot note is this -- the ukraine is split down the middle. half of it is russian and half is ukrainian. if we can't -- keep pushing native -- and there is no polling showing the people there want nader -- but if we keep pushing it, ukraine will split into two countries or provinces and then what you would then have is a division of europe right along russia's borders. the last time in happened was berlin, far away. what you would end up with a new division right on russia's borders. you are absolutely right. we have to stop with the nato expansion beard host: give us your take on the afghanistan part of the story. "the washington post" points out the two leaders also signed agreements among the transit of u.s. military personnel and

weapons through russia to afghanistan, so there is that. then a question, they say do russian officials resent it u.s. for its interference with russian military action of afghanistan? the full scope of history -- in brief, as it relates to afghanistan. guest: i did not know what the witterer is talking about, russia is not in afghanistan -- maybe he is talking historical rate where we supported the afghans against the russian occupation getting the russians have gotten over that. very, very much, russia once a stable afghanistan been for several reasons. one is not known in this country. russia is awash in opium and heroin. according to the people in russia who count is for the state, it now has more hard drug addicted people than anybody in the world. cheap power when it is flowing

from afghanistan. russia wants this stopped. secondly, russia doesn't like the kind of terrorism that infiltrate from afghanistan in to soviet central asia. so, they are with us. they don't want the taliban back. they want a stable afghanistan. and that is why they are allowing this overflight. it is in their interest. but there is a big question. russia feels that not once in the last 20 years did they ever get an american concession for all the major concessions russia made to the united states. that is why there is all business trust. it was not announced that the summit -- or it has not been yet. what russia is getting in return for this very large concession. obama wanted this. he made the afghan war his war. that war, no second term for obama. you know what iraq did to the

republican party. this is very important for obama. but the russian political class told putin before obama arrived, don't just give, give, and nothing in return. what they got in return, if anything, is still not known to us. host: springs, wyoming. mary on the line for democrats. what is your question or comment? caller: for one thing, russia is still with the u.s. and the space program. please, don't ruin that. pretty much, just leave russia alone. i like russia, you know? they are helping us in space, they are exploring just like we are. i don't think that's fair. host: anything there you want to respond to? guest: she is absolutely right.

and even more than that. since we don't have shuttles anymore, we are completely dependent on the russian shuttles to move our astronauts and supplies to the space stations. we pay for it, but it is a need. i read we will not have our own again for maybe seven, eight, nine years. it is a form of cooperation. one thing about missile defense, if it is a step toward arms race in space that will and russian-american cooperation in space as well. a bad idea. host: what other people looking for these days? you mentioned the leadership part of it, but give us a sketch of the people of russia these days. guest: my friends who tend to be middle-aged, middle-class professor people -- teachers, writers, lawyers, doctors, engineers, artists, have been engineers, artists, have been through so much since the end of