"washington journal" is next. >> to continue to fight through the months ahead for my personal vindication would almost totally absorb the time and attention of both president and the congress in a period where i iour entire focus should be on peace abroad. therefore, i shall resign the presidency effective at noon tomorrow. vice-president ford will be sworn in as president at that hour in this office. host: that was 35 years ago this

weekend. we will talk about the resignation of richard nixon in 1974. in our third hour this morning is one that will be. but we will kickoff, talking about health care. congress people are holding town meetings across the country. we want to find out whether you have attended one of these meetings and what the mood was like, or if you plan to attend one with your congressman or senator. here are some articles about health care and some of the town meetings and some of the papers this morning. this is from "the washington times" and an associated press story.

that is in "the washington times" this might. here is an op-ed piece this morning and "the baltimore sun." can we just cut to the chase, already? this is about people who are unhappy with the results of the november election. that is fine. no one has to pretend to be happy about it. but to pretend that you are on some high-minded crew say that you are fighting fascism or something like it, or taking back america, is simply dishonest. kicking back america from whom? -- taking back america from him?

the actual give-and-take has been at a premium and misinformation has been rampant. that is just a taste this morning from the baltimore paper. have you attended a town hall meeting? we want to hear from you. first up, on our republican line, marcia. caller: i actually wanted to attend one. i lifted up on the internet and

called my representative, tim bishop of long island, and any information i have obtained is that he had won in the end of june. but he is not going to be holding any more. host: and what do you think about that? caller: he is our representative and i think he needs to hear what people say. when i hear that, that this is all a result of organization, i can speak for myself and probably others, that i have never called a representative or attended a town hall meeting. i am not a member of any organization, but i am so upset about this healthcare plan that it galvanized me to want to have

my voice heard. host: if he were to held a town hall meeting in you attended, what would you say? caller: firstly, i would ask him, did he actually read the bill? it seems that there are so many ambiguous statements in the bill, whether this public option will eventually get rid of private planning -- you hear one thing or the other. i would like to know if you read the bill. what is in it? i really want to know what it will cost us, and basically, really, i am so concerned about the fact that it will eventually crowd that any private insurance -- crowd out

any private insurance. i think that it is so un- american. host: thanks for calling in. you can also send us an e-mail or a tweet. cspanwj is our twitter address. good morning, caller. caller: good morning, i'm so happy that you have this topic this morning. my question is, concerning these town hall meetings, when max baucus heard his meetings and doctors and nurses showed up at the table, they could barely make a peep and they were escorted out and put under arrest. this seems contrived. why is it that over and over

again at these open, public hearings, people who disturb the peace this way are not been arrested? and locked out of the hearing said that discussions can take place? it seems so contrived. it makes me question what kind of democracy we have here that some people are more equal than others. some people can disrupt and cause a disturbance and the law enforcement is not called the in to stop that, and yet others can be arrested just for asking for a seat at the table. host: elisabeth, have you attended a town meeting? caller: i have not. we have local coverage of some of our legislative process here in michigan. i felt so bad for dingell when

he tried to hold his town hall meeting. host: was that pretty well covered in detroit? caller: it can be. politics in general is not covered as well as i should be. i am a real fan of "washington journal" and c-span and interested in current events, but i would not say that the vast majority here are. it was sad to see the stories in the paper about it. it was just not part of the democratic process. host: we will leave it there. here "the new york post" the passion of the protestors are not a surprise.

jamal, from indianapolis, on the

independent mind, you are on the air. caller: yes, i think it denies people the right to the democratic process when they are there and disruptive. the pictures on the tv seem like a bunch of bitter white people who seem like they could be medicare recipients themselves. i think the fact that obama won the presidency, there is a segment of society he would never satisfied and it is rooted in race, and it is unfortunately that these bigots are willing to sacrifice health care for everyone. host: you say that is rooted in race? has your congressman held a town hall meeting and if so, would you attend? caller: we would have one, but if these people have come in there would have been violence. there are certain segments of society that will not accept a bomb on a matter what in their motive behind it is race.

because of race is such a taboo conversation -- what people who do not feel that way still feel indicted by the broad indictment. we know that this is rooted in bigotry. some people would rather not identify the problem. there would allow them to perpetuate their hatred in the form of protest. they are really just complaining that this black man won the presidency. host: ohio, have you attended a town hall meeting? caller: no, not yet. i will call on congressmen and brown, and the other. i just feel i want them to slow down. i'm a 64-year-old white woman going on medicare soon and i am not a bigot. it has nothing to do with president obama's color, but all to do with his policies. people do not want to hear that from what people who are just concerned. i am frightened that it is

going through so fast. the reason the older people are concerned about the euthanasia -- is not that it is in the bill in so many words right now. it is just that that opens the door. when a door is opened it is just like the abortion issue. once opened it is hard to close. please let us speak out. do not shut us down. we are just concerned citizens. i am concerned about my grandchildren as much as myself. i am very disappointed in aarp because they seem to be backing this without really looking at it, either. host: this is the article this morning in "the washington post" where seniors remained wary of health care reform.

and this is from "the n.y. times" -- drug industry to run ads favor in the white house plan. he writes that the drug industry has authorized its lobbyists to spend as much as $150 million on television commercials supporting the president's health-care overhaul.

dan in exeter, new hampshire, have you attended a town hall meeting? caller: no, i have not. they have not scheduled one up here in exeter, new hampshire. if they did schedule one, yes, i would go. my understanding is that there were three bills coming from three different committees in the house. even you have vast, have you read the bill? there is no final bill. these are all proposals. -- even you have asked that. this is the face of the ugly american that we saw in 2000. that is an apt description of the republican party -- the face -- it screams, boys. that is their modus operandi. host: miami, hello.

caller: hello, i have attended numerous town meetings here in miami, but not one for health care. most times when you go to a town meeting there is always a lobbyist. and what do you call them? the people who continually follow one subject intent to monopolize the meeting. they are real disruptive. sometimes i don't think town meetings really resolve anything except try to pacify the citizens. my congressman has never scheduled a town meeting. host: who is your congressman? caller: diaz. callerhost: have you voted for ?

caller: i did because he was unopposed. host: here is a message from twitter. a republican, missouri, have you attended a town meeting? caller: yes, i am a republican and i voted for my senator and the president. the display that i saw -- i am not leaving my party. not due to these neanderthals. my family has been republican since the emancipation. host: who are than neanderthals,

in your view? caller: well, i attended this town hall with my 13-year-old son, and some gentleman on the peripheral called me a name that i will not mention -- i will not repeat it. but he did call me and educated one. not that he even knew me. host: why did he call you name? caller: i have no clue. but you have people standing outside with the most repugnant signs. these people do not want answers. answers call for give and take. the shouting, i actually spoke to a woman who was crying because she is convinced that " obama is for euthanasia of senior citizens." now c-span was a forum when --

had control of it, that would not just let manure spew through the airwaves and would attempt to correct both the left in the red. you guys did not do that anymore. now you're just a sounding board. a refereed whistle was needed. all these people saying they are against socialism and hand off this and government -- social security, if those citizens are exact and true, let's end it all. host: chicago, a democrat, have you attended a town hall meeting on health care? caller: yes, and i have done my research. my husband has been in a hospice, diagnosed with heart failure, a terminal. i cannot put him into a nursing home in the state of illinois. they touches social security,

tapas resources -- by the way, might i add, the cost of living increase -- nada. why? the justified because they say there are no raises in costs. this is fictitious. it is a frontal live. it is a barricade -- id is a fronatatal lie. we are baby boomers on social security. this euthanasia thing -- a multitude of seniors, the baby boomers approaching the next 10 years of collecting social security, will be a deficit to this country. that is the way the government sees it. they are not wage earners or taxpayers. it is fatalistic thinking. our president, he is just

[unintelligible] what the pentagon and washington, d.c. want him to do. host: mmikeike, an independent d have you attended a meeting? caller: no, i have not, but i plan to. my congressman is lloyd a dogged and he has held one. you saw the results. but what i wanted people to know is who they are protesting for. i saw a gentleman, i think his name was louis, the founder of columbia healthcare. this kind, young, wonderful gentleman had been fined and paid $1.7 billion for stealing from medicare which is us, the people. if you pay that kind of fine, i

imagine he probably stole $100 billion. i was not the only one who did that, he said -- all of us were doing that. so, that is the idiots that you people are out there protesting for who will not listen to what they're trying to do to health care to stop these people from stealing. host: this is "the washington post" lead editorial this morning.

ann is a republican -- have you

attended the meeting? caller: no, but i plan to. first of all, i'm a white woman and i love herman who is a black man -- i hope that c-span has him on more of them. this idea of racism is ridiculous. but i am calling talk-show hosts and writing to my congressman to suggest the solution to this whole thing. there is a global organization of medical doctors and medical scientists called health science institute of baltimore. they educate people. if the government wants to do something they can give us a voucher that would be less than $50 to join. anybody can get free e-mail us from them. but if you join you get access to all the archives which you can put to any disease you have

or are concerned about and it will give all this information regarding prevention. and if you have it, the best way to cure it without a drug. the second thing would be to look into a christian organization that is not insurance, but acts like insurance, one is called medis hare, and the other one is the samara to minya i cannot go into it further, but there are solutions that have nothing to do -- i am so fearful -- and the other one is called the samaritan, which i cannot go into further. but these are good options. host: if you cut billions from medicare, what happens to seniors? that is what scares them. a democrat, welcome.

caller: good morning, welcome to c-span. what i cannot understand is what these people are afraid from that they cannot let the congressman tell them what the health care is about? they are thinking there are only 47 million out there who were not injured, but this will affect everyone in america. back in the 1980's, i was negotiating contracts for the union. -- they think there are only 47 million who are not insured. thewe saw healthcare go up so f. even then we were getting behind. now it has gone up to $2,500 deductible. if you think because you have healthcare now, and you have it

tomorrow, you better wake up. it seems that obama is trying to give you back and say so in your health care -- you do not have any in your health care companies. but you are their boss and you can fire them if there's something you don't want. so, i wonder what people are afraid of? host: this is how donna sees it. and this is the editorial from "the washington times" -- it shows that the days of health insurers are numbered if any of the proposals are passed in the government's role is expanded. one scheme is to increase cost shifting by lowering reimbursement rates.

randy is a republican from rock ford, illinois. caller: yes, i went to a town hall meeting about 25 miles from home. host: your congressman is a republican? caller: yes, there was opposition on both sides. but the race card was not played. i'm getting tired of the race card being played, because it has nothing to do with my being black. host: let's go back to the healthcare debate. what was the meeting like?

caller: it was good. i'm in my 60s, retired, and on medicare, and have my own private supplemental. i am very satisfied. those people are very scared about government-controlled health care. host: and what did your congressman say? caller: he also had the bill, a 1100 pages, that he has been going through. his being a lawyer himself is even having a hard time to figure out. host: thanks for calling in. we will return to this question in about one hour during our next open phone call session. we especially want to hear from people who have attended one of these town hall meetings. marie from atlanta on the independent line, good morning. caller: good morning, we have

not yet had a town hall meeting in my area. i know that there is one being held in the neighboring county, but i do not intend to attend. it is very simple if you need to put forward your position -- write them a letter. tell them how you feel as a constituent about this issue. if they vote otherwise you hold them accountable at election- time. but if you feel like the town hall meeting will not be a productive discussion, then there is no point in going. host: thanks for calling in this modem. coming next, the former cia chief, michael scheuer dealing with bin laden. ♪

>> tonight, frank rich reflects some 15 years of political columns for "the new york times." that includes the whitewater hearings and his column following 9/11. that is tonight at 8:00 p.m. >> this month, the "book tv" meetings continue. tonight, a look at british politics from the bbc, including the mp expenses scandal,

resignation of the house speaker, and debate over military operations in afghanistan. that is tonight. today, the future of the american conservative movement at the panel from this year's freedom fest, today on c-span2. >> monday, the fcc commissioner on his agency's effort to provide more transparency and expand broadband. "washington journal" continues. host: michael scheuer is our guest for the next half-hour. let me begin by showing some headlines from the papers. this is "the washington times." and on the front page of "the new york time."

there was the the of the al qaeda leader, supposedly -- how important was he? guest: it was the pakistan need to. it was their chief. it was baitullah mehsud and they claim that a drone killed him. the pakistan al qaeda claims that he is still alive and claim that there will produce a video to prove it. but they have not yet. there was reported to be assured out this morning between people vying to succeed him. so, it is a very messy situation, but at the end of the day all the indications are that he is dead. host: what is the effect? guest: the pakistan the taliban is not fighting the u.s. at this time. we tend to blend the two -- the afghan and pakistani taliban. so, it will disrupt the

activities of the pak to ban, but at the end of the day someone will emerge to take control -- it will disrupt the activities of the pak taliban, but someone will take control. host: what is the importance of separating them? guest: for one thing, if we are taking the measure of who we are destroying who is attacking us, then this is not a fella to put into that category. baitullah mehsud has been fighting the pakistan needs, not us. there is a clear difference. this is not the killing of a man who will help us to get out of afghanistan any time soon. host: what is the status of al qaeda right now? guest: their influence is extraordinary in terms of its

ability to instigate people to fight in different areas of the world. if you step back from where we are today to where we were at 9/11, when a high of -- we now have insurgencies in southern thailand. we have a serious problem in both yemen and somalia, and a strong contingency in the north caucasus, the russian federation. all had been on their deathbed or a state of near defeat. al qaeda does not command any of those. but it is the influence of what bin laden and others have done over the past 15 years. host: why have those insurgencies' grown since 9/11? guest: the appeal of religion in the islamic world is very strong. bin laden, if he has a genius,

it is his ability to focus people on the influence of the west on the muslim world. we're very active in helping the filipinos fight their islamic insurgency, and very active in yemen. we tried to take out the government in somalia. part of the reason is our reactions, part of it is backed bin laden has been a very effective leader in the muslim world. host: is bin laden still alive in some form? guest: yes, in their culture and religion they would tell us he is dead because there would be mourning his death, but celebrating the fact he had died fighting for god. we have no one dozen years of records of al qaeda never tried

to hide the. death of the they tell us when someone dies. at times often tried to read our face in it by announcing the man's death. -- they have never tried to hide the death of anyone. they usually put on the internet his curriculum vitae. host: and influential ducks guestl? guest: yes, we have gotten kind of the hollywood version from our recent presidents. that he is running from rock to rack anock and cave to cave, anf that were the case we would have been able to kill him. but if a satellite goes over the top of you, you can communicate with anyone on earth.

host: do you miss the chase? guest: yes, my one regret is that we did not take the upper 90 to make him an annoying memory back in 1999. host: let's look at this concerning the presidential election in afghanistan. what is your view on karzai? guest: he is an effective puppet. he has very little influence in the country outside of kabul. his administration would not last long without nato. afghanistan is a very singular place. it is very much a man's world. for an afghan leader to depend on foreign bayonet's for his protection -- a very negative impression is created for his countrymen.

host: there is an article today in the magazine section of "the new york times," saying that he is light a war lord. guest: it is a regionally- divided country. traditionally, these things cause wars. america, in many ways, is historically challenged. we seem not to appreciate that other people have histories different than ours. host: here writer from "the weekly standard" says the public perception created by such reports is that afghanistan is a disaster but it is much, much worse. guest: the war in afghanistan is

probably lost. we have tried to do it on the cheap since 9/11. it is a country bigger than texas and has the highest mountains on earth, and the people for whom the only thing that unites them is animosity towards occupiers. when you put those three things together -- how i think we are near defeat. we will string out the time until we must make the decision to leave, but i do not think there is any chance of achieving the goals we have outlined, whether women's rights, parliamentary democracy. look at the election coming up. you could have an election every other day in afghanistan for the next 20 years and would make a difference. it is a tribal society. that is the way it will stay. host: so, in your view, should the u.s. allow afghanistan to be afghanistan? guest: our one mission after

9/11 was to destroy as much of the taliban and al qaeda as we could. so, it is hard to leave now and so we were not all that worried about those two things, anyways. but if you're not going into afghanistan to win, and honestly if we're talking about winning we're talking about 300,000 to 500,000 american troops and an aggressive, bloody war. if not, i think that american parents have the right to demand their kids get out of there. host: michael scheuer resigned in to those of four from the cia and is an author "why the west is losing the war on terror," and matthew -- on the republican line, you are up first. caller: one thing, i do not

think that bin laden is alive anymore. the guy has been dead for a while. the guy has got to be dead. really, he is honestly -- you see a guy holding of the newspaper saying he is alive -- but anyone with any brains would have gotten out of the country along time ago. guest: i would never say never. bin laden might be dead, but we do as a government a very good job at identifying the voices. they are well done by the

national security agency and they have identified bin laden as recently as the last 60 days as his voice being there. so, the odds are that he is still alive. i am sorry, i did not catch the comment on afghanistan. host: yes, i missed it. we have a message from twitter, from tom. guest: yes, afghanistan has always been a nation of war lords. we still remain the strongest power on earth and if we ran into a problem with the afghans we could just go back to punish them and not occupy the country. that is the key here. the mission remains what it was -- to eliminate al qaeda and bin laden.

unfortunately, we have not. in an odd way the battlefield is growing. it used to be only afghanistan, but now the western third of pakistan has now become the feeder of operations. it is much more difficult now than it was in 2001. host: a democrat, pearl, you are on the air. caller: yes, mr. michael scheuer, i have watched your analysis over years and have figured you for one of the good guys. i was really shocked, though, when you made the comments on fox news. it was something about calling for bin laden or al qaeda to attack america to get our attention so we would be continued to be committed to the terrorist issue. mark my words, we are very committed. it is just that the hysteria we

have been put through for the last eight years have not produced much unity among us, actually. i really was saddened to see how overwrought you were. were you feeling like we were not committed any more? honestly, i feel that we as a country are, but we have to get out of this post traumatic stress we all experienced on 9/11 and really be more thoughtful. i recognize your expertise, but i was saddened to see how overwrought you were on fox news. please comment. guest: sure, i do not think you watched focus, but probably saw the clip from keith over men and john stuart. -- from keep oberman. what i said was that americans are not the funded adequately by

either republicans or democrats. the examples we were talking about were the inability to bring conclusion to wars overseas and the failure to protect borders. we are in an odd situation here. it might take an attack by osama bin laden on the united states to wake people up to the fact that they keep electing people in both parties who do not have a real commitment to national security. of course, the news readers who pose as analysts and experts on john stewart and oberman took that to say that i wanted an attack. if you took that over the years, you know that is the furthest thing from the truth. host: jack, in camden, on the in the benign. caller: this is a wonderful conversation.

-- host: on the independent line. caller: since you advocate withdrawal, what exactly should we do to prevent another attack? if it is not direct engagement with these extremists, then how can we try to modify the situation and establish some type of if not coexistence, then the feet of their ideology? -- the defeat of their ideology? guest: let me say that i do not advocate withdrawal because i oppose fighting, but rather because we do not have a government and have not had one for the past 20 years who has

any realization that war means killing. we need to do that against enemies rather than letting our own soldiers be targets. no one would be more pleased than i if we took the initiative to kill enough of these people to make them give up. we will not. we have a lot of people in the ruling elite in both parties to believe you can fight a war without killing the enemy, without suffering casualties it yourself, and protecting civilians. we now have a general and afghanistan who has tightened the rules of engagement for marines and soldiers which will ensure that the enemy gets away and more of our people are to. we need to accept the truth. we are at war because people hate what we do in the islamic war, not because we have democracy or freedom at home.

over time we will have to change some of our policies, beginning with energy. if we were more self-sufficient we would have no reason to support arab tyrants such as those with the kuwaitis or the saudis. as long as we allow politicians to tell the people that this war is about women in the workplace and opposing freedom, we will continue to lose. our policies will continue to create us more enemies. host: what is your take on the "charlie wilson's war?" guest: the book and the movie struck me as very realistic. mr. wilson was an extraordinary figure in terms of his influence and personal character.

we would ask for x billions of dollars to support the war in afghanistan and he would say no, you mean 10 times x. the book and movie were compelling and accurate, but i was a rookie at that time. caller: good morning, i agree. we should get out. i crossed over to vote for obama because i thought he was new and transforming the but look at what he is doing -- against those opposing the care. we are getting just the opposite of transparency. host: what do you think of president obama's prosecution of the war over there so far? he has committed 4000 more troops? guest: yes, he is sending in more.

i wonder sometimes if the former presidents have ever looked at a map of afghanistan. 21,000 troops is a drop in the bucket. the way that we do think now we are about 3-1 in terms of support of fighters. 7000 fighting men in afghanistan is a very small number. as i said earlier, our rules of engagement do not allow us to aggressively pursue the enemy and kill them. host: stephanie, in denver, hello. caller: thank you. i think we should use every resource we have what we are there to find him and kill him. if we had used all the resources we have it sent 9/11 yen in iraq

in afghanistan trying to find him, the think we would have killed him by now? and do you think that afghanistan is going the way of iraq with all of our soldiers just dying at a higher rate? -- in iraq instead in afghanistan and try to find him, do you think we would have killed him by now? guest: we were losing people by the spring of 2002 to try to get rid of the iraq war. would we have? i think it is a near certainty now that we probably do not have enough on the ground to get him, even with the addition of president obama is sending. it is a very difficult job. the men and women out there are doing their best, but there are not enough. there are too many jobs to do in afghanistan.

host: an independent from maryland and is our next call. caller: hello, my name is richard. i would like your guests to comment on the possibility of the power that our president has to be the commander-in- chief, and was it inherited from president bush when they declared war on terror? and would this be a factor in regards to his sustaining the war on terror, which i think your guest commented to the effect that the war on terror is a loss?

i could be wrong, but i think a gutter right. this was pretty much advised by vice-president dick cheney. would obama be capitalizing on the fact that he does have this war powers act? the other thing i would like him to comment on, is what part does the poppy industry over their play in all this? guest: what we were talking about is the war in iraq. unless there is a drastic turnaround, i think that particular part isw lost partar powers, you know, there was a whole argument about the president, president bush taking so much power unto himself. i always thought when the democrats were criticizing him

for that, there were criticizing the republicans had power and they did not. we have seen now that mr. obama plans to renounce none of those powers. he is comfortable being in the other party having the same. at the bottom you have to blame the congress. we have not used the constitution in war-making since 1941. there is no way that one man should take us into war whether democrat or republican without an absolutely open vote of the congress. not a sense, not a joint ok. we need to have what the constitution calls for which is a direct declaration of war. heroin does play an important part. the taliban derive a large part

of their income from that. it has thoroughly corrupted karzai's government. the other problem for the united states is that the various drug-running organizations provide al qaeda and alternates logistics' system around the world come one we're not really capable of tracking. narcotics have always been a high priority. but it is not clear to me that they have been made the priority over the past decade. host: where did you grow up and how did you get interested in working for the cia? guest: buffalo, new york. i was getting my doctorate in british imperial history and was working as a crane operator on

third shift in the wintertime. i applied to any job that came down the road and i was fortunate that the agency thought i was a good potential employee. my story is that only in america could this happen. i have lived an extraordinarily lucky and fortunate life and i'm very grateful for it. host: the next call is from a republican. caller: good morning. i have just one question. that is the use of indian troops who have the greatest mountain fighters in the world. over time i think they could through osmosis take over the middle east. i wonder because they are on the other side of pakistan. it would be a good strategic movement if india made the move towards bin laden, if he is

still alive. another question, perhaps we are already monitoring bin laden? perhaps our intelligence has him on the phone all the time? could that be possible? guest: i wish it were, but it would speak to some kind of nefarious plot. if he were on the phone and we have not killed him. if we are listening to him on the phone we can geo-locate him and he would be yesterday's news. so, i seriously doubt we're listening to him. secondly, part of the problem we have in afghanistan is we have already allowed a large indian presence, both economically, and they are doing a lot of construction with people dressed as civilians but who are really military engineers. people in the u.s. do not

realize the degree of paranoia between two nuclear-armed countries, pakistan and india. to allow an indian military forces into pakistan would turn the pakistan knees entirely away from us. -- the pakistanis away from us. it is interesting as an idea, but in the long run would be disastrous. host: you said that one of the problems is that many indians are already in afghanistan? why? guest: yes. pakistan and india have been addedat each other's throats since the 1940's. if the indians attack them they can fall back to the west. we have allowed under mr. karzai's desire as he went to

school in india, to allow a great expansion of the indian diplomatic presence in afghanistan. and also a large amount of indian investment. these pseudo-civilian engineers building roads which happen to be all along the border with pakistan. we have driven the pakistanis crazy by putting the enemy on both of their borders, from their point of view. so, to increase their presence would really drive them crazy. we're dealing with two nuclear powers. host: the last call, jim, in california. . .

guest: i think we made a mistake

by taking down the government in somalia a few years ago because now we will get one much worse. but the agency does not decide good or bad. the president of the u.s., whether democrat or republican, gives the agency the marching orders. host: what are you doing these days? guest: i am an adjunct professor at georgetown. i am writing a biography amosama bin laden, and do some training sometimes for the u.s. military. the book will be out in the summer of 2010, i think. host: his first book was "and imperial hubris." thank you for being on the show. we will talk about president obama's trip to mexico next. ♪

♪ >> tonight, this author reflects on 15 years of columns for "the new york times," including the whitewater hearings and his column for 9/11. >> this month, but tv weekends continued during the week in prime time with more books on the economy, history, and politics. monday night, martha sandwies, and another author. >> tonight, look of british politics, including the expenses

scandal, resignation of the house speaker, and debate over operations in afghanistan. today, the future of the american conservative movement with direct mail fund-raising at a panel from this year's freedom fest, today on c-span2. monday, the republican fcc commissioner on his agency's efforts to provide more transparency and his role in expanding broadband. . .

i think will be very high is the environment. >> that's just what -- the first big thing is looking at the cliechl at change. it's not clear if the three koirpts will be in the position. but what their positions are on climate change. host: let's talk about the drug

status. u.s. is the largest market in the morld for narcotics. obama and calderon in mexico are going to sit down about this. they are trying to change almost overnight the police system in mexico. things flowing back into mexico from the u.s. market. >> there have been two major

areas. so far 1.1 billion in aid to mexico as well as equipment to go after car tell leaders. the second part is what the u.s. does on the u.s. side. these are sales on the street which eventually get piped back into mexico. the real attempt to intercept is on the u.s. side. is mexico at war right now. i wouldn't say that. >> is this a crisis. i was in parts of mexico. car tells are in charge of parts of life in the city.

it is regionalized. the most important side is not really the threat on the side of the cartel. the cartel. we have dru¡ country. we have more here than in mexico. it's not as disruptive as it is in mexico where you see carteles taking over entire cities. mexico wants to get where we are where police can't be as infected. >> h 1 n 1 sn

>> huge issue. the mexico first case, it started. they are finding it deep in that. we are making sure we don't close borders. host: finally, economics? >> huge issues. 23-29% trade is u.s. and canada. china is rising but it is still the most important trading relationship. we don't do thing that's hurt the other countries. there's concern in the u.s. about the auto industry maybe relocating partially to mexico.

the three countries have a concern of can we help each other. host: our guest here from the woodrow wilson center and mike is on the air. caller: thank you for taking my call. maybe you won't cut me off too soon. do you think you will talk about the coming union the nashville highway from canada from u.s. and mexico and the merger of all three nations? >> there hasn't been much interest. any interest there was is thinking is there a north american customs unit.

we have three leaders that are skeptical of north neshg as an idea but they want to make sure retreat each other well. it would benefit american workers if it ever happens but it is a project that will take a long time if it does. >> a tweet asking will the attempt resolve unfetered access to american roads by unscreened

mexican trucks? >> no, i don't think so. what existed before was a demonstrate program for a limited number. about 34 or less mexico companies under significant screening process, they are trying to start that program again. this is something we had agreed to open up all trucking, all of our highways to u.s. trucks. i don't think that will happen any time soon. that doesn't leave us out of our treat y obligations. i'm not sure that's going to happen at this meeting. >> from california, go ahead. caller: i'd like to afford the

guest and your viewers that they can't understand mexico unless they have read a book called the blood drenched alters. it has left the country without a morale core. without reading the book, you don't have a clue of why mexico is in the moral mess that it is in today. host: from virginia for the democrats. go ahead. james in detroit. caller: good morning.

i'm happy to see someone like yourself on who knows exactly what he's talking about. previous to you coming on was micha michael sawyer. host: what's your question about the north american summit? caller: my concern is the mob rule over there and the killing because of the drug trade. i'd like to know if we are will going to consider legal liesing drugsfxp i think it would help california and the whole country if we legal lies drugs and take these monsters out of business, you know. as far as what i was saying about michael sawyer, he's never

been a c.i.a. agent. host: have you ever looked at this issue? >> we have. it isn't something we take a motion on. it is a major industry. legal liesing drugs opens up the market and takes away the market from the cartel and gives the government some tax money. that could be positive. on the other hand, it's not

clear yet what the health effects are. how is the president doing down in mexico? >> i would say he's doing well in a qualified way. he has made a commitment to work on organized crime going after criminal groups. they are after six or sefrn large groups. he's been determined to go after them and trying to buildup the capacity. that said, this is a tough fight. it is a tough struggle to change institutions. we have to hope we can do our part on this side of the border. there's a famous saying in mexico when the u.s. sneezs,

mexico catches a cold. some of this is reduced because of that. prime minister harper. i don't follow candidates closely. he has won reelection. he is interested in a relationship. i think he'd rather dialogue in the u.s. to his credit, he has continued to deepen his relationship. things like educational changes. they have been working more closely. >> our next kul is wesly in louisiana. >> i figured out a solution to solve all the problems in mexico

and the united states. why isn't mexico the 51st state. call her states counties. i realize it sounds like a far fetched idea but we did that when texas voted to come into  the united states. that was a sovereign kornt like mexico is now. jo i don't know if we have ever headed to an another american union. mexico is a proud country with its own traditions. they have a great deal of pride and i don't know if they want to be annexed with the us anymore

than we would with england. there's a lot of trade with mexico and american jobs depend on mexico. we can handle this in a mature way. that is important. jo this was the major issue on the a againeda for a while. every time leaders sat down with the issue. they decided they do not play a constructive roll. this is something americans feel

strongly. they muddy the water. he is going to do that or let congress do that. they can say things privately or are not helpful when they jump in. >> president obama is going to mexico today and will meet with prime minister harper. a news conference coming up.

caller: i wanted to ask you president calderon's election was very troubled. he was supported here in the united states by at that time president bush and hissed min strags there were irregular

latities. there is a group of people. you move on. the option has largely built a candidate. the second party that almost won the election. they have decided to move on.

we could see it down the road. it's a warning sign for the administration. if you look at the polls, he does well in the polls. there's been some question of his party. they are willing to give him a chance still and to recognize that he's trying to do a good

job. >> the party that had done so well in the last election collapsed. the party doesn't stand for anything but power. they would come back. they have a working majority for the small party. they are likely to have a very influence al >> i would first like to say good morning and accuse you of the sin of omission for some of your figures earlier.

what i call the sin of omission is you took the figure of 80-90% of the guns the mexican cartel uses is from america. that's incorrect. that's 870-90% of traceable guns. a lot of the heavier weapons they buy from eastern european and israel. they buy them from a lot of countries who sell weapons to

anybody with the cash. we have heard that the figure is somehow around 80-90%. it's easy to get guns to the u.s. it is close to mexico. it is likely we could go to

other markets. t óñ >> i'm not a health expert. i would be remiss to give you a number on this. because it is wrong. it is somewhere around 150-200. the u.s. is now the largest country. this is the country where the epidemic has been the strongest. mexico became the center. people aren't really sure that the virus developed in mexico. it may have come from elsewhere.

it was the largest number of deaths. you are seeing a high number in argue continua. >> are you going to see this fall from what you've learned in red? >> i think that's one of the things they want to talk about. these are the sort of big picture issues they would like to see in the summit. it impacts boarder communities and u.s. citizens. you may see some disruption in commercial travel. thank you for being on the washington journal. >> hour and a half left to go. we are going to go back to our question earlier about whether

or not you attended a town hall meeting. we'll see what it was like. a lot of op he hads and news about that. in about a half an hour, we are going to turn our attention to the resignation of richard nixon. this weekend is the 35th anniversary of that.

this month, c-span 2's book tef continues. monday night, and tonight, a look at british politics atd t mpc, resignation of the house speaker. tonight, 9 eastern and pacific on c-span. book tv today. the future of the american fund racing for the conservative. host: have you attended your congressman or senator's

healthcare town hall meeting. you can send us a tweet. c-span wj is our twitter address. we'll get on those as soon as possible. here is some articles you might want to reference for yourself from the washington times. democrats brace for recess

protest. provieing fire and little light. she talks about the healthcare situation as well and the lead editorial myth of health reform.

we wait for your phone calls to come up. voet soet swoern in twice by sotomayor swoern in twice before a small gathering of her family and friends. she said the special swaering in was arranged for a quiet morning. justice anthony kennedy was the only other member of the court in attendance. it says here that the oath$u(j given in the private ser knowny. the judicial oath was taken in the larger gathering in the east conference room. for the first time, television cameras where there to broadcast it. that was in the baltimore sun this morning. this was in the "new york

times." obama's embrace of bush tactic. president obama has issued signing statements claiming to enact laws in office including mounting criticism. this is charlie savage in the "new york times." on to your calls and treat $and emails about the healthcare town hall meetings. the first is from a republican. jackie in new hampshire. caller: on july 28, i got a phone call about 7:00 at night. it was from the congressman. it was a town meeting. they put everybody on the phone and asked questions. when kind of question do you

want to ask him. they said ok press 3 and you will get connected. irwaited 45 minutes. they never took my call. were you able to listen in on the telephone call? >> yes. they took everybody else. most of them were probably democrats. i waited monday 45 minutes. i don't know how many times i pressed it. they never took me.

i have united healthcare. one is chronic illness. what is a tear in my disc in my back. host: have you attended a healthcare town hall meeting? caller: i haven't been able to because i am in a lúxwheelchair when i first got this, i asked

united healthcare -- host: can we stick to a town hall meeting and congress. what do you think about healthcare reform. would you like to see that? caller: yes because the insurance companies are denying people care. denying the type of care and coverage that you need and i'm paying out of my nose. people that are against it. think about this. if you get laid off or fired. people are losing jobs every minute. what are you going to do about the insurance companies that are going to drop you. ok? host: mark in newark, ohio.

hava tended a town hall meeting? caller: no. but i understand health and human services will have a meeting every week. we have a vak sdeen company called phage domenici. we made a novel h 1 n 1 vaccine. the road blocks. did you know you could get the swine flu this summer? host: ronald, have you attended a town hall meeting? caller: i haven't but i would like to. we need healthcare but the government is not the answer. you can see how the democrats move on organizing move on

domeni.org. what we have now is grass roots programs of people getting mad at government because we need healthcare. we need it where the people can choose their own healthcare. thank you. caller: pechl should do their homework and see what this is all about. these insurance companies don't donate or give politicians millians for nothing. they want to have their way. they want to monopolize.

people should have public choice. >> i think everybody needs to settle down. good manners are good things.

if you shout someone down, you are destroying that person's first amendment too. we shouldn't be calling these protesters names because of the idea that they are dropped into a government program. they are scared, worried. they saw congress run through a bill. they want to find a lot more out about it. most of us are used to vig rows changes. j. b. treats in, my blue dog

congressman and is hiding and not had any public appearances. josh on the independent line. caller: good morning from dooer park, washington. the two year congress, what is that actually called? it's the u.s. house of representatives, right. hem people out in the u.s. feel representative. i have a challenge. we do not ask, we demand healthcare. we demand what the congress and senators have and 0 what they pay. host: has your representative held a town hall?

caller: no. she's a coward. host: south carolina, the republican line. caller: why are federal government employees going to be on this bill. why are they afraid this bill will cost more. how come the conservative democrats don't have enough guts to stand up to the far left liberals that 80 pergs of the people don't agree with. why can't we put together a pay back. that the left has to pay back. >> our next call comes from jackson, mississippi. caller: my comment is this. it seems that americans are like

puppies. we don't have our own opinions. we have to have people tell us what to do. a lot of us have monies that want to be heard on both sides when you get in a for hum where a lot cannot be expressed. you have screaming and yelling and violent acts. that's not america to me.

you have the representatives afraid to voice their a againeda. talking about the case now where the blind are being led by the blind. these meetings are very unproductive. i'm a democrat. i would love to see healthcare. my father died from a stroke. obama is doing something good. the republicans need to stop just saying no and need to sit down at a forum or table host: a tweet from howard, invited but didn't attend the town hall meeting lee summit

mississippi yesterday because of planned disruption by gop. caller: thank you for taking my call. i'm pretty much -- the last couplewm of callers. i'm right in line with them. i do believe this disruption is planned.

thank you for giving us a call. >> good morning. >> i was calling in this morning. >> i have been to a town hall meeting. . the vast majority of people is nothing like the group of people who have read the bill or are finally sick and tired of being lied to by some of the folks in washington, d.c. about what's in legislation and more of tha them

have been read. >> dave, you are calling on the republican line. a lot is being set and planned. >> groups of grass roots people. i find it ironic that the folks on the other side of the aisle are probably some of the best at organizing. they are proud of that fact. when a bunch of conservatives who aren't part of a major group or anything like that send emails around and say, let $all go down there and go to this meeting. it is literally a grass roots organization. >> who held a meeting and what was the atmosphere like. >> the meeting i went to, senator claire mccsskle.

it was in response to a group that had gone down to the office but they couldn't get in because the office is too maul. there was some folk there's angry and agitated. there is a lot of emotion on both sides about this añthing. i am planning on running for office since i am retired from the phone company.

>> chicago, dorris. caller: good morning. what bill are these people talking about? now what are they talking about read the bill. i encourage you to come out and shout out these right wing

thugs. these birthers. shut up. caller: the birthers say they weren't born here. the deathers say, they want to kill everyone. i am retired and i have medicare. host: what are you retired from? caller: i'm a registered nurse. for 43 years. host: where were you a nurse? caller: cook county hospital.

>> tolding tefl town hall. i was not able to come because i support single payer. host: please go ahead. caller: i'd like to -!uspeak. a few resources is a book called "the world order." they would see the influence of bankers and how they have taken

over america. host: when we talk about that topic, can you call in. we are talking about healthcare. please go ahead. caller: we run a town hall meeting. yesterday in our town. host: he's a republican, right? caller: yes. there were some decenters most of them were all right. some shouting and screaming, everything, not much.

he said the people that managed it managed the healthcare plan. if healthcare as obama wants it, it will not be reversible because it has and will become a beurocracy in it self. you just cannot reverse that easily. they are not giving the republicans a lot to say. i've been watching him. they do not wash them.

i asked my doctor after the visit was over what he thought of the medicare system. he said because of my age, a knee or hip replacement would be off the boards for me. caller: i asked him if he was a member of the ama which is supporting this. he said no. the majority of the doctors are not joining them because they are a real%xz liberal group. host: we have a tweet from skaj reen. also for rn for 43 years. and still in practice.

shame on republicans, limbaugh. go ahead. caller: my senator, he did call the house and invited me in on a town hall meeting. he must know i'm a democrat. he was only calling on people for their comments. i was thinking about it while i was on the phone. he's saying all this stuff happening. like the other caller earlier said, there's really not a bill. i felt like he was giving out misunderstood to all of us. it is good that he called but i didn't get to comment. i didn't like the fact that he was giving his opinions rather than listening to any questions. host: how many questions did he take in

caller: it went about 45 minutes. he just talked to us rather than listening to what we had to say. host: some people had comments. they were telling him about situations they were going through. thanks for calling in.

>> people are either eligible for medicaid another 800-0000 are many that have healthcare. you are really looking at about 8 million people. that's a question you can have. you know right there they aren't telling you the truth. jo they don't cover the issue at these hearings. i paid 22 of the mandates of the

audits. on page 30, a government committee will decide. host: can you read us there where it says it will be rationed caller: i'd rather go through the points i'd like to make first. host: let's go back to page 29, can you read us what it says when it says it will be operationed? host: we'll finish up withal in new york. you have to turn your volume down. that will be the end of our calls on this. we have an hour left in the washington journal this morning. we'll turn our attention to 35 years ago august 8th and 9. richard nixon spoke to the nation on august 8th an on august 9th, he redesigned the

office. we'll show you part of the resignation speech right now. . . . throughout the long and difficult period of watergate, i felt it was my duty to persevere, to make every possible effort to complete the term of office to which you elected me. in the past few days, however, it has become evident to me that i no longer have a strong enough political base in the

congress to justify continuing that effort. as long as there was such a base i felt strongly that it was necessary to see the constitutional process through its conclusion, that to do otherwise would be unfaithful to the spirit of that deliberately difficult process, and a dangerously destabilizing precedent for the future, but with the disappearance of the base i now believe that the constitutional purpose has been served and there is no longer a need for the process to be prolonged. i would have preferred to carry through to the finish, whatever the personal agony you would have been involved, and my family unanimously urged me to do so, but the interests of the

nation must always come before any personal considerations, and in discussions with congressional leaders and others i have concluded that because of the watergate matter i might not have the support of the congress that i would consider necessary to back the very difficult decisions and carry out the duties of this office and the way the interests of the nation requires. i have never been a quitter. to leave office before my term has ended is abhorrent to every bone in my body, but as president i must put the interests of america first. american needs a full-time president in the full-time congress, particularly at this time with problems we face at home and abroad.

to continue to fight through the months ahead for my personal vindication would almost totally absorbed the time and attention of both the president and the congress and a period where our entire focus should be on the interests of peace abroad and prosperity without inflation at home. therefore, i shall resign the presidency effective at noon tomorrow. was president ford will be sworn in as president at that hour in this office. as i recall the high hopes for america with which i began the second term i feel a great sadness that i will not be here in this office working on your behalf to achieve those hopes and the next two and a half years, but in turning over

direction of the government to vice-president ford i know as i told the nation when nominated him for that office 10 months ago that the leadership of america will be in good hands. host: in on your screen john mashek now. he worked for "boston globe" and for "u.s. news" -- where were you on august th back then? guest: a wizenei was on the jery shore. all those covering the situation but there would be a hiatus until the full house voted and then there would be a trial and the senate, but the smoking gun appeared and within days nixon was told by republican leaders in the house -- i mean, the senate -- and he

was gone. so, i hustled back to washington. i was with "u.s. news" at the time which was a weekly, so we were kind of behind the coverage. covering the house hearings and various, my colleague, stuart loory, working for "the loss angeles times" and other papers highlighted this case. the news magazines were often playing catch-up. host: also joining us is stuart loory, former white house times reporting of what was 1974 august 8th like for you? guest: like john, i was also on vacation. i was in cutty hug harbour with

my family when a chartered sailboats and we were listening to the resignation -- we were on a chartered sell books and listening on the radio to the resignation. -- on the sailboat listening to the ready. we had an electric bull horn and i got up on the deck and urged everyone in the harbor to go back to their radios and listen because the president is resigning. actually, i have not cover the white house for quite awhile before watergate. i left and right after the pentagon papers story to take a job as a visiting professor at ohio state. host: why was everyone on vacation? was it unexpected? guest: sure, it was going to

take some time. once the judiciary committee had looked at all the articles, we figured at least one week to 10 days before went to the house. people who had been working around-the-clock figure this was the one time to get away. little did we know that it would break loose the following week. host: stuart loory? guest: well, august has always been a big vacation month in washington. i had a boss ones who said that the reason that the government did not work during the summer was because washington years ago was unairconditioned and was better to get out of town and back to the constituencies. host: what was washington like back in 1973 and 1974? guest: first of all, there was a

bad feeling in town because of the watergate situation and the manner in which the administration had discredited itself. also, the way it was necessary for congress to bring this situation under control. of course, there were things like the saturday night massacre in which nixon tried to fire the special prosecutor who was appointed to investigate him. he went through the attorney general and at least one deputy attorney general who got the job them for him. it was a bad time. guest: yes, it was a bad time, and get it showed the resiliency of our democracy. he was a president who had been

reelected carrying 49 states, yet there were no tanks surrounding the white house, no shots fired. it was a peaceful transition. nixon left office and gerry ford was sworn in as president. how many countries do think would have it happened in that way? host: when did it become inevitable to you that the president would have to leave? guest: as the watergate hearings went on, particularly after john dean, his counsel testified about there being a cancer on the presidency, that i think then it really drifted into a most likely ending. nixon fought it. he brought in the gold mines to help them, but the situation just kept deteriorating. as stuart just said, often the

cover-up is usually worse than the crime. i am still of the opinion that if very early on if nixon had come out in a national address and taken blame and asked the american people forgiveness, i think he could have survived. but they kept on resisting. so, deep into the hearings, the time was coming. hosguest: yes, i think john is absolutely right about that. nixon could have saved himself. congress certainly did not want to impeach and try the president for high crimes and misdemeanors, and yet he drove congress to do that. it was by the way he was acting. host: by the time you had moved to columbus, ohio, correct? guest: that is correct.

what was that like in columbus when all that was happening? guest: well, columbus is the epitome of middle america. in columbus there was always because of this story a great deal of interest. before that i arrived in columbus just after, just before spiro agnew resigned, and at that point the people of columbus and ohio state university did not seem to care very much about it. but by the time watergate got more and more intense, the people of columbus were really riveted to that story. guest: i was going to china and to say that ford's -- i was going to chime in to say that

ford's first address to the people of california -- our long national nightmare was over. many nixon people were upset over that line, but it was a long nightmare. within two months for did pardoned nixon which casts a cloud over his presidency, although he barely lost the election and 1976. guest: am i correct in recalling that a friend and colleague of our ours who worked for the detroit news became ford's press secretary, and he resigned because gerry ford did not tell him that he was going to pardon nixon? guest: that is right, jerry was ford's press secretary and covered him all the time. they were friends as a reporter and -- but he was so upset over the pardon that he went and on

the sunday and told the president he had to resign. as typical of ford he was taking it like a man, but was displacethis pleased. -- displeased. guest: you're asking how washington had changed. the change was exemplified by the nastiness in the town at the time of watergate. before that we used to have was called the ed adn jerry show in washington which was a great, good time when a senator and representative for got together and would talk to the press. there were always at jokes and some sort of camaraderie that

created a good feeling in washington of the time. guest: he is right. the stability on the hill was so different than now. those of us who have lived this long have seen that evaporate. host: what was it like not having a 24 hour news cycle, that everything is instantaneous today? guest: that is a good question and hard to answer. i do not think it would have affected -- it may have hastened nixon's departure. we did not have it, so it did slow the news process. host: did either of you have a chance to speak with nixon personally? guest: i did not. guest: not at that time, but there were periods during a photo opportunity or at the

western white house when you could have a very short conversation with the president. it was always kind of uncomfortable because when the president was talking to you you never understood quite quiet. there -- you never understood quite why. there always seemed to be a hidden agenda. host: how have your reflections changed? can you put a historical perspective on how you felt then? guest: history for me as meaning that we went through another impeachment. it went to trial with clinton under four different circumstances. but again, this is repetitious, but it shows they're probably the worst thing politicians can do is cover up wrongdoing. -- that was under far difference

circumstances for clinton. because the press will jump all over the. if you will not come clean, the press will be after you. that is a lesson that is still not learned. guest: yes, i'm sorry to have to say that my attitude toward richard nixon after all those years of really has not changed. richard nixon was not a good man. he was dishonest to put it mildly. even after all these years he is gone, he worked very hard to rehabilitate himself, but i just do not think he did. not as far as i'm concerned. host: let's take some calls. lynn, in n.y., a democrat.

caller: thank you, i think you're wrong about that lesson -- people trying to cover things up. what about calling ronald reagan into account on fox news -- i remember because i was on a kibbutz in 1964 sleeping on the ground with my friends and people came over to me and asked me if i was american. richard nixon is resigned -- in 1974. it was a big news story then. but we will come to recognize this occasion as the anesthesiology to american politics that allowed bigger crimes of ronald reagan and george bush to perpetuate.

this is a big story that the 24 hour news cycles do not address. guest: there was no cover-up with ronald reagan concerning the iran contra. i do not think there was a cover-up in the bush white house, either. the voters spoke up against bush strongly last november. but i disagree with the caller. i do not think there was a cover-up. the american people spoke out. host: mr. stuart loory, you're still very active in journalism and with the missouri school of journalism now. what you think about that callers' comments? guest: i think he had a good, if he was talking about how the press has made -- i think he had a good comment if he is talking

about how the press considered others and someone just whispered into my year gordon liddy -- but on the other hand, the idea that the press was covering up the story just was not so. the press was all over the iran contra affair and covered it well. the press has also been covering after the lead up to the iraq war, covering the war and these days afghanistan. host: what did it mean to be on president nixon's enemies list? [laughter] guest: it was a mark of honor. as john might remember, art buckwaqld, the hoohumorist, wast

on his list and brought a column saying he would bring in a defamation of character suit for not putting him on the list. host: and you were on the list? guest: yes, and in robert's memoir, he published his diary, he talks of bom how was the bad boy of the press. that was because -- he talks about how was the bad boy. i was working for "the los angeles time" which was nixon's hometown paper. but it really did not hurt me. once when nixon was making a trip around the world and the assignments were put out for the white house press ahead of plum a son of.

i was on the aircraft carrier when nixon was called upon to review the fleet. -- i was on a plum assignment. i was asked by ron how i liked it. i said was tremendous and asked how i did get it. and he said that he had to tell them that i got violently seasick to get the assignment. but it was ok. i had put up with that, but it was ok. host: what was the list and how was it found? guest: it was john being who did the list, the deeds list was what it was called for a long time. -- it was john dean who did that list. it was discovered during the watergate hearings? guest: that was right. those of us who were not on the list wondered why. but it did dribble out for a

while and then finally all the names cannot. host: frank, a republican from new york city. caller: let's put things in perspective. one gentleman was absolutely correct when he said if there is a cover-up the press would jump all over you, and if not, the press will keep looking. but putting things into perspective, no matter who is president and the oval office, if someone comes in and said a bunch of our the zealots who felt there were doing the right thing were caught breaking into a hotel room, a democratic headquarters, the first thing you or i or any president would say is gee, don't let anyone find out. i lived through watergate and to meet it was nothing more than givenchy in the fashion world

the spine on st. laurent. yesterday all of nixon's accomplishments were expelled on the real and it was clear that he was one of the greatest presidents we have ever had. guest: i do not know where to begin on that talking about fashion. but these public officials, paid by taxpayers, not someone in public life -- it continues on and on. yes, nixon did have accomplishments by opening the door to china -- probably not with a democratic president, nixon forged that relationship, but to say he is one of the greatest presidents we have never had, a man who resigned in disgrace -- that is a remarkable statement. guest: even if you do take into consideration -- if you ignore watergate and look at the rest of the presidency, nixon came

into office saying he had a plan to end the vietnam war. when in fact he had no plan. more american soldiers were killed after he came into office then before that. i do not count that as an accomplishment. i think that was a serious matter in itself. watergate was not a baggatel. it was part and parcel of several other things. the persecution of dan for the pentagon papers, breaking into his psychiatrist's office for medical papers, income-tax audits of people who were thought to be against nixon. there was wiretapping and telephones.

that was throughout washington. it was a bad, bad time. i think you have to hold richard nixon responsible for that. host: richard nixon on august 9th, 1974 spoke to his staff in the east room of the white house. >> i think the record should show that this was one of those spontaneous things we always arrange whenever the president comes into speak. and it will be so reported in the press, and we do not mind, because they have to call as they see it. but on our part, believe me is spontaneous. you are here to say goodbye to us. and we do not have a good word for it in english -- the best is

aurevoir, we will see you again. [applause] host: akron, ohio, an independent. caller: yes, i recall that i was on summer vacation going through my fourth and final year at kent states. even though i did not care for nixon at all, in fact, i was about to turn 21. unlike most of my friends i commended gerald ford for giving him a pardon. i felt that ford was the closest

thing to and edmund ross who acquitted andrew johnson. as for those concerning clinton and his impeachment to look back at johnson's impeachment. there was no place then for ross. he resigned as speaker of the house because he had an affair, too. it was a poor excuse. guest: i think he is right. at the time, of course, ford's popularity really diminished after the pardon. but in retrospect it was the right thing to do. by the way, when ford lost to jimmy carter by a very narrow margin, i can say as ford has been known to say to other reporters, that it was the lack of support from ronald reagan -- and he took him away from the primary to keepthe

convention, that the herd and more. but in the speech you just heard from nixon, it was such a rambling, long, self-pitying, talking about his mother raising him -- you felt very uncomfortable. the man was leaving, but you felt uncomfortable listening to it. host: you refer to that line about the mother. here is a little bit more. >> nobody will ever write a book probably about my mother. well, i guess all of you would say this about your mother -- my mother was a saint. and i think of her, two boys dying of tuberculosis, nursing four others in order that she

could take care of my older brother for three years in arizona, and seeing each of them die, and when they died it was like one of her own. yes, she will have no books written about her, but she was a saint. host: what was your reaction to that speech? guest: as john says, it was very uncomfortable listening to that. i think at that point you probably had to have some feelings of pity for the fallen president. as far as the pardon is concerned -- gerry ford could

have gone either way on that. but to bring him down because of the pardon i don't think is necessarily right. it was a decision that had to be made and he did and he lived by it. host: john from florida, a democrat, good morning. caller: yes, i would like to say something in favor of richard nixon. i am a democrat and i was 26 years old when he resigned. so, i know something about what happened. i do agree with the two gentleman that he did lie right through the beginning as far as the vietnam war. he had no plan. i just have two brief comments. i will let the gentleman talk.

by the way, i am sorry to see two people who are the same philosophy on this. also, i would like to say first of all, richard nixon was far ahead of his times. you have to look past his narcissism and look at what he proposed. his policies or very sound. he was in favor of health-care long before any other democrat came. jimmy carter did nothing. harry truman did something. you did not hear about anything wood johnson put through medicare, but nothing for universal health care. host: healthcare, gentleman, legislative initiatives by richard nixon? guest: the caller is somewhat right, but to say that stu and i

have the same philosophy -- we are reporters. when you are opinion-makers, then you can sell your opinions. again, we go back to the same thing. nixon came in with a huge backing from the american people and he forfeited it almost immediately when the watergate hearings started. stu recited a litany, wiretapping, bombing cambodia. host: did richard nixon push health-care reform? guest: if he did i really cannot remember that. as far as i recall, almost the whole agenda was a foreign policy agenda in the white house. the one thing that he did push was a clean environment program. that i remember very well. i remember walking along the beach in santa monica with john

ehrlichman and he talking to me about how important the environment would be in the future and how we had to start doing something right now. but beyond that i do not remember healthcare being a big issue. host: joining us by phone is richard nixon's younger brother, ed nixon. he joins us from seattle. he has written a book recently on the nixon family. where were you on august 8th and 9th? give us a general sense of what was going on. guest: hello, i had my family with me in the cascade mountains at a camp set. i did rather expect something of this sort coming down the line, knowing the dick would do the best thing for the country,

regardless of what it did to him or anyone else in the family. it was something he felt -- before the senators came to visit him, he and his speechwriter were already working on something. but i did not really hear anything of this until i came down the mountain from the campsite and stomped in at a barber shop. it was the talk of the shop. host: so, you did not know until after the fact? he did not alert you ahead of time? guest: no, no, he did not alert me. it was something he had to decide from his own mind, probably. it is always fun and amusing to watch the accounts of some reporters who lived through that time and could never see through the one issue that began with john dean's actions.

host: mr. nixon, when did you next talk to your brother? guest: it was later as he was pretty much in seclusion for some time. my brother don was the first to check in on how he was doing. he was still suffering from a condition. my visit was remembered. we talked about a number of things concerning the future. host: when these anniversaries come up, does the family talk? the you have any reunions? guest: no, we do, but it was in honor of my brothers don's wedding anniversary host:, in 1942 sir, i have two guests

here. john mashek who used to write for the "boston globe" and stuart loory who was with "the los angeles times. guest: i would like to ask if in 1936 when your brother was elected to the congress, if you have any feeling at that time, or can you tell us about his feelings about whether or not he might someday become president of the interstates? guest: i think not. i was 16 years old. -- if he might become president of united states. guest: he was mainly interested in doing the best he could for the country, a country we all loved and still do. the idea of a higher office was

perhaps in my grandmother's mind come millhouse. if you read the story in my book -- obviously, you two gentlemen have never read it obviously, but it does clear up some things. guest: well, i applaud your family loyalty. i dispute the were hate there. -- the word hate. when he was the running mate of eisenhower and the speech came up, could you give us a little background on that? it solidified his place on the ticket when eisenhower was advised by some backers to dump richard nixon. guest: harold was foremost among them because he had his own desire to become president, but on the other side of it, i watch all that from a distance and try to read it in newspapers. the television was barely awake in those days.

the checkers speech was heartfelt and sincere. and did make an impact. the appeal to the voting public to write to the republican national committee and the say yes or no. whatever you decide i will abide by it -- that is why i think back on this that richard nixon resigned not in disgrace, but an honor of the office. host: mr. nixon, have you read a lot of the books about your brother? guest: no, i have read my brother spokes. the book's about my brother, especially from those who are strictly psycho-babble -- i read parts of them -- they are interesting. they just show of blindness. they show and intransigence that

is difficult to remove. host: two final things. number one, there is a new book out that is ron kessler's new book, "inside the secret service," and in said he quotes that both the president nixon and his first lady became heavy drinkers toward the end of the first presidency and on tour san clemente, do you agree with the ducks guest: it is really interesting to see someone trying to make something out of nothing. it is like the frost-nixon movie. it is entertaining, but has nothing to do with the nixon family. i would probably look at parts of the books and see what they're trying to say and what their evidence is, and were they evidenced, or just repeating what someone else said?

host: finally, mr. nixon did appear on this program a few months back. if you go to booktv.org you can watch the on line under featured programs. also, our site for both notes, richard nixon in 1992 did a two- hour but notes. you can watch that on line also. so, ed nixon has joined us from seattle. thank you for your time this morning. guest: thank you for your balance. host: mississippi, welcome. caller: thank you for taking my call. i want to commend ed nixon for coming on and standing up for his brother. that took a lot of courage. due to all the media given. my short point is that mr. nixon, mr. president nixon was a

stand-up guy for doing what he did. he knew that he made a mistake. he took the national interest first. he took country first. he decided to resign. can you imagine how card that was for him because as bad as he wanted to be president for him to resign, but he did the right thing. this is what i want all the politicians out there now -- democrat, republican, independent -- look at a situation like this where he did the right thing. that is all i have to say. i was a young guy when he was elected in new nothing about politics. he had that kind of charisma. do you remember the peace signs and the comedians were making fun of them -- he had that kind of charisma. he got a lot of media attention. people thought he was great. host: let's begin with stuart

loory. guest: well, i commend the caller for his attitude. however, i think that if nixon had not resigned, he was going to be convicted by the senate in just a few days. that was going to drive him out of office. guest: i dispute too that he was a stand-up guy. nixon did not give up until very cold water, the senate's leading conservative, and other senators came down and said you lost the votes. he was willing to fight it out to the end, but stu is right, he would have been convicted and had many republican votes against him as he did in the house judiciary committee. host: let's return to 1974. were your editors pushing this story?

were you both pushing it deaths guest: "u.s. news" was considered a more conservative magazine and we were not pushing the envelope, but we were covering it. when you say pushing the store, how could you not? yes, the post was out in front of it, but this was a store you cannot ignore. host: mr. stuart loory? guest: you have to keep in mind that at the beginning of the washington press corps was not really pushing this story. even the washington post national staff did not want to push this story. it was carl bernstein and carl woodward working under their editor who pushed this as a good, important crime story.

the news business is sometimes slow to react on the major story. in the beginning this story was poorly covered, and then as time went on and the press corps began to understand what it was that these reporters were doing, they also jumped on it. guest: i would just add that his red, political reporters did not touch that story for a long time. they thought it was a cops and robbers story the woodward and bernstein broke. host: anything else? guest: the only other thing was that this happens from time to time on major stories. the build up to the iraq war was similar.

not everybody, not absolute, but the washington press corps generally was believing that saddam hussein was building weapons of mass destruction. they really did not go after that story in a hard, disciplined way. host: there is a debate on iraq war, or on health care, when that happens it seems all of the business in this town gets shut down. was it shutdown during watergate? guest: not really. but you're right. we do live in a cocoon here. we live and breed on the next debate up on the hill and people out in columbus and seattle and other cities are not as close to the situation. they are not following every

debate or fight. but yes, the city was enveloped in this piece. guest: well, that happens with the stories in washington. i can recall a few years before watergate in the pentagon papers were there was the march on washington. it was huge. it was the martin luther king speech at the lincoln memorial. i was covering the limited nuclear test ban treaty which was also a major. myself and a reporter from the associated press were the only people, the only reporters at the capitol when the senate foreign relations committee had a major vote on that treaty. senator fulbright came out of the committee room and saw only

three reporters there and was very disappointed. host: conn., you have been very patient. caller: i am very excited. but no one knows this and it is a mystery. i was in denver a couple of years ago -- c-span in your archives noted a priest and the judiciary committee that wrote the articles and was going to be the smoking gun. it was not watergate, but rather the bombing in cambodia. this priest was then yanked from the congress. both the pope and washington agreed never to have a priest in congress again. this priest was a real hero. it is on your archives. i made a copy, but lost it. i wish that someone would look into that. guest: the lady is talking about the late jesuit priest, father

drynan, a member of the house from massachusetts who later had to resign because the vatican said he could not hold public office. he was a very good congressman, liberal, but represented his district. but i do not think it was over cambodia. that certainly was an attempted article of impeachment, but the smoking gun was when it was revealed that nixon was in the oval office when the coverup was being discussed. host: and father drynan, was see an active anti-nixonian? guest: yes, he was liberal and an outspoken critic of nixon's. caller: good morning. i like that last caller concerning the father -- people should remember things like that. i would like to offer more context about nixon and the

republican party. the southern strategy, we have had a succession of republican presidents elected -- and i do not want to put down southerners who but for these awful people, but racism, resentment. it comes up now with the whole health care thing. people who are just reaching they are being manipulated by a very corrupt corporations. the nixon i certainly reach more than ronald reagan who was a very demonic figure. the government is a problem -- people should wake up to the fact that the government is us and it can be bad or good. unfortunately, in this country we have had a succession of awful government. war-mongering. vietnam was terrible. after nixon came in another 35,000 kids were killed. bush -- well, it is unspeakable.

people have to wake up about what has gone on in this country. host: what is your reaction, stuart loory? guest: i think the caller makes an excellent point. we certainly do have to do more to monitor our government and make sure it is performing properly. we have been let down. we bear some of the responsibility for that also. the news business tries to do its job. sometimes it does very well, and sometimes unfortunately it does not. but john made a point early in the program that this is a resilient democracy. it was resilient during the 1970's.

it was against showing its resiliency just last year. host: terre haute, indiana, a republican. caller: yes, you're speaking of health laws. when nixon was and i was working in indianapolis as a physician's assistant. we had consumer price index placed on health care and on our salaries. you could not raise the salaries above the consumer price index. i was under that and ask for a raise and they said no. i remember in the paper reading that the president had signed it into effect. nothing could be raised above the consumer price index for the time. guest: that is really interesting. you're talking about nixon in the early 1970's, is that

correct? that was a time when the inflation rate was 1.5%. the nixon administration got really concerned about that. they did impose some price controls. guest: yes, controls were imposed. john connally was nixon's treasury secretary and someone nixon really admired. the both admitted later that it was foolish to try. they've repealed it. host: that was done by executive board? guest: it was. host: here is a message from twitter. guest: you know, i do not recall that specifically. it has been 35 years ago. you know, he testified which was

incredible for a sitting president to come up to the hill and testify that there was no deal made with alexander haig, nixon's principal the system. host: how will begin g noerry ford? guest: pretty well. what you see is what you get. ford was easy to admire. politics aside, he liked reporters. that made a big difference. about nixon, he really disliked reporters. you could say he had a right to, but ford admired reporters in new they had a job to do. even when you wrote because i covered the ford white house, a story that he did not like, you did not hear a word from him. he did not complain. host: time for two more calls. first on the independent line from georgia.

richard, are you with us caller: good morning, and thank you for taking my call. i remember reading a book about the nixon resignation. i am 66 years old. what concerned me was the way that the media handled the nixon presidency and his problems, and in the way they handled clinton's. i thought clinton, if anyone should have resigned, it should have been him. do you remember the fbi files, 1000 that hillary brought in, and these two thugs, and you're going through these files making a hit list? then we hadtr travelgate and whe water. the second cost taxpayers $60 million.

jim went to jail. clinton said he was his partner, but said later that he was not an only found out after -- it was will lie after another. guest: the caller makes some point. it always depends who'soxe is being gored. there were definitely problems with the clintons, but they're not impeachable. host: the last word comes from wyoming. caller: yes, i remember back then -- i'm 64 years old bridge and i was watching the news and there was so ashamed. i think that the american people were way out ahead.

if you just listen to nixon's tapes you know what kind of human being this man was. he was prejudiced, self- important. he bonds hanoi on christmas day. how many did he kill at cambodia? now you have president bush killing all these innocent people. nixon was talking about his mother and brother stance you people have no heart. that is the difference between a liberal and conservative. host: final word, mr. stuart loory? guest: the only thing i can say about that as your caller was speaking, it occurred to me that was not only our presidents --

but also the people working for them. it was the henry kissinger, on drums filled --donald rumsfeld, and others who were very involved in this. we do not say enough about how our government, administrations have gone astray. guest: it is interesting to me it bet callers shows the range of emotions of the nixon presidency and follow that still exists. people can get pretty uptight about it. host: thank you both for being here on the 35th anniversary of richard nixon's resignation from the presidency. tomorrow we will speak with patrick of the u.s. chamber of commerce about the trade summit in mexico. epsetin will also be here, a

business week correspondent, and covers the health care story. reprep. brad sherman will also join us. our last two guess will talk about the plangreen show. they will talk about the world's water supply. thank you to you all. enjoy the rest of your sunday. ♪ [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] ♪