would not be able to accept such a step. but sarah palin and al gore represent to opposite ends of this spectrum publicly. it really hinges on the core group of moderate, midwestern coal, russ, and farm belt senators. they tend to be quiet. you do not hear them debating public late in the same way we hear gore, palin, and joe barton. this is a group that really does believe that climate change is real and are generally concerned

that any kind of legislation to curb emissions could potentially hurt their home state industries. behind the scenes they are working with the other senators to try to figure out the careful details of some kind of legislation that would put a cap on emissions and protect their home state industries. if they can reach that deal and come to terms with the very detailed provisions crafted behind-the-scenes probably in harry reid of was, that will really be the key in whether or not something passes the senate. in the eyes of the rest of the world, they recognize that makes the difference in whether or not the u.s. can commit to a serious global warming bill and treaty. those are really the most influential folks in the debate right now. coral davenport and ben gemen,

thanks very much for joining us. >> watched gavel-to-gavel coverage on our companion network, c-span2. now you can follow the debate with the new c-span radio iphone application. now discussion on the news of the week from today's "washington journal." this is just over an hour. orning at 10:00 a.m., and there's again at 6:00 p.m.. our sunday roundtable, executive director and author,

things for joining us. and matt, the editorial page editor. let me begin looking back on the president's speech on wednesday. norm, let me begin with you. guest: seems the more that barack obama goes in the centrist direction the more he becomes willing and able and even eager to escalate the war in of guinness stan, the more that centrist penance like david broder enthused. unfortunately, obama is damaging

his base within the democratic party. whether you talk about abandonment of the public option, escalation in a canister and, rigid escalation in afghanistan, you have a problem in the obama party. it will matter. republicans were cheerleading the warlike speech in oslo. they will have the ninth cell of next year. the base will matter within the democratic party. host: what did you think? guest: rather than war-like i would characterize this as perhaps the best speech that the president has given since his inauguration speech. that is principally because he acknowledged something that we among the conservative pun

docracy have been looking for -- as you said, norman, is because you recognize that there is indeed number one, evil in the world, and number two, recognition in the fact that for the last 60 years it has been the u.s. that has been the principal guarantee of stability and progress on things such as human rights. host: let me share an excerpt from the president's speech from oslo on thursday as he talked about the line getting a lot of attention -- the so-called just wars. >> i do not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war. what i do know is that meeting these challenges will require the same vision, hard work, and persistence of those men and women who acted so boldly. it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of

just or and the imperatives of a just peace. we must begin by acknowledging a hard truth. we will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. there will be times when nations, acting individually or in concert, will find the use of force not only necessary, but morally justified. host: you wrote that eloquence in oslo cannot change the realities of war. how so? guest: talking about a just war and sunbury area that does not change what the political or closet-theoretical justification's are brought to bear on it just war. for those who experience it is a just war, more expenditure, more expenditure of badly needed funds to the u.s. treasury that

could be going to have carrot, housing, education. as in afghanistan which is terribly impoverish, it is suffering under the twin shadows of war. and also enormous impoverishment. i found it disturbing that the head of the nobel committee introduced president obama with the statement, dr. king's dream has come true. that is a rewriting of history. dr. king denounced what he called "the madness of militarism." rather than challenge that madness, unfortunately, and i say that as a former delegate to the obama nomination in the democratic convention, obama is endorsing that militarism today. host: yesterday there was a demonstration outside the white house, some of those calling mr. obama's and nobel speech propulsive. but political impact if any does

this have? guest: i think it has immense potential for political and that. it will be particularly interesting to watch as the glove, the democratic party base faces the same problem that the right does -- to watch as the left faces the same trouble as the right. we could see another ralph nader or another french lefringe left. those do not make it in america. so there will be some very pressed for the people on the left. guest: there are some places democrats can go. one is much deeper into our own party. one month ago although the national press did not really notice, we got passed through the statewide executive committee resolution called "end the u.s. war and occupation in

afghanistan." it is a call for withdrawal of u.s. troops. obama is doing a 180 , the largest state democratic party has called for. dennis kucinich stated in the "new york times" peace the recall of an indictment which was done in recognition of what happened during the vietnam war. when the executive branch ran roughshod. this is a crucial test next month. will the leadership on the hill the talks about its reservations concerning an escalation, regardless of who, çóñiwould thy step up to the play to put some teeth behind their misgivings? so far no one in the administration will. host: you say barack obama and

the democratic congress are feeling of public frustration with the explosion of authoritarian centralized government? guest: did i miss anything? i think that is exactly katrina. nowhere better illustrated than what we're seeing with the healthcare debate. the senate is apparently preparing to pass what is undoubtedly the biggest expansion of federal power. certainly in modern history. this will have an incredible impact on daily lives of all americans. ñithey will not begin tax. -- not be good and tax. -- not be good impacts. at a certain point, for sure she will be vented and printed in about one year at the polls.

i think we will see a big change in congress. host: we were talking about the deficit and the overall debt abridging $12 to win. it approaches nearly $2 trillion this week. guest: received the worst of both worlds when the white house and the speaker and majority leader harry reid are leaving the party on the hill and in the white house in a direction that keeps splitting the difference with republicans. republicans will never be satisfied anyway. these are right wing forces opposing the new deal since it began a. there is a pattern here whether in afghanistan, where leaders of opposition way in the buckle -- and then buckled, or with health-care.

if there is any change in any positive direction -- but we see now and abandonment of the public option, cave in to the insurance industry. yet months ago speaker pelosi's announced says no big never mind who months ago said it was essential. harry reid says the same. this is opening the democratic party to inevitable tax. we're not even getting the new deal kind of program we need. such as guaranteed. health care for guaranteed this is a travesty. we're giving the insurance industry huge subsidies. the medicare proposal floated in the senate -- now we find out the premiums for just one individual between 55-64 each person could be paying $7,600. this is not a social compact that guarantees health care.

it perpetuates the idea or reality of healthcare apartheid. host: good afternoon to our viewers are watching us on the bbc parliament channel. we also welcome your calls. you can also send us a comment by twitter or by our e-mail address. let me share with you what mitch mcconnell said yesterday off the senate floor and where the healthcare debate is and is going. >> we saw two weeks ago in a gallup poll that there was a 9% more americans opposed then supporting. we saw a 40% more opposing in another poll. now in the cnn will we see 61% opposed. the argument i your friends on the other side making, they are

employing their members to make history. many things may draw history have been mistakes. if this bill were passed in face of overwhelming opposition, having failed to achieve the goal of holding down health care costs, it would be viewed as a historic mistake. guest: i still enjoy these kinds of conversations where you get to the fundamental issues separating left and right. norman talks about a social compact as if we did not have one prior to franklin roosevelt when fact we did. it is called the constitution. it includes the 10th amendment which says all power is not specifically given did not given specifically to the federal government are given to the people. the healthcare bill is a nuclear bomb for that.

secondly, i am fascinated when i hear people like norman say, the frame progressive policies as positive. it is not positive, norman, to give the american people less freedom. freedom. @@@@ and have tens of thousands of them dying every year through lack of health care, so we heard that argument again so security, unemployment insurance, medicare, medicaid, about the 10th amendment and states preserving rights not specifically given by the federal government. but in point of fact, we take for granted now some of the things people fought for and against what fdr called the economic royalists and the conservatives of the day.

it is not really a matter of left versus right. one of the good things is that we can talk about more than two sides to an argument. a good thing about c-span is weakened talk about more than two sides to an argument. the republican party can strongly hew to a line that i believe opposes all the social progress measures we revere, and the obama administration which keeps splitting the difference, corporatizing and militarizing policies. you have progressive voices say we will always oppose republicans, but we will fight like hell against this obama administration when it pursues policies detrimental to people's well-being. host: let we put one more issue on the table. 40% staff cuts over the next couple of weeks. some question of whether the

times will stay in business. that is your competitors. what will happen? gut: i wish that i knew. i am a former "washington times" reported. frankly, i hope it survives. i do not know that it will. host: why? guest: 40% staff cut. my understanding is they have given notice to all the employees of the potential of being terminated. which is not encouraging. host: let's get on calls the mechanic joining us from indianapolis. caller: good morning. the like to make a comment about president obama's speech the other day, and just a lot of things i hear about the evil people who wcall the hottest seat -- jihadists, islamic

radicals. the question i would ask, why would they attacked our so- called way of living 50-100 years ago? guest: that is an interesting question and i'm not sure that they were not doing that 50-100 years ago. we just did not see it manifested so directly are manifestly as we did on 9/11 when more than 3000 americans died. guest: you know, if you look of the bombing raids in afghanistan, the u.s. has quadrupled its monthly bombing runs in terms of actual warheads dropped. that is experienced by terror as many there. we say that we are the good people and they should know. we can quote president obama say that there is evil in the world.

but frankly the little girl i met in kabul loss one of her arms due to the bombing raid by the u.s. in helman one year ago might be excused for believing that the government dropped the bomb on her neighborhood -- that has a bit of evil in its. especially since she at age seven will live the rest of her life with only one hour. rather than get on our high scores, we might try to apply a single standard of human right. host: let me read to you what "the weekly standard" has this morning. "peace is generally good in itself but never the highest good unless it comes as the handmade of righteousness. and it becomes a very evil thing if it serves merely as a mask for cowardice." those are the words of teddy roosevelt as he expected the nobel peace prize on. guest: he helped concoct

rationale for the invasion of iraq. this is standard boilerplate stuff. you can flash that more than four decades in washington. we heard the same kind of rhetoric from those trying to justify the escalation of war in vietnam. when you hear the lyndon johnson tapes on the phones such as those aired on bill moyer's show a couple weeks ago you hear leaders on the hill saying privately, even pleading with the president not simply to get carried away with the militarism. as one leader from the appropriations committee pleads with the president now -- yet there's something in this repeated compulsion, president bent on war who insists, no, we are the smart guys, the best and brightest. we will do a ride.

host: norm solomon, the author of "or made easy." and this ismark, a reporter. caller: good morning. i want to talk about the fact that when president obama was running, running for office, he said that he felt the war in afghanistan was the right war to fight. he made it very clear. he really got in and listen to what everyone had to say. he made the decision he thought

best for the country around how we face afghanistan. i think if we look carefully at what he has done, he is not just sending troops over there to fight, but to do the social things neglected to the bush administration. guest: thanks for your comment. more than 90% of money spent is for military operation. only a few pennies per dollar is by any stretch for humanitarian assistance. i'm glad you brought it up. i was an obama supporter against john mccain. i was glad obama 1 november a year ago. he has broken many promises. he has broken a promise for habeas corpus in civil liberty. one year ago he said that a public option is crucial. now it has disappeared and he does not really care.

he has not broken really bad promise which was to focus more resources on afghanistan. he could have and he has chosen not to. host: disappointed in the president? guest: very disappointed. i did not have extremely high expectations, but my dearly low these petitions have not been met. i was reading many forces to help get him host: collected do both of the tweet? guest: absolutely, a little bit. that is absolutely not true. there have been at least 14 republican alternative proposals. the problem is, harry reid and barack obama and nancy pelosi made a decision at the outset to ignore public and.

that is exactly why we continually hear this idea. host: david is joining us for nashville. caller: good morning. mr. solomon, you and i are living in very different worlds. the last time i checked the democrats had 60 votes in the senate and the overwhelming majority in the house. republicans, all we can do is play four-cornered defense. we have not had control of congress sent 2006. what over gotten? we have gone from 4.4% unemployment up to something like 17.5%. i am over 60 years old and i have never seen the economy in such disarray. it is because a democrat.

they are going to vote for democrats because it does not matter. host: here is a twitter from john. guest: well, under fdr the new deal was to announce the socialist all the time. the economy went into a tailspin under the administration of george w. bush. the official rate of just around 10% right now does masked the deeper and wider unemployment. i would say that we are now looking at a situation where the stimulus package from the obama administration as has been ward by others to be inadequate. there has been a bailout of wall street, not relief for main street or for homeowners under water. what we need is a progressive populism that really can negate the charges coming from the

right that some of the democratic party is elitist. guest: we have had progressive policies in this country since, actually before the new deal beginning with president wilson. particularly in the last 30 years when the federal government took over officially, responsibility for maintaining the initial growth, we have seen what happens with big government. you get big problems and is the ability to take care of them over time. now we see the fruits of too much government. guest: the real feel that trickle-down economics under president reagan during the 1980's was somehow progressive policy? guest: the federal government in the 1980's as now officially assumed the responsibility for maintaining economic growth. from the perspective, yes. ronald reagan took a different policy approach.

it does not change the reality that the government has responsibility. host: tim joins us from austin, texas. caller: thanks to the uk audience about the iraq war policy. concerning the is really a tie with the war. there is an excellent piece from a couple of years ago about the israel lobby. guest: well, i think a single standard of human rights helps people to avoid getting lost. it is a reliable compass. otherwise people get sort of jerk around and drawn into various eddies and hurricanes of ideologies and nationalism and theology. if you look at the question of human right, palestinians have

lived in their land occupied now for more than four years in gaza and the west bank. a siege on gaza withholding basic health care and other resources. if we use a single yardstick of human rights than i think we should be critical of the israeli government particularly because taxpayers are helping to subsidize it. guest: the problem with this perspective is this -- everyone agrees there should be a standard of human rights which is the maximum amount of freedom. the problem is, people like norm on the left never want to say this far in a further. people with hitler would not respect any single code of human rights. neither do they with us plo. the problem is, you have to make a decision at some point that you will not go any further. as far as the little girl you met in canada or who lost her

arm, there were millions and millions of little girls who lost lives because the west did not stop hitler early enough. that is the issue that separates the left and the red. you want the rights without being willing to defend them. guest: as individual rights, but the right to not be bound is fundamental matter who pays the bills. host: michael indiana "the new york post" -- a photograph of president nixon with mau. he writes that is surely a hopeful sign that president obama had the courage to recognize the historical achievements. it would be better if he would follow their examined to win follow their examined to win their peace in our time i use that as a way of background to share with our audience -- he began as a

republican and became a democrat. this is an interview that he did on cbs' "face the nation." >> you could not be more wrong. you could not make a more unsell legal segment than the one you have just made. it is an old policy, that foreign policy belongs to the president of the united states. belongs to the american people. >> where does the president fit into this? >> what i am saying is, under our constitution, all the president is is the administrator of the people's foreign-policy. i am pleading with the american people to give them the facts. . . people be given the fact. >> the american people cannot

formulate and execute foreign policy. >> you are a man of little faith. i have complete faith in the ability of the american people to follow the facts if you give them. we're not giving them the facts. host: first reaction frommark tapscott. tapscott. i'm surprised. the journalist actually asked tough follow-up questions which we hardly see any more. he did not notice the two most recent democrats. former vice president al gore and former president jimmy carter. guest: the clip from 1964 is a voice that really casts into sharp relief the failures of leadership on capitol hill now. you look at senators who were supposedly raising questions about the president's policies for afghanistan and their

relatively weak voice is. really, what he was raising in that interview resonates today. article one, section 8 of the u.s. constitution says it is up to the congress to decide whether the u.s. goes to war and stays there. that is through the power of purse and appropriations process. the resolution to be invoked next month on in capitol hill in the house by congressman dennis kucinich and several others really raises and sharpens that question. i think that while he is no longer with morris, will be there in spirit as this resolution comes to the floor. host: will joins us from london. caller: thank you for receiving michael. i have two questions. the first is [unintelligible]

with the advent of new technology we can find out any piece of information or news development in minutes. and comments about president obama's decision. [inaudible] it seems that commission on military strategies are not necessarily working. maybe we should introduce more

covert actions, but at the same time, -- we want full disclosure. but oftentimes that puts military action into a compromise. is it necessary to enter into black operations? host: with a couple of issues on the table we will get a response. guest: the caller raises a very interesting questions. we're just beginning to sort out, even to realize much less supply, the possibilities presented to governments through the internet. this is a different world in a fundamental sense. the call lawyerspoint about the

conflict between on the one hand, because we are in democracy versus the practical reality that you cannot conduct of covert military operation by definition in the open -- that cannot be solved. it takes privet leadership to figure out with the answers are. host: let me get your reaction to this piece this morning in "the washington post." the headline concerns the terraced recruiters leveraging theweb. developers point to the dangers of the dangers and extensive network of using the on-line network for recruitment. guest: it is really fascina

i did the internet is going to make us democratic participants in governance or it is up position of the evil that must be challenged. -- be challenged. the capacity to communicate is fraught with positive opportunities, and also people can do what they have tried to without the internet in previous centuries. that is sometimes to plan to destroy. it always is a hazard to have the first amendment functional. but as thomas jefferson and many others said, we are much better off with it again without it to. host: a question for you, mark,

and the essence of the story is that after years of delay, those familiar with talks say the obama and mr. shen realizes more nations have been developing cyber weapons. there are talks between the u.s. and russia to control the strength of the internet and limit military use of cyber space. guest: as president ronald reagan said, of course you can talk to them. you trust, but you verify. if you cannot verify, don't talk to them. this is encouraging as a development, but let's not kid ourselves. the russians are going as the chinese already are, and i'm sure every other major nation, seeking every possible means they can on the cyber front and

every other front to protect their self-interests. host: miami, on the line for democrats. caller: c-span is a good mechanism to deal with issues. we have never had this before. mark, what is happening is coming home to roost. sins of our fathers. there was never a plan in the republican party to incorporate the type of socialism, socialistic, social conservative mentality. it was already in the democratic party the democrats got mad. did not have their way, pulled out, it influenced some

officials of the republican party. therefore now, 40 years later, they are dominating. what happens is we don't give- and-take in the republican party. the socialist-type republicans. but the fiscal republicans basically do share the frustrations of what has happened with bush. it has led them to want tomorrow's go for change. this is what obama is doing. my point is, and all you said coming never said anything about yes, -- we are saying no. that is the easy way out if you do not agree, to just say no. guest: there are number of threads there. the political descendants of dixiecrats are largely the republican party on capitol

hill. if you go back 10, 15 years right after the 1994 takeover of congress by republicans few from the key leaders in committee chairs were southern whites whose base was overwhelmingly the dixiecrat voters. the was migration through the successful use of the so-called southern strategy by richard nixon in to the republican party. now i think we have the opportunity to refrain this entire debate. i don't think it is necessarily a republican/democrat debate. he needs to be a more profound question of who we are as a society. health care, are we responsible to each other? priorities that create full employment. are we responsible to create that? or do we simply draw to the market as republicans would do entirely? or as obama would be largely? on that note, i think we need a jobs program. mark, you mentioned earlier the

terrible, rising unemployment rate. the jobs stimulus package passed is now creating jobs at a cost of of boards of $200,000 per job. it is funneled into a corporate version of trickle-down job creation. if you have something like the works progress administration that fdr launched, you can create jobs through federal jobs programs at a much lower cost. and with much greater effect. host: along those lines, mark, you say that the conservatives offer nothing but fear -- that is what is said to you. guest: i have to respond about no atrm said about the do cigarettes. the 1964 civil rights bill would not have been passed without republican support, particularly that of the then-senate minority leader. it is robert byrd, a democratic

senator from west virginia who was a former ku clucks klan leader. it was democrats who maintained segregation to route the south. it is democrats today who are trying to impose a new form of segregation through speech codes and he crimes that single out people and silence them because of their views. guest: briefly, the cigarettes migrated into the republican party precisely because of passage of the 1964 civil rights act as lyndon johnson said, there goes the south for a generation. he was absolutely right. cold water carried only a few states. all of them in the deep south. he opposed civil rights legislation. with very few exceptions -- dirkson was willing to stick out his neck for civil-rights against the state's rights argument.

host: norm solomon with the institute for public accuracy. mark tapscott is the editorial page editor for "the washington examiner." caller: thank you very much. this is an honor and privilege. mr. tapscott, did you think it was dereliction of duty not to have every mp battalion and ordinance disposal unit on standby when we went into iraq? also, did you think the president did not show enough care to be concerned, to read the newspaper? host: gary, you need to explain your question. the way we can get an appropriate response. caller: the question is, did he think it was dereliction of duty not to have every mp the time when we went into iraq?

and ordinance disposal unit on standby, or alert so that we could deal with what obviously we were going to have to deal with? a lot of men lost their lives because we just very the explosives and ordinance. to make hay ied out of an artillery shell all you need is a hole-digger. guest: i'm not sure of the specific situation the caller is referring to with regard to the open i would point out that most of the explosive devices now and in the past several years have been produced in iran and shipped into our iraq specifically for the purpose of killing american soldiers. and they are not products of leftover ordnance from u.s.

action, the ordinance designed specifically in iran for americans. host: you can join in the conversation on one. let's go to new york city. caller: i'm loving the debate. i won a point out a couple of things. i love your intelligence. i find you to have no value to the american public. i have three questions for you. first and foremost, the beginning of united states of america, when the people were taught how to live on this land. that kindness was thrown back on them with murder and mayhem.

i love that you brought out barry goldwater and you want a brownie points for the civil rights movement. but the democrats did not want pass it down south. we wanted to do it. as a kid in 1964 i remember, eight years old and barry goldwater's speed all the racist haiti can. i hear many conservative, right- wing republicans always want to: barry goldwater, yet you never go back to his change of heart. the same meeting with mr. kkk byrd that we know from west virginia and his thought process. if we get to be one, a few mr.tapscott listen to mr.

solomon a little more and get away from the no and try to get a little more to the yes, . can't mr. solomon, a want to applaud you for your intelligence and intentions. host: we will stop you there to let the harvard debate continue. guest: this was your brother, right? if guest: not literally, anyway. guest: where do i start? i commend the caller for his passion. it is too bad we don't have more for american politics today. i would simply say that the caller obviously has a the conventional wisdom of american academia today which is that somehow these evil europeans came to america and took over and murdered and killed for 300 years.

that is a total misreading of american, western history. people who have that perspective are not generally open to contrary opinions. i commend the gentleman for his passion. host: coming from james, i thought that the "haters" took sunday off. caller: good morning. only to quickly comment on health care issue. i am for reform, but i tell you what i. if i were watching across the parking lot and is on became up to the my flesh -- i would think that i could get these things are down. the democrat would walk up to zombie and demand healthcare.

that is how prophetic the left is. the road to hell is paved with good intentions. i do agree that we need to get out of afghanistan. there's no logical reason that our men and women should be dying in the mountains fighting men who have fought and triggers for 1000 years. no matter where the interest come from. our problem from terrorism is in saudi arabia, in the culture of is on. i want to tell c-span thank you for this debate. this is the kind of debate that in joy. intelligent men on both sides of the aisle debating the issues. guest: a couple quick thoughts. i would recommend "the people's history of the united states."

the racism and brutality is reality, part of history. the selling of the u.s., what became the u.s. by europeans brought with it beginning with christopher columbus tremendous slaughter of native people. we urge other countries to confront their histories and we may as well do that as well. on health care issue, i happen to think it is a human rights. we may not like or empathize with some people. still, it is a human right as should be education. if someone's house of business were burning down, with the look of their insurance card to decide whether to send the fire department first? people's bodies are sometimes on fire with disease and illness. if we do not believe it to be a public trust are human right, then we have not yet ascended to a sense of human responsibility and social compact to each other. host: let -- back to the

president's speech in oslo. the president tried to address history in terms of the evil we have faced in this country and around the world. >> another is nothing week, nothing passive, nothing naive in the greed and lives of gandhi and dr. king, but as the head of state sworn to protect and my nation, i cannot be guided alone by their principals. i face the world as it is an cannot be idle in the face of threats to american people. big mistake, evil does exist in the world. and non-violence movement cannot have halted hillers armies. negotiants cannot convince al qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. to say that force may sometimes be necessary it is not a call to cynicism. it is a recognition of history.

the imperfections of man and the limits of reason. host: mark? guest: this is a very commendable recognition of reality. people in positions like the president must make decisions based on the way the world is not simply the way that we wish was. guest: it was a slick rhetorical maneuver by the president to not come to terms with what martin luther king spoke for and live for. and you might say died for. fortunately, particularly in the democratic party base, so many people understand more profound messages from martin luther king, including the essential task to oppose what they call the madness of militarism that obama i am afraid is trying to negate the history very much alive for us in terms of dr. king's legacy/

. host: another caller from britain. caller: good morning. my question is for mr. solomon. first of all, i want to echo the same thing the previous caller said about your level of intelligence. i think you are very intelligent and it is fun listening to you. do you think president obama's speech at oslo was carefully crafted a? carefully crafted to appease the republican base for some reason? it seems to me that he said a number of things he does not truly believe. am i wrong? by the way, i do agree with you on health care. it is right for everyone. it is a basic human right. if it does not get past, america is in trouble. guest: it is a quixotic and not

for a full effort to understand what a president believes at the bottom of his heart. we need to look at his actual policy. lyndon johnson gave an eloquent , progressive and doggerel address and proceeded to escalate the war that caused a few million deaths in vietnam and destroyed the hopes of a great society and his own domestic program. i think that barack obama has shown himself despite his protesting too much that he believes there's not a pearl between afghanistan and vietnam, -- not a parallel between them, i think he has set a course of destructive policy in escalation. it is most profoundly destructive for those there and here. it is guaranteed to split the democratic party. host: many of those are tweeting

about the back-and-forth about these issues. along those lines on a domestic issue ,joe says ed health care was the right, then how would the government have the power to regulate? guest: that is the problem with the approach taken by the democratic party. if you tell everyone in society that they have an unlimited right to all the health care they could possibly consume, you guaranteeing that there will be rationing. many million people will not get the care they need because there is not an infinite supply. there must be a mechanism one way or another. either bureaucrats or free- market to allocate the available healthcare resources. frankly, in the experience of the world, the freedom way of doing that is free markets.

the way to have a government rationing is bureaucracy. guest: we have a rationing now. corporate rationing. the first question when you get to an emergency room is where is your insurance card? guest: exactly, right. guest: if you want to have a society where there is a hierarchy, then you have a good non-system. i wish democrats on capitol i shall were pursuing a goal of health care for all. i think there has been an abdication of the possibility. guest: don't forget, big insurance, big business, big pharmacy's supports obamacare. guest: we see that with a bill which is quite good so that canadian drugs could come over the border. it is disturbing that the obama what else is trying to prevent

access to canadian drugs because of the deal cut. . . a lot of people want to go to canada because of the failure of our health-care system. host: we're talking about the health care debate. the senate is in session that day to spend -- to pass one of its spending bills. will it passed before christmas? guest: i do not believe so. that will have to square the circle and find a way to have a public option without being a public option. they cannot do that. guest: congress is on track to

pass a health-care bill that reminds me about a song, this too is getting so thin that even politicians can read a magazine through it. it will not even be worth passing. a woody guthrie ballot. . -- ballad. caller: there is a legislation called the free choice act, i lost my job in april, and the company had to follow along with the trickle effect so that specific members could not work and totally shut down production. yeah, labor unions are job killers. which is one way to make money and to repeal the free choice

act. host: thanks for will call. norm. guest: yeah, these are the folks that got the workweek and overtime, the bill that you mentioned, the employee free choice act, president obama said he would support when campaigning last year and in contrast with president clinton that went against nafta and obama has not lifted a finger for the employee free choice act. and i think again it shows it shows you why many republicans had reason to be content with what the white house is and is not doing. guest: i think that we have

limitations that all of us face. 16% of gdp is health care-beard. it goes back to a deeper one -- what are -- what are our budgetary priorities? host: joining us from florida. caller: i like it when orrin hatch talked about the bills that have been passed, 85 senators or 90 senators voting. the way that politics are so bitter and partisan, i think this will make the politics worse in the country. if that does not come together with at least 85 people, it will make a partisan politics even worse. guest: i fundamentally agree with that assessment in this respect, when you have a situation where the majority is

insisting upon another expansion of government, you will have a strong reaction from those of us who want less government and more freedom. and as long as that's the basis narrative of this politics, we will have this situation. guest: a lot of narrative injected by president clinton that big government is over, and that's a çrhetorical ascension and the big guns were lotted for big government. guest: actually that was not an ascesion by the government but the americans.

host: we have robert joining us, good morning. please go ahead. caller: yes, sir, i am a 75-year-old african-american from mississippi and i am also a vietnam veteran, i]i have a problem with the way that thew3 republicans go around and say they are the moral authority onç civil rights. i mean in mississippi, i am sure that the gentleman on the right he cannot imagine america being in the 40's and the 50's in mississippi about civil rights. i think we should straight -- straighten up our own act before we go to vietnam and afghanistan and iraq before we

talk about somebody's civil rights. and that's all i have to say. guest: first i want to thank caller for his service in vietnam, you can never be appreciated enough. and i did grow up in a segregated society and went to a segregated school in the 50's, and i came to a conclusion early in my life that this country had to have a civil rights revolution, if you will. precisely because government was getting so much bigger and the violations of civil rights are initiated or protected by the government. that we had to the civil rights resolution of 1974 to reduce the power of the government. host: a look back at 2009,

carlos says that the year is over, but was it history. was it a historical year of how we look at 1959 or 1865, at the end of the civil war, would you put it in context? 1776 or 1919? guest: my sense that the united states and a lot of the world were traumatized by eight years of the george bush administration and the obama administration, and the nobel peace prize is a standard to the military center that obama has shown himself to be. and that's why we are, it's a tipping point. it didn't have to be this way, that could have been an

asserted, nondogmatic aggressiveness pursued by the obama administration. obama is not pursuing an aggressive policy. this year is a tipping back to a center policy that has a lot in the negative sense of terms of effects, domestically and ç foreign and that's going to be an issue in a year or two ahead. guest: 2009 has been a transitional year, i wrote a column saying that if president obama would make him a symbol of what is wrong with the government, which is too much government, he would be a one-term president. and everyone that has happened in my view is that he's on a one-term strategy. host: before we let you go, this network and this town, the subject of political humor last

night on "saturday night live." >> senators held a press conference earlier today to criticize the media's excessive coverage of tiger woods' extra martial affairs. >> good evening, i am senator john edwards and senator from north carolina. the three of us are here today because there is something very wrong going in this country. and we can't keep silent about it. in the last two weeks our media has participated in an orgy of tiger woods and his extramartial affairs.

the coverage has overshadowed the coverage of our extramartial affairs. >> like tiger woods, we have abused our vows and violated the public's trust. it's a big deal but the media doesn't care less. >> where is the coverage? >> where is the outrage? >> we are still in office. >> i had a love child. host: your response? guest: i swear the fella like jimmy carter. host: guestchairman, thank you r being with us. >> eamon javers will discuss the

economy. john taylor investigates government efforts to help homeowners modifying their mortgages. matthew levitt discusses the arrest of several americans and pakistan, an author walton francis talks about his book, " putting medicare in charge prat." >> david axe was embedded with the u.s. army in afghanistan in october. he followed them on training missions. this was from lobar province, a mostly agricultural region south of kabul.

>> it boils down to checkpoints. you set up a cheap "-- a checkpoint and you just sat there and keep an eye on things. you can walk a place down -- lock up place down. you can solve a lot of problems by just keeping an eye on the check point, really. checkpoints can be terribly boring. u.s. forces tend to delegate a lot of checkpoints to the afghan forces. that is something that they can handle. it is a pretty rudimentary task. they can sit there 24 hours a day and the americans will go out periodically and check on them. had you seen anything? do you need some help building up a checkpoint?

usually when the americans go out there, that will gather at afghans and get some practice doing other tasks. >> how long have you been out here? >> i couple of things. -- a couple of days. >> like two months. >> you have not been relieved? but but you're supposed to be working one-week work two-week rotations? how many men you have on site right now? anemone you have? -- and how many do you have?

>> we received our lunch later. >> you should think about more of the rotation. getting three guys at the checkpoint, and sending everyone else out to eat, and then they get relief. you don't allow anyone to slip past them may be carrying something. if you develop a pattern of eating, if i was the enemy, i would stop and pass the checkpoint when you guys were eating supper. >> [inaudible] >> there was information that there might be an attack last night. >> [unintelligible]

>> we were just waiting for somebody. we're just waiting to get attacked. >> how about the searches? have they turned up anything? >> [unintelligible] >> there are lots of ways for the taliban they will use another way. >> this is probably their fastest route into logar. >> [unintelligible] >> if we only got one today,

everyone would be very happy. -- one a day, everyone would be very happy. >> [unintelligible] >> sometimes we are not able to see around here during the night. they are coming too fast, so they are turning back. we start firing at them. >> i understand that is a huge problem. for the short term, we get the

generator and have light sets coming in to provide you the elimination of this local area. but in the long term, hopefully they get night vision devices for all your soldiers. we need each of fuel. at the top tier commander? -- have you talked to your commander? you're executive officer? >> [unintelligible] >> we did not call them yet because they promise that they were going to get the fuel. >> we are last resort. we go through their chain of command first. if they cannot provided for some

reason, then we can provide it. >> [unintelligible] >> what you're logistic systems to work for you. we want to make them work -- force them to provide you with the fuel, food, and the water that you need to conduct your operations. and when they fail, then we give you assistance. it is going all right. it always goes well and we're here. it is when we go -- and i understand it. their complaints and their issues or concerns -- nothing in afghanistan happens in a day or

as quick as a what in the u.s. it is trying to get them to be patient. then they start building like this tower here. it's great to put some sort of tower there, but we can improve on that. sometimes it is counterproductive. it is their site, so they can do with it as they please. we're trying to bring the standards of a little bit -- up a little bit. all we have this time. -- all we have is time. i am going to take a small patrol over here. >> [unintelligible]

>> i'm going to talk with some of the local population to check on some projects that should be going on in that village. >> [unintelligible] >> and if you would like, you can send a couple soldiers with me. that would be appreciated, but i understand if you cannot. it is just us, we scare the children. there will send 5. >> that is perfect. >> when i got the report of an

enemy attack, they heard there are people coming far from this area and ambushing. that is why they are setting up an ambush around the checkpoint. >> that is good. that is inappropriate thing to do. -- that is an appropriate thing to do. it could have been asf -- it is good to have an asf face of our patrols. they're going to give me some soldiers and two police and we're going to conduct a shore patrol into the village. -- a short patrol into the village. we're going to look on some solar power generation projects. and that is said. they've got the generator, but

they have had no fuel. they have the means to get fuel here and have no fuel trucks, but there is a lot of -- the same in iraq. there is a lot of corruption. deal is as good as cashier. -- fuel is as good as cash here. we have to be careful if we provide them with fuel. it may not be here tomorrow. >> sometimes you go to the checkpoints and they are all asleep. you try to get them to go out on a patrol and they refuse to do it. getting that professional mine said, where you are always ready and working and getting afghans to think like that, it is a big problem. it is a cultural thing, and you cannot change culture overnight. in this case, things went fairly well. the american shut up and the afghans were mostly awake.

they're doing their jobs with their weapons ready. they wanted more barriers at the checkpoint to protect them from attacks. the coordinated how the americans might bring that stuff and and minister rao's some guys for patrol. -- and they managed to grorouse some guys for patrol. it managed to be a successful partnership. >> were going to go west and do a short patrol. >> roger. we will be there in two minutes. over.

>> [inaudible] >> they do every single patrol that we do. when we go out to do a village assessment, when we go acted to keep leader engagement in the village, ana are always with us. we take the anp and you in mentor program with them on a daily basis. and they are singularly focused on that one task. it is their linchpin. the anp and the ana, they are the linchpin of everything that we do. all of our missions are ones we want to take them with us. so they are everything that we do.

the anp, the afghan police, they have proved to be unreliable in some provinces. how would you rate your? >> i would say that they are the least of our problems. it is a fledgling police department. the police chief here in baraki barak does an outstanding job of providing us what we ask for. he worse was to develop checkpoints, to develop when he wants to send police there to visit those places, and he will let us know right away where he wants to focus. to say that -- perhaps in other provinces, if they are unaffected there, i would say that they have their problems. but here, the colonel is a very

effective contributing part of our operations. and he does a good job on his own. nine & of the time he works hard on his own. -- 99% of the time he works hard on his own. >> this is a video from david axe, a journalist embedded with the u.s. army in october. he followed u.s. army patrols as they patrol the look our province, south of kabul -- the logar province, south of kabul. >> [unintelligible]

>> you guys had right there -- head right there. it was right there. this is the shrapnel that we got from our house. >> that hit where? >> all the houses, but right here in our house. >> and you pull that from where? your house? >> [unintelligible] >> was anyone injured? >> [unintelligible] >> three weeks ago some animals

are killed. >> the know where we're located and barki ba -- do you know where we are located in baraki barak? >> [unintelligible] >> you called travis. do you have is #now? -- you call travis. to had his -- do you have his number now? >> [unintelligible] >> the shrapnel got into his home. >> i will bring that up to our

commander. it was not our intent to get anywhere near the local population, i am sure. >> [unintelligible] >> we've forgotten the russian regime, but whenever we get ahead, we are remembering that situation again. >> i apologize for that. it was not our intent. we are not perfect but i will bring your concerns up to my commander and make sure that they are addressed. very quickly. could you do me a favor? any time something like this

happens, do not wait to inform us. you can inform us right away by coming to a checkpoint and talking to the police or the army, are coming into baraki barak and informing us correctly. you can call travis or any of our hot line numbers and tell us that this is happening. >> [unintelligible] >> again, i offer my apologies. >> [unintelligible] >> it was so mortar rounds that

fell on this hilltop here on the rest -- west and killed some sheep. and, you know, they are scared that one is going to land on their house one day. and that is a valid complaint. i will make sure that we inform the commander and we will do a better job and artillery fire. the more that we fire direct to and from. no one was injured except for some livestock. the sad thing is, they wait for u.s. patrol to come through to address those issues, when they could come to the district center at any time and address those situations directly.

i guess that they had and were turned away by afghan security guards patrol the perimeter of our post. we need to make them more available to the local population, i guess is our goal. >> freelance video journalist david axe was embedded with the u.s. army in afghanistan in october and november. to watch this program again or to watch other programs, go to our web site, c-span.org. in the search box, type axe. >>