august series. plus, your e-mails and phone calls. ♪ host: the nation's capital gets a bit quieter on this sunday, the 23rd of august as president obama and his family had off for vacation to martha's vineyard. in the meantime, one group opposed to the healthcare plan is running tv ads. in massachusetts this week, that is against the plan while the president is there. we're covering town hall meetings across the country this week. look for evidence from several states. we will put them all on prime time. we will spend our first half hour this morning tracking the story about a report that is due

out tomorrow by the cia on detainee tactics. one of the headlines this morning says that the cia used a gun and a power drill to threaten duties. we want to get your reaction this morning. -- to threaten detainee's. in the paper this morning, reporting on this story -- here is the headline. it says a bush officials filed the charges over tactics in this terror case. the reporters with their leaves say that a cia officer who allegedly used a gun to intimidate it captured al qaeda suspect was formally disciplined

for violating the agency's rules for conducting interrogations', but the bush administration justice department officials ultimately declined to file charges against him, according to two former intelligence officers familiar with the case. this is in "the washington post" today. there are a lot of related stories in the papers today. in this particular case they write that the cia officer eventually resigned.

this was confirmed yesterday. inspector general's report which is slated to be released in the classified form tomorrow. the first call on all of this -- todd on the independent line. caller: hello. in the media coverage of the cia -- i don't believe anything. i disregard anything i hear

about the cia or the office of special investigation because it is a secret enemy. anything that will be released to the public will be for political value. every time i hear anything about the c.i.a. i just change the channel. it is a separate entity designed to operate outside the continental mores of the u.s. why even talk about it? it is a waste of time. host: ok, this is now mark, on the line for democrats. caller: i do believe it is somewhat suspect that we're hearing all this information somewhat after the fact. after the players involved, everything that has now been swept under the rug by the new administration -- no prosecution

-- these were stories that were four or five years ago coming out. host: why do you think they have not cannot until this point? caller: i think it is because now that the administration is gone that in order to move forward with any prosecution the american public does not have the patience for. there are too many things talk to does more important. most importantly is a health care reform which the media has latched onto a much more than the war in afghanistan which is ramping up, which is taken away so much money. yet there is very little coverage of what is actually happening in afghanistan and iraq. host: back to this piece in the paper, they write that the justice department spokesman declined to comment on the contents of the report saturday.

we expect to see this report tomorrow. long beach, mississippi, thanks for waiting. a republican caller now. caller: yes, i believe the interrogation tactics used seem to me to be extremely mild. if they were interrogating one of our prisoners the probably would have just stood him up or

bent him over and chopped their heads off with a sword. i have not heard anyone complain much about that. mainly they are complaining about our tactics that we use. host: what does the release of all this information mean to you? caller: they are trying to demonize the cia. you have to use any means necessary to protect u.s. citizens. that is all that i really have to say. host: thank you, we appreciate your thoughts this morning. we also invite your e-mails to us and messages by twitter. cspanwj is the place. hartford, conn., kevin on the independent line. caller: hi, i just wanted to let you realize that the office of

special plans operated out of rumsfeld's office and cheney's was very involved in that and they operated outside the purview of the cia because they did not like their findings in the way they did business. i think that needs to be looked at as well as the private contractors. there are many things that need to be looked at. i have not read the article, but i don't know if you know if that is in the article, or not? host: we will continue to read this and see if any other information comes out. here is the headline. bush officials filed no charges over tactics. we expect the inspector general's report from the cia to be released tomorrow according

to news reports. oakland, california is here to react now on the line for democrats. caller: yes, this is pretty mild stuff compared to what is going on now and the air force base in afghanistan which was covered by the bbc. there were many alleged victims. there were many witnesses of the torture of the afghani prisoners at that airforce base. i have heard that at the guantanamo base the guards have cracked down sense o-- since obama says it will close it down. they are getting in their last licks. host: good morning, ben. caller: yes, we need to look at

the practices of breaking the laws of our country. we have a constant attempt to cover up. they are turned to propagate would never really happened. host: here is what the philadelphia paper writes. the story began to break over the weekend.

alexandria, louisiana, joe is on the republican line. caller: yes, all these people who do not like the way that the cia conduct the business -- whenever they need to do to protect this country, go for. those who do not like it they can leave their name was summoned and we can take all these detainees to their house and they can fix them a nice dinner. host: stan, on the democrats' line. caller: hello, i am a world war ii and korean veteran, and i would like to say that i think this is very important. to the previous caller, if you do not have this written out,

you can hear the same things right next door to and what will you do? that is what the germans said when they had the death camps over there. host: lots more in the paper this morning. this reporter writes that in a reversal of pentagon policy, the military for the first time is not a find the international committee of the red cross of the identities of militants who were being held in the secret camp in iraq and afghanistan.

the next call on the up coming cia report, from florida on the line for republicans. caller: good morning. i just wanted to make one brief comment pertaining -- good morning, by the way. i would like to represent myself, a person of acute interest in this whole ordeal. the only reason i'm saying that is because quite frankly from years and years of observation from a very low profile point of

interest, i would have to say that i do not like the way that the cia operates in this country. i am glad that we have freedom of speech. i state that based on the accumulated information that i have chosen to largely keep to myself from the view of not trying to hurt anybody. now, what i'm going to say to you quite frankly, this is the government's time to step in and clear up the mess. you guys need to get the right guys on the job. i don't mean any monkey business. just do it and do a right to use

as much integrity and honor through the process and get the big guns in there now. host: we will stay in florida for this next call, frank. caller: good morning. host: what the make of this upcoming cia report? caller: with the last woman says, this is all just coming to light. they are trying to clean up after the mess. it just the thought of as having a base in cuba of our arch- enemy shows our arrogance. as for people worried about having these terrorist come over for dinner, we have two million in cars rid of people in this country. some are the deadliest sort of criminals. these 300 or 400 detainees would easily beat absorbed into our prison system. people do not want them on our soil and i concede the point of

view, but unfortunately, we have to start -- unlike the last administration, we need to clean up our image. i know that makes some people angry. they feel that we in no way have anything -- for better word, ashamed of. this detainee it situation is just a sham. i agree these people should be given the red cross. they should be sorted out to see who really belongs there. -- this detainee situation is just as scena. -- a shame. like john mccain used to say before he switched to get the republican nomination, torture never works. it never works. host: we appreciate your thoughts. here is how newsweek first

reported this late on friday. it reveals that the cia conducted a mock executions. it will reveal harrowing new details about the treatment of suspected terrorists. they talk about the staging a mock executions as part of the program. this is according to two sources. the reports describe how this one detainee was threatened with a gun and a power drill. lots of other media is jumping on to this also. we are waiting for the report to come out tomorrow. maryland, what do you say about all of this? on the independent line. caller: my question is this -- how are we supposed to treat these people when they attack and kill the american people? host: what is the answer to your

own question? caller: they want to trade these terraced with white gloves or give them the middle for with the do. i think the cia officer, what did it with a gun at the power drill was nothing. nothing for what they do foto us. these people need to change their minds to treat these terrorists like a god. they do not belong to be treated like with white gloves. host: we appreciate your thoughts. this concerns a detainee being able to question a 9/11 suspending the the federal judge has granted a prisoner challenging his detention permission to ask questions of the self-proclaimed mastermind of 9/11.

it is the camp's most notorious in may. chicago, you are up now. would you make of the news about this cia report? caller: hello, and thank you for taking my call. why is there no bipartisan support here for the obama administration for moving these inmates to michigan?

right from the get go as soon as the republicans got hold of obama moving these inmates to michigan they were all over him. all over his back for closing guantanamo bay. there were simply transferred to mr. amigo -- to michigan. what is all this about these transfers? host: why do you think that is the case? caller: frankly i'm at a loss -- big question mark. host: good morning, caller. caller: there have been several callers saying that these techniques with a gun and the drill are not anywhere nearly as bad as what they might do to our soldiers. that is a massive rationalization.

that is what makes us different from them. largely, these detainees if you look at it, the terrorists -- the main difference between them and our foot soldiers is that while our foot soldiers may choose to give their lives in doing their jobs, while they may give their lives doing their jobs, they do not go out to choose to give their lives the way that their foot soldiers would do. host: one other point about that piece from "the new york times," also, the attorney general eric holder is expected to decide in the next several days whether to appoint a criminal prosecutor to investigate the interrogations'. lots more in this piece and elsewhere.

woodhaven, n.y., on the independent line. what is your reaction to all of this? caller: first love, my reaction to other callers. the key word here is suspect. -- first of all, my reaction to other callers. this is only the interrogation process. for the past however many years they began to bring detainee's into the system. people have calling them terrorists. we do not know. a lot of these people were given up because the people who give them up for given money, property. we do not know whether all these people are terrorists are not. it is just against the whole moral composition of this country to not treat people with some sort of justice and morality.

it is against who we are. for the people who think he should come over and have dinner with a terrace, that is such an absurd rationalization. -- with the terrorists. we must clean up our act because of the soldiers. we cannot continue with this type of system the please remember the word "suspect." until these people are tried it in some justice system we have no idea of the evidence against them. we do not know if they have done these things. in that regard they should not be tortured. host: coming up, we will do our roundtable discussion with journalists on all the issues. speaking of the health care store, "the washington times" follows up here -- obama tackles the healthcare reform rumors and

calls phony claims divisive. the congressman on the republican side gave a response -- he says the problem is the president himself in articulating all of this. the first family is to head to martha's vineyard today. we want to remind you about our "newsmakers" program.

his group decided as a national model that should be included in a new health-care plan. here is a short piece of what he has to say. >> a lot of people have had this perception of cooperatives of been this kind of a folksly, and sophisticated organization that is really built around old notions of what hmo's used to be that created restriction to access. for anyone who would look at group health cooperative today you would see that it is really quite different from those old, dated perceptions. you might know that group health recently was named by consumer reports as the no. 1 hmo in the entire country. you may not know that the puget sound health alliance is a

regional organization endorsed by starbucks and boeing health plans and other providers in the area. the publicly report through their report card on the quality of clinical care against a series of specific measures. group health care providers on 15 different measures most recently were rated no. 1 on 11 of those. there are all sorts of evidence that demonstrates that this is not your ishmo. this is a model that is working in this marketplace -- this is not your grandmother's hmo. host: that is one of the many voices on health care there. that segment at 10:00 p.m. eastern. a couple more minutes on this story. the cia officer discipline for alleged gun use in

interrogations. bush officials filed no charges over tactics. looking toward a cia report to be released tomorrow. georgia, on the republican line. caller: in contrast to the last caller who turned this into a large diatribe of generalities, let's talk about the specific of the story you are reading this morning. we have a cia officer -- and by the way this was not a suspect. this was a person they were fairly convinced and i have not seen any refutation of the fact that this was a key part of the cole plot, if not the master mind itself, so we have a cia officer who used a gun and parker. he did not shoot the detainee. he did not drill the detainee. -- he used a gun and a power drop.

he played mind games with the detainee not to get a confession of guilt, but to get information as to the identity of other terrorists. that is with the interrogation is for. it is not for justice. it is for self-defense. the cia discipline this officer which basically ended his career. he subsequently retired. so, that is the end of the story, isn't it? you seem to be making the point that charges were never filed against the sky. -- against this guy. i'm not saying there is any motive there -- i am just saying, so what? this is not such a big deal. here is my one paranoid thought for the day -- the president's

program is in a bit of trouble. i think we will be back to hearing about the bush administration for the next couple of weeks. host: i appreciate your thoughts. these are not our words, but the words of "the washington post." brian, mich., on the independent line. caller: let me get this right -- a gun and a drill? this is not torture. this is scare tactics. we need to do this to get information. and as some of the colors on this program say they should not do this to our troops, but when they get a hold of us, has anyone ever seen any footage of what happens when the enemy gets

hold of our brothers, sisters? no, they have not i have the bootlegged video. it is very disturbing. so, from now on, we need to start doing a little more torture and start decapitating some of them. we will call it even. maybe they will stop screwing us. host: here is a message from twitter before our last call. virginia beach, va. on the line for democrats. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have actually were down at guantanamo and worked at abu g. this is a thing of fear -- why are we so afraid of the release? there were?

600 detainees at guantanamo. there are 200 now. many of them were released under the bush administration. where are the attacks now? where was the average when they were being released under the bush administration? i was on the detainee assessment board. people were afraid to release the guys at them. some of them were caught because their work in the wrong place at the wrong time. this is not what the united states is for. i'm glad that things are being brought out. i am in the military. scare tactics do not work. you have to have a reason to detainee and interrogate an individual. if you think you can continue to do this to get even, some of our guys have done some the same negative things. some of these guys had nothing to do with what they are being

accused of. we have lots more coming up in the next half-hour. the right back. -- be right back. ♪ >> years as robert kennedy's press secretary, and at the time when walter cronkite was considered for the role of president, tonight. >> george mason university

present on the role of higher education in training and information technology professionals. >> go inside the supreme court to see the public places and those rarely-seen spaces. hear directly from the justices as they provide their and set. the supreme court, home to america's highest court. >> private donations? >> grants, and stuff like that. >> donations? >> i do not know. >> federally? >> america's cable companies created a c-span as a public service, a private business initiative. no government mandate. no government money. "washington journal" continues.

host: joining us now for a discussion of if anything and everything. ron, and lilnda, she is a political correspondent for the christian science monitor -- that is lilnda. so, the obama family goes off for a week of fun. there will begin to run ads in that local market. would you make of this? guest: it shows two things -- the president never truly goes on vacation. he can put on a good show of being at the beach. he does not have to turn on his tv. he can to net this out. president obama is pretty good at controlling what he pays attention to. he manages his own the time.

host: here is this headline that obama tackles the health care reformers. he has been trying to do that all week. how is he doing in this critical area? guest: it shows how far behind they have gotten in this fight. i think they're really taken off guard. they should have been out in front. these things have not just popped up in the past week. we have been hearing about them for several weeks. it took the white house along time to respond. i think that he is behind the eightball. they should have been pushing back on these harder, sooner. host: what is your response?

guest: perhaps there were a little over-confident. they had their strategy and felt good about it. their strategy was to do not what the clinton administration did. instead of having one white house-crafted bill they handed to congress, they allowed congress to come up with their own. then you have multiple bills. there are different pieces with different elements that opponents can grab onto and exploit. host: john mccain's voices out there again. he says president obama will have to draw up proposals for a government-run health care insurance option if he hopes to reach congressional agreement. guest: john caine's voice probably does not mean a tremendous amount at this point. -- john mccain's voice does not mean much at this time.

there are others that are stronger voices. nancy pelosi said i cannot pass a bill through the house that does not have a public option. stanley hoyer the next they said he might have to take that out. you're getting a lot of mixed messages. the consensus is building towards not having the public option, but that causes a lot of problems for the president on the left. that is a very dear part of this proposal to liberals. it is kind of a mess right now. host: we would like for viewers to comment. to call in for our guests with questions. we have been covering a lot of these town hall meetings in their full forms.

jean taylor, a blue democrat, held one of these earlier in the week. >> i would hope by now that everyone in this room is aware that i'm not going to vote for the healthcare plan. [applause] ok. plays, one at a time. quite honestly, it goes back to an $11 trillion debt, the fact that the medicare trust fund will collect enough money between now and 2017 to make its annual operating expenses.

host: linda, just part of the problem that the president seems to have on the democratic s ide. guest: yes, he knows how to play his district and he is someone president obama can i count on. guest: yes, it is amazing to see the crowd exploding in applause when he says he will not go for the healthcare reform. part of the reason democrats are in some much trouble is that the president has gone so far so quickly. if you took this bill and the spending involved, you might have been able to get everything you wanted to do with the first thing you have done. but they have done bailouts, all

these other things. this i think is really a pushback especially among the conservative democrats. host: the first call from folks. first, let's get the voice of the president out there as he defended the healthcare plan. >> first, no matter where you have heard, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor under the reform proposals. if you like your private health insurance plan, you can keep it. if your employer provide to health care insurance, nobody is talking about messing with that. if you do not, we do intend to provide you high-quality affordable options. that is not just poor people without, and in fact many poor americans have it through medicare. mostly it is working americans

who do not have health care, or small business owners, or self- employed. we want to give them a menu of options to choose from and a little bit of help in terms of making premiums more affordable. host: the president is on vacation now. will there be a vacuum on the message? guest: i think that there will be a quieting down. this week. -- time this week. one said that he has taken the president -- advise the president to take some down time. he says especially in the senate finance committee need to give them time to work on some legislation. cool it down, pull it back.

it is proudly good advice from someone who is a real expert in this town. host: as you cover politics -- we're looking at 2010 already. what are members thinking around the country? guest: typically, the president's party loses feet in the first midterm. the democrats had two tremendous cycles in a row. you had a lot of democratic members in republican districts and some will go, for sure. not too many people are confident that the republicans can take over congress in one year, but they can always hope. the ideal would be a rerun of 1993, 1994. but there is a different feel to

this time. guest: charlie cook is a veteran handicapper. he sent out a warning signal for he sees democrats losing may be 10 or 20 seats. he said it could be as many as 26. what is troubling to some of these vulnerable democrats is that just like in 1993 when they did the deficit reduction program, a freshman congressman from philadelphia cast a deciding vote and lost her seat the next time. the problem was that that deficit reduction program did not kick in until well down the road. you can see the same thing with this health care bill. even if they get something passed, taxes will kick in

before people see a benefit from the program. it gives republicans and a project be over the next year. guest: although if the economy is doing better -- and that is the trajectory -- if people are feeling better about the economy by november 2010, then the democrats will not get slaughtered. host: here are phone calls for our two guests. this one is from california on the independent line. caller: this is an interesting exchange. i'm really nervous and appalled by what i have seen over the past few weeks from the citizens, my fellow citizens. on the far right we have people who profess even a spiritual position the so's we are our

brothers' keepers. the only thing they seem to be concerned with is who will pay for it. people are dying because they do not have health care. i personally am the caretaker of a man who worked all of his life. his job was outsourced. he lost his insurance. he got sick. he had no where to turn. over the course of two years he was in over 0100 diabetic, and his kidneys were failing. his side was leaving him. -- he had over 100 diabetic failures. this was someone's family member. there would not want it to happen to them, but because they are in a position where they do not have to worry about their health care, they feel is ok to let other people died.

they are just arguing about how much it costs at that time. guest: yesterday i thought the republican response to the weekly radio address from the president was interesting. he repeated many criticisms of the democratic plan and acknowledged that there is a big problem with healthcare in this country. what tom priced from georgia said is that we do not want the status quo, but just want to make change through market forces and personal responsibility -- that is tom price through georgia. democrats say that is the usual, what we have been doing and it does not host: let me add another clip from the town hall. this is from a republican congressman in california.

citrus heights, calif. was where he took the question of belt citizens receiving the same health care as people on the hill. >> in consideration of the bill before various committees on my republican side of the aisle we tried to do with the question by saying that if the public option were part of the program all members of congress would be required to be in the public option. [applause] interestingly enough in one committee it was adopted and in another it was voted down. i do not know whether it will be in the final package. it seems that the mechanism where people have options to make choices that we have as federal employees is one that american people ought to have, but i will expand it beyond the four or six options by allowing americans to have access to the different options available in

all states. so that people can decide brother then my deciding among four which you can choose from. guest: what you heard from dan lungren was this conservative idea of the government tried to force something on you. sort of this class difference. it is a very common thing. he also talked about republican response to the healthcare issue which is free market, more choices. let's let the market worked its out. guest: i agree completely. host: let's move on to los angeles on the republican line. caller: good morning, i think

that the last speaker was where i was standing. thank you. host: alexandria, va., your thoughts this morning? caller: the american people ought to remember lessons. the government has figured out that they can scare the hell out of the american people. they give us the iraq war, the medicare bill -- they never put in money in there for it. they have put in these bankruptcy laws that destroy the american worker. people need to realize that $2.50 billion per year is going for health insurance every year. 30% goes to health insurance companies for no reason. people in this self for the base of the republican party is in need healthcare, but are willing to give up everything for

ideological reasons -- people in the south. host: let's hear from our guests. guest: this really speaks to the fears many americans have about government. many people point out the irony -- people standing up in town halls waving their medicare cards sent to get government out of health care -- well, that is government in healthcare. guest: and there is this backlash too big change quickly. we have seen many big changes of the past eight months and are proposing to see more. health care is an issue that affects people very directly and personally. people who are at least comfortable with what they have are very afraid and susceptible

to these arguments that the government will be telling you what medicines you can and cannot get, or that the government will ration health care. the president will say that the insurance companies are effectively rushing your health care, but people prefer the devil they know. there is no plan, but various plans and pieces. host: tie this to the broader economy, if you will. if there were to be more good news about economic conditions, would that improve the chances of healthcare? guest: i think so. ironically, at the beginning of obama's presidency there was a" "do not ever let a good crisis go to waste." the economy is in desperate trouble and because of that we can jump in to do a lot.

they have done a lot. they did this stimulus package. they bailed out the banks, the auto industry. instead of having their ramp up to healthcare reform people have big change fatigue. but if the economy starts to move upward people will feel less insecure. this was too a little change in obama's message. he is talking more about the impact of reform on people who already have health insurance. he is telling people that there will not be rationing. he says if they like their doctor they can keep the doctor -- i am not entirely sure that is true. host: llinda feldmann is a political correspondent for the christian science monitor. she has worked as a middle east

editor, foreign affairs writer, and worked as a moscow bureau chief. vaughn is a contributing editor to politico and a news editor at cbs.com. he was educated at the university of colorado at boulder. our next guest, joe, on the independent line from kentucky. caller: good morning. i'm sorry that the moderator is worried about that ad, picking on our poor president, following him up in new england. but i have a question here for the lap dog from political. he was a lap dog for the democrats on cbs, and the whole political bunch is for the democrats. when obama and his family went

to the grand canyon there was a woman leaning over the rail, and i think it was the first lady of this it u.s. -- host: we will let it go. . guest: this is the political and varmint we are operating in at this point. people have firm ideas about what they ideasin and what is right and wrong and are passionate about that. -- they have firm ideas about what is right and wrong. it is not bad to be passionate, but it is how we settle disagreements. we fight over ideas. what obama said he would try to bring into this town was more openness, working together more. republicans will say that the president may have tried to work together with them in the beginning, but his democratic

friends on capitol hill have not done anything to work with republicans. president obama is finding out how difficult it is to change the tone in washington, as all presidents have discovered. host: here is this piece. it is finished this way -- in last year's campaign debate, obama like to cite his unlikely a kinship with tom coburn as proof that he could work with adversaries. if he insists that enemies like this are his friends, that they can be placated by reason, he will waste his of virginity to affect real change and have no one to blame but himself. guest: the partisan thing in washington is very fascinating. on a personal level you have a lot of bipartisan foreign ships, teddy kennedy who is

famous isor with orrin hatch. but when you get into the public arena with high-stakes people really did become members of their party. there is still bipartisanship. the senate finance committee has this group of six who have been working very hard, even on recess, talking on the phone. it is the last key committee to come out with its plan on health care reform. bipartisanship is not dead, but it is hanging by a thread. guest: the system, ironically, works. you have congressman worried about getting reelected. the districts have been drawn as either republican or democrat. there are fewer true swing districts. on the other hand, the

legislature gears of congress continue to be the mechanisms that slow down these things. we had a great" in a political story saying that this is how congress has designed this, to sort of cool things down. i think there is less bipartisanship in washington than 20 years ago when you had bob dole. but there is a little. it is just hard to see sometimes. let's hear from palm beach, a republican caller. caller: first a couple of things before i get to health care. for seven years every time president bush went on vacation the media would say, should he go on vacation? there are two wars going on. now there are two wars going on, the economy is collapsing, and the country is almost at civil war.

we do not hear any questions like that from the media now. president bush went to crawford, texas which is a mini-white house. for seven years we heard and saw about the coffins. you said all this stuff during president bush, but the media does not seem to have the same -- even the peace rallies were going on and now you do not hear anything from that group. guest: it is true that prism bush did take a lot of heat when he went to crawford. but he did not take any heat in his first year. president obama is a only a little over six months in

office. he will naturally get a little bit of a break. the president will say, and he complained about quite a bit this week, that the media -- and it is funny how this goes around and around, that the media has really hyped up the controversy over the public option. when really it is his administration and those who speak for him who have started this controversy. host: a little more about politics -- the cover story here in the christian science monitor. never mind the big names, meet four rising stars. who are they? guest: i did not want to write about eric cantor and all the other usual suspects who are seen as near the top of the party and maybe leading in the future, or the people who are running for president in 2012. it is just a little early.

i decided that here was a party in distress. they just got slaughtered two election cycles. who still believes in this party who maybe has good ideas? i found in taxes former solicitor taxested cruise who is running for another position -- very smart, ivy league- educated. colorado is the same media you have this whole collection of young turf. these people in their '30's who will not wait for anyone. you have a 33-year-old running for the governor of colorado against the incumbent democrat. he must win his car running against his old boss, a former

member of congress. in new hampshire you have a kelly who was the state's attorney general who is now running for gregg's senate seat. she is a bit of an unknown, but a fresh, female face and a party desperate for women. . .

what they're saying is that president bush led the party off in a sort of into a ditch and that they can take it out by just getting back to first principles. >> you've been steeped in this for years now. who do you think of? >> i think of people like morocco rubio in florida who is taking on a very popular republican governor for mel martinez's senate seat and this is somebody who you think, how would you take on this governor? he is one of the reason that is john mccain won the nomination because he endorsed him. that's how popular he is. on the other hand, he is not popular among conservatives. and he has become a poster boy of the new conservative hufement. and if he doesn't end up winning will probably launch himself into a very nice career nationally and end up being a governor or senator from

florida before he goes on to do something else. and again, hispanic, cuban, who would speak to the hispanic vote, something that the republicans desperately need. >> back to the calls. caller: thank you for take mig call. i would like to know why won't anybody talk about the fact that the v.a. workers are getting bonuses and -- [inaudible] everybody talking about people getting bonuses, why won't you talk about the v.a. getting bonuses. >> another opinion. any thoughts? guest: i didn't see what he is talking about. the v.a. is a problem. people who are supporting the

public option always bring up medicare as the example of a government-run health insurance plan that works. but you have other government health care plan that is don't really work as well like the v.a. system. so i think both sides have some good arguments to make there. host: let's hear from detroit. caller: hello. i would like to say that a long time ago when i was in history clats, my history teacher used to say when you forget history, is the going to repeat itself. and i think the government owes social security money because they took money out to fund the vietnam war, world war one, and world war ii and they never repaid social security. also, if one person worked one day out of a week for just for health care, there would be enough money for dental, life

insurance, optcal, surgery, any type of insurance that you need. the only thing, the only health care problem that we have is in capitol hill that they have their hands in the till too much. >> thanks. any thoughts? guest: well, i do think history is a great teacher but you can learn too much of it. there's an interesting op ed in the "new york times" this morning about whether obama risks becoming an l.b.j. type figure because he is fighting a war in afghanistan, one that's winding down supposedly in iraq, but also trying to make these big social changes at home. and can he risk -- does what's going on overseas put him at risk of losing his domestic agenda. and you've got to look at that, there are some similarities. but every incident is different. every presidency is slightly different. and if you get too mired down in looking at what happened

before is exactly what's going to happen now, there are important lessons to be learned. host: we can review "new york times" legacies. maybe he'll win the battle. maybe his the economy will bounce back. linda, what do we know about afghanistan? what is happening? what could happen? and what it all means back home. guest: we now have 68,000 troops over there. it's one of those tar pits that has bedeviled the world for generations. i mean, just ask the russians about their experience in afghanistan. it's one of the sort of wildest, i don't want to say primitive but least delved countries in the world and it's really become obama's war. and this is an area where

actually conservatives are pretty happy with him because he is following the trajectory that was started under president bush and he is really -- iraq is winding down, afghanistan is winding up, and nobody can see an end in sight there. host: trudey writes in the philadelphia enquirer. quick afghan exit is a dangerous idea. the taliban remains a strong threat and is allied with terrorists in pakistan. they point out in the piece that a recent poll indicates 51% of americans say they believe it is not worth fighting a war there. want to add anything? guest: not only it's not just afghanistan, it's really pakistan. it's control of -- it's a lot of this is a fear that extremists and the people associated with terrorism and al qaeda and the taliban will take tover country of pakistan, which is a nuclear armed

country. now, that's a little paranoid in the sense that the military in pakistan has pretty good control over itself, but it's not an unrealistic fear. and pakistan is a very key ally to us right now. we need to make sure that that country remains stable. we've seen it being unstable just over the past few years. so i think that afghanistan is part of that bigger overall strategy that we have to address right now. host: while we're on this topic, let's get to this headline. there's a new c.i.a. report coming out we think tomorrow and the report says according to some that the c.i.a. used a gun, a power drill to threaten a detainee. they stainled a mock execution. what kind of traction does a story get like this as it starts coming out this week? guest: i think it does get some traction. usually just whatever their

views are going to be their views. there are people who think that especially at that time, i believe it was 2002, people take the 24 approach and say whatever we need to do to get information that can keep the country safe is what we need to do. you hear former vice president cheney continue to make that argument even after he's been out of office. there are other people who believe that this is not what america does, that we're better than this, that we don't treat people this way, we don't let our people be treated this way. and i sort of think people see that through the prism of where they come down on that issue. host: linda feldman talks about the red cross. they're talking about a u.s. shift. they're going to give detainees names, something the red cross has been looking for for years. guest: i don't have anything all that to say about it. guest: i do think that does speak to the sprobs that

problems that president obama has in trying to settle the gitmo issue. that was one of his promises when he came into office he was going to shut down gitmo and everything was going to be great. he found it's a much more difficult think to do. and he has done thing that is has outraged his supporters on the left, such as keeping the photographs classified, saying that we're not going to bring some of these prisoners and we're not going to shut down gitmo right away. we'll do it eventually. he's finding that murky issue of how should we treat these people a little more difficult than he made it seem in the campaign. guest: and when congress gets back in the fall, the clock is ticking on closing gitmo. he said he would close it by january and he still has a lot of work to do. so when everybody gets back, there's going to be a lot on the plate. host: let's hear from south carolina. joe, you're on.

good morning. caller: good morning. i just want to say hello to two proud members of the media. i also want to make a quick point about medicare. she's really touted it a few times this morning already and you have some clinics in this country who don't cover medicare patients. obviously they must be doing it on a payment basis. you have other clinics that do cover medicare patients. obviously those must be accepting the fact that there are cash paying and insurance paying customers that are medicare patients. so if everybody was on medicare then we would have doctors who would not want to work for those pay scales. i don't know how that system would work. you lambast insurers, insurance companies, but they in essence subsidize a lot of the unpaying people or the people who can't afford to pay as much. so can if you take the private situation out of it you're not going to have as much money in the system and you're going to

v to ration health care. guest: nobody is talking about taking private insurers out of the system. i know that's the fear among some that a public insurance option would squeeze the private insurers out of the game but that is not the white house's intention. what they want is to more competition because you have so many markets in the this country where there isn't a lot of competition with insurers. so this idea that the entire country would be on medicare is not on the table. guest: on the other hand, the president sort of undercuts his argument on that score when he cites the post office as a good example. it's either the public option. it's either a competitive entity or it's not. and right now we think the post office is not necessarily competitive. host: caller now from florida. democrat's line. caller: why does the media now, when you get a panic, they

always have, especially on health care, like i take the monitor every month and i -- but both of you seem to appear on the right side. and, i mean, i have lived through from detroit as the head -- as a ban quiet captain and heard all the first things in 1977, turnover, come down a whole convention of computer systems and i was really upset because i said to them, everybody's leafing detroit. this company downtown that had a six-foot sign moved out. and i had the newspaper, he said, don't worry, twilea. information, we're going to rule information. and whoever controls information controls the world. and i really think that this

comes basically right to this. people are being told something which is creating so many falsehoods and so many lies and -- because it's desperate. we're the only civilized country that doesn't have on health care. insurance companies, corporations control this country now. and, i mean, we as individuals watch and listen to tv and i mean we're seeing not both sides. and i can't understand it. guest: i disagree. i think we have a very vibrant environment. it's changing. it's in a tremendous state of flux. i'm glad you read the monitor. the monitor itself is an example of that. we're not weekly -- and we're on line. we don't have daily print.

print is especially in turmoil. but you can get, you've got talk radio which kind of leans consunnytive and you've got cable tv and politico which is fantastic just for the energy and moment by moment updates. politico is not just from the left or the right. it's got a mix. so i am pretty happy with the media environment as it is. guest: i think that it is going, undergoing changes that are so fast and so dramatic. nobody knows exactly what it's going to look like ten years from now. but on the other hand, it is not, no longer controlled by editors who live in new york city and who all sort of hang out together at cocktail parties and they produce the evening news and the "new york times" and that sets the agenda for the country. we are now in a situation where you have blogs, you have web sites, you have complete flow of information. and that makes things confusing

sometimes. it's nobody sitting at the kitchen table over dinner any more watching walter cronkite bring you the knews and thinking this is the what the world is. now you can get the information you want. i think now people seek out the thing that is they agree with only which i don't think is necessarily a healthy thing. and i also think it provides more information, more balance, more voices means -- but it's confusing sometimes. host: you mentioned a lot going on in the fall. but in terms of government in general, there's the swine flu and the approach to it. lead story, swine flu campaign waits on vaccine. the subhead says only third of supplies expected. they might not have enough. guest: there's more to dealing with the anticipated rise in swine flu cases than just the

vaccine. there's been a lot of sort of public education going on about washing your hands and especially with schools, keeping children home from school. they're not anticipating shutting down schools as they were doing last winter when this first came up. but there's definitely been a lot of preparation on this. host: jim, hi there. caller: hi. thanks for taking the call. one of the things we all agree. i see both sides. they say that medicare is working. well, maybe if we start with medicare, this is just a suggestion and maybe some thought and maybe somebody could look more deeply into this. but medicare is taking care of the senior citizen. why can't we do ahead and take that and begin first with those that need it just as much as the seniors? that's the youth of today. those that are newly born to ten or 12 years old need that

as just as much as senior citizens. let's start with that for a year or two. let's see how well that progresses. then we approach the next group of people that may need it more. so that could be the 40 to 50 group. guest: they do have programs, schip covers children and that's a government program. i think that this is sort of the way that the administration is approaching a lot of this is through what will eventually bring down costs, what will eventually make this whole thing work will be preventative care, others stressing preventative care a lot. they're stressing let's save money on the lower end when we're spending so much on the later years of life. but it goes to show you that it's such a complicated issue both economically and politically. there are no easy answers and every issue has a very complicated and difficult component. guest: and when it's the

government getting involved -- another issue is obesity. if uncle sam is telling everybody to eat right, there is this talk about taxing sugary beverages, it could go down a slippery slope where there's this perception that the government is doing way too much sort of invasive advice. guest: and i think you hear that. this is the philosophical argument that we're having and you hear that. we don't want the government in our lives. we don't want them to tell us how to eat, what, how to behave. we will take responsibility for our own actions. and there are those who say you don't, and we end up paying for you. so it's a broad philosophical argument. host: at the same time, there was this headline about the clash for clunkers program, as the program winds down. what's the legacy of this

program? guest: i'm fascinated by it. when the government is giving away free money, why not line up? i'm not surprised it did so well. but gm hired more workers. but what happens down the road? what you've done is consolidated a lot of demand for new cars. these are people who probably were going to buy new cars anyway, so you condensed it into this short period and the auto dealers are all excited they're selling cars. but is this going to lead to another big hit on the auto industry? now that the government isn't giving money away any more, are people going to stop buying car? guest: the administration held this as a tremendous success and in some sense it has. but his critics would say it's an example of why government can't control the economy. just what you said. it's a short term prap program that's wildly popular but what happens when it's over? and they've not been able to administer it to the

satisfaction. a lot of dearlies are frustrated. it's a microcosm of when you have a government program how long it can take. host: caller from cleveland. caller: i would a couple of items i wanted to discuss briefly. first, i have a son who is in the marine corps and the callers and people were talking previously about afghanistan. i'm concerned that our current president has tabled any cost increases for the military. he has currently i believe is limiting to some degree pending general mccrystal's evaluation the number of troops in afghanistan. afghanistan historically has been an impossible country to dominate. our job is not domination, our job is to go in and help the afghan people. and as one of the panelists pointed out, to protect pakistan. i'm really concerned that this

president will lose his initiative and lose his concern because of political concerns in the u.s. and the unpopularity of this war. so i think i hope he has the fortitude to follow this through and to handle it properly. the other topic i wanted to talk about briefly had to do with health care. the statistics that i have seen are about 30 to 40 million people in the u.s. who are listed as uninsured. about 10 to 15 or so i understand are illegal immigrants. there may be another 15 million people who are in transition between jobs. and there's another 4 to 5 million people who refuse to sign up for care that's available to them. if you distill that down into let's say 10 or 15 million we could provide insurance for those people who are uninsured than a lot less money than

we're currently proposing to completely nationalize our health care system. we have one of the finest health care systems in the world when you have people from england and other countries and canada coming here for procedures that are not permitted or are not financed under their national plans and their countries. the problem that the president has is he doesn't have a plan. he has no distinct plan. he only has ideas. the house has passed a bill, the senate has no bill, and he is simply not leading. thanks. host: go ahead. guest: that's the problem. there is no bill right now. and that's probably -- linda alluded to this earlier, they believe they learned from the clinton effort in the early 90's that rather than have secret meetings then formulate your health care plan and try to ram it down the throat of congress, you let congress come up with it. we see how messy that process can be and i think if the president ends up getting a

health care reform bill it probably won't resemble a lot of what he wanted in the first place. and he may be able to take some credit. but by handing the initiative off to congress he sort of gave them the go ahead to, this is your deal. i'll give you the broad parameters. whether he gets what he wants i think it's really up in the air. guest: and when you dell gate to congress that brings in the lobbyists, which also has a huge impabblingt on what they end up doing. so i think in the end the caller talked about the different pieces of the uninsured population. first, they're not going to -- they won't insure illegal immigrants, so take them off the table. i think in the end people believe we're not going to get universal coverage out of this. there's no way. congress can never do anything that huge in one fell swoop. but if they can take care of a chunk of that now, then we can

come back to some point in the future. host: back to politics. this sunday morning, bashing bush may not work this time. he's referring to the governor's races. some of the ad's he's been seeing. is george bush in the ballot in new jersey? i recently saw a democratic ad that invoked him as a bogeyman six times in 30 seconds. is he on the ballot in virginia? let's be clear, george bush is responsible for our economic problems. he is making the point that his name, the last president's name is being invoked. bush bashing may not work this time. guest: i think in new jersey you've got a unique example because the republican candidate, chris christy was a former u.s. attorney who was appointed by bush, i believe. it has some connection there, so you can understand that. and it is new jersey and john corzine is in a lot of trouble right now. in virginia, i think it's a much more interesting case because you have a situation where barack obama won, was the

first democrat to win in virginia since lyndon johnson. he turned this state blue. but, on the other hand, there's a big question as to whether he has any coat tails in the state. the republican candidate is ahead in the polls right now. craig deeds, the democratic candidate, has been a little leery of bringing barack obama into the state. virginia is one of these and north carolina is one of the states that recently turned democratic but can very well go back to republican if there's a back lash. spending and a lot of things we've seen in washington. so i think virginia is a much better case to see how both bush and obama may play out. guest: i think the democrats dind out on george bush for two election cycles and did great and i think that's over. he's no longer president and i think what you'll see in most races is that they're not running against george bush. guest: i think it also shows you that the democrats, they're

in charning of things right now. they have control of congress, both the house and the senate, the white house, there are no republican bogeymen except for maybe george bush to really go after. so they are fight finding no opposition, really. host: hi, pete. caller: i'm a democrat all my life. voted democrat. obama has lost my vote. i'm listening to people talking on c-span, msnbc, fox, i listen to them all. and he's lost my vote. and one of the things i wanted to talk about is medicare. nobody's talked about medicare. the fact of the matter is that you're paying for medicare. i'm paying for medicare. all my life i've been paying for medicare since the law was invoked. i'm paying for it out of my social security. now i take the medicare and i buy a supplement. and i go to the doctor,

medicare says it was $100. medicare says $63. my supplement comes in and they pay a certain percentage. so the fact of the matter is we're paying for this. now, the illegal aliens. now, solve that problem. give them amnesty, they become citizens. give it to them. host: any thoughts from our guests. guest: the issue of illegal g grants is obviously huge and is -- obama has talked about it a little bit this year but it's not going to -- there's not going to be legislation this year. so i don't know this idea of having illegal immigrants suddenly getting amnesty and getting american, free american health care is -- that's just not going to happen. host: i want to get your thoughts about the summer that is, the summer that was here. one more clip from a town hall meeting, the one that made a lot of news this week with

barney frank up in new england, and then get some parting thoughts on what these town hall meetings are all about. let's take a look. >> my question to you is why do you support an amnesty policy as obama has expressly supported this policy? why are you supporting it? >> let me -- i will -- when you ask me that question, i'm going to revert to my ethnic heritage and answer your question with a question. on what planet do you spend most of your time? don't answer the question? yes. you stand there with a picture of the president defaced to look like hitler and compare the effort to increase health

care to the nazis. my answer to you is, as i said before, it is a tribute to the first amendment that this kind of vile contemptable nonsense is so freely prop gated. trying to have a conversation with you would be like trying to argue with a dining room table. i have tho interested doing it. host: to our guests. what does all of this mean? guest: well, i think it's safe to say that most members of congress could not get away with talking like that that to a constituent. but barney frank may be one of those. guest: i think that's right. obviously that's an extreme case when someone shows up with a hitler poster. that may be stretching the bounds of having a conversation over health care. but if you look at these town halls throughout the summer and throughout the month of august there's been a lot of people who say all this is jind up and there is some evidence that

there are some efforts to get people out to these town hall meetings. but i have to say that the ones i've seen really, it is a grass roots, it's a real natural pushback to what they see as intruding on their lives, things that they're afraid of. and you've heard some really good conversation, and i think it's caused members of congress to kind of sit back and think, number one, maybe i should make sure i know everything that's going to be in this bill and number two, maybe we should think about this a little bit. i think it's been really healthy for is the process in the long run. host: our guests, vaun, linda, thanks a lot to both of you. guest: thanks for having us. host: we will take a short time out. and i want to remind you in 30 minutes we'll have a discussion with robert bear, an ex-c.i.a. operatives who has been out there speaking and has written

a book about iran. we'll take your calls. and in a couple of minutes we'll take your call on the tenure of hillary clinton as secretary of state. we'll be right back.

host: if you look in the outlook section, you'll see this photo of secretary of state hillary clinton and the headline says it's 3:00 a.m. do you know where hillary clinton is? david is writing that she's not answering those crisis calls at the white house but she's quietly revolutionizing american foreign policy. and he writes this morning that when it comes to hillary clinton we're missing the forest for the pant suits. clinton is not the first celebrity to become the nation's top diplomat. that honor goes to thomas jefferson, who by the time he took office was one of the most famous and gossipped about men in america. but she may be the biggest and

during her first seven months in lady has drawn attention for her moods, looks, outtakes and relationship with her husband than her work. even venerable publications like the one to which i regularly contribute, foreign policy, woven into their all hillary all the time coverage discussions of clinton's hand bag and scarf choices. daily beast editor tina brown has been scathing and small minded in discussing things as her weight and hair while her defense of hillary in her essay, obama's other wife, was as sexist as the title suggests. amid all the distractions, what is clinton actually doing? only overseeing what may be the most profound change in u.s. foreign policy in two decades, a transformation that may

render the presidencies of bill clinton and george w. bush mere side notes in a long transition to a most cold war. we'll get views in a minute. but we want to invite you to phone in with your questions and comments about how you think secretary of state clinton is doing. what's her impact been in these months? again, the impact of secretary of state clinton so far. and david goes on to write in the post that the secretary has quietly begun rethinking the very nature of diplomacy and translating that vision, one that approaches u.s. allies and rivals in ways that challenge long held traditions. and despite the pessimists who invoked the team of rivals

cliche, hillary has defined a role for herself in the obama verse, often bad cop to his good cop, spine stivener and nurttrur of new strategies. recognizesing that the 3:00 a.m. phone calls are going to the white house, she is instead tackling the tough questions that since the end of the cold war have kept america's leaders up at night. caller: i think she's doing a pretty good job myself. host: give us some of your thoughts. caller: she's representing the country and trying to get the world organized, i guess, in her own way, the best she can. host: is there a part of the world or articulation of policy that strikes you most? caller: no. overall, i think she's doing a good job. i think she would have made a

good president too. that's just my belief in it. host: all right. republican caller. travis, what do you think? caller: really, i disagree with most of what hillary clinton is doing. i think she's just really using the media to parade around and make herself look like she's doing something big. i think she just really is using the media to get other people to jump on the gravy train. the whole political thing that's going on right now is big fads. i mean, it was illegal immigrants, it was gay rights. you know, it's one thing or another. it's health care. it's all these different things. but i think it's really just a fad and i think she will soon find herself dying out really quick. host: massachusetts, independent caller now named robert. caller: good morning. my opinion is i think she's doing a terrible job. she's been shunted aside, then

preempted by her husband and preempted by other people who have been appointed to higher and bigger duties in iraq and iran and afghanistan. she kind of reminds me of, which brings to my mind, the old punchline, what am i chopped liver? which that's what she's turned out to be, chopped liver. host: david continues to write in the post, that in the early days of the administration it's been easy to focused on what clinton has not achieved or in ways in which her power has been supposedly constrained. some of her efforts have been frustrated by difficult person until appruflse or disputes. this is the way of all administration. more unusual has been the avidty with which the new president has seized the reins of foreign policy, more

asserttively than eesdzer bush or clinton before him. obama's sentralt amplifies the importance of his closest white house staffers, while his pen chant for appointing special envoys has been interpreted as some as limiting clinton's role. given the challenges involved, it is perhaps natural that the white house would have a bigger hand in the day to day issues. but with obama, national security jim jones, vice president biden and secretary of defense gates absorbed by iraq, afghanistan, and other inherited problems of the recent past, clinton's state department can take on a bigger role in tackling the problems of the future. this approach is both necessary and canny. this recognizes that the u.s. policy must change to fulfill obama's vision and that many high pro file issues have often

swaumpled the careers and aspirations of secretaries of states past. caller: hi. i wish i was sitting next to you. i keep feeling like jumping into the television. i worked on the first generations of products that connect computers to each other. i was in afghanistan in the 70's at the tail end of 30 years of peace there before the soviets leveled the country and killed a million people. i followed the middle east for over 30 years. i am so proud of hillary and what she's doing. she is enlisting people in partnerships. she is showing great respect and understanding of the cultures of different countries. and getting people to be involved in whatever they can do being sensitive to their needs. that's how a partnership happens. she also is affecting,

influencing the tremendous sexism, which is much greater than here, around the world. women actually hold up at least half the sky as they used to say. and when women are educated and women -- you know, they bring up the families. they have great influence behind the scenes. and she's having a great influence in that way. she is also reaching out to average citizens in different countries which has an influence on public relations, on the image of the united states. and those are the people that vote for their leaders. and so she is really -- i'm so proud of her and i'm so proud of our state department. i'm so proud of holbrook. i'm very proud of what's going on in afghanistan. our soldiers are much more sensitive. they have brought agriculturele experts in the army there.

when you consider the -- and to the idea that we don't talk to enemies is only what cowards do. it's like when you have a good mother who -- who has many children. one child is this way, another one is that way. you need nuance. mr. bush was so proud he didn't do nuance. nuance is everything. and it requires intelligence. the democrats are doing great things. it's just the public relations of the democrats is not good. the public relations of the republicans is brain washing and lies. host: got the point. going to move on here to kill devil hills, north carolina. lieu is on the republican line. the impact of secretary of state clinton thus far. caller: thank you for taking my call. what i see so far is i see a whole lot more of our president

barack obama on the television than doy of senator or secretary of state hillary clinton. my belief is that hillary clinton has been more or less closetted by obama and he has many other appointees that take over the role that would traditionally be that of the secretary of state just to appease her so he didn't have to deal with her in the senate. and i would also like to comment on all these things the town hall protests and so forth about the health care. that's just window dressing. the 800 pound gorilla in the room is where are we going to get the money to pay for all of these things? it's impossible. how in the world can we come up with these kind of numbers in any time? host: i appreciate your thoughts. back to the words of david rots cotsdz. which nation he asks will be our key partners? what do you do in many vital

partners, china and rivals, are rivals as well? how do we engage with rogue states and old enemies in ways that do not strengthen them and preserve our prerogative to challenge threat? how do we move beyond the diplomacy of men in striped pants speaking only for governments and embrace potent nonstate players and once-disenfrance chiesed people? clinton is leaving behind old doctrine and labels. she outlined in new york where she revealed stark differences between the new administration's world view and those of its predecessors. the recurring themes includes partnership and engagement and common interests. in the post today. and we're gettinging your thoughts on hk's impact so far. hi there.

caller: hello. host: good morning. you're on the democrat line. kveragets i was calling to say that i think hillary will do a good job. i think it's just too early to really notice what she's been doing because all the other stuff we've got going on in the country with all the bailouts and the hk and different things like that. and i will just like to address the previous caller. the whole health care situation is something that needs to be taken care of. you see all these people in the uproar about providing health care for other americans. we take care of people in different countries. why were they whining about where we were going to get the money to pay for all these wars. host: a lots of twitter messages coming in on secretary of state. the impact of hillary clinton.

the heritage foundation writes about the invisible secretary of state. this came out a short while back.

host: orangeberg, south carolina. caller: thank you for taking my call. i want to speak on secretary of state clinton. indeed, in the democratic primary i decided to vote rather than in the republican primary. host: anything else? idaho checking in now. caller: hello. i think the reason they're keeping hillary out of the middle east is because she wouldn't get much respect in the middle east like, well, when the former secretary of

state, she didn't get much respect when she was over there. so i think they're doing a good job by keeping hillary out of there. host: let's hear what florida has to say about secretary of state clinton. caller: good morning. and thank you all for c-span. the piece that that he wrote certainly seems to be nothing more than soaring rhetoric that certainly has no specifics as to exactly what secretary clinton has done. i've heard callers come in and say secretary clinton is mending fences or taking after madeline albright. but i don't hear ni specifics about how she's going to put the prior administration's of president bush and her husband into the dust bin of history. host: one of the central themes

is the idea of partnerships. that's the word that came up in this piece a little bit here. partnerships rather than adversarial relationships with countries. at least that's the author's take. guest: he doesn't go back to compare any of the partnerships that secretary rice might have tried to forge or secretary albright, which i'm sure she did. i'm sure they both did. it's just that none got any play. it's just his pieces appear to me to be very marginal journalism at best. host: thanks for calling. you can read more at carnegie endowment.org. caller: hi. thank you for c-span. host: you're on the democrat line. go ahead. kveragetsd thank you very much for c-span. i am very impressed with the

obama administration. i think he's doing a fantastic job. they've changed the whole perspective of foreign policy in the world. you think every cuentry, whether it's the far east, middle east, they're giving the united states the respect that it deserves. i'm tempted to say something. this is why i studied shake spear. all the way my lord of jealousy. it is the green eyed monster that -- all you get from the republican side is just jealousy. you have a young president who enjoys a phenomenal popularity at home and abroad. and clinton is doing a phenomenal job. all they do is just grumible. all they're doing is causing chaos for nothing. i want to thank c-span. host: thanks. leadership 101 writes david ignatius. his opinion about arab israeli

peace process. the real foreign policy test will start as soon as obama begins to make some hard and controversial decisions on the palestinian issue and afghanistan. these would be tough problems even if the president were coasting. but now with his popularity down and congress in a partisan frenzy they will require a different level of leadership. also, jim writes in the sape newspaper, is he weak? if you want to see this president succeed as i do, you can construct an alternative narrative in which he is delowing dust in the eyes of opponents and resolutely moving towards goals that are wordsy. but it hasn't felt that way in this uneven august. in washington the old saw about perception being reality is all too true and all too final.

california, you're on the air now. caller: i would just like to say that hillary clinton is nothing but an apac totey and you've got dennis roth wants a war with iran. and he's now over at the national security council. and if anybody wants to know what's going on, we're going to be in a war with iran by christmas. the former c.i.a. analyst says that jones, the national security advisor has already signed off with a war with iran. wake up, america. host: a bit more on iran. robert bear will be here to take your calls. he is an ex-c.i.a. operatives. buffalo, new york now we hear from greg regarding the secretary of state's impact thus far. caller: good morning.

look, i'm looking forward to that war we're going to be getting into. isn't it something. i guess we're all informed. come on, give me a break. listen, i've always been fascinated why hillary clinton would have taken that job at the state department with what the obama team did to her husband bill clinton that he was a racist. i mean, to me it's just interesting, i mean, she really must be in her heart of public service first and foremost because what their team did to bill clinton is shameful, disgraceful, and should never have been forgiven. bill clinton was one of our greatest presidents. and he did more for blacks than obama ever dreamed to do. host: another headline ap, afghan commission, investigating election fraud complaints says there are enough out there to way the final result of afghanistan's

presidential vote if they're valid. this comes from grant kipen. the head of the u.n.-backed independent elect torle. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. host: sure. caller: i think there's been a lot made about the fact that hillary is in competition with the special envoys of -- for, you know, afghanistan and the middle east and dadada. but with we have a lot of work to do. a lot of these things were put on the back burner in the previous administration and i think it's time that -- to recognize that there may be more than three or four people out there having to do the job.

and hillary's setting the tone, taking care of women in the world, and i think it's just -- i think it's -- she's doing an admirable job. and if she needs help, so what? host: britain denies deal to release bomber. britain rejected saturday any suggestion it had to strike a deal or it had struck a deal with lybia. questions arose when mow mar cadaffi publicly thanked british officials.

in the washington times today. also, in the "washington post," iraqi officials say security forces may have co lewded in bombing. post iraq's foreign minister said saturday the coordinated attack that killed hundreds of people wednesday may have been carried out with the complicity of iraqi security forces. the next call, alexandria, virginia. caller: hi. just a couple points. number one, it's obvious that this article is a big puff piece jinned up by hillary clinton's pr machine because she's done a really bad job as secretary of state. host: give us some examples of what has not happened that should have. caller: notably, they make no mention of honduras in which the obama administration has thrown in knee jerk with a leftist leader trying to undermine the constitution and throw in with hugo chaves.

that's not mentioned one time. and that's a profound foreign policy failure as you can think of. we're losing latin america right there and we're on the wrong side. we should be on the side of democracy and the rule of law. and mindlessly we threw in with this friend of hugo chaves. it's mind boggling to me. host: new jersey now. caller: hi. good morning. c-span is very valuable in trying to get citizens to evaluate and give their opinions about what's going on. but the greatest difficulty that i have is trying to figure out whether issues are being explored based on premises or on principles. there's a big difference between debating based on a

premise which may or may not be true which may or may not be even rational, and certain premises. and i think we run into trouble because so much of the discussion today is based on premise rather than principle. host: got your point. one more reminder about our "newsmakers" programs coming up. our guest will be scott armstrong who is head of the group health cooperative. based in seattle. some democrats are citing this entity as a national model to be included as part of a new national health plan. and then at 6:00, here is a short piece. >> group health was founded in 1947. it was a group of innovative forward thinking local community leaders along with physician leaders and others

who were worried about the cost of health care, were worried about the unexpected expenses, and believed that there was a better way to put together a care system and pre-paid financing, consumer governance, pre-paid access to primary care . assurance that your care is the concern of our care delivery system over the course of time through the full continuum of different care providers. you know, an active knowledge of our care system about what's happening to our patients every step along the way. those are features now that have helped group health to become more than 620,000 member plan. we're a big, complex organization with more than $3 billion in annual revenues. and yet these prince billions that were true to our founders continue to distinguish us today. and i believe our other kinds

of principleses that really would be valuable components to what unfolds in the federal reform discussions. host: scott armstrong, president and c.e.o. today at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. largo, florida, last call on secretary of state's impacts so far. caller: hi. good morning. three real quick points. in regards to secretary of state hillary clinton, somebody made a comment about being in competition with the special envoys. i saw an interview where it seemed more to me it's more like dell gating, they report to her and then all of them with her will meet with president obama and give their different opinions, which i thought was really neat. and then with congo, she has spent the whole day listening to victims or families of the

victims of rape and other violent crimes against women and quite young girls and she made a statement that this isn't a cultural difference but that these are crimes. and the last thing i wanted to say is in regards to afghanistan. as i understand it, there was a book, i believe it was call seeds of terror. and it seemed that that seems to be the change of focus with afghanistan about with like karzi's i can't remember his brother in-law or somebody being involved, kind of zeroing in on that aspect. when we focus for an hour on iran. our guest will be robert bear, ex-c.i.a. he is the author of a book titled, the devil we know. . .

"washington journal" continues. host: here is the book. it is the new york times best seller by robert baer who joins

us live from berkeley, california. he is a former cia operative. what did you pick this title? guest: the implication is that we actually know iran very well. we have had a strained relationship over the years. it is a predictable country. one that has followed a revolutionary arc. it was violent in 1979, through the '80s, and then became a more mature power. by 1996 it was no longer conducting terrorism against the u.s. for the last 13 years we have had it even relations with iran. host: use the word "superpower" -- put that word in perspective.

guest: i will be frank. the publisher pick it. i would have preferred hegemon in the persian gulf, simply by the fact that it can cut thatoil supplies. it can rocket saudi arabia's oil facilities. from the stance it could take some control of the persian gulf. 90% of the persian gulf is shia'ia which in some form or another answers to iran. if we were to withdraw one day, iran and fill the vacuum. host: taking it is the dealer, you write in the prologue "scratch away the veneer of islam and you find that an iranian is old-fashioned nationalism." keep scratching and you find at

the bottom of its soul is a new- found taste for empire. speak more to put this country is looking to achieve. guest: i think in terms of hegemony it wants to make sure the countries on its border into a two-tier run in one way or another, not by occupation. but afghanistan, iraq, central asia in one way or another defer to tehran on important national security issues. as they would. just as we would like to have ottawa or mexico defer to us, the same as with iran liking its neighbors -- occupation is a bad word, so his empire. it does not really apply. they want the predominance of influence in the region. host: the phone number is on the

bottom of the screen for robert baer, talking about iran. we will begin taking your calls in a moment. remind us of your career with the cia to the extent you can. how years, where were you? what did you see in iran in your considerable time there. guest: 21 years in the cia, almost all of it in the middle east -- i learned arabic. morocco, syria, lebanon, i have been to iran on visits before the revolution. most recently, it wasn't rock. i was in france where cover the middle east. -- most recently it was iraq. i resigned in december 1997. i was involved in the coup in

iraq in 1995. i left mainly to write. host: when you look at the iranians themselves, you write that it is a country of nuances. americans see it ron's president and mullahs as relics from a dark age, when in reality they are driving force behind the country's modernization. speak to the religious leadership and the people. guest: look at the religious leadership today and they are truly the opposition to the supreme leader. they are the ones at the center of opposition. rafsmanjani has come not for democracy. several other mullahs have condemned the violence. it is much more nuanced. we tend to look get ayatollah

khamenei only. our images rest in this firebrand, creating revolution, creating this religious stabbing of but it is a changed country. i tried in the book to have that as a backdrop. with the real story is the islamic revolutionary guard corps. i served on the periphery of iran. who these people are in the revolutionary guard -- they are very important, taking positions. the secretary of defense is from the revolutionary guard corps with a long, violent history. but he is a man who has abandoned violence in terms of foreign expansion. there is the theory that you can see empires' better from the periphery. i am not in a position to argue

that, but i was on iran's per free and that is the lens i look for. host: the first call comes from michigan, robert, of the republican line. caller: good morning. by the way, my brother is currently working for your former employer. i'm very curious about iran. i find him fascinating, as with the rest of the middle east. i picked up a textbook, a series, and read the history of iran. it is very complicated. i was looking for the bush administration who constantly said they were a threat to virtually everyone, and i could not understand. it did not seem right. i read this book. there were moments in history -- today is today, and that is history, i understand -- but the

people are cultured, intelligent. they are not a terribly worldwide people. they have been under assault by russians, americans. it seems they are the most powerful country in the middle east and have some right to exert cannot dominate, but summer to exert their presidecedence. they have a great deal of natural gas. why they are developing nuclear energy is a mystery to me. guest: yes, that poses a couple of questions. you have to look first of all from the iranian perspective. and has two american armies on two of its borders. in 2003 when we invaded iraq we're talking about iran being part of the axis of evil.

the implication is that we might attack to run next. we set off their paranoia at that time. iran was invaded by russia in 1946, then there was a coup in 1953. i read the files and we have a limited role in the over throw of the minister in 1953. but iranians tend to be paranoid about the subject, and stiller because we're still talking about bombing iran. when you see the iranians acting rationally, they do have reason for it. as for nuclear energy, they have a large population, 70 million. their oil fields are depleted. they would like to use the remaining oil to sell on the international markets and domestically use nuclear energy. it is not to say they're not developing a nuclear weapon, but there is a reason they want the

nuclear reactors. it is a very good reason. as far as not opening them up for inspections, what they are saying is that if the israelis do not open up their nuclear facilities, why should we? we would say this because we do not trust you, but that is not a reason iranians can accept. they look at a certain fairness doctrine. they say, fine, if everyone opens up, we will too. but that is the dilemma for negotiations. host: next call comes from new york city. caller: hello, mr. baer, do you think the policy will be successful in improving relationships improving with irn, as long as the press,

mostly irish-american, white, male press, is so concentrated on some kind of inadequacy and they feel on bringing down barack obama than in improving what is greater for america? host: before answering the question, explain in your view of what the u.s. policy is toward iran? guest: the intelligence community has on the books and estimate the says iran stopped making a bomb in 2003. that has not changed in the last six years. on the political side there is a belief that iran is moving ahead with a bomb. bea is absolutely right. you see this in the press. frankly, since i have been in the cia since 1980 we have predicted every four years that

there would be, and never has been a bomb. so, i do not know where stands for the intelligence community as they have not made public. i do not think a run particularly once a bomb right now. they have internal issues. -- i do not think that iran once the bombing. but the caller was absolute right com, but the press in this country, and that is a big word -- the we have to do something about president on the game. the line is that he is not legitimate, an apocalyptic sheila -- it is fairly shallow analysis. -- apocalyptic shi'ia. that iran is the third rail of

american politics. i can write a book about peru people will ignore it, but if you write about iran, it bothers people. host: this author is out of berkeley, calif. this morning. louis, on the independent line caller: i just wanted to say that i do not know why everyone is so threatened by iran. they are country heading in the right direction. this is just a bunch of propaganda to make them seem like an evil superpower. guest: you know, i totally agree. one, let's get right to the issue. can we afford to go to war with iran? the answer is no. if we think we will bomb their nuclear facilities in a tactical strike, that is not

true -- the country will respond against our troops. the chief of staff has said clearly that there will be consequences to an attack on iran. our military is saying wait, hold on. let's not make this a political issue. consider the military consequences of an attack. the joint chiefs of staff is absolutely right. . host: what do the israelis think about that? we had an earlier caller mentioned bit -- there is an element very committed to going to war. guest: oh, i do think that the israelis are interested in going to work, but they have a different experience. iran looks at israel beyond the international pale. in 2006 the fog of war against israel that was devastating psychologically for israel.

-- they fought the war against israel. israel was hit by rocket, they lost a lot of trips. the israeli point of view is that it is an existential threat. -- they lost a lot of troops. but if we go to war, we will pay the price cannot is true. this is what this president will face this fall. host: here is a message from twitter. connect the last administration, this one, and the approach regarding europe and iran. guest: yes, it is a problem. it is based on the premise that the iranians are irrational. you're wrong does have rockets that can now hit your. one day presumably they could send a nuclear weapon, but the

assumption is that iran is an irrational power that does not care about its survival. i would argue that it has acted very rationally over the last few years, more than we have but that is part of the debate. you cannot convince people. people have already made up their minds in this case. host: the next call, james, on the republican line. are you there? let's try boston. caller: yes, i am here. shortly after 9/11 iran reached out to the u.s., wanted to help, but it was vetoed by is really interests within the u.s. administration. until the congress which is bought and paid for by the israelis, before these people are expunged there will not be

any movement ford for peace in the part of the world. i think that is obvious. host: any thought? guest: yes, when we went into afghanistan in october 2001 there was a general there who is still in afghan politics -- i would not call him and iranian assets, but he does answer to to run. he speaks persian. it was his troops that we marched into kabul with. that was thanks to the green light from tehran. iran was completely on our side we got rid of the taliban in 2001, but it remained because of washington politics as part of the axis of people. this goes back to the middle east -- people, it seems to me, i cannot let this rationally and just calculate. this is a very emotional issue

-- iran. what for israelis, and pro- israel lobbyist is that iran is an existential threat. this is a message that addresses many americans' emotions as well as politics in washington. you know, it is a tough issue to deal with. i do feel sympathy for this white house. it simply cannot say we will give this five more years and see what happens. there is a movement on the hill to impose an embargo on gasoline. that could touch off a war. host: put it in perspective the recent uprising in iran following the election. all that video we saw of people protesting, reports of deaths and beatings.

when you look back now, what do take of it? guest: it was interesting that no one predicted it, not here or in iran. this is spontaneous. it is frustration with the country. it is the belief that the supreme leader who controls the country is a legitimate and does not have the credentials of an ayatollah. there is tension among the other mullahs. he is also a dictator. we see a revival of the 1979 revolution. iran is a budding democracy. it is a very odd one for us. this is a good sign. i believe that it will check this region. i have not seen analysts in this country and neither do i know iran enough to predict anything.

host: you mentioned that the oil fields are depleting, but how else is the economy put together? guest: subsidizing flour, dazzling, state industries. there is a young population. there is high unemployment, high inflation. iranians cannot marry because they have no place to live. there is enormous frustration with the young people. they hate the regime. they go between apathy and wanting to do something about it. when they enter the streets the apathy melted away. we do not know that the elections were stolen, but i presume they were. they came into the streets spontaneously. but where does it go from here? rafsanjani who is a very

important figure has come out to support the movement. it tells me that the president and the ayatollah have consolidated party. they're starting to appoint people from the revolutionary guard corps. it could be the same situation for the next 10 years. host: the next call is from daniel in michigan. caller: the reason i voted for obama was in a symbolic way his name. i was wondering what the effect of the people in iran of obama's being president right now. guest: i think that people in iran are very realistic. they are on the internet and can analyze the situation. they watched our actions. they had a lot of hope when obama was elected.

they understand there is a gridlock. obama inherited what i consider a mess. private interests, lobbying groups -- he can't get his health care bill now because lobbying groups -- same with national security interests. the iranians understand this and are waiting to see where negotiations go. what we do in iraq. will we stay longer or leave now? if we stay longer it will aggravate relations with iran, same with afghanistan. it will make them more paranoia. they are waiting for things to develop, looking for real change. host: you mentioned iraq. what is iran's religion in our country? host: i think -- what is their

interest in that country? guest: you have the prime minister, a shi'ia, who has uneven relations. there forcing out the iranian dissidents who have been there for years. they have raided the camp. what they would like to see in iraq is stability. they do not want to see is a board. it is on the board. the chances of it spilling into iran are pretty good. there would like to see the americans leave a quiet iraq where they would have a predominance of influence, especially in the south. the arab countries in the gulf are worried that they will use the situation as a spring board. host: we have barry from north

carolina, a democrat on the line. caller: i was wondering how we compare to a couple of years ago as to now? that is probably the way we're viewed by iran. no matter who is our president is always controlled by corporations. obama is not even able to do anything right now. the media is doing everything against him. but yet how are we viewed by iran win better president is a floundering back? -- duck? guest: it looks that way to me. i cannot help but mention something about blackrock, a security company hired to do assassinations. it does look like washington is controlled by corporate

interests. it is obviously more complicated than that, but washington is a mess. so is congress. so are the lobbying groups. even if obama could sit down and say to hillary clinton, good to tehran, figure out what we can do, i do not think he would survive a politically. my attitude is send her to tehran, find out what they want, see" we can do. if not, come back and we can reassess policy. but i do not think he can do that. the issues are too emotional for lobbying groups in washington. the vast majority of americans -- too emotional also for the vast majority of americans. host: the cia is also author of other books. "sleeping with the devil" -- remind us of what that is about?

guest: it is about saudi arabia. it was corruption in the royal family. i took the bell a dysfunctional government -- i talked abou aboe dysfunctional government there. there are problems with oil. it was an attack -- i mean, i speak arabic, spent 21 years in the middle east. most of my friends still are arab, but i have a real problem with the saudi oil regime which is corrupt and dishonest. it will not help us in the long term. host: you also wrote "see no evil," in which george clooney played in the film. tell us more. guest: hollywood [laughter]

] it makes the middle east look simple. i read this book and it was before was published that ago called for more brothers. i thought it was a joke. i said yes to making it into a movie. the movie came about quickly. i traveled with the director for two months in the middle east. we sat down in the cafe in paris. he asked me the story line. until the met was when i got out of the cia that the old world would not go away and my wife and i were offered the chance to assassinate someone. we said no. he said that he liked that. he said you got out with no retirement, and over future. the movie was very complicated.

and the first send me a script did not understand a thing, but it apparently did well. it was a new world for me. host: the next call for a robber baer, tupelo, mississippi, a republican caller -- the next call for robert baer. caller: thank you c-span. i wanted to ask the guess the belt, dean -- about amanddin ejad's remarks. i think that the folks of the their speak farsi. if you could tell us whether or not he said these things literally, or whether the press mistranslated. the last question, do you think

the u.s. exerted influence in supporting some anti- presidential movements in the last election there? guest: that is a good question because he did say that. recently the chief of staff of the iranian army brutal letter. -- wrote a letter. it is the man who disappeared in iraq. in iran people dropped knows to him in the bottom of the will. the chief of staff recently wrote him a letter. you have these flourishes of and times in iranian political speech. we have to look at the record. we have to look at iraq.

iran could have caused major problems in iraq, could have disrupted the supply line, a kidnapped american soldiers, but it did not. it does have in its heart a sense of survival. if we go into iran it is another primitive war. we're basing such a war on assumptions, not really. -- it would be another pre- emptive war. host: how difficult is the country to penetrate and to learn about? guest: it is virtually impossible to know about iran. the cia does well when on the ground. just as the military does in iraq.

we know so much more now than in 2003. we need and the seas, academics, journalists, open source reporting -- we need to embassies and academics. otherwise, you're left with exiles who will tell you a story and they all have a bias and the motivation. we are often misled. it has occurred through the russian revolution, through vietnam. the cia was surprised by the demonstrations after the election. they do not have people in the country because it is too dangerous. it is guesswork. we were not behind us 12 june election. that was entirely spontaneous and internal.

host: here is a message from twitter. caller: there has been one case of a woman who worked for the cia and the fbi, going between both. she was supposedly searching computers for hezbollah which we assume goes back to the run -- iran. there is not much evidence of that. when i was in the cia the intelligence people avoided us like a plea. you went to a party and do their work. as soon as you head toward them they would leave. they don't know about us. if they have sources in this country there either completely clandestine, sabotage networks from south america, or casual

contacts. host: the next call is from frederick, md.. caller: good morning, last week august 19 was the 56th anniversary of the coup in iran. it removed the prime minister. it was mostly the job of the cia. we're still talking about something that happened 56 years ago. most people are talking about 56 years from now. this was the greatest calamity that affected the iranian nation. people in iran have great resentment about what happened because on that date democracy die.

-- democracy died. there were traders who corroboratecollaborative. in your book, you make the could it taught insignificant. you say that the hostages taken in iran by the students of the revolution overcompensated with the damage was done by the america to iran, which i think is disproportionate. i would like to invite mr. baer to look at the website and learn about the resentment and a disappointment. americans at the time really thought america was for liberty and freedom of the small nations. we feel very betrayed by it.

host: let's hear from our guest. guest: i certainly see the point of view. if we look at the record which has been published you will see that british petroleum, the british secret service, the ambassador, though shah himself, and even the father of the general purport of this coup. we can spread response building -- was even part of the coup. if a foreign government comes in and changes your prime minister who was popular at the time -- no doubt about it -- was talking about nationalizing oil resources there, it is a humiliation. it is not easily forgotten. just as in 1979 iran humiliated

the united states by holding its diplomats in tehran. the rescue mission was another humiliation. it probably contributed to the defeat of president carter. there were two humiliations'. the iranians have reason to be paranoid about foreigners coming either russia or the united states, saudi arabia. you had sunni extremist groups on the edge in touch with the american government. there is one from pakistan that is setting off car bombs and killing police officers. in this time of volatility will look to the outside. yes, the u.s. does need to provide quid pro quos for future

cooperation. it cannot put iran in a corner and say, do what we want or else. people are still mistrustful of the u.s. moussavi is not a friend of the u.s.. he mistrusts the u.s. as well. there is a lot of bad blood to overcome a. -- to overcome. when we go to to run one day and hope that we do, we will have to treat it to run as equals, not as a third world power. host: more of your calls in a moment. the me get your thought on the cia just making news this weekend in the papers. the did let me get your thoughts. here is a report coming out this week. the internal report says that the agency used a gun and power drill to stage a mock execution.

what is your take on that? guest: i think it is outrageous. look, i was a mess again afford to to kill saddam hussein -- i was investigated for attempting to kill saddam hussein. i know what has happened, and i feel bad about tomorrow, but we cannot have the cia above the law. we cannot move on. if crimes were committed and people killed or tortured -- it is not just the justice department memos that allowed this to happen. it is the people who were killed, the mock executions which are against the law. there has to be some accounting for this, otherwise it will dribble out for the next 20 years and could be worse. do you do it through a special prosecutor, through a bipartisan

commission? i do not know, but you need an accounting for this. host: the next call from vermont, a democrat. caller: good morning, i am reading from an article that appears in the middle east for uncovering post-election iran written by a visiting research fellow at the american enterprise institution. he has a focus on the role of the revolutionary guard. he says "he contends iran is not in danger of collapse." he argued that the election and riots it is currently experiencing is a result of militarization since 1997 when the ayatollah expanded the powers of the revolutionary

guard to prevent reform. he says the possibility that the guard will successfully squash the democratic movement and iran will become a military dictatorship -- it gave the guard an excuse to seize power. he points out that the president of iran and most of the cabinet and parliament are former guardsmen. he concluded by arguing that the west should treat iran and the growing threat and calls on america to take a strong anti- revolutionary guard stance and pursue containment. your comments, please? guest: the first half you could not be more right. there has been a military

takeover send 12 june. since 12 june. they have been in charge of the power agencies. the minister of the guard has a bad reputation and has been accused of blowing up the israeli center in argentina. these guys are very dangerous, very competent. there has been a military takeover. the question is when you come to the word containment. do you want to provoke the revolutionary guard into reacting in iraq, afghanistan, the rest of the gulf? do you find out what they want first? the have acted rationally and that they set out to do something as in lebanon and have

had the sense to back off by gaza and in egypt. bubba has stood down from further competition -- hamas has stood down from further competition with is your. they are ruthless. but we need to get rid of the regime in iran. we do not want to lie to our ourselves in washington. we do not want to hit the nuclear facilities and think it is finished. it will not be. we're talking about something to look like world war iii. host: here is a twitter message. what are the army and navy capable of? guest: there could be a large reserve elements.

look at the revolutionary guard. it has been the elite force controlling rocket force. this they have hidden batteries along the gulf. they have a deterrence doctrine. they say if you bomb our nuclear facilities we will take out saudi arabia's major facilities, drive the price of oil up to $500 per barrel. regardless, it would be very high, very costly for us. the revolutionary guard corps has a guerrilla capability all through the gulf with the small boatsboaststs which can do serious damage. if we attacks iran we would have

a usermonths of bombardment in advance. -- we would have to use months of bombardment. it is a relatively small force. it has this asymmetrical warfare capability, though. host: and the influence on areas around there -- we have heard so much about the situation in lebanon and proxies. could you connect the dots with all that? guest: on one level the iranians have deniability. if hezbollah attacks israel, iran looks as itus. the same with supply in weapon withhamas.

-- with hamas. what is very unclear is how much influence iran has with shia'ia up tuition. the iranians could more to intobahrain into the country, but could they cause a revolution? or even dubai is largely a shi'ia prince about it. could they disrupt the gulf? yes, absolutely. it had thearabs terrified that we will lead iraq. they fear a domino effect going to the gulf. host: another message from twitter about the military.

what nations are considered running military allies? speak to the military part of it, but speak further to a friend or friends the iran may have a around the world? guest: syria is pretty much hostaged toira iran with regardo hezbollah. the syrian regime is a bit shaky. you cannot say that we will cut off the aid to hezbollah and stop arms going to them. because then they will be looked at as pro-israeli. you have shi'ia in iraq and afghanistan, as well as groups

you're looking at the periphery. they do not have a lot of allies. that is what they use asymmetrical worker, the ability to cause problems. -- asymmetrical warfare. they would like -- with the iranian revolutionaries -- they would like to change the government in saudi arabia. but do they have the upper hand? or is pteron more pragmatic and looking at its own survival? -- or is pteron more pragmatic --tehran were permitted? i write for time is magazine and am writing a book with my wife. it is interesting with two voices. it is an experiment that the publisher bob.

host: let's hear from our next caller. caller: i enjoyed the talk this morning. i like to know your opinion on iran and iraq may be combined in the future and the land of babylon that used to be coming back into existence along with the other lands. also, it seems like eschatology says that will happen in the last days. what you think america's place will be? will america get further and further back and decline? just give up? will russia and china joint in iran and iraq, coming against israel? guest: it is a fantastical way of looking at the world if you had an alliance -- sounds a

little crazy, but is not impossible between iran and israel. it would be an ideal balance of power situations. now what we are seeing in afghanistan and iraq is that the u.s. cannot stay in those countries forever because we will run out of money. it would bankrupt us. the chinese would stop lending us money. 51% of americans want out sooner rather than later. what will fill the vacuum is china and russia. iran with russian or chinese weapons would be very formidable. 65% of the world's proven reserves are in the gulf.

if that falls under iran and either russia or china is control it will eclipsed the u.s. and there is little we can do for israel at that point. host: the next call comes from miami, fla. on the republican line. caller: good morning, and thank you for your service to our country. one, i was a younger person, about 10 years old when we experienced the first iranian revolution. i am wondering if it was set up on the basis of a bunch of young students and religious people who wanted a change in their country? now the same thing is happening in the same revolutionaries are before are pushing at the west? is there some new wave bees can take power? secondly, you mention south america.

-- if these revolutionaries can take power? i am wondering if there is any threat from south america? guest: let me answer the last part first. there is indication that hezbollah in iran operates in south america. let's take the worst case scenario. could iran cause problems in the u.s.? yes. let's take an improbable scenario, but the u.s. and iran are in a worsening confrontation and an iranian circuit set off a car bomb in new york and brings down a building, somehow they from another country -- terrorism is still with us. another attack could push this country in a completely different directions. yes, there is a thread iran in south america. -- there is a threat from iran.

the democrats do want to get rid of khameni who is a legitimate, not truly an ayatollah, who is increasingly controlled by his unpopular son. those from the old days would like to get rid of him. tehran oversteps themselves -- if is steps against a selves, there could be a reaction and support could be withdrawn. but tomorrow morning if there were another movement there i would not be surprised. i would like to say there's something we can do to help the democrats in iran, but i don't think so. the further we stay fromiran, the more we let them solve their own problems, the better off day and we will be. host: in our remaining minutes i

want you to wrap things up as we look towards the epilogue of the book. you lay out three broad options. you have spoken about them a little. you talk about the three options. one is possibly can to inningiran. another is to provoke a civil war. another is to settle irawith ir. -- what is possibly giving in to iran. guest: ok, this concerns a reporter who did not have the pressid. it was the president who wrote a letter to the clerk and got her out. ahmadinijad, as crazy as he sounds, it does want to work with the u.s.

we have to listen to him and also to the ayatollah khamenei, otherwise we do not know. we have to look to their actions. the way to do that is to settle with iran. i think ultimately iran would like to be a hegemon . in. they have more opportunities and the last five or six years than ever and they backed off. the by their actions and by what they say. the internal conflict is the mad max approach. yes, we could look their nuclear facilities but possibly provoke. we would strengthen the regime

with the revolutionary guard corps. host: let's hear from queens, n.y., and on the line for democrat. caller: earlier you refereferred to the russian invasion. could you tell us when this happened and what the circumstances were? guest: russian troops came across the border right after world war ii. they had thered mullahs. it was a very small one, but the regime was collapsing at the time. our first nuclear confrontation withiran was over the soviet union. it is something the iranians never forgot. the fact that the dynasty was

always subject to foreign trepidations -- and iran is very modern, but xenophobic. it has had an unfortunate history of being invaded. that is always there in the iranian soul. host: one last phone call from north carolina. caller: thank you. i want to thank suspending a i'm a little nervous. i would also like to think mr.baer. i am a political writer for about 20 years now in my own right and they agree on most with 90% of what you have been sending a i would like to thank

the lady who called in about three or four phone calls talking about russia and china ,versus the middle east. let me make a quick comment. when bush and datedirinnovatived ask for help -- russia said no because it could not do it do to its investment. china also refused over its investments. therefore, the lady who called, if these two countries have business with iraq they're definitely going to stand side- by-side against israel. at least that is my opinion. host: your final thought on the future ofiran and its relationship with the u.s. next guest: i think we'll find out in october, november.