president barack obama's achievements in his first year in office. "washington journal" is next. .

>> we begin with a piece from the washington who writes after healthcare we need senate reform. you see the line for republicans, democrats and independents. host: 55 votes is not enough to win or anything close to it. it is enough to get five from 60. you need to shut down a filibuster. only then can a lobby pass. the modern senate is a radically different institution frómç the 1960's and the dysfunction over healthcare, absence of bipartisanship, useç of the filibuster to obstruct progress, the ability of any senator to

hold theç bill hostage has convinced many inside and outside theç chamber that it needs to be fixed. from the weekly turnaround there is a piece byç two authors sayg a fine mess and they write the end game has unfolded and all eyes are on the unseamly process taking place in the halls of congress. rushed votes to minimize scrutiny and secret deals and outlandish vote buying using tax par funds. procedural maneuvers to shut off debate and the process has been ugly andç so ugly it is distracting both voters and legislators from the product being cobbled together which is worst than assumed. a look at the bill itself that will be unleashed if this is the law of the land revealsç an appalling disaster in the

making. we want to hear from you.ç first from steve from trenton, new jersey on theç democrats' line. caller: i'm very upset and yes, it is definitely time for senate reform. because they areç not representing the people.ç it is partisan politics at its best and it is terrible.ç it is supposed to be about the american people and right now it seems like big business is the only thing that is running the company. host: thanks for the call. dennis is next from silver spring, maryland. good morning. caller:ç good çmorning, c-spa. i want to say theç republicans

are doing it and everybody knows and they just have toç sayç n. everybody knows. we don't function without anything so we know the game. host: thank you. from the jump page from the piece by ezra kline he says america is facing dramatic problems but none will be solved until we fix the dysfunctions of the stphafrplt the caller is referring to çç2010, the head from "the arizona republic" tough road for dems in arizona. g.o.p. aims toç gain in arizon seats as the public sentiment on healthcareç and the deficit continues to shift. john is joining us fromç attractitravers city, michigan. caller: i would like to say to were get in touch with your legislators to support what has been proposed as an independent sort of commission i believe by

senator gregg and another within with the idea of enactç iing fl responsibility. and just by regular order we don't end up in fiscal responsibility because these poor people have to get elected. that would amount to senate reform, i would say. host: that commission is looking specifically at curbing the deficit. caller: right, fiscal responsibility. well, let's say national debt even. host: which is now in excess of $12 trillion. caller: yes. and the deficit is really that amount by which you overspend in a budget period, i guess in this is what, a year? host: thank you, john. the overall debt in the country

and the decade a piece in the "washington post," he writes the decade began so swimmingly. no y2k bug, nothing but lots of tpaoeurbgs as the planet turned all the zeros replaced the nines. america was at peace. prosperity rained. the president announced a budget surplus of $230. the problem was what to do with the extra money. the value houses soared. the dow jumped 25% in a year. imagine what $1,000 might mushroom to if invested.ç an entire music catalogue could fit in the palm of a hand. people neuter kher their after tars in the internet and except the real world would not leave us alone.

that is from the "washington post." looking backç and looking at t decade that was. richard is joining us from princeton, west virginia. good morning. on senate reform, is it time? caller: well, i think part of the reform we need is to understand that there's a constant attack on lobbyists. lobbyists are a way to communicating to senate and congress people. it is not the lobesbyists that e corrupt. it is the politicians that take their money that are corrupt. thank you. host: next is robert on the democrat line from state college, pennsylvania. caller: good morning. i was reading the article and now i can't find exactly the pa part, but there seems to be, as the article about the senate

filibuster, he was talking about an equivalency where both parties are engaged in obstructionism. but he only mentions that the democrats that they filibuster d george w. bush's supreme court nominee. they are for life. you can't impeach them. and if there is ever a time when you should have a super majority for confirmation i think for a supreme court nominee that should be standard. i think it was pretty awful that clarence thomas got in 52-48. you just shouldn't be sliding buy if you are a -- by if you are a supreme court nominee. host: mike freeman says the disproceed torsion nate

representation of low population states can't be fixed. david is joining us on the independent line from lynn, massachusetts. now that healthcare has passed the senate is it time for senate reform? a piece by ezra kline. good morning. caller: good morning. i think what they need to do is have oversight, not an overhaul. and up here in massachusetts, even though the democrats there are a lot of liberal democrats here, the independents, there are more registered independents than republicans and democrats. but what i find interesting is that the more the democrats say this, it is said they had to buy people to invest in this health scare. that's what i call it. host: from the jump page of ezra klein's piece he refers toç to

hark contingentç en hark contingent e as the new ch. ha >> nothing less than a formula for tyranny by the minority he said at the time. part of the debate on the

healthcare included the current republican leader mitch mcconnell of kansas in which he went after the tkpls for rrbing healthcare on christmas eve week. here is part of what they to say. >> some would argue we should spend more time and attention on this bill than most, if not every previous bill we have considered. the majority obviously disagrees. why? because this bill has become a political nightmare. a literal political nightmare for them as evidenced by more and more public opinion polls including the "wall street journal" and nbc poll out this morning. they know americans are overwhelmingly opposed toç it they want to get it over with as quickly as possible. americans are already outraged at the fact that democratic leaders took their eyes off the ball rushing the process on a partisan line that makes the situation even worse. host: this from "new york times"

this morning making sense of the healthcare debate writing that about a bill that passed signed into law by president reagan in 1988 the medicare catastrophic coverage act. some veterans of that experience say the lessons have been learned by members of congress including the need to educate the public about the benefits of the law. so the lesson from 1988 applied to this healthcare bill is members of congress who voted for the legislation would be acutely aware of the needç to sell it back home if it passed. phillip is joining us on the republic line. caller: good morning. i would start with something very simple. i would start with term limits. the things that politicians, especially this year, senators,

arlen spectexpecspecter changin because he knew he couldn't get elect elected. the giftsç toç nelson and oth norse to get the legislation passed. everyone wants to become professional politicians. and i don't think that that was the original concept for our government. we were supposed to go to washington, do your bit, go become home and begin another life or continue the life you had before. you were supposed to serve. government wasn't posed to serve you. host: yet, phillip this is a town with about 30,000 lobbyists and many are former members of congress. caller: well, that may be. i don't know. i have been sorting out the relationship between lobbyists and senators. but the point i'm making is

because they are so consumed with being re-elected that they will do what is right for them. there is a conflict between what is right for the country and what is right for them. and i think you have to minimize that. and term limits, maybe one term of 12 years. then they can do what they want to tdo, what they think is righ based on their thinking. host: thank you. the question we are asking is it time to reform the senate with the rules that include the 60 votes necessary to stop the filibuster. it is the cloture vote. joe says we should pass a law that says the senate has to follow the constitution. more details on the healthcare bill front page of "new york times" split over the medicaid cost in the senate's bill. some of the essence it states

they have broadly expanded healthcare coverage and are pushing back arguing that it unfairly penalizes them in favor of states that have done little or nothing to extend benefits to the uninsured. roughly 20 states have expanded coverage in some form. they will pay a greater proportion of their medicaid cost under the bill than those states arrangely in the south that until now have covered relatively few of their poorest residents. you can read minister details to in "new york times." darrell joins from st. peter's be burg. missouri. caller: it is too late for reform in this country. our criminal government is out of control. we need revolution, not reform. we've got the wrong r. reform won't work t. is too corrupt. they are run by the lobbyists. reform won't do it. thank you.

host: let me go back to storr tom harkin. this is one of the photographs from ezra klein's piece that has harkin in theç senator with criticize tkaudç and hechris dodd and it says potential solutions abound. under his proposal bills would initially require 60 votes to pass three days later that thresh hold would fall to 57. three days after that 54 and three days after that 51. some have other ideas. one is to attract republicans by phasing the filibuster out when we can't predict which party will benefit. there is a promise in the approach. the danger of reforming the senate is that like healthcare reform before it, it comes to seem as a partisan issue. it isn't. members of both parties often take the fact that neither

democrats nor republicans can govern effectively to mean that they benefit from the filibuster and the countryñr loses the benefits of a working legislature all the time. camille joins us. caller:ç good morning. so, i have a comment. inç a larger issue every calle is right. there needs to beç overhaul in the senate that would demandç that there are regulatory features that the senators conform to such as term limits like the other things people have said. but on the tricks portion of it i think all the politicians with general reform have said they

are placating lobbyists as opposed to the needs of the people. but in the specific games and strategy point by point that positionç has done more to sto the vote, saying we are not voting at all, even though there were amendments that would pass. so, on one hand we will accept amendments that are passed and the republicans favor, but on theñr other hand at the say no,e are going to be obstructionists in anything you say we are going to totally vote against you and those are the politics that we e really have to do witko do away. host: leslie miller saying public finance campaigns and terminate limits would make a big difference. ezraç klein's piece called sene heal thyself. joyce joins us from twin falls,

idaho.ç caller: good morning. host: you are up early today. caller: yes, i think the senate needs reform. watching this health care bill go through the senate on c-span, when people talk about how partisan the republicans were, if they had watched those hearings from the doctors to the insurance companies, in my opinion it became obvious that one group was sticking up for pharmaceuticals and the other for the insurance industry. they were not really sticking up for us. yes, of course,ç we were in the but the primary interests were the lobbyists, the groups that were hroeulobbying for what thee going to get out of it. and the deals behind the doors, the closed door sessions that occurr occurred, the promise that we were going to see all of this in

front of c-span, knnone of that real materializ izizematerializç this has notç been an open and honest debate. a lot of the deals were made behind closed doors. you can say it was because the republicans were being obstructionist, but how could any be obstructionist if they were not even there? i'm for term limits. i think career politicians need to go. host: we showed you senator mcconnell. harry reid of never blaming the republicans for the marathon sessio sessionsç on healthcare. >> we are going to finish this healthcare bill before we leave for the whom days. for are nearly an entire year we have reached out to the other side offered republicans a seat at the table, tried to negotiate in good faith.

now we are closer than ever to fixing a badly broken systemed a doing more to make sure every american can live a healthy life. republicans have made the point through obstruction manuals and missions they believe in stall something good for electoral politics. gunman mutts like the one we saw yesterday that is forcing the fullç hours-long amendment the didn't like then complaining when it was withdrawn. they made it clear that they have no interest in cooperating or legislating. host: ezra klein saying that the national is broken and repairs should top the list of priorities. they did pass a $900 billion healthcare bill thursday but consider the context. specter he is defection gave the democrats 60 votes a larger

majority than either party has had since the 1970's. and democrats control the house and presidency and were working with the aftermath of a crisis that occurred on a republican president' watch. the answerç seems to be well, t really. the democrats ended up focusing on the reforms low hanging fruit to get the necessary volts for ç passage. -- votes to get the passage. john joins us from yates center, kansas on the democrats line. caller: good morning. i'm finding this rather ridiculous. when bush was in office, republicans walked in lock step right along. now they are complaining about the tactics of the democrats. they learned it from the republicans. they didn't allow debate on the drug bill, be the highway bill,

and quite a ftpaou few others. they made supreme court appointments by executive choice. i wish they would stop whining. the democrats tried to help with a handout and they slapped them across the face. and the democrats have not locked the doors like the republicans did. host: how would you change the system, john? caller: it is differ. the answer is not term limits. we have every four yearsç or t years -- host: or six)for the senate. but i understand your point. caller: yes. and i think it just needs a little tweaking on it. they are complaining about the

-- how little time they had to read the healthcare bill. we gave them more time than they ever gave us. host: itç used to be 67, changed to 60. should it just be reconciliation, which is just a simple majority? caller: i think a simple majority would be all right. host: how would you end the filibuster? caller: i had keep it at 60. that is what the republicans put in. now they want to argue about it. host: well, the democrats want to argue about it. tom harkin is among those leading the efforts. caller: i didn't catch that quite. host: john, thanks for the call. the pittsbur"pittsburgh post-ga more on what happened on christmas day in create. the nigerian charged and if you fly you will see this headlineed a feeling effect that the u.s. received a warning and threat

advisory high, the resultç bei tightened security around the country and all airlines heading into the u.s. from overseas. next is a caller from tampa, florida, on the independent line. welcome to theç "washington journal." caller: thank you. how are you? host:ç fine, thank you. caller: i'm calling in reference -- i'm an independent and i don think the senate needs reformed definitely. i'm sick of listening to theç bickering and lack of civility. i have been voting since i was 18 and i will be 50 on tuesday. this is embarrassing. i have been watching them bickering and it is enough already. and they need to stop this 60 nonsense. just go back to basic math ç10. if there are 100 of them and 50 is the majority, that is what it is. top the party nonsense.

sometimes i feel like the democrats don't represent me, the republicans don't either. it is a bunch of old white men. host: how do you do that? you have politicians that are innately looking at getting re-election and need to raise money to get re-elected.ç caller: exactly. and what is it with the tons of money you need to get re-elected. th elected and what happens to the money? everything can't be all money. enough already.ç host: should there be public financing of all campaigns? caller: not necessarily. i don't have a problem with raising money. but i think we are just focused too much on money. some things should be basic common sense. and everything is not about a party. it is about the people. we should start voting for people and stop this party nonsense. i'm not voting for somebody just

because they are republican or democrat. i'm looking at how they voted on stuff and how it correlates. host: this is from jim saying abolish all party affiliations, makeç everybody run as independents and eliminate big party platforms. news makers airs every sunday at 10:00 and 6:00. our guest this week is dr. francis collins the director of the national!ynstitutes of health. during conversation he talked about religion including his own. here is an excerpt. >> i'm concerned about it. the integrity of biomedical research is something we must not compromise. the public counts on the results of the research to give trust worthy data and if it is discovered that investigators have been involved in such research and published parepers have undisclosed conflicts of financial interest that makes the field look less than it

should be. so we have to tighten up on that. there is a process ongoing at n.i.h. to put out some new ideas about how our grantee institutions and investigators need to be more forth coming about disclosure. that will result in a proposed notice of rulemaking which will appear in the next month or two. it will be quite a change from the way n.i.h. has in the past largely left that to institutions. now n.i.h. will want to have a lot more information about what its investigators are up toç a far as any potential conflict. >> what type of information are you going to be asking for that was different if what was available in the past? >> in the past universities largely askedç their investigators to voluntarily disclose any financial keublgts that might be relevant and they didn't necessarily enforce that. they will ask for it to be more rigorous and to be passed on

which in the past it wasn't necessarily passed on. there will beç a requirement t have much more of an open disclosure of this information on websites so that anybody who is interested in trying to find out whether dr. so and so is getting money from company y will be able to do so without going through a lot of hoops. it was interesting there became an issue because 40% of scientists are believers in a god to one may pray so i'm not exactly this bizarre outlier. but maybe what is different is i have talked about it and written a book and that made some people uneasy. i think it is kind of unfortunate that we have arrived at the point where there is such polarized circumstance between the scientific materialistic world viewç and there are thos from the scientific community who will argue that anybodyç w has a leadership role in science

needs toç renounce any interes in spiritual matters because otherwise they must be a little soft in the head. i don't think there is a rational basis for that claim. in fact, i think having once been an eighatheist andç comin faith that it is the leastçç defensibleç of all positions because is the assumption of a universal negative. but just the same i think the little bit about my appointment reflects to a degree the tension that exists particularly in this country between the extreme voices atheism on within and fundamentalism that refuses to look at things from science without feeling the need to rebelç against them. neither of those are, i think, places where we ultimately want the land to haveç the opportuny to be a middle ground that

expresses the potential harm any between -- harmony and favorite and all i tried to do in this book is point out that that is an intellectual defensible alternative. host: dr. francis collins our guest today. director of the national institutes of health. back to phone calls, the ask we are asking, after healthcare is it time for senate reform? frank is joining us from yardly, pennsylvania, on the republican line. calle caller: hey, how are you. host: fine, thank you. caller: i just want to make a statement. i'm not sure the new health plan will do anything about it or not, but it has to do with medicare. i probably was around when it was formed because i'm 68. but i'm not sure how it came to be that it only covers 80%. i suspect it was the insurance lobbyists that had something to

do because now insurance companies want to sell you a policy that covers the difference that costs more than medicare costs. any company selling health insurance offers 80% coverage or 90% coverage. i don't understand why medicare does not. if anyone has the answer, i would certainly like to hear it. host: thanks for the call. looking at 2009, the end of the year, the end of the decade. a couple of headlines from newspapers in the northeast. theç "baltimore sun," for many decade to forget in baltimore moments to remember. also from the philadelphia enquirer the decade in review. the business section of the "philadelphia inquirer" of decade of despair, debt, details illusionment. default. downsizing and dazzle. the washington sun times this

from the aftermath of the september 11 attack as president bush traveled to ground dear. it is called a heck of a decade. this is the last sunday edition of the washington times. the newspaper announcing on the front page it will be a monday through friday edition with e-versions. the final sunday edition. barbara slayden will join us in about 15 or 20 minutes but now going to monday through friday paper delivery and e-versions throughout the weekend and during the week. randy joins us from michigan. welcome to the "washington journal". caller: thank you for c-span and i know it looked ugly in the senate, i think the 60 votes needs to stay there just to show

if we keep it at 60 then maybe they will come around and -- well, what i wanted to say is the terminate limits. here in michigan we have the term limits. and we just had at our school board meeting a legislator came up, or lobbyist that worked on term limits for michigan. and he voted for them. i'm against that idea bus i vote -- because i voted ever since i was 18. but he has told us it made the partisanship worse since we have inflicted term limits because now nobody works together lock enough to -- nobody works together long enough to build the trust. maybe we need to have folks act more like adults. and whatever. the term limits after that that is that is not the answer because you really don't get any

partisanship -- or you get a lot more partisanship is what you get on that. thank you very much. i hope you have a great rest of the year and happy new year. host: this twitter comment from d dan. alex wayne and kate hunter have pieces in the latest edition of cq senate. even as the senate headed to the final vote congressional negotiators and groups were gearing up for what is certain to be an arduous conference which will begin in earnest in early january. the democrats' goal is to send the final measure to the president before he delivers his state of the union address. but there are crucial differences between the senate bill and version the house passed can you go the concept of the government run health plan language on abortion and the source of funding. you can get all of this

information by logging on to p c-span.org and clicking on the hub information on the debate, details all available in one stop and we will continue to update it as we 10 the debate moving into did -- as we continue the debate. dean joins us from martin, south dakota, on the independent line. caller: thank you. i have been listening to "washington journal" for a long time. host: how much snow did you get the there, by the way? did you get a lot of snow the last couple of days? caller: we got a lot of wind and it makes drifts but it subsided now so it is pretty nice out. i would hraoeulike to tphoknow, when he was on the air and it s was hard to get on the program. but it was for republicans only.

he asked who i voted for and he cut me off and -- host: now you are on the air. bush 41 or bush 43? caller: i didn't vote for either one of them. but i want to go back when reagan gave the goldwater speech. i was impressed. people ought to look that up to see what reagan said. he ran against ford and i felt he was our only chance. he didn't get elected, jimmy carter did. but things didn't turn out very well aid haven't voted for a democrat or republican president since and i think we need all kinds of reform. i spoke up years ago when we started buying steel from japan and said we're pricing ourselves

out much the market. we drove up the cost of everything and look where we are today. i had seven sons and the oldest one thing is 61 now. they were all born in a hospital and i was only getting a dollar an hour. i was a smallti-time cattle rancher. but i didn't have health insurance for the first one. but they were born in the hospital and i paid my bill and i walked out of the hospital. but everything costs too much now. everything they talk about jobs, we priced ourselves out muof th market. but i did want to say that haven't listened to "washington journal," in 1980 i was a cattle rancher from the badland and i was interviewed by somebody from "the washington post" and he pointed out that i kept up on politics by watching c-span.

host: thanks and brian is still on the air. he hosts q&a every sunday night so i hope you will tune in. headlines from the two new york tabloids. "new york daily news." bomber's package. he allegedly hid his equipment in the sir rippiyringe and chem the underwear and goc tcgotcha. he sewed bomb into terrorist's clothes. caller: good morning, steve. how are you? host: good. >> about the senators reforming themselves, i feel that the 60-vote threshold to cut off debate or stop the filibuster, i think we should leave it because

as a result it results in much more chance of compromise instead of rash decisions being made. i think because of that debate, the american people get to hear it before something is passed. host: do you think it slows down the process or is good for the process? stpwhrao i thi caller: i think it is good for the process. you could say it is better just to have s1 51-vote majority butu would have less thapchance othe things getting in there. the founding fathers wanted the senate to be a place where debate and compromise works. it works with the democracy. if you don't have that you would have a dictatorship. host: "new york times" sunday magazine looking back at those who passed away there past year including former white house press secretary jody powell, actor carl malden, a look pabac

and the lives they lived. and the weekly standard has on its cover nothing to hide, willie stern goes inside the secret preference in afghanistan. this twitter comment from cindy. >> jeremy is on the democrat alone from ashland, kentucky. is it time for senate reform? caller: yes, i think it is really time because i think these people should be held criminally accountable for our civil rights and constitutional rights that they violate or take away. they are wrong to do that to the people and i really don't know what we can could about it. but that is just my opinion. host: thanks for the opinion. the sunday take appears in "the washington post" to recover start with the economy.

no president gets a fresh start after one year on the job but given the size of the problems that president obama inherited and battles he chose to take on during the first year, 2010 could briprovide an opportunityr something close to hitting the reset button and the long fight over healthcare raorpl is nearing an end. he will begin the second year in office with a signing ceremony and historic piece of social welfare legislation. that will not end the controversy but it will move healthcare from the dominant position in the debate and determine how well obama can rebound from the hits that he has taken. dan balz writing about the economy. next is joe from long beach, new york. caller: i think we need reform but it is different from what others are talking about. i think we need reform in the truth. i was watching sullivan, the

head of the secret service being questioned, and when a couple snuck into the white house unauthorized they apparently lied to get it and he was asked is it against the law to lie to the secret service and he panneded it. he said it is against the law to lie to any federal official. is it against the law for a federal official to lie to us? and i think the ultimate reform in our government may be as the people are sworn in and they wear to uphold the constitution and laws of the united states, if they finish with "i swearç tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" that may be the reform we really need. host: this twitter comment. >> some of our twitter decrease

is cspanwj. coming up a discussion on terrorism. jonathan broder who writes for defense and foreign policy issues, they are coming up in a couple of minutes. cal joins us from ogden, utah, republican line. caller: my hat is to off to your former call they're talked about representatives telling us the truth. i think that is one of the best comments i have heard on c-span in a long time. as far as senate reform, the reason the filibuster needs to be left as is because you have a democratic president, congress and senate all controlled by majorities and these people are running on a six-lane freeway and you need something like the filibuster to throw in a speed bump to slow them down. especially when they are in a situation like the senate where

you are trying to pass legislation that requires them to spend hundreds of billions of tkhradollars to buy votes from own parties. when you have a situation like that you know there is something wrong with the legislation when you are having to buy votes from their own party. host: our final hour and 15 minutes a look back the president's first year. he is spending the holiday within r went -- he is spending the we7bdekend in hawaii. we will have a full hour and 15 later. back to the story that is dominating a lot of headlines at airports around the country "new york times" writing new restrictions will change the raopbt of air travel which has

undergone and upheaval since the attacks in washington and new york and the attempts on air terrorism from newark liberty to little rock, arkansas. flight attendantsç keptçç ca lights on for the entire trip instead of dim williming them. the limits which brought to mind some of mostç stringent polici came at a difficult time. travel has declined by 20% since 2008. debra joins us from rosswell, georgia. how would you change the system? caller: what i would do, we are in a technology and scientific society.ç we have to change the qualifications to be in politics. right now i think it is a u.s.

residence and certain age. you have to go into something to make them like when you are a lawyer, you have to pass the bar. you need a test. you need an exam for these guys to make sure they are up to d e date. there is education, knowledge, head care, signs. nasa. they have to be in touch. ifútaey cannot pass this exam they cannot run for office. so, in order to do that put a price on the exam. say, for instance, to take the exam it may cost you $5 million. that will stop anybody for running for office. that is the only way we will get up there with the chinese. they are lacking at us as -- they are looking at us as though we are unintelligent. we are intelligent.

thank you. host: again the piece we have been focusing on the last 35 to 40 minutes on line in the outlook section of "the washington post." after health care we need stpene reform. barbara slavin ajoining us in a couple of minutes to look back and what is next for u.s. troops in iraq and afghanistan. there are a couple of new developments this morning from "new york times." bobby jackson from c-span radio with a look at other sun morning programs and issues and guests. >> the guests on "meet the press" hosted did i davidç gregory will be robert gibbs. new york independent mayor michael bloomberg. massachusetts democratic governor duval patrick andç ne

gingrich. on abc this week jake tapper will talk with robert gibbs. janet napolitano and rich mcconnell. fox news sunday will include richard shelby and committee member and south carolina republican jim demint. on fox news sundayç pennsylvan democratic senator arlen spector and robert menendez. and the chair of the democratic congressional campaign committee chris van hollen. on "face the nation" you will have robert gibbs, house majority whip james clyburn and peter king the ranking member of the house homeland security member. and cnn state of the union hosted by john king will have

secretary napolitano, andrew card and john podesto. and ed rendell and mitch daniels. you can listen to all five of the sunday morning talk shows starting at noon eastern on c-span radio here in washington, d.c. nationwide on x.m. satellite channel 312 and on the web at c-span radio.org. and you can follow us on facebook and twitter. >> in the mid 1990's omar wasow was one of the 50 people po watch. he has helped found to charter school and explained new technologies. tonight he talks about his current studies at march srard and what is ahead -- at harvard and what is ahead. >> this thursday a day of distribute to u.s. and world leaders. including the dalai lama, ted

kennedy, ronald reagan, walter conçç ci c cronkite. vladimir putin discusses his future from his annual call-in program. austin goolsby on the economy. innovation and entrepreneur ship and the art of political cartooning. >> monday expanding broad band to rural and underserved areas an update from blair levin on the communicators on c-span 2. >>ç michelle malkin is our gue next weekend on book of tv's in depth. she takesç yourç calls, e-mai and tweets. three hoursç with michelle maln next sunday live at noon eastern on book tv. part of a three-day new year's

weekend starting friday. host: from iraq, afghanistan and middle east to national security here at home our two guests for the next hour are barbara slavin the national securityç assista managing and writer for the washington times and jonathan broder defense fortune policyç writer. let's beginç with some of the news of the morning. associated press reporting another crackdown of iranian security forces opening fire killing at least three in tehran. barbara slavin, your reaction? >> not surprised at all. what we have seen since june 15 is that the iranian people are using every official holiday to go out and protest not just the results of the elections which they believe were stolen from them but their general dissatisfaction withç 30 yearsç misrule under the islamic republican and today was supposed to be aç climax.

iç assume there are massive demonstrations throughoutç tehn and they are meeting a stiff response from the government. guest: yes, i agree with barbara. i think that efficient since the election there's been great unrest and political uncertainty in iran. and this is far from over. host: steve hayes this morning in the weekly standard 2010 regime change in iran, he points to president obama's inaugural address and writes in the weekly turnaround as a candidate barack obama pledged to meet with the leaders of worrogue states with conditions. he said we had been too domineering under george çbush. we spent too much time lecturing and too little time listening. the obama administration would use smart power to change all of that. iran would be the first and most urgent test. the new president started earlyç barbara slaven?

>> i think obama has had a role in this. perhaps not the one he would have expected. because he has not been brook n belligerent the same way george bush and others wereç i think has removed america from the equation and what we see now is the iranians are pretty much taking the situation into their own hands. the government is trying to blame the protests on outsiders but nobody believes it because it is not true. this is all home grown. so, although it is not what obama expected, he expected a process of engagement in the government. i think we are seeing -- i don't know if regime change in 2010 is likely but we are seeing, i think, the beginning of the third iranian revolution. the first theyç wanted a republican. then in 1978 and 1979 when they

got rid of the shah. the third was the beginning in 2009. >> charles krauthammer calls the president's response and spokes people as being feckless. that we are not aggressive not with iran. it is time to get tougher. guest: that easy to say. but a lot of america's, theç united states' leverageç has bn taken away the last eight years of the efforts of the last administration. when president obama said that he was going to try to use more diplomacy than sort of dictating to countries, there was an assumption that a lot of the world would just fall in line in response to the kinder, gentler approach. as problem noted, the leadership in terror right hand right now -- it tehran right now is

frantically trying to blame america for its problems which nobody is buying. but, in fact, the united states is really not being listened to that much. obama sent the supreme leader over there several letters trying to outstretch his hand. it didn't work. so, the approach that obama is taking, while it maybe sounds politically popular in the united states, hasn't really worked over there. but i wouldn't say it is because the policy is feckless but because ofç internal condition in iran. host: this is the reporting of eric schmidt from "new york times." elite u.s. force expands the hunt in afghanistan. the essence of the story is that the increased counterterrorism operations the last three or four months reflect a growth in every part of the afghanistan campaign including conventional forces securing bop legislation and others retaining and

partnering with the afghanistan forc forces. also reporting from "new york times" american commanders in afghanistan relying on the commando units to carry out some of the most complicated operations against militant leaders and the mission although never publicly a.c.c. tphob-- ny acknowledging the efforts. what is going on? guest: there are different levels. there is the summer of 30,000 combat troops. there is the civilian surge. and there is the aid to pakistan. now,ç this expansion of the commando element is partç of t military side. what the commandos are doing, in conjunction with predator drone attacks on the board, is trying to target al qaeda and taliban leaders inside of pakistan. theseñr are cross-border raids

into pakistan territory. these are very sensitive affairs because theç pakistanies don't want it known the united states is operating inside their territory. the united states is very unpopular inside pakistan and anyç knowledge of (1ó(u among pakistani people would backfire on the pakistani government. and within pakistan you have people within the military and security services particularly the intelligence service, who don't like these american raids inside. they say they do more harm than good. the united states has said to the pakistanis if we can't do it, you ought to do and they say we are trying as best we can. the united states says it is not good enough and we will have to do it ourselves and we will have to see whether the raids will, first, hit the targets they want to hit and, number two, whether they will cause a backlash. >> barbara, another component of this as jonathan broder wrote is

the $1.5 billion in economic aid to pakistan. >> it is very important. unfortunately the situation we are talking about iran being confused. the situation in pakistan is pretty confused. it is not clear whether their civilian government under zardari will survive and the u.s. is so unpopular thereç ev when they propose givingç economic aidover five yearsç t initial response was negative. that it was a plot. that it wouldn't help the pakistani people. that they were selling out their birth right. this is a very hard country to help. and, of course, we have had a long and difficult history with pakistan at times when we were allies and times when the united states abandoned the country bus of their nuclear program. the u.s. has been associated with multiple military dictat s

dictators. so, is pakistan an ally or foe? >> in this photograph heightened security and increased tensions as travelers move around the country and coming into the u.s. the headline in the "new york times" is that the suspect in the terror attempt claims ties to al qaeda although there are questions as to how close they were. guest: well, claims of ties to al qaeda. you can simply be a disciple of al qaeda and say i'm doing it on behalf of al qaeda. al qaeda is now sort of a brand, and anybody who decides to do something can do it in the name of al qaeda as if it were some sort of franchise. so, we don't know yet -- or i don't know yet -- whether there guy was directed by al qaeda, whether he was paid by al qaeda,

whether he was taking secret phepbls from al qaeda -- messages from al qaeda or whether he was acting alone in the name of al qaeda. it too early to tell that. but i think one thing we can conclude from this is that al qaeda is now a force out there in the muslim world and it is not going to go away even if we kill osama bin laden, the idea of al qaedaism or obamaism are going to last. these are enduring values on their side. host: barbara, your reaction to this story? guest: ç there are some initia reports suggesting that this guy was -- is half nigerian and half yes, ma'am a yemeni and may have gotten instruction from al qaeda leaders there including the sheik who was connected to the fort hood shootings. there is some suggestion he may

have obtained materials in yemen although it looks like fortunately for all of of us it pretty primative. he succeeded in setting himself on fire but not the plane. and the passengers were very alert and they managed to put this thing out before it caused a catastrophe. i c what is disturbing, if you look at the background of the young man, he apparently came from a very privileged family. his father is banker in nigeria. he went to the best schools available. he was studying engineering in london. so you have to wonder what it is about these individuals and again you see this pattern. it often people who go çabroad go to the west for a university who are alienated in some way or offended in some way by their experience in the west and turn toward, as jonathan put it, this brand name that is is out there for anybody who is angry and

upset with the west. host: our phone lines are open and you can accepted us a twitter or send us an e-mail. do either of you twitter? guest: i signed up for it but i haven't started because i'm too busy with the rest of my life. . i don't, no. host: you can call us also. it is the new thing. guest: phone çcalling. >> our radio listeners are on c-span radio and x.m. channel 132. we go back to the time when president obama was worn in.

>> for we know that our patch work heritage is not a weakness but a strength. jews and hindus and nonbelievers. we ares&aped byç every languag and culture, drawn from every end of this earth and because we have tasted the bitter swill of war and segregation and emerged stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds should pass and lines of tribes should stkofrpl and as the world grows smaller our common humanity is shall reveal itself. to the muslim world, we seek a new way forward based on mutual interests and mutual respect. to those leaders around the globe to seek to sew conflict or

blame their society's ills on the west know your people will judge you on what can you build, not what you destroy. to those -- [applause] >> to those who claim power through corruption and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclinch your physical. host: looking aboback almost a r later your reaction to what the president said then and how the policies have unfolded since. guest: as jonathan pointed out, there are not any huge successes out there. maybe it was unlegalistic to expect that there would be in -- maybe it was unream h rearealis effect it but he has changed the tone. he has shaken hugo chavez's hand. he sent an envoy to myanmar. he sent at least two letters to

the supreme leader of iran. he certainly has tried to change the image of the united states in dealing with countries like it. i think these countries are still pretty authoritarian. but in some cases we have seen some cracks. and i go back to the idea when the united states is no longer seen as the enam i am eemy it dissidents to protest. and even in north korea the government has had to apparently backtrack on currency reform because there's been -- there have been huge protest business people who are in private markets and who have amassed some foreign currency. and this is probably a first. i don't know that north korea has ever shifted policy because of a domestic situation.

so, i think we have to give this policy a little bit more time. it maybe that the united states can't reach nuclear agreements with north korea and iran. but it may be there will be changes in the country to make it easier to live with them. host: as part of this process, it is war council as you wrote about levin of michigan, reed of rhode island and john kerry of massachusetts and kerry phroeting the idea of visiting -- float being ting the idea vi tehran and saying this is the type of think that he should undertake. guest: john kerry has become, along with levin and reed, at least within the senate one of the obama administration's sort of top wise men if you will. that isn't to say that he doesn't have others in other

branches of the government. but on the hill these three are considered at least by obama to be people that he should listen to. if you will remember, when he was a candidate he flew to iraq and to afghanistan and brought along reed with him on that t p trip. now, kerry has done other work for the administration before, and he'sç very much in tune wi obama's foreign policy. so to have him go to iran, he doesn't carry some of the heavy baggage that hillary carries with her because of statements she's made about iran in the past,ç particularly statements aboutç obliterating iran if th were to get too frisky with their nuclear weapons. so, someone like kerry serves as

a very useful cutout for the administration. guest: if i can add procedurally it would be easier bus the iranians sent members of their parliament to the united states. not for a while. and this would not convey an iranian recognition of the united states to have a member of our national senate go. host: barbara slavin with the washington times and author of "bitter friends and busom enemies." jonathan broder worked for the associated press, nbc news. senior editor of foreign policy. on to the phone calls. barbara from palm beach, florida. caller: i'm sorry, we are living in an age when we have to start thinking outside of the box. i know what i'm trying to say

may sound a little radical but we've to face the fact that any figure for any other group who teaches from their religious book to go out and kill someone who is not of their situation, we have to have an international law that will be in force that these individuals themselves must be killed. they have to be taken out. it is like cutting out the cancer. as long as they teach another individual that they are wise and their religious per situation says you are doing -- persuasion says you are doing a good thing to go out and kill someone we have to face up and it has to be a global effort. and it has been in the

universities, any mosques or anyone who teaches hatred and to kill their neighbor because of their difference of their belief system. and we know how work with the u. sfp u.s. -- u.n. is. maybe we needç to build anothe international organization. host: barbara, i will stop you on that point. we will get reaction. guest: i don't think it is a tenable proposition. each country deals with its own la laws, its own law breakers as best it can. the united states and other countries get involved when acts of terrorism are committed that affect americans or affect people outside that country. unfortunately, all religions have at some point advocated killing those that they disagree with and you can go back to the very first one and it is unfortunately a way that

militant fundamentalists distinguish themselves is by casting aspersions at others and accusing others of not being sufficiently observant. and if there is a way to solve this problem through education i don't know. guest: let me add in the muslim world it is deeply split by these radicals who are killing people and, i might add, many of the people thatç they kill are also fellow muslims. and what is striking and others have pointed it out as well, you don't see a lot of protests among moderate muslims against the radical muslims in their midst. some people take this to be sort of tacit agreement, the goals or methods of the radicals. i don't necessarily see it that

way. i see it as they are intimidated and they feel if they open their mouths in protest they are going to be next. so there is a crisis going on in the arab world and we are watching it play out. host: with our apologies to the radio audience, jonathan broder i want to ask you to plain this photograph. this was a piece where u.s. marines in an area once controlled by the taliban on the move in afghanistan. what does this tell you? guest: the purpose is to outline the costs of whatç obama's surge is going to be, not only in terms of of dollars but in terms of casualtiesç an logistics andç wear and tear o the military.ç in that photoç what we were gog to show is a landscape that may look sort of sparsely populated

by american troops at the moment but there's going to be many, many more walking that trail if you will. host: heather is joining us on the democrats' line. chattanooga, tennessee. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my çcall. my main concern with the war that is going on now is i really don't hear of any army intelligence going on and i really don't ever hear about who is supplying the taliban or al qaeda with their weapons. and i'm interested to know because i never hear this issue being brought up and that kind of thing might solve the problem as far as the war going on. that is my question.

guest: first of all, weapons iç that part of the world, pavilion, pakistan, are not a problem. there is a little town in the federally administered doctor stories called bara and i have never been toç anyplace like ts in my life. but there, a small market town and you can buy any weapon you want. everything from an r.p.g. and small howitzer to a pen like this that fires a 22 bullet in case you are being forced to sign a contract or something that you want to shoot your way out of. the other thing in terms of money, and this may surprise a lot of people, there was a very interesting piece by our colleague in the nationç a coue of weeks ago in which he conclusively reported -- this was not any sort of vague

report, this was nailed down, air tight -- that the taliban actually gets money from u.s. taxpayers and the way that this happens, according to ross, is that there are contracts, most of americans supplies for the military come through the port of karachiy karachi in southern and trucked north into the khyber pass intoç afghanistan be distributed to american troops. the job of providing security for those convoys is not surprisingly farmed out to private security companies. then the private security company subcontracts that to subcontractors. according to this report, the ç subcontractors simply pay off

the çtaliban. the taliban controls certain sections of that route and if you want to get your truck through it is just like a tax on your vehicle. and if you don't pay the taxç your truck goes up in flames and your driver is probably dead. sometimes you will see trucks -- you will hear a report of a truck being hit and they paid the protection fee if you will and this is the taliban way of basically startingç negotiatio for a new taxation regime. the old wasn't any good, we want to raise your tariff so we blow up a truck to let you know it is time to come back to the negotiation table. and tens of millions of dollars are going to the taliban of u.s. taxpayer money to protect our convoys going up into afghanistan. guest: there are other sources that are still getting lots of money from the persian gulf, from the saudis, emirates,

kuwaitis and others who still support the taliban, and of course the pakistanis have theiç own links. so they are not short of money or weapons. tkpwhr all of this back to the roots of terrorism which you can go back to the beirut bombings in the reagan informatiadminist. but calling in a heck of a decadeç in this one photograph george w. bushç shortly after september 11 his arm around a new york city, retired at the time -- how does that shape the decade? >> what a small question. it is responsible for so much that has happened. it led to not only the war in afghanistan but indirectly to the warç in iraq. it gave us george w. bush twice with everything that entailed. it has pawned terms such as

ial ialamo-fascism. created enormous hatred and division. we don't know the end of it. one hopes over time the hatreds will beginç to diminish and supporters of al qaeda realize this not leading them anywhere and not helping their people and that the islamic faith will go through its own reformation and come out the other side as something that is more humane and doesn't encourage this kind of behavior. this has been a decade characterized byç war, hatred, division and economic dislocation and we are not out of it yet. host: alfred next from algiers, louisiana, good morning. caller: good morning. nice to here these two people dance around andç just spew thr propaganda.ç one -- host: why do you call it

propaganda, caller? caller: because they don't report for us. they don't report about the people. they report for the system. theyçç report for the militar industrial complex. they don't getç to the root causes. they danced around 9/11. the -- let's look at the cause of 9/11. no one touches that taboo subject. for instance, i'm just a citizen journalist. i sit here and do my reading and i just read the fact that people that have been analyzing the flight data recorders released on 9/11, one of the recorders show that the cockpit door was never opened for the entire flight so begs the question to ask how did the hijackers get into the cockpit? because they wouldn't know that because they do not even rye to

investigate 9/11. then you have theç one guy thi so orwellian. he says if the pakistanis knew that we were doing raids into their country,ç of course they know. he is stating it publicly on tv. do they think we're idiots? host: response on either responsibility? guest: i'm not sure where he is going. >> i prefer to return to the planet earth. host: we go to herb. caller: first, a quick question tongue in cheek, steve why do you always get test sunday morning assignment assignmes? host: no, because you call and it is the highlight of my sunday we i can hear from you outside of buffalo.ç caller: my question is to your two distinguished guests, it is

difficult to find an answer and the question briefly isçç the. charter was mostly written in 1945 and we were a signatory to the united nations charter. it became before the senate like treaties t treaties do. when the senate ratifies that such as a treaty, does it then become the law of the land? and if the answer is yes, when we don't abide by the united nations charter as we haven't throughout history since 1945 on ma many occasions, then is it the obligation in the courts of the united states to take a stand? guest: it does become the law

of the land. but in order -- and the courts presumably would handle any violation of the law. but the problem on these international issues is that in order for something to come before the court, the person or institution that would raise the issue has to have what in legal terms is called standing. in other words, be a qualified party with the standing to bring this issue before the courts. oftentimesç questions of violations of treaties that are brought by, let's say, people in the united st/5ñ or institutions of the united states,ç they are often struck down because they lack standing. host: "washington times" calming it a heck of a decade. others have called it other terms to describe the past eight or nine years. how would youç cry 2000 to 200 >> i think it is the beginning

of a sort of tectonic shift in word affairs. as barbara mentioned, it shallered in a time of war, conflict. barbara talked about the hope that islam will have its reformation and they will see that the policies they are following are not necessarily god for them andç -- notç good this will be more calm but certain forces have been unleashed by the events of 9/11 and the u.s. response that will be very difficult to put back in the box. >> let's go back to this past summer when president obama in cairo, egypt, reaching out to the muslim world. here is an exe ex-erpt.

>> violent extremists have exploited these tensions. the attacks of september 11, 2001, and continued efforts of these extremists to engage in violence against civilians has led some in my country to view islam asinevitably hostile not only to the united states but human rights. all of this has bred more fear and mistrust. so long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sew hatred rather than peace. those who promote conflict rather than the constitution that can help allçç of our pe achieve justice and prosperity. this cycle of suspicion and discord must end.

host: is it ending? suspicion and discord? guest: no, not yet. obama gives a wonderful speech. no. we have a long way to go. but if you look at the polls, they do show that the standing of the united states in the world at large and technically in the muslim world has improved significantly since obama became president and that is partly a kind of relief at the end of the bush administration, a kind of amazement that the united states could elect barack obama hussain obama as president, and some recognition that he is trying to turn the ship around. on the other hand you have many in the pus him world who say the united states is still in iraq and afghanistan and obama has used the predator drones even more than bush did. he doesn't jail people inç guantanamo but he assassinates them from the air.

so, you still have a potent number of peopleç in the musli world who intensely like the united states, maybe more so because of obama. but i think overall the tone has changed and there are some improvements. host: miami, beach, florida. you are on the air.ç caller: good morning. i really am excited to have such fantastic dialogue going on on television. there is hope and i love how they both present that. what i wanted toç bring forwar as a question isç if it is possible that there might be an initiative addressed to what is the real life going on. while all of this is going on in all of these countries, we can look at any pot on the planet -- spot on the planet and we are going to find similar discord by

the interest ofç human beings. but while that is going on -- and i know that theseç two gre journalists and very important people are speaking on behalf of the government and economics and the religious discord upon the planet. but while all of this is going on, there is is the life of the peop people. and i have been so privileged because of the internet to converse with humans. an amazin amaze ining number of that i never expected to do. maybe overç 4,000 people are m friends on one of the internets, you know, platforms. but they are so excited from just beingable to experience things -- being able to experience things that we in the united states are lovingç whic

are like self-help, self-consciousness books. they want access to these things. i have people asking me please send me articles on things. i don't want to mention any names but like conscience evolvement. host: how would you respond to that? if you are talking about social networking sites like facebook, they are an incredible tool. i don't tweet, i must admit. i think that you can't possibly express yourself in such a short form although some people do. but the other networking sites are fascinating and you see the people who try to friend you and you find out about their backgrounds and some of it is fascinating. i use it as a tphaonews gatheri tool particularly with a situation like iran where foreign correspondents are very reconvicted and often not

allowed to go. a lot of information is coming out of that country thanksç to ordinary citizens and i have friends throughout, particularly the muslim world, who have read something i have written or want to comment on it and i think this is one of the really before friends. some of can be waste of time, perhaps little annoying, but there is always a seed there or something that will give you an idea for a story or will want you to explore things further and who knows you may get to go to that country and meet that person. so i think this is phenomenal and revolutionary.ç guest: i would like to add will is a further point here is and that is that if will is one bright spotç in the middle eas it is the explosion of all forms of media. barbara and i were both based in the middle east many years ago and we remember the days we the only medias was available to folks living in the middle east

was the state controlled media of those countries where they lived. egyptian press or state controlled syrian press. now you have networks like al-jazee al-jazeera which are satellite networks and even over the protests and efforts by governments to stop these broadcasts from coming in, they are coming in over the heads of the government and everybody has a satellite dish and they get to see a lot of things from the world that they never would have seen before. then compounding that sort of connectivity are the social networkingç tools. so, you have a public in the middle east that is increasingly becoming aware of their situation and the shortcomings of their governments, and that is sort of a potent chemical if

you will that is out there now that isç roiling these societi. it is early to say what will happen, but at least in iran we get to seeç what is happening d the impact of those new mediaç. guest: theç 10th day of the islamic month is very important. this day in particular is very symbolic. it is the day onç which the grandson of the prophet muhammad and 72 companions wereççç sl the desert in karbula, now iraq. this was 680 a.d. this particular event crystallized what it meant to be

sunni or shia. the shiaç are the rebels of th muslim faith. they brokeç with the leadershi that had been chosen for the muslim faith after the prophet muhammad died. and they wanted members of his familyç to succeed him. first ali who was his son-in-law, then ali's son hussain. and instead there was a khalif the evil yazid who was inç chae and he went out with his powerful army and laureated the imam hussain and his followers in the desert after he firstç left them without water, so they were dying of thirst. for shia muslims this is a day and time when you recognize this event, when you celebrate the heroism of someone who was willing to go out and fight against injustice and be willing to lose his life in order to

overthrow an unjustice tyrannical ruler. well, guess what. here we are six months of the proud-painted elections and the people of iran are taking the governmentç sanctioned holidaya huge event, and they are once again turning it against the regime saying the supremeç lear of the country and the hussain is the chief opposition candidate so they are yelling kwra hussain. and death to the dictator and assorted other interesting slogans. host: the developments overnight a handful of deaths as iranian security forces opening fire in tehran as part of demonstrations barbara slavin was talking about. vivian joins us from denton, texas. independent line. caller: good morning. i would like to talk to you

are having çthere. i'm reallyñr upset that obama ds not do more and have more conference wasç israel because believe hatç jews have suffere -- i believe that the jews have suffered enough and we are going through the same thing because of al qaeda and bin laden and i think their deal was not 9/11. it had to do with ruining the united states. they took all of our money. they have taken everything away from us, including our sons, our daughters and everything else and i believe that the government should do something about it instead of just sitting on their hands and not helping

the military take care of this. i'm so tired of saying i'm sorry, i'm sorry i'm an american and that is the way it is now.ç that is w that is what obama is telling everybody. we are so sorry. i'm so the sorry. i'm upset. i'm very upset. my son died a month before 9/11 in an f-14 off theç u.s.s. constellati constellation, and i know that it was one of the problems that started 9/11, it was just one of the things that happened. he is still in the indian ocean in an f-14 abubecause they coult bring him back. now you tell me what are we posed to do with iran? what are we posed to do to make them listen? we can't do anything because they are not going to. all we can do is just say ok, we

are going to take it and what have we got? pr ruining ourç military. he is questioning everything our military does. he is ruining the united çstat. host: vivian, we will get a response and our sympathy for your loss. jonathan ççbroder. guest: i havian i'm vee kwr guest: obama inherited a very difficult hand when he became preside president. iran is, at least from the evidence that we have seen, it appears that they are concerned to develop, if not an actual nuclear weapon, then at least the caxacility to build a nuclear weapon. and it is very, very difficult,

as we have seen, to try to get the world to try to come together for some sort of sanctions regime against iran. the other option obviously is a military option. if you can't convince them through sanctions to stop their program, then you face a military issue. now, we are already involved in iraq and afghanistan. we don't have an infinite army or infin pit money to pay for these wars. and obama, i think, to be fair to him, is doing the best he can. i wouldn't be so harsh on the president in these circumstances. he fully understands, i think, the gravity of the situation. and i think he is trying his best through the policies he is pursuing. that doesn't always mean the governments on the other end are going to respond as quickly or

as full somely as we would like but i don't personally agree that obama is doing;hnothing. i think he is trying his best. host: this from sasha says obama gives a wonderful speech. the tone changed. we go to michael in philadelphia. caller: good morning, everybody. thank you for being here on the holiday season. i want to ask just two quick building with all of these extremisms and we referred to yemen, afghanistan is still a work in progress, it is very difficult for the u.s. to do had by itself and fortunately we do have some allies participating to some degree.

it seems that there are almost limitless opportunities for failed states. mo mo somalia is one. it strikes me that any real effort toward building states would have to an broad international effort and would have to include some rising economies like china, russia, india. do you see any efforts toward that happening in any kind of broadway and consensus building that enough nationsç are concerned enough about the dangers of failed states that a broader integrated effort will take place? that is a broad question. i think i will leave it this wh wh guest: in pakistan and afghanistan you seeç the effor

being led by the united states, butç there are nato countries that are joining the united states in that effort. the problem is that a lot of these situations of failed states, as a broad subject, becomes very specific we you talk about specific countries like afghanistan. then there arises the question of the popularity of that in the country. afghanistan ha feted as cause among nato countries. while the united states had a lot of allies when we first went in afghanistan, a lot of these countries that were our countries have tired of these wars. they have associated them with george bush. and the leaders of these countries don't have the popular support to provide as much aid as they would like. so, it is a constant truck to

try to maintain the coalition.ç host: sheila has been waiting on the republican line from doylesto doylestown, pennsylvania tkpwhrao i would like to say something about your guests. i believe they are the same that are on fox news and haveç spre the sail garbage about iran and said the same things about the war. basically those people have no idea that [inaudible] it was a [inaudible] building and it came down. tkpwhr first of all, we appreciate your joining us. we appreciate both jonathan broder and barbara slaven to be with us but there is the theory that the planes didn't bring down the world trade tower. guest: it is a little early on

a sunday morning. i wanted to go back to the early question bucking about this issue of failed states because there is infrastructure out there. we have the i.m.f. and world bank and united nations with all of its many organizations. you have some very good organizations like unicef, world food program that provide all kinds of memb kinds of emergencyç help even places that are falling apart and sometimes at great risk to the people who are providing the aid. what we don't have is a coherent international structure for helping countries build and rebuild particularly after conflict. and each country has its own infrastructure, a lot of mope gets wasted on overhead, on contractors and subcontractors. a lot of the money never gets to where it is supposed to go. you have individual like greg morton son with his three cups of tea who goes around building in bothpri

minister areas. it would be great if we could find some better way because this is aç enter solution than war. obviously schools, food, jobs would be very important in terms of reducing the number of foot soldiers for organizations like al qaeda and the taliban. so, perhaps that is a task for the next decade and thoughtful people to think of a better way to do nation building. host: other advice is a tweet from a viewer. guest: that is fine in theory. but it is not possible. we are living in a world that is extremely globalized. what happens overseas affects our lives as anybody who has lost a job has seen it go to china can testify. nor should we want to avoid

foreign i think tanglements. we are all global citizens and we have to play the game. host: jim joins us from henders hendersonville, north carolina. independent line. stpwhr tkpwhr caller: i wanted to get the guests' view on the opium trade in afghanistan. we talked earlier about the funding of the taliban and al qae qaeda. and for the past eight years or so the policy has been to try to convert farmers afrom growing opium to grow wheat and other crops. was wonder iing what you think the possibility of purchasing the opium from the farmer which provides him with his income which is why he grows it and just destroying it and taking the middle man and the warlord out of the equation? guest: that has been proposed

by i think brent scowcroft and zbigniewç bridge engines sk zbigniew. barry mccaffrey has suggested it. the problem with the opium in afghanistan is that basically there is no economy in afghanistan except for opium. they don't produce anything. it is largely an agricultural economy and the only crop that really pulls in any money is opium. now, the opium not only supports the taliban, it supports many people in the government, too including the one of the president's brothers, hamid karzai's brother walid. dick holbrooke the special representative for afghanistan and pakistan, has suggestedç a

crop substitution program but the problem is that it requires not only just seeds to grow a different crop like wheat or cotton, but it requires an entire infrastructure. it requires roads, it requires trucks to get these products to market. it requires markets. so much infrastructure is missing in afghanistan that to build an economy based on a different crop would be a massive, massiveç nation buildg effort. and it is easier said than done. host: the military is calling in afghanistan snatch and grab as u.s. troops tried to take in some of these so-called terrorists and cnn this morning

reporting in neighboring pakistan 13 militants were ki ç killed by the drone and reaper technology which are the unmanned missiles that are taking down at least the taliban or members of al qaeda. what is going on? >> this part of obama's focus on al qaeda as the threat even more than the taliban. the hope is that if you can kill enough of the militant leaders and squeeze them somehow in this border areaç between pakistan d afghanistan, kill them with drones, get them on the afghan side, if possible on the pakistani side by the pakistani army, that you can reduce the threat. and this is to be coupledç wit improving securitior major population areas and providing jobs, other things to do for potential taliban recruits. we have also reported in the washington times that there have been discussions mediated by the saudis and united arab emirates

with some of the afghanistan taliban leaders trying to convince them to lay down arms, to come into the government. so, i think that you can see that they are working on a number of fronts. the hope is that if the momentum in the war shifts and taliban no longer feels they are winning they maybe more willing to lay down arms and at least temporarily agree it a political settlement. guest: one of the aspects here is the role the pakistan plays in supporting them. the military and national security leadership of pakistan is mainly afraid of india. they are the main threat that pakistan feels it faces. what they are afraid of mostly is being encircled by india. they have india to its east and afghanistan on the western border and they are afraid of an alliance between afghanistan and india which would basically put

pakistan in the middle of a geo strategic sandwich. what they do is back the taliban in afghanistan as a force that will hopefully gain power in afghanistan and prevent any sort of indian influence from taking root in afghanistan. the problem with the pakistan has with the united states the military doesn't trust that the united states will be there for any reasonable length of time and that when the americans leave, the indians will move back in. so, the taliban is their hedge against indian encirclement. now, these drone attacks are going on on the border around the federally administered tribal areas, but there's been

some evidence reported by our intelligence folks that the pakistan pakistanis, who are assisting the afghan taliban, are providing them sanctuary in border cities, are now moving them to safety. guest: we reported this. guest: into karachi to get them out of the gun sights of the predator missiles. it preserve the afghanistan and taliban leadership so that they can have this hedge policy in afghanistan. host: to both of you for your expertise and your background, jonathan broder defense and foreign policy senior editor w go, barbara slaven national security assist managing editor, thank you both for being with us. guest: thank you very much. host: all this week on c-span we want to look back at president

obama's first year in office. some ofç the specific issues h has dealt with. we will again in a moment with a roundtableç discussion giving some historical perspective on first years in office. we will have steen hess of the brookings institution and dan thomason. first a look at what other people will be talking about on the sunday morning programs with a review and bobby jackson. >> taopgs today will include healthcare of course. economy a look back at the major eventsç of this year and what ahead for twpb. the guests on "meet the press" will be robert gibbs. new york independent mayor michael bloomberg. massachusetts democratic governor duval patrick and formerç republican house speak newt gingrich. on abc's this week will be robert tkpwreubs, january cincinnati napolitano and mitch mcconnell. the guests on fox news sunday will include national banking

committee ranking republican richard shelby and south carolina republican jim demint. also pennsylvania democratic senator arlen spector, new jersey democrat robert machine anyone des -- menendez and chris van hollen of maryland. on "face the nation" from cbs you will here robert gibbs, house majority whip james clyburn and new york republican peter king. he is the ranking member of the house homeland security committee. and cn tphfrpblts's state of the union will include secretary napolitano, john podesta and andrew card. indiana republican governor mitch daniels and ed rendell. you can listen to all five of the sun morning shows starting at noon eastern on c-span radio. 90.1 f.m. in washington, d.c., nationwide on x.m. satellite radio channel 132 and c-span

radio.org and on facebook and twitter. >> in the mid 1990's omar waso was named one of the 50 most influential people po wash in cyber space. he has created black planet.com. helped found a charter school in balloon and explained new technology on oprah. tonight he talks about his current studies at harvard and what is ahead on c-span's "kwfrpbl"q&a." >> thursday a day of distributes to world leaders including the dalai lama, ted kennedy, colin powell and report byrd. then a look at what is ahead for the new year with vladimir putin discusses his future. austin goolsby on the globe economy. the creature of the segue and co-founder on guitar hero. plus the art of political

cartooning. monday expanding broad band to rural and underserved areas of the country an up date from the f.c.c. broad band initiative executive directors. foxxd news contributor michelle malkin is our guest next weekend on book tv's "in depth." she has been the aufrthor of fo books. three hours withç michelle maln live at noon eastern on book tv part of a three-day new year's weekend starting friday. host: all this week on c-span a look at president obama's first year in office. observersç steven hessç senio fellow at brookings institution. dan thomson columnist and former vice president of scripps howard news service. the president was asked what kind of grade he would give

himself, he said a b-plus. what would you give him? guest: i would agree. not an a-must binus but a b-plu. guest: if he went back to being professor obama he would give him an incomplete. he never turned in the exams. i am the whole quality of the first year has a sense of incompleteness that i find very interesting. however, i would give him a b-plus if he worked under the old rules which is all you needed is 51 votes. when i got here that is what it was. now you can't have a major piece of legislation without needing 60 votes. if he could have gotten by with 51 he would have had a brilliant year. host: ezra khraoeufrpb says it is time to reform the senate. guest: he does, and it is. and 60 votes as steve said we we

got here, youç just worried abt a majority and you got a bill passed. if i had a problem with obama's approach to some of this is his turning offense all of this stuff to willy-nilly saying i want to do this, now you do t. i think there was guidance somewhere but i don't think it was the guidance that could have avoided some of this. i think what happened there is so many of these people had come out of the clinton white house. they had 12 years to figure out why clinton lost his health care and decided it would be the anti-clinton approach. guest: i agree and i always thought rahm had a major voice in that. host: we sat down with the president in may and asked him where his ideology was and he identified himself as a practicing ma test. here is part of his response. >> i don't approach problems by

asking is this a conservative -- is there a conservative approach to this or a liberal approach, is there a democratic or republican approach. i come at it and say what is the way to solve the problem. what is the way to achieve an outcome where the american people have jobs, or their healthcare quality is improved or schools are producing the well-educated workforce of the 21 century. and i'm one to tinker and borrow and steal ideas from just about anybody if i think they might work. and we try to base most of our decisions on what are the facts, what kind of evidence is out there. have programs or policies been thought through. i spend a lot of time sitting with advisors and going through a range ofçç options.

and if they are only bringing me options that have been dusted off the shelf that are the usual stale ideas a lot of times i will ask them, well, what do our critics say. guest: i think that he is looking at it from a different perspective. i kind of agree with it. i'm not sure that i don't think -- i do think, should say, that he is bitten off a lot for the first year and i don't know whether he was trying to out-roosevelt roosevelt but he did inherit a whole lot of mess and i think he legitimately tried to do the best he could with the advice he has gotten. host: steve, there's been a line that i have heard he will either be jimmy carter or ronald reagan. would you agree or disagree? guest: he is certainly not going to be jimmy carter.

first of all, jimmy carter could not --ç within 10 days he was already in a hammerlock fight with congress although he had a bigger majority than obama has today. obama's people have probably more experience if you looked at the staff with congress than any previous administration. i do see someone similarity with ronald reagan which is an interesting one. .ç

>> ronald reagan could deal with his conservative base without acceding to their demands all the time. >> the difference in the first year is he had a very narrow agenda which i think is very shrewd and clever. obama has gone to a very broad agenda. he has had problems because of that. >> if you look at jimmy carter, he can being anti-washington and realized he was suddenly washington and triple legislature as he might treat the last georgia legislature which is not what you want to do. host: we're joined from cleveland, ohio, good morning. caller:x6 you might want to look

at the commission on 9/11 part we are going by the model of comparative advantage which was made up by david ricardian in 1817. that is to outsource every job in this country. on what obama said was that he would look at the free trade policies. we will not compete with 800 million working people in china. i am not even talking about india. we cannot compete with and to the living standard in the united states. hostguest: as soon as he gets through health care which will be another six weeks, they will go as strongly as they can on the economy. they have to revitalize this by.

their basic mistake was to not really understand the degree of this recession i was in chicago to give based beach last week. i talked to upper-middle-class people and i saipast, people who knew people lost their jobs and virtually every hand went up. it is an interesting recession because of its people who have never been unemployed before at the same time, it is people who thought they were richer than they were. these are people who call into cspan and otherwise. the type of stimulus he did which was a very interesting stimulus which was phased in over several years was not something that franklin roosevelt was done. it had to be the equivalent of the shuttle ready stimulus to get these people -- shovel-ready

stimulus to get these people to feel that he cared about them. i think he will turn the next year into a big economic driver. he will also address the deficit budget. many people are worried about the size of the deficit host: newcastle, pa., good morning. you are calling on the republican line? caller: yes, i am. this has been a terrible, terrible year for our country. there are so many things going on and things have been thoroughly reviewed and red. ad. there are thousands of pages in these bills they try to pass. the next thing is the auto industry, the banking a detrick,

the mortgage industry, and now housing. they think they will get all this stuff done in the first year. at the same time, there are no jobs. they need to concentrate on our economy. they need to concentrate on getting people back to work. people want to be in charge of their own lives. they want to be in charge of their own banking, there are mortgages, but they need work. obama needed to start with that. how are we going to bring jobs back? what will be due here for the people of the united states? guest: that will be the issue, joblessness and how you get unemployment down. unemployment traditionally is the last to come around in a recession. on the other hand, it has been a while and you won't find many people who do not know someone who has not been out of a job. that will take some real doing

because our manufacturing, heavy manufacturing sector is in pretty bad shape of the automobile industry. historically, you may have a significant change in this midterm election in the congress. that would not be terribly unusual. there are 51 districts out there that are challenged a ball by republicans because republicans held them longer buy -- than anybody. that will have an impact. it will be a very dicey year for him. guest: i think what happened from the president's point of view -- you inherit things for

you cannot stop the world and say once again on at january 20 at noon. he was given a bad situation. i think he won a big election with a congress that was more favorable than he might have expected. i think it was an amazing inauguration day parade i never saw anything like it. there's a feeling that there was a wind at his back. at that point, he wanted to do as much as he possibly could that might have been a bad tragedy -- strategy. a new president always loses seats in the midterm election and he was probably -- he will probably lose more regardless of its popularity. the democrats took over states that were really a republican seat. i think there was this urgency to do things that under other

circumstances a president would not attempt so much so fast breakt. guest: he will not have his own coattails. to run on in congress. guest: the sense that health care was his big issue in the campaign and he inherited the economy as well and a sense that if he did not do it now, he could not do it. the problems he had been doing it are very interesting. he should have known better, in some ways. part of it was the fact that there were already writing his obituary in the republican party. he did not realize how very good they were in opposition. he saw that process last summer when they created all of the tea party situation.

and yet to come back in the fall and give a speech before the joint session to put this thing back on track. host: steven hess has been a fellow at brookings and served in the eisenhower and nixon administration and was a former adviser to presidents ford and carter. he has been here in washington covering politics and congress in the white house since 1964. i want to take both of you back to early 1965 and a speech that lyndon johnson developed at john hopkins university. president obama read this before he gave his speech at west point and whether there are comparisons to afghanistan and iraq today. >> vietnam is far away from this campus. we have now territory there nor to receive any. the war is dirty and brutal and

difficult and some 400 young man born into an america that is bursting with opportunity and promised have ended their lives on the vietnamese esteeming soil. why must we take the painful road? why must this nation hazard if he's an interest and its power -- it's ease and interest and its power for a people far away. we fight because we must fight. if we are to live in a world where every country can shape its own destiny and only in such a world will our own freedom be finally secure. this kind of a world will never be built by bombs or bullets. the infirmities of man are such

that force must often precede reason and the waste of war in the works of peace. host: the fact of dealing with the world as it is from president johnson in 1965 and president obama 2009? guest: it was very similar it was the assumption of why this war and what it was based on current at that time, of vietnam was a domino in that theory. afghanistan may be much more vital to our interests than vietnam never was simply because we have a terrorist situation. and a haven for terrorism that has to be dealt with and perhaps if we had dealt with that

instead of going to iraq which might have been better off. they are similar speeches and they are right in both ways. i am not sure i agree with lyndon johnson at that time, either. many people did, obviously host: new york city is next on caller: thank-you for cspan pub. . i look of the lack of cooperation on the health care bill from republicans. this is driving up the cost of the bill, especially for the moderate republicans. it was a republican motion to be able to buy across state lines it was not included in in this health care bill. because of the bill -- because of the bill has risen -- the cost of the bill has risen especially picking up medicaid.

by one point is the lack of our cooperation on the part of republicans. they have shown their devotion to this country and the citizens of this country by participating and helping reduce the cost of the bill and lastly, the notion of lowering the age of medicare to 55 years old for a way by in. i pay $500 per month for my health care. i used $500 per year. i will be 55 in a few years. there must be millions and millions of people out there like me that would never even use the amount of the premiums. republicans often argue that this medicare by enuy-in -- thee are millions of people who could pay and regular premiums and not withdraw that amount from the system at the same time.

guest: the first point has to do with the question of cooperation and a complex that is going on. you should always start with the assumption that the two parties disagreed. . there were distinct ideological differences between the republicans and democrats. the question is how sincere the president was to reach across the aisle and have something he had promoted in his campaign as bipartisanship. i tend to think he was sincere. picking robert gates of the secretary of defense reflect -- did not reflect bipartisanship as such. picking la hood as the secretary of transportation, that is the

bipartisanship that every president does. when he went after judd greg for secretary of commerce who for religious agree with them, we thought this guy was stupid or he mean something about bipartisanship. i think gregg was smart to withdraw from that. at the same time, the republicans realize that their best chance of getting n opposition. the failure of the president is the best news they have. it is a hard thing to say because they do not want the country fell but the one obama to fail. they were very strong opposition. the idea of not having one vote on the stimulus bill on the house side is really quite amazing in a body of 435. they were quite united to see this kicking game down. -- this thing came down.

host: there is a viewer that is disappointed in his presidency. guest: i guess you have to know why. republicans have for years of practicing being in the opposition and they are very good at it when it went to big. how they held the party line so dramatically is beyond my comprehension. they do have some moderates and they're not all conservative and they are not all the same page but the work in this case. host: we interviewed the president and we asked whether he had time to contemplate the issues he is dealing with. >> try to make time during the course of the dead. usually, i have some desk time where i can review materials that i think are important for decisions i will have to make later in the day.

i tend to be a night owl. after i have had dinner with the family and talk to the girls in, i have a big stack of stuff i take up to the residents and i will typically stay up until midnight going over stop. sometimes i pushed the stock aside and try to do some writing and focus on not the immediate issue in front of me but some of the issues that are coming down the pike that we need to be thinking about. host: time for president to think? guest: one of the most interesting things i see and this president is i think he is the first intellectual that we have had as president since woodrow wilson. our presidents are always quite bright people but he is an intellectual. the way he dealt with coming around to what was supposed to be his position on afghanistan

was an example of that. people said he was delivering but this was a massive decision. he took his time and examine every facet. no question about it, thinking it is interesting about what he said about his own habits print host: scott hill, va., looking into the president's first year in office. good morning. caller: as a 3.5 year veteran in southeast asia, 2.5 was in the medical corps, my contribution to this discussion has not changed since lyndon johnson. i would ask each gentleman one definition of peace -- hubris and egalitarianism, please. guest: you mean the degree to which that determines

presidents? let's face it, they all come in with hubris. you do not get there without it. they were all the presidents of their first grade class and had been running for something evers' as per the ones who were not wereut the ones i like the most would have been harry truman, dwight eisenhower, and jerry ford who were there almost by accident the others, sure, they have to have self- confidence to go through this tremendous obstacle course to get there. guest: you wonder why anybody would want to put themselves through that but there is something we've to say that there is a fire in your belly and if you haven't you run and you don't you don't. most of them do have. lyndon johnson as a poor example. back i want it so that he could taste it. -- that god wanted it so that he could taste it.

obama did not have a lot of experience when it can into this job. from a practical and political standpoint. i agree and disagree on the intellectual point about him. he suddenly got that whether the speech before the gridiron club line him up and everybody thought he was pretty good. he was a political accident when you think about what happened in chicago was that the guy self destruct did, the republican leader in that race and a broaay brought in obama. guest: i was there at that speech and it was the first time i met him. i came back and i told my wife that i had never seen a man work through the way he did.

she said," better than bill clinton?" host: if cameras were able to be inside the gridiron club, we could show that. we will not give up. guescaller: i would like to focs on the economy. in order for the president to get the economy moving, we had to stabilize the if you have a job, where will you cash your check? we had to stabilize the banks. the next thing he is trying to do his health care which is 1/6 of the economy. that is a lot of money to give these people some kind of public

option where they could afford it. that is a lot of money that businesses would not have to peg. ay. although we don't have health care where we want, we have to go to jobs now. a sensible progression that i think the president and his administration talk and it is putting us on sound footing for the future where we might be able to get out of the situation we are in. guest: i agree with you. the problem is, i don't know how much is left from washington's point of view to do anything on second jobs bill. the president can to brookings a month ago and he laid out the things he was doing and i didn't think they amounted to much. of course, we have to%n contine the people who are running out of unemployment or health benefits. he had a little bit of home ownership and a little bit for

ending. there may not be an awful lot especially if you are trying not to break the bank that he can do. that is what worries me a little. he wants to do but what will he do that will make that much difference? it may well be that things are moving along and if he sticks with it, we will be fine. they told us the recession was over long ago. guest: a lot of this is the expanse. we are $12 trillion in debt? what do you do about all that? i have no faith in figures that say we will spend $870 billion over 10 years for this health care plan. any of us who had anything to do

with medicare in 1965 when we covered that, the figures were wrong and 100% wrong they're not unrealistic. about the projections about what this would ultimately cost. if anything will drive toward bankruptcy, it will be that. i don't think they made enough effort to cut costs. i have a problem there with the amount of money and i am worried about it. we all are worried about. host: here is another twitter comment. we will go to carl in new augusta, mississippi, on the republican line. caller: thank you for cspan and thank you for taking my call.

you both are educated man. en. when people talk about the president getting the deficit that he inherited, don't you think some of that was greeted by the wall street moneyman and some of the big people that supported him like google and berkshire hathaway and now they have more money than what they know what to do with? guest: [laughter] guest: i like when people talk about the edge -- as an educated man. this coming year in washington will be a big anti-wall street year. the next thing that has to be done is a serious financial regulations bill. the lobbyists on wall street are spending millions, hundreds of millions of dollars on lobbying. we will see what that produces. if this congress which is still

a comfortable majority for the democrats with a democratic president cannot produce a serious bill on financial regulation, frankly, i wonder if they deserve to return by the end of the year. guest: i agree with that one of%. all the derivatives and everything that has been going on that brought all this about, the horrible situation in the mortgage industry, it needs an oversight that has not been achieved. guest: people were really upset they agree with some of our speakers that the banks have to be put back in shape than they are put back in shape and these folks who are taking their big bonuses, the money that we gave them as taxpayers, that is something that is very easy to

explain. you can be sure that there will be many folks in washington, barney frank leading the brigade, trying to deal with that question. host: we will talk about the 2010 elections but you seem to indicate that the republicans could take back the house or the senate? guest: no, i really don't think it will per there's almost no chance of taking back the senate. only 1/3 are up in a separate -- in the senate. i think it is almost impossible for the republicans to gain control it might happen in the house but it would be a stretch. there are 40 secret i don't suspect that would happen but you have a great folks coming next week to tell you about it. guest: in 1966, after the

midterm election, i think it was 50 seats that republicans got back after that huge lyndon johnson landslide in 1964. they swept a lot of guys in and swept and out quickly. guest: these things can happen but it is unusual call. caller: i am sitting down and listening to these two brilliant gentlemen. i have been watching c-span for the longest time. i5 voted for mr. clinton.

i voted for mr. obama, as well. i don't understand why mr. bush was in office. all assigning and mr. bush goes to iraq. [unintelligible] obama is trying to do the best. these republicans really said in office and criticized what mr. obama is doing. host: that is a sentiment we have heard from democrats looking back at what this president inherited and how president george w. beadle -- bush is viewed in this country

and around washington guest: he will be remembered very fondly eventually. he is remembered primarily because of the decision of going into iraq. we shall see what the final line is. he corrected it in terms of the search. we hope the next president will get us out in an orderly way. we forget the importance of iraq in the explosive situation. there may be dissertations written 20 years from now that say it was painful to live through it and it cost american lives and certainly iraqi laws but maybe it was worth it. i think we can afford to be generous. there is no reason not to be. we will see how history plays out for george w. bush.

host: the former president has given a couple of speeches off camera. he announced the bush center in dallas. guest: i don't think he wants to stick his oar in this. i don't know why that is. host: his vice president has been very vocal. guest: that is a different story altogether. in the last part of his last term when he took over his own future, took over his own presidency, did better. what he did was where lyndon johnson made the same mistake and that was not naming his own cabinet immediately. that led him into some very bad things. in this case, his daddy's people did not serve him well at times

and he should have -- i am sure he was capable but knowing that would have helped them. i think maybe he will come out better than and that is frequently the case when history has a chance to ponder this a little bit. host: look at harry truman. guest: uc eisenhower come up in the polls. time will take its course for george w. bush. host: there is more conversation had twitter.com2wj. twitter.com/cspan.org.

caller: the war in israel has cost over $1 million and obamas in japan during with the sanctions. guest: i don't have a crystal ball. i have no insight into that. i think it is a president who has tried to put the two-state negotiations back on track. he has had problems as previous presidents have had. there seems to be unusual things going on in the netanyahu government that i don't understand very i would not carry that 32 i rthrough with i. guest: i think iran has its own problems politically. netanyahu -- this of rioting and

demonstrations that killed four people - over the weekend, he will have his own problems. host: many people think that israel is about to attack a run. -- iran. guest: if you back them against the wall, they will take out iran. i believe that is the case. i don't think they would use nuclear weapons but i don't think that they can't sit still parl. i think obama may have a heck of a time controlling is real in this case host: you are setting an air strike could take out iran's nuclear capability?

guest: i am not that smart to know whether that happens. host: jacksonville, florida, good morning. caller: good morning cspan. let me give you an idea about my view about the tourist business. -- terrorist business. it is an ideology. does not got laws or explosive, it is an ideology failure to realize that we must combat the ideology is the reason that we are -- are chasing our tail as far as the islamic militant movement. if the united states failed to instruct the imams in the united states to curb their interests in stoking that fire and preaching hate , we will

continue to chasing our tail. the doctor in texas that gave information that penetrates and contaminates the brains of young people must be stopped. that is the only thing. you cannot bomb them. you have to correct the continuous, poisonous dk brain. host: did you want to response? guest: good luck on that. you have an internet that looks all the people together and that is basic. they are getting information from light thinkers all over the world. they put this together and suddenly you have these individuals who are out there and they are freelances, a lot of them. i don't know how you change the focus. i don't think all the imams,

many of the moderate ones are scared to death of what is happening. host: oslo, norway, as the president accepted the peace prize, he talked about this being a just war. we heard from president johnson 1965 and this is president obama a few weeks ago. >> i do not bring with me today the 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 decades ago. it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war 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 the nation's, acting individually or in concert, will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified. host: when you look at his first year in office, was that speech a defining moment? guest: i thought that was a great speech. it was a magnificent speech. i am glad we had a president who was capable of making that space. there was an iron age in in going there to -- there is an irony in going there to accept a peace prize. i thought he handled that very well. cohis problem with afghanistan s tricky. that was a campaign pledge. all these people who are now on

the left, were they not listening when he said that? did he expect him to come into office and say he was teasing? he did that for very specific reasons. that was because he was the anti-iraq candidate for the democratic nomination. he had to distinguish himself in that way and the democrat was supposed to be less robust and national security. he put forth afghanistan and you could say he was stuck with he worked out a program which i think was as clever as he could do which was to talk in and out as fast as you can. whether into that or not, i don't know. there are an awful lot of americans even from his own party who were very upset by that. host: stephen hess, dan thimlinson, good morning from

our democrats line. caller: i give the president and "a" for everything he has done this year. i am amazed as to how all this stuff going on brees of the worst and some people. his amazing that they have been able to convince a lot of people that the president is not working on the behalf of american people. this is especially true in health care per they have convinced people that we don't need universal health care. if the people would stop and think, the critics are multi millionaires it would not need assistance. if people take their words and listen and they don't give a lot of thought to what they are saying.

host: your response to the cable chatter? guest: a lot of it is shtick and i believe that -- fox does some things well and it does other things that will make people angry. nevertheless, people are watching i will not jump in on fox. host: this pure says -- will health care reform affect 2010? guest: models like, perhaps -- modestly perhaps. they left as a matter for the ride is unhappy depending on who the president is part of alternately, along comes an election and the look of the

opposition compared to home and realize that some of them should serve home -- stay on but no one's which is over and vote for the other side. the previous question of fox -- there was an area where we had three stations and we were watching this and agreed as soon as we got cable, it became niche. everybody could find somebody to agree with them. they have a big audience that they are all people agree with fox. i don't think that conversion is very significant in that regard. i think the president and his staff made a mistake in going after fox. i am sorry they did that but i agree that there will allow it to be a fox. guest: we have a saying about not getting in a match with a guy who buys ink by the barrel.

the cable television networks, you cannot win. host: he set a real leader would have reduced the peace prize. guest: what an insult that would have been. he did not apply for it. it was not like applying to or law school. they give it to him and he was as surprised as anybody else. he said all the appropriate things in terms of his worthiness and he would live up to avert what good would it have done? it showed that a large number of people and the rest of the world thought well of him and thought well of the american people for electing him. what good would have been to reduce it and not have the opportunity to make the speech he made in accepting it. host: with regard to fox, do either of you tweet? guest: know, what is that?

host: from san juan, puerto rico, good morning. are you with us? caller: good morning. i remember that during the election, it was important for cnn and the liberal media to find obama bin laden. -- osama bin laden. they don't ask any more where he is. host: does it matter? guest: i don't think so. guest: we know the enemy is. caller: i have a comment on

president obama and his presidency so far. i feel he has done an excellent job for the problem he stepped into. this is not a criticism to president bush but i do feel that president obama is a peacemaker. i think that is something that we have fallen short of in this country as we argued throughout the world. i have been too many countries and, as americans, we used to be viewed quite highly in the world. our status has dropped. i am a word about our status but i think we have a man of his right now who has finally realized that we need to make peace in the world before we are allowed to make any kind of economic move ahead in our own country and move ahead educationally. the reason that i feel this -- it is leckie businessman or a supervisor in the business.

their country hate them or their people hate them and will not support them. we get the support of the world -- we get the support of the world to a man who is sincere and trying to make peace. i don't think we will move ahead as a country because i think we have lost sight of who we are as a country. i feel that president barack obama very much deserved the nobel peace prize. i think he has done incredibly in his first year and the has a long way to go but we need to support them. i feel that he is trying to make peace for the world. i think that is the shortcoming that people don't look at. that is very much his strong point. i feel we finally have a president who is stepping up to the plate and does not just of his own agenda of who he is. i believe he is looking out for us and the world as a whole. thank you very much. host: thank you. guest: i think the world was very sympathetic after 9/11 and

will probably change that or began to change that was a wreck. -- iraq and with went on there. we should have spent more time on afghanistan. people looked at obama and said he was too good an actor. that was the image we were portraying. there was no unilateralism. there was no bilateral as an. it cost us dearly. i don't know about the europeans. i agree with you to some extent of the nobel peace prize except they're being very political

about that. there's no question about it. they're pushing the european point of view of america and there you go. host: please ask your guest how the president can get away with blaming president bush and fox news for his mistakes. guest: in one area, i think he was decidedly on generous -- un generous. and the search was successful and he shall recognize that. the nobel peace prize -- there is no question that just as they gave the nobel peace prize to jimmy carter as a slap at george bush, they're taking another

slap at him in this case. that is clearly recognized. host: our guests are guestshess and david tomlinson. caller: i have a question about financial regulation. the significant thing is what is not being discussed curren. the first thing to do would be to return to the situation before clinton, commercial banks and investment banks were separated. i think the lure being able to invest mortgage money in financial bets is overwhelming. we have the people who have the

character they have run the banking industry decided to do that. the banks were too large to fail. they had to be bailed out at public expense. the obvious answer to that is to break them up. you have the free enterprise system and different banks would compete. they would make better decisions and prosper and the ones that made poor decisions would fail. guest: in december, 1967, richard nixon was giving his first interview on public television. i came to the station and was

asked to comment on that. i told myself that i would not say anything that that i do not know. it is easy to do. the first question came in and i said i do not know that. by the third question, somebody in providence, rhode island, accused me of not being an expert your way out of my pay scale on this one for it i don't know anything about the difference between commercial banks and breaking up banks. i pass on that i can pass it on, if you wish, to the economist at brookings. i always tell them that if they are so smart, why are they not rich? host: a bill that passed the house and is sent to the senate about regulating the plan met -- the banks? guest: that's right and something has to pass because you cannot leave the house out

there by itself. ., exposed. the senate will have to deal with it and it involves a consumer board in this regard. there are other things that have to do with these questions about derivatives. i listened to some of the things my economist friends tell me at brookings and i am shocked at the money that is being made without any utility to the united states. we knew what wal-mart makes the gross domestic product of service has gone as skyrocketed. what is being contributed for the extra 5% that we are making? we really deserve to have some hard answers to this. i do back to my excuse of simply

not knowing enough. i think we will see what happens and we will bend judge on how both parties respond to the bill in the senate. host: the tea has been cleaned up so you can continue. [laughter] guest: lyndon johnson wanted a one armed economist f. i understand why. how many americans can understand the complexities of this nightmare, i don't. somebody has to be -- the federal government did not do its job at several levels imputing the securities and exchange commission. somebody has to be doing the best and someone has to know what is going on. these guys can come up with a thousand different ways of beating the system.

they can give us an exotic packages that are nightmares for everybody. how'd you do that? you have to have somebody to oversee it. what comes to mind is joe kennedy who said the reason that franklin roosevelt picked him is because he knew how to beat the system and he could write regulations and we need somebody like that host: charlotte, south carolina, independent line. caller: i am enjoying the conversation. the obvious reason that george bush is not on the lecture circuit is because he has adopted top issues already. [laughter] -- dodged enough shoes already. i think he has done a great regard in the economy. guest: obama has worked at it

very hard. that is what counts. i don't think the other guy worked as should as he shhave. when you look at the expense of these two guys, they are not dissimilar. george bush was a governor for a state for a while and obama has been a center for a short time they are really very much the same peri. george bush had his father's example to follow. there were some notions that got him into problems. host: during binocular -- during the inauguration address, he talked about policies.

>> this is the journey we continue to de. we remain the most prosperous, powerful nation on earth rid our workers are less productive than when this crisis began. our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services are no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year. our capacity remains undiminished but our time of standing pat of protecting our interests and putting up unpleasant decisions, that time has surely past. starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking america. host: have his policies mirrored his words? guest: that was the inaugural address. was not a state of the union address. it was not full of specifics.

rarely do you find that in an inaugural address. i think harry truman did something like that but he is the only one i think a pretty was a moving address and it was appropriate for the moment. i watched it from the top of the canadian embassy which overlook that and i was moved by that ceremony. someone else talked about whether we were up to the great expectations. we did have great expectations at that moment and that tends to be the way it is with president grs. they are never as popular as the day they are inaugurated and becomes like an hourglass with the sand running out of the presidency. i think he has done pretty well for the first year, given what he inherited.

i could imagine it being better. everyone of us could. i would like to give him as high a mark as i am capable of. i started by giving him an incomplete but there is still time to fill the blank. host: final word? guest: i believe he has done about as well as can be expected. all those cynics who have been around your long time looked at the speech and said that was wonderful, it was glorious and i agree with all these wonderful sentiments. on the other hand, it will be a tough coach to do what he wants to do. pretty much, i agree with a

steve on this.