jenkins on "washington journal." "washington journal" is next. . .

you can always reach us by e- mail. we will get to all of that in just a moment. first, front-page in "the financial times." package is still large despite lower comp ratio, a political furor and public anger. a similar headline in "the wall street journal." a little bit of this article -- blue line

i will read you more of that article this morning in "the wall street journal" and other reports, too. but christina romer was on "state of the union" and other sunday talk shows and talk about the issue of bonuses and here is what she had to say. >> we have had to take extraordinary actions to rescue the financial system. we always did it because that is what had to be done for the american people. nobody wanted to bail out banks just for their sake. it is because we know that credit is the lifeblood of a modern economy and without it, families cannot get loans for cars or send their kids to schools and small businesses cannot get loans. we know the financial sector

matters. but at the same time we had to take these extraordinary actions. you would certainly think financial institutions that are doing better would have some sense. this big bonus season, of course, would offend the american people. it offends me. host: christina rumor yesterday on "state of the union." here is a " n "the financial times" from in the stern -- here is a quote in "the financial times" from andy stern. so, are wall street bonuses to generous? fernando on the democrats' line. caller: they are too generous. and something needs to be done about this.

hello, i can't hear you. host: i can hear you just fine, larry, go ahead. caller: they are too generous and something needs to be done. this is a rip-off. host: let's go to new york and jill -- or i should say bill on our independent line. caller: they are entirely too generous. the whole thing is this system, the federal reserve system, it is a private cartel with the bankers to print their own money. if you owned a printing press and you could print as much as you wanted to, we would all be billionaires. we've got to get back to where our congress controls the money and prince money. we have to nationalize the federal reserve. why borrow money from bankers who charged the american people the principal and interest.

it is totally insane. since 1913, america has been just ripped off by this entire system. this has got to stop. that is why we need men like ron paul or jim traffic can't or somebody to put a stop to this once and for all -- jim traficant. host: south carolina, fred on our democrats line. caller: i don't understand why this administration or anyone can make a comment about this because when it was little timmy tax cheat geithner who made the rules to make sure his buddies on wall street were taken care of. host: on tim geithner, the report that representative beryl issa from california sunday night lashed out at the federal reserve bank of new york by limits -- for lifting the

disclosure during the bailout of american international group. it showed the new dark said it aims to limit exposure of tens of million dollars of payments related to derivatives transactions. timothy geithner, who was head of the new york fed at the time has come under scrutiny. one of the most controversial parts of the government bailout effort. the indianapolis, good morning to jeff. caller: i and a stampede a lot of said of the bonuses but what people understand, what happens is a person get a salary and bonus as part of their compensation. all it is, is in a person contract. in order for the federal government to try to do something about this, they will have to break an already negotiated contract that has been negotiated with the employees, and then you get into

a constitutional issue of contract law. people can be upset all they want to about these bonuses, but most of them are contract to employees to work on wall street and right now since most of the banks paid their tarp money back, there is nothing the book and say about it. people can be upset about it all they want to but there is nothing anyone can do at this point. host: what about the role -- hang on the line for a second. i will read a little bit about an article, the business day section of " the new york times." one company winning employees to donate part to charity. what do you think of that effort? caller: that is pretty good.

but if you already have a negotiated contract, for me, the only way you could really change that is by agreement of the employee. he has to say, fine, i will go along with it. if you have a contract you have to pay that person or else have a lawsuit. host: houston, texas. john on the republican line. caller: my comment is, the question is whether wall street bonuses are too generous. it leads me to question -- do sports figures make too much money? does tiger woods make too much money? to make, this is dangerous, this is the government telling people how much money they can make. aside from, if there is criminal activity involved, i did not think there -- it is any of the government's business.

host: thank you for your comments. back to the front-page article in " the wall street journal." -- in a "the wall street journal." some say the shift to stock could leave them short of cash because stocks come with restrictions on how quickly it can be sold and some people plan their household budgets around a bonus expectations, they may need the cash to cover mortgages, school tuition, and other expenses. next is indianapolis. good morning to david on our independent line. caller: i have listened and i was compelled to call because an earlier caller talked about reforming things, you need to get people like james traficant in there, but he was recently

paroled for bribery or whatever. it is just that kind of type of ideology and activity that got us where we are. all of the kickbacks and things. the last thing -- person would need to regulate would be someone like that. he may be a gifted and a lot of and arenas, but you don't take a convicted felon for breeze and put him in charge of bonuses for people. -- felon for bribery and put in charge. once people were given this money -- under the obama administration, with a stipulation to have to pay it back, people don't realize that was an investment on behalf of the american people to keep the institutions alive and they paid it back at this time. host: so, david, how much say so and the u.s. government have in bonuses after the fact some of these firms paid back their government loans?

caller: they shouldn't have anything to say as long as they are not benefiting from getting bailed out from the government. but for those who did not pay back their loans and still get money from the government, then, of course, they should have some say so and the dollar amount should be according to what the total piece of the pie. host: thanks for the call. he mentioned the former congressman jim traficant recently released from jail. 25 ethics inquiries in 2009, one senator admonish. the article this morning --

here is grand rapids, michigan, on the republican line. douglas. caller: no, i don't think they should take the bonuses away from the ceo's and the executives of wall street. but i will say they have made a lot of those gains with ill- conceived means, in my opinion. in 1978 china decided to let sen a private business have a shot, and that that time that was kind of a shock to the world -- semi-private businesses. some had an opportunity to make a lot of money, but at our expense. so, they make a lot of money while we lose jobs and now we

are pistol they are making a lot of money. the means of the making money is the problem, not the money itself that they earned. we have to take the means and get production back in our country and other industrialized nations so we have a consumer base that would buy things again. host: chicago, doris on the democrats' line. caller: yes, the bonuses are much too big when you are looking at what is happening in the country. i don't begrudge people bonuses. bonuses are a good thing. they are incentives. but, along with wall street, you work and you send us into a deep recession, why are they getting bonuses? there is agreed the wing on. those of us on the left, we are not marching to overthrow the president or the government.

we are working to overthrow the big banks on wall street. we have any -- we have buy american. we are telling people to take their money out of those banks, put them in community banks and credit unions. host: have you done that? caller: we have banked with a credit union for decades because my husband works for the state. but those are the banks to invest in the neighborhoods, they invest in small businesses. also, we have buy american for clothing. allamericanclothing.com -- this guy makes all american cloaks, all american workers and sells it -- all-american clothes. people need to go to the

website. host: thank you for the suggestions. about half an hour or more for your phone calls. arkansas wall street bonuses today? here's an e-mailer. new bern, north carolina, fred on our gop line. caller: i guess i'm a little confused. the question seems to be, does of the federal government have a right to impose a limit on compensation in a private business. if that is the question, this question -- the government does not run private businesses. that is the difference between a private business and a public institution. on what basis is there any right

at all? it is the same discussion. where does the government ever have the right, and should they invent this right to control compensation in a private business? where? just invent this the right? if someone gives you $1,000 to help you survive some economic turndown in your life, and you paid them back, what they have a right to tell you what kind of car to drive or what kind of vacation to take? did the government buy the souls of these companies? do hat -- do they have control over the internal decisions? that is what a bonuses, decisions that people made inside the company on how they should be compensated. host: weepers -- appreciate the

callers this morning precipitated by comments by christina rona. "the wall street journal" this morning says -- here is a comment from twitter.com -- long beach, california, good morning to peggy on our independent line. caller: i was listening to it nbc nightly news and he was talking about the bonuses -- tens of millions of dollars. also a segment on the deepening foreclosure crisis. also in that report there were talking about maybe the banks to do not want to write down principal, whether they would be

allowed to write that down if they are reimbursed by the taxpayer, which means i am paying for my house and my neighbor's house that could not afford it. i got back from the u.k. and i was listening to a financial show, and they had a young trader in the city and he had his back to the camera and was saying he expected and anticipated riots either in new york city, paris, one london from irate people and is never came but they anticipated that and also he said it a tax us 50 percent, as in london, we don't mind it for a year but if my colleagues have to do it for five years we will dig in our heels and fight that. to be honest, i think they do realize there is a lot of fury at them and they need to show a little bit of common sense when a lot of them have been helped by our government. they need to show the common sense that this will not happen again. i think they are compensated too

well at the moment, at the moment. thank you so much. host: the comments earlier from the union chief. "the financial times" has an article about financial regulation. union boss loses patience. he will pressure, the spring, come what may. new york. good morning, alice. republican line. caller: i know everybody is out raised about these bonuses, but why aren't they outraged for bonuses for freddie mac and fannie mae? they are getting large bonuses, too. and they are giving them more money. i just don't understand the reasoning. host: i think we did address

that as a "washington journal" issue when that came up a mo thank you. host: "los angeles times," harry reid's remarks threatened to change his game. from the politico -- reid holds his ground. georgette, and we go to the georgia -- georgia, we go to ray. caller: corporate profits are created by capital and labor.

everybody would be upset if we took profits of capital and gave it to workers. but it is equally wrong to take the profits created by labor and give them to the capitalists. what we need is a national profit sharing program where corporate profits created by capital are paid to the stockholders and corporate profits created by labor are paid to the workers. right now the bonuses are paid to the -- bonuses paid to the ceo's are created by labor. workers do not share in the profits they create. we did our wages and then the federal tax system takes 50% of our wages -- we get our wages. workers get 50% of what we earn and the ceo's get 100% of the profits created by labor and given to the stockholders.

what we really need is a national profit-sharing program where at least some of the profits created by the workers are paid to workers. and the rest of it, you can give it to the bonuses and the bosses. right now the bonuses are made up by the profits created by the workers and laborers. my name is ray and i will attempt to run for united states congress in georgia. host: what district? caller: well, it will be statewide. in 1994 i ran in the first district. host: "the wall street journal ," it back to the lead article.

morristown, new jersey, the republican line. caller: my wife worked in wall street for years. one of the things i find very interesting about -- everybody's basic comments about the bonuses is, while the ceo's may make a fair amount of money in bonuses and compensation, the reality is that the common people who work for these companies do not make this kind of money and as one of the previous callers indicated, it tends to be you rely on your bonus in order to get you through the year. we've made very little money back then and when you live in a metropolitan area like new york or even washington on los angeles, every little bit makes a big difference. people ae not making huge amounts of money. just enough basically to pay the bills and get by. you get to the center of the country, where a lot of irate people are calling from, you

have to look at it in context. host: there was a piece we read earlier that a lot of people count on the bonuses, the gear that into budget planning. was that the case for you and your wife? caller: my wife and i were very conservative financially, so we just prayed we got lucky enough to get a decent bonus. but unfortunately a lot of people to actually rely on that. everybody is having times, don't get me wrong. çnot everybody is out there making a ton of cash. the only thing keeping people at companies like aig and so what is the fact they might -- might see a little bit moreç money because they are taking a huge risk keeping these jobs. host: christina rover yesterday with john king talking about bonuses. she was also talking about the recent unemployment numbers that came out friday. she was on this week with george stephanopoulos.

>> the sense that we need to do more is overwhelming. we know there are things that have been working in the recovery act that are expiring, like some of the provisions for longer unemployment benefits. some of the state fiscal relief, that will be critically important to make sure we keep making progress. the president also talked about, there are some smaller, target things we think will generally move the dial. tax incentives for small businesses to hire, or of the so-called cash for caulkers that could jump-start energy retrofitting. and the president just announced tax credits for clean energy manufacturing, saying we want to do $5 billion more. host: oakland, california, independent. what about the size of wall street bonuses? caller: i think so. i wanted to make a couple of points about earlier calls.

the mid-level employees -- nobody is talking about taking away bonuses from mid-level employees. the second point i wanted to make is the companies that paid the government back, but the reason they were able to pay them back is because we bail them out from aig and they took the money from aig and pay us back with it, so they paid us back with our own money. my main point is to say we ought to do what the british did, which is to tax the dickens out of those big bonuses host: -- big bonuses. host: thank you for your call. secretary of state hillary clinton getting set for a trip to asia. her trip gets underway today. to portland we go, alex, good

morning, on the republican line. caller: thank you for c-span. i just want to say of course the bonuses are too generous. the government should not be giving subsidies for bonuses or any kind of money to any company. this country has been having problems since we instituted the federal reserve in 1913, charter totally -- there were three members of congress and the house when it was passed. it was passed during the week of christmas. the only reason why it was passed was because woodrow wilson took campaign funds before he was knowledgeable about what he wasçç doing, frm the people whoç instituted the federal reserve. it is a private multinational corporation of owners like rockefeller, rothschild -- all

of these people are the people funding both sides of every war wet( have had since world war i rockefeller himself made $400 billion in today's money off of world war içç alone. host: who did you say made the money? caller: david rockefeller himself made $400 billion offer of world war i himself, in today's money. the dollar is 4 cents -- it is equal to 4 cents of what it was in 1913 when the federal reserve was instituted. [it took 20 years for them to bankrupt this country. çhost: alex, i will let you go, it is off topic. talking about the bonus is paid to wall street executives and the comments yesterday by christina rover, the president's economic adviser -- christina

ççromer who said she was embarrassed by some of the numbers from wall street. twitter -- kansas, democratic line. nancy, go ahead. caller: who doesn't deserve it? political operatives up from çdemocratsç -- çclinton's pol hack rocked out of thin made with $40 million. the african american -- black senator from d.c. said he deserved it and he walked out with $120 million. i would want -- much rather pay

wall street who help to this country for decades and decades, and everybody wants to make wall street the bad guys. the people who ruined our economy were chris dodd and barney frank and now you know -- i do documents all day long. host: china surpassed germany as the world's top exporter. they write in "the washington post" this morning --

st. cloud, minnesota. go ahead with your call. caller: i always wonder if our comments make a difference, the people here, because of the wall street and those invisible hand to control our economy play with us through the media even though main street is suffering all the time. what i'm wondering is people need to understand and learn it, -- and learn, because we are too busy to survive, going to work and school and trying to live, the excess to busy to understand the real situation happening on wall street. i advise people to learn and talk about this more often so they can understand the problems we are facing as a nation.

host: fayetteville, north carolina. run on the republican line. caller: congress is like parents -- pimps, giving the investment banks billions of dollars and in return they get donations and they do the same thing to lawyers. you need to bring them into the equation, because they give lawyers hundreds of millions of dollars for asbestos, and to go and find people that have asbestos and a lawyer's got all the money. -- and the lawyers got all the money. just like tobacco. thank you. host: front-page of the money and investing section of "the wall street journal." now and view, california, bob on

the democrats' line -- milton view. caller: i don't see with the bonuses have to do with anything. stock market was 3500 when bill clinton came to office and he turned it over to george bush, 10,500, end 10,500 before the crash. the problem did not have anything to do with wall street but it was the economics of the last 10 years of this administration. the final crash, what did that have to do with wall street? you had no real income, no real income by the statistics compared to bill clinton. in 2004 the president said we can just run things on the real- estate industry, that is what -- he specifically said that and he encouraged them to land, he encouraged wall street to finance the nothing down bonds -- he encouraged them to lend.

we were in the war, that was the idea. w3it was a real patriotic duty, that was the idea. and now they are being chastised for an economy that was goingç nowhere, leading 11- lithium crystals, the real- estate industry and a half to give up their bonuses because they were responsible? tax cuts, instead of going to the people who spend it, 75%, you have it going to the top 10% which is don't spend their money and they invested. host: in about 10 minutes we turn to terrorism, particularly homegrown terrorism. a couple of interesting articles about guantanamo. this one from "the new york times."

"the new york times" report to this will be shown tuesday on the[ç bbc america channel. the former army sergeant and guantanamot( detainees. thisç from "the miami herald."

i believe if you go on the website you may be able to take a look at those photos. to new york's city -- excuse me, oklahoma city, scott on the republican line. go ahead. caller: i enjoy your show very much. i was going to provide a little perspective i have not heard yet. you were talking about whether or not bonuses or certain amounts were right or wrong. well, in a free market, it isn't really -- i don't have any power to justify or bless any compensation given to a private individual if i'm not a stockholder in that company. if i'm a stockholder, yes, i have a voice for that. ççbut here we are talking abot

folks in it aig and other agencies unconstitutionally bailed out by the government. it is always a moral for taxpayers to be forced to pay for compensation for a private individual or private company. that is fascism. and of the differences between fascism and private enterprise. -- i know the differences. host: you mention stockholders. go back to the role of stockholders in determining bonuses. should that role be brought in? what else do you think stockholder should do? in many ways they benefit from a financial success of these companies who aren't bonuses -- of those who are and furnaces? caller: it is whether you get a bang for the buck.

if they were helping the company out, i would say it is just fine. it is just my personal opinion. it shouldn't matter what somebody is making, if their decisions are only affecting that company and not affecting taxpayers, it can be justified. if taxpayers are paying for, it is unconstitutional and immoral. host: it is the opening of the auto show in detroit, which is big news in detroit and nationally. the 2010 auto show opens with the spirit of optimism, less glitz and a focus on a first- friendly vehicles. workers prepare to unveil one of the autos at the show. open "the new york times" reports this morningç, lawmakes flying to detroit today, all

flying on commercial airlines to minimize expense and avoid the controversy after the automaker chief executives were berated for taking private jets to washington. there was a chance president obama would attend to see how chrysler and gm were fairing, but the white house spokeswoman said the president will not attend. w3dawn on our independent line. caller: good morning. i just wanted to comment on the wall street bonuses. i think a lot of people are approaching the issue with blinders on because they can't actually expect these big ceo's who are getting bonuses to accept that their pay is going to be cut and not pass it on to the workers, to the consumer. if a big ceo is going to take a pay cut, that is going to result in wage freezes, wage

reductions, benefit reductions, and loss of jobs. they are going to stop hiring. they are not simply going to sit back and take it. host: thank you for the call. stupak abortion curbs fit district, as we turn back to health care. the house comes back tomorrow. michigan democrat sites support at home. this is about bart stupak michigan. we covered late last week a town hall of bart stupak's from michigan. our cameras were there and we

will show it to you later in the coming days. michigan, georgia on our republican line. caller: i think they should just blame the buffoons in washington. these people when they get elected, somehow when they get out of office, they become multimillionaires. look at al gore, for example. for the poor and stuff like that -- it is a crock. host: a story about a city ordinance coming into effectç. seeks a 25% cut of salt.

georgetown, texas, next up. barbara on our democrats line. caller: thank you for taking my call. the executive branch's and congressional branches have proposals they put out about getting back from the big banks on wall street', unwinding these things instead of bailing them out, sounds like a good deal. charge them a fee,:ocharges and taxes on the big bonuses and no bailout. i think our government should look into the fact that all of these banks manage to fail at

the same time, which brought all of the pressure. they need to take more responsibility to follow up and see where this unwinding needs to take place gradually instead of a lot once. host: i want to show you the style section of "the washington post." former msnbc and fox host tucker carlson -- the headline of this piece. his new website, the daily caller. a look at the new website been put together by tucker carlson which debuts today. one more call -- carl from augusta, georgia. on the republican line.

caller: this is a dog and pony show. what they want to show the rest of the world is we are still the most wealthy nation, and we can still pay bonuses. the only reason why they are doing this is weekend borrow more money from china. to find out who is really getting bonuses and all the kind of stuff, all it is is a dog and pony show. we have to be the wealthiest nation and we've got more money than anything else, so it is not real. it is not real. host: thank you for your call. that was agusta, louisiana. i apologize. next we meet with brian michael jackson's -- brian michael jenkins from the rand corp. ratto talk about homegrown terrorism, after this.

>> i'm always concerned about the potential of the scene consequences, unintended consequences, of new regulations. regulations of any kind act as a tax. when you tax or regulate something, do tend to get less of it, you tend to diminish it. >> today, republican fcc commissioner robert mcdowell on efforts to create a national broadband plan, net neutrality

and the wireless industry. it o'clock p.m. eastern on c- span2 -- 8:00 eastern. >> a unique journey through the iconic homes of the three branches of government. c. the exquisite detail of the supreme court, go beyond the velvet ropes and public tours of the white house, america's most famous home, and explore the history, art, and architecture of the capital. american icons, a three disk dvd set, one of the many items available at c-span.org/store. now available, "abraham lincoln ," a great read for any history buff. a unique contemporary perspective from 56 scholars, journalists, and writers. from lincoln's early years to

rise to the white house. hardcover at your favorite bookseller and now digital audio available where downloads are sold. learn more at c-span.org/slink in book. >> "washington journal" continues. host: brian michael jenkins is a senior advisor at the rand corp., a former captain with army special forces and has testified numerous times on terrorism, international and homegrown terrorism. i want to start looking at 2009 with major hasan, and the somalis recruited from minnesota and those from northern virginia who went to pakistan and more recently flight 253, the alleged bomber. what does this say about recruitment from al qaeda and other radical groups both here

in the u.s. -- in the u.s. and abroad? guest: it continues to exhort followers toward violence worldwide. what has happened is the conflict we are currently in has really completely destroyed any notion that armies are made up of individuals from a single nationality under a single organization. you see individuals from all over the globe, d.c. the attempt on the northwest flight, from nigeria who received training in yemen, or we see young men in minnesota recruited to go off and fight in various jihadist friends in pakistan, iraq, and elsewhere. -- jihadist fronts. no distinctions between the front line and the home front and clearly makes no

distinctions between combatants and non-combatants. the battlefield is everywhere. host: in your riding you talk about the difference between recruitment and radicalization -- in your writing. guest: radicalization itself is not -- it just means been fervent in one's beliefs. it does not create any danger in itself. it is when one carries that believes further and attempts to implement, not through a political process, but through self recruitment into terrorist violence, that we become concerned about it. the issue is not radical views, the issue is the implementation of those radical views or the imposition of those radical views through terrorist

violence. host: we will get to phone calls and a moment. but want to take back to test of phony -- testimony you did before the house. this was three years ago. you were reported to say, in order to focus limited security resources, we must be able to employ a selective methods systems that fast-track identified travelers, the latest versions of computer assistant passenger screening. have any of these in your mind been fully implemented to your satisfaction? guest: not really. when it comes to aviation security we are still falling in a sense the early industrial age assembly line model. that is, except for those who receive a secondary search, we do exactly the same set of processes and procedures for every passenger boarding an airplane. the problem we face is that

passenger loads are increasing. the number of procedures that we have to take passengers through has increased since 9/11 -- taking off your shoes, no liquids, more hardware being deployed to the airports. the number of tsa screeners is not increasing, so at some point it breaks. unless we get a system that allows us to focus more on some and perhaps take some risks with other portions of the flying population, then in a sense we are simply going to see the system collapse. host: how did get around issue of not wanting to profile but wanting to identify potential threats before the come to the airport and at the airport? guest: when we talk about profiling in a securities sense, we are not talking in terms of racial or ethnic. putting aside constitutional concerns, that would be stupid.

terrorists have demonstrated that they can recruit individuals of any nationality -- there were people arrested in north carolina last year for being involved in terrorist activities whose hair was a blunder and eyes blue were then my own. -- hair was blonder and eyes more blue than my own. we are talking about patterns of travel, at the airport itself, patterns of behavior. to get a silly illustration -- if somebody walks into a building in the middle of august in washington, d.c., wearing a heavy overcoat, that is going to attract some attention and it should. host: prescott, arizona. good morning on the republican line. caller: good morning. my name is mark and i'm a

special forces soldier. i am very disturbed by the notion that our present claims that gtmo is the biggest recruiting tool and damages or national security, yet i would say that successful attacks like the one conducted on 911 are a bigger recruiting tool, far more important to the jihadists than any treatment given to prisoners, and even unsuccessful attacks like the christmas day bombing attempt in detroit are tremendous recruiting tools for anyone willing to kill a few americans -- it is a glorious

thing that attracts these people to have their 72 virgins in paradise. their chief concern is the glory of allah. they don't care very much about the people in gtmo until they are sprung out. you agree? guest: a couple of old soldiers will agree and disagree in a couple of points. in terms of guantanamo being used as part of the jihadist narrative which portrays what they believe is a western assault on all aspects of islam -- that is, sending our troops, the way we treat people at guantanamo, that does in fact enable them to exploit that and use it for propaganda purposes. at the same time, you are absolutely right in pointing out that the real recruiting posters

here are the terrorist attacks that al qaeda and its affiliates carried out. that is what terrorism is all about. these are recruiting posters. everyone of these attacks is meant to attract a funding to their cause, to attract volunteers to their cause, so that they can participate in what they describe as this epic struggle, which is divinely mandated. host: florida, brian of independent line. caller: good morning. one of the core reasons for afghanistan is that we were there to take away an area for al qaeda to congregate and launch their attacks from.

given the fact now that they seem to be everywhere, doesn't that reason for being in afghanistan sort of a evaporate? guest: no, it really doesn't. the fact is while they can exhort individuals to carry out violence everywhere, the difference between the situation, say, before the dispersal of the training camps in afghanistan and a system which and we certainly don't want to see occur again, is where they are able to sit -- set up secure bases and attract volunteers from all over the world and have their operational planners looked at the continuing flow of talent and put together a operations like 9/11, that enabled al qaeda to operate at a much higher level of sophistication than previous terrorist groups. while they are still able to

exert -- exhort one of the terrorists from around the world, it is clear back while they have recruits' they have quality control problems -- exhort wannabe terrorists from around the world, they have quality-control problems. caller: good morning. can you hear me? guest: yes, i can. caller: i watched the stock on these machines shoot up right after that guy got on the plane to go to detroit. chertoff wants us to buy these machines because he has money in them.

i personally can think of a way where you can still get explosives past those machines. i would just say it on the air because i don't want our planes to blow up. once somebody has dreadlocks and a crew of the explosives in the dreadlocks and lit their head on fire, i don't want the airplane go up. and i want to make one more statement -- i had a moment on this american muslim issue when my friend had a heart attack, and this guy was not able to help her but there was a muslim, a black american muslim dr. that cured a white baby -- did a heart transplant. host: barbour, i will let you go there.

-- barbara, i will let you go there. guest: i don't know who owns the shares of the companies to make the machines. but i think you are asking the right question. the question is, before we grow more prone to our already hardware heavy security process at the airport, how much will this contribute to security? will there be a significant contribution, will it be a modest contribution. it is not going to be a silver bullet. there is no hardware on the shelf or on the horizon that is going to solve the security problem. fact is, i don't know if it will work in dreadlocks, but the fact is terrorists today can construct and configure and conceal bombs that will be missed by all but the most

interest to inspections that would not only potentially detect terrorists but would also deter air travel itself. host: on the suspect, "the detroit free press" has a story. from what you have read of his background and recruitment, is he a typical case? guest: i should point out, he is typical in that there is no typical profile. we have seen everything from gang bangers recruited from prison joining the movement, we have seen medical doctors, people with military backgrounds, we have seen people with backgrounds on the streets, we have seen people will come from modest economic backgrounds and people who come from privileged families, as this man did. .

navy seals. during the bush administration, i received an article from a friend of mine in saudi arabia. the article consisted of a story

about a saudi arabian prince who had his bodyguard search in individual who was a member of al qaeda. that individual blew himself up, almost killing the saudi arabian prince, with the exact same device that was used on the plane. not only did my brother bought myself, we contacted homeland security and informed them, and if you do not take this seriously, we guarantee you it will be used. it is an extraordinarily stealth approach to killing americans. i think you are doing a great job. we need to put politics aside in this situation and act in a unified manner.

i understand the entire islamic world does not like the u.s. there are so many people that want to kill our countrymen, and i hope you continue to do the good work you are doing. guest: thank you very much. you make an important point. this latest incident involving the nigeria bomber, thank goodness it did not work. but we have gotten caught up in narrative's upon other things, about whether or not we must call the conflict a war, narratives about guantanamo, narrative's about other aspects. what we are losing in the process are a couple of things.

we are going to lose a thoughtful review of of what works, what does not work on the intelligence side of this. we will lose an opportunity to coolly take a look at aviation security and what we need to do. more importantly, if we lose this thing in partisan debate, we are going to hand a victory to the terrorists that will be equal to what they achieved then if they had been successful in bringing down the airplane. causing world wide alarm, causing us to oblige increasing resources to security, but all said enabling them to exploit the partisan divisions in this country. at some point, you have to say,

what is the national interest here? host: on the issue of home grown terrorism, the associated press is reporting that a review of the shootings at four cuts said the review of nidal hasan voice concerns over his use of islam in his inappropriate behavior, yet they continued to give him positive performance ratings which allowed him to move through the ranks. do you think he is a clear example of homegrown terrorism? guest: to enter your second question, i think he is. i know some in the media have described him as an individual personality problem. the two are not mutually exclusive.

we are going to find individuals that have gone through personal crisis, that are attempting to sort things out in their own lives, and find resonance and reinforcement in an extremist audiology that gives direction to their aggressive impulses. that is not unusual at all. i will have to read the whole report. should everyone have picked up on the clues in major hasan's behavior? possibly so, and that merits they look, but at the same time, i am skeptical about these clues that are so obvious in the rearview mirror.

an army of reporters go explores every detail of his life and comes back with profiles. of course, that never did is already set. when they interview someone who knew nidal hasan or the call- up, -- would colombes -- abdulmutallab, the story is already there. did you know him, did he look at you weird, did he voiced strong opinions? however, if you reverse that, everyone who strikes you as odd, who has tried in views about an issue -- strident views

about an issue -- that is not something that we try to do. host: next phone call. caller: i am thankful for c- span. i would quickly -- first, i would like to ask a question -- and then i will add a comment. i tried to pay attention, but is it not a fundamental military weapons and will that there is no victory with a strictly defensive action? guest: you are right. certainly, as a former soldier, i would say you have to take the fight to the enemy in order to ultimately prevail. i will condition that under the current circumstances, which is, that the same time, we have to provide protection for our

homeland, for americans, the best we can, at the same time that we carry the fight to the terrorist leadership and flows abroad. -- foes abroad. one or the other is not going to do it. caller: i found myself disturbed about the terminology of the war on terror. as a recovering alcoholic, i have had wars on anxiety, and then when i get a few drinks indeed, it is over. in terms of the terminology, i think we should have a war on terrorism.

victory is a foolish proposition. although it would not sell, what we have is a war on perverse religionism. guest: about the use of the term "war" -- it has advantages and disadvantages. after 9/11, i said our response have to be different. we are going to have to initiate a relentless campaign to track down those responsible, and the organization behind the attacks, the allies in it will be a long contest that will take many years. the disadvantaged is, first of all, it tends to implies only

military means. that will take intelligence, law-enforcement, military operations, diplomacy, a full orchestration of all the capabilities we have. the second problem with using the term war is that for most westerners, certainly americans, war has a clear undertaking, and a clear end. in this contest, we are not going to have that clear end. this is the kind of thing that will go on, not for a few years, but probably something that we will measured in decades. host: brian michael jenkins is with us for another 20 minutes. shortly after the mumbai

attacks, you said terrorists can innovate tactically to avoid a security measures an. do you think the homeland security committee heard you, made a recommendation based on this? guest: i think they certainly heard me. what is interesting about this flight into detroit is that if you look at the numbers of individuals that had been killed on public transportation -- for

example, talking about the bombs in madrid, london, too. the bombs on the train in the mumbai that killed 200. when we look at that record since 9/11, terrorists have gone after surface transportation, public transportation. it is accessible, much more tough to protect them commercial aviation. they have, hundreds of fatalities and thousands of injuries in those attacks, but at the same time, we remain obsessed with commercial aviation. the first terrorist sabotage attempt for an airplane was in 1970, and they are still coming at us, trying to develop

tactics and technology that will evade our security systems. this contest goes on for years after it begins. host: tulsa, oklahoma. gilbert, good morning. caller: i do not even know where to begin listening to this person. war profiteering on steroids is what i hear. there is nothing that we can defend ourselves from by staying home. we are in a 120 countries are around with the world. why do they hate us? let us try to count the ways. look at the s -- assassination at times that we have tried around the world. look at what happened in the

iran -- in iran. this is why they hate us. terrorism is a tactic. it only takes one person. the thing is, we are falling apart at home and war companies are making lots of money and we are falling apart at home. every day around the world of billions of dollars a day. we did not militarily defeat the russians. to me, this is a false issue. our southern border is wide open. guest: this person has a somewhat different view. i would certainly agree with you

that there are things the united states have done over the past half century which you have listed that have provoked a great deal of hostility toward the united states. at the same time, the terrorists that we confront today are also going after the nations of europe, muslim countries -- in fact, more muslims are being killed in these attacks then hated americans. this is about an extremist ideology that has a vision of finding mandated violence. if we were toñr withdraw from afghanistan tomorrow, cease to assist pakistan, back off

entirely, they would not stop. they had indicated they are going to recover territory that they want to held in the seventh century. you have listed correctly events coming back to 1953. these people are fighting on the basis of events that go back to the eighth century. host: you are a senior adviser for the rand corporation. how much work you do for the defense department? guest: it does a tremendous amount, but as well, we do a tremendous amount for other departments. we make no money. we are devoted to issues of national interest. the biggest research program for many years has been into health

policy program, which has become so important with today's debates. rand is not partisan, does not take a political stance on any issue, but will take the responsibility to inform those in power. host: when you do analysis of terrorism, do you personally visit some of these places, do you have experts on the ground? guest: we have had individuals in iraq, afghanistan. unlike many of my colleague researchers, imf on an airplane around the world. -- i live on an airplane around the world. certainly, getting a feel of what it is like on the inside.

host: next phone call. caller: you are in excellent guest. i actually agree with john from travers city, and gilbert, even though they are opposing views. you cannot have a war on a tactic. we are at war with religious things. we do have the occasional terrorist acts but we are not at war with our christian fundamentalists. i appreciate you using the word jihad. there are people who do not like that word being used.

i would like to close by talking about some recent incidents in malaysia. i read something upon robert spencer's website and it said apparently the roman catholic church have started to use the word allah in their services and there have been churches firebombed and there because month london not want to allow the in roman catholics -- because the muslims do not want to allow the roman catholics to use that word. guest: in terms of what we are at war with -- before 9/11, the term that was used by the u.s. government was combating terrorism. in the state department, there

was an office for combating terrorism. i think that was an appropriate label because you are right. terrorism is a set of tactics, basically. combating it is what we are trying to do, and reduce the acceptance of those tactics. combating is also appropriate because in connates an enduring task. this campaign is not aimed directly at terrorist tactics. it is certainly not aimed at extremist religions, one religion, but is focused on a jihadist enterprise. the term has jihad -- jihad is a

term used by our foes themselves. our goal should be to dismantle the jihadist enterprise, not what they believe, but for what they have done, what they are trying to do, and if they have access to greater weapons, what they would try to do. so it is much more narrowly focused. when necessary, we are going to use military means to go after that enterprise. host: a professor at georgetown university had a lead in thexd "washington post" talking about the strategy of al qaeda. do any of those terms resonate with your interpretation of what they are up to?

guest: since 9/11, certainly, unprecedented focused and cooperation among the intelligence services and law enforcement organizations. we have succeeded in degrading central al qaeda's operational capability. operationally, 9/11 would be much harder. but they have also adapted to this. in a briefing in 2002, i said in order to survive in the long run, al qaeda has to do a number of things. it has to maintain their in leadership -- they have done that. they have to find a location to

continue to exarchate communications, command. they have done that. they have to be able to communicate to their followers. they have done that. the have to be able to maintain some level of terrorist operations. they have had some difficulty there, but they have been able to do that. the strategy they are following now is a much more decentralized approach. some have called it a strategy of meter less -- leaderless resistance where there is no, and leadership. others including zwahiri have said that it is their goal to

start a global conflict. detonate operations with al qaeda, as well as other operations going on, like nidal hasan. that kind of a thing. host: allentown, gregg. good morning. guest: good morning -- caller: good morning. guantanamo bay, they want to close that down. no pun intended, i know we have a lot of jets.

we lost 10 soldiers in afghanistan last week or so. they are getting blown up by a roadside bombs, bombers. we have 200,000 troopsñi over there. why not put them up in hundreds of the bomcb-proof watchtowers. they would be high enough to keep them safe. one not try to develop something like that where we put up some watched hours along the border? -- watchtowers along the border? i used to drive to a lot of the airports as a chauffeur.

i stand there, wait for people, i do not know how anybody can just walk in without being checked. guest: with regard to afghanistan, we do not have walked hours. we do have things called firebases that are protected, but the fact is, this is an armed conflict. regrettably, i do not know any armed conflict where there will be no fatalities. but men inside those firebases are not really doing their job unless they can get out among the people. this is not simply about sitting inside bunkers and calling in air strikes. we cannot do it that way. ultimately, we are going to have

to enlist the afghans -- particularly those tribes along the pakistan-afghan frontier -- and enlist them in the defense of their own country. otherwise, we are going to take on an imperial mission that is going to put us in afghanistan for the foreseeable future host. host: spain is improving the acceptance of two guantanamo prisoners. what is your impression about sending detainees to other countries? guest: we have to look at some of these specific situations. in some cases, they will be transferred from the custody of

guantanamo to another prison in another part of the world where they will be held. not released, not necessarily rehabilitated and then released, but simply, in a sense, to be held in different places. with regard to those people that go through these to rehabilitation programs, there is always a risk that some of them will drift back. certainly, it is processed -- promising, and there was some flowback. but on the other hand, some of these people, in some cases former prisoners, become

valuable resources for us. host: bryan michael jenkins of the rand corporation. people can read more of your work at your website. in the next segment we look at a course that -- at a case coming up in california. first, an update from c-span radio. >> president obama began the day meeting with senior advisers. later, he speaks to labor leaders and combat commanders. this evening the white house posts at a dinner for military families. reports say today that three u.s. service members were killed in the south of afghanistan. meanwhile, standing mcchrystal, the top u.s. commander in afghanistan, says the troops

surge is turning the tide against the taliban. speaking earlier on abc, the general said he believed the troop surge has changed the way we operate in afghanistan, but added it is not a complete mission yet. and a review of the shootings at fort hood in texas seize the doctors overseeing nidal hasan and ball is mentioning of islam and the leaves, yet they continue to give him positive ratings. the investigation is being led by two retired army officers. those are some of the latest headlines. >> today on c-span, the afl-cio 's richard trumka talks about benefits for working families.

live coverage on to spend. -- c-span. martha: clique, joe kennedy, and others need for a debate. live coverage starts at 7:00 p.m. eastern. in congress, the house returns tomorrow. members will double in at noon eastern. voting will be postponed until 6:30 eastern. on january 20, the senate considers a bill. in the meantime, health care negotiations set to begin this week. democrats also discussed the jobs and health care. president obama and former president clinton will be there to talk about his experience with health care legislation. the aim is to get a final bill

to the president before the state of the union address. >> i am always concerned about the potential unforeseen unintended consequences of new regulations. regulations of any kind act as a tax. when you regulate something, you tend to diminish it. >> today, the fcc communicator robert mcdowell on the efforts to create a national broadband plan. host: our guest is david masci, senior researcher at the pure form. -- pew forum. this morning in the "san francisco chronicle" proposition

8 trial begins today. what is this about? guest: first of all, it is very significant. it is a constitutional challenge to proposition 8. that many of your viewers know, the proposition was passed by california voters by a bonus to 2% to 40% in november -- 52% to 48% in november 2008. the proposition that it to the california state constitution language defining marriage as being between a man and woman. 18,000 couples had already married -- same-sex couples were married -- before proposition 8 was passed. this case, the second case,

really deals with proposition 8. the first case dealt with state rights. the california supreme court upheld proposition 8, the state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. however, the justices on the california supreme court said those 18,000 who were already married, and they were legitimate and would remain so. so you have a two-tiered system. host: "the san francisco chronicle" writes --

the issue goes from a state issue, to one with federal implications. guest: this case will almost certainly be appealed, and then it would go to the ninth circuit court of appeals. if, in either of those venues, the court rules that they are obliged to offer equal protection clause, a guarantee to same-sex marriage, at that point, it would be hard to imagine the supreme court not taking the case because the ruling in the lower court would be so dramatically profound. and then we would have a supreme court ruling on the issue. there is something interesting about this case.

a lot of supporters of same-sex marriage are not in favor of it. the reason they are not is because they fear the supreme court would say that the constitution at this stage did not guarantee same-sex marriage. let us say 10 years down the road at a liberal supreme court could be more likely to say the constitution does guarantee a right to same-sex marriage, and could feel hamstrung by its earlier position. we have this position, i'm sorry, we cannot change our tactics. host: as the supreme court ruled in the past that people have the right to marry? guest: yes, but within the context of -- what the opponents would call -- traditional marriage. there was a case earlier that

said there was a fundamental right guaranteed by the constitution, privacy rights, to marry. that does not necessarily mean that the supreme court would extend those rights to same-sex couples. host: to add a bit of celebrity to the case, the lawyers for the plaintiff is ted olson and another man who were offset each other in the gore case. what has unified the two of them to come together on this issue to represent the plaintiff? guest: a lot of people say that this gives the plaintiffs in this case added credibility.

no one would be too surprised that boyd would take the case, but ted olson was also president bush's solicitor general. he is known as a lawyer and a conservative, and a heavyweight. so it is very surprising to a lot of people that olson had joined in this case. host: some things that we may hear from him --

conservatives should celebrate this rather than lament this. guest: this is an argument that is often made. when you talk to people who are in favor of same-sex marriage, they will say what we're doing here is trying to do exactly what conservatives say we should be doing, which is normalizing already normal nations in the legal arena, bringing in the guarantees and institutions that allow people to raise families, that allow people to live together as partners. when you talk to some people in the gay rights community, they will say i do not understand why conservatives are opposed to this. they should be happy. of course, conservatives will say, that is not the way we feel. we have a problem -- we are not

trying to tell gay people what they can and cannot do. what we are concerned about is the institution of marriage which has already been damaged by high divorce rate to, other things like that, and they see this as the nail in the coffin. it is more than just two people spending their lives together. it is an institution in which families and children are raised. in every situation, most children will be raised by a man and woman. if same-sex marriage redefines the rich so broad that it makes marriage meaningless, at the end of the day, this institution will be damaged. those are some of the competing

arguments, there are others. host: richard on the independent line. caller: i'm always puzzled by the need of the public to define words. marriage has been used in various contexts, but in general it means putting together two things that adds to the goodness. same-sex marriage does not seem like a definition of marriage. civil unions seem to be more appropriate. the people fighting for these legal and tax advantages of civil unions and for getting the name marriage, it would be a simpler thing to accomplish nationwide without all of the

inflammatory things that this provokes. guest: the caller makes a good point. public opinion has been pretty steadily opposed to same-sex marriage. the last poll done by the pew research center shows only about 39% of the public supports same-sex marriage. on the other hand, about 59% support civil unions. so i think a lot of people feel the way that you do. i am not opposed to giving same- sex couples certain rights. i do not want them to be turned away at the hospital. i want them to be able to have legal rights, tax right, things

that married couples enjoy. on the other hand, just please do not call it marriage. there is a segment of the population that feels that way. we have seen civil unions in a number of states, and we may see something like that. i believe 11 states have civil unions or domestic partnerships. i would not be surprised, if in the coming years, we saw more states adopt something like that, especially in places like the midwest where they are not when as conservative as those in the south. host: as we go to the next phone call, a chart that looks at the six states that approved the gay marriage, -- approved gay

marriage. guest: if i could just add one thing. that is out of date because it does not include maine. voters overturned the legislator's law which legalized same-sex marriage. a voter referendum overturned that law, so same-sex marriage is no longer legal in maine. we now have five states. host: memphis, jay, republican caller. guestcaller: this is a money is

they won a deduction on their taxes. single people are better democratic voters than married people. the purpose of this is not to have a bunch of fun. the purpose is to raise children. that is why you get the income tax reduction. this is more politics with the left trying to win more elections. that is all it is. all they want to do is maintain power. they do not care about the environment or anything else. my question is why do we not have strong same-sex drives in states that do not have an income tax? liberals are always the best ones to avoid taxes. guest: we have not done a

correlation between same-sex marriage and taxation, so i am not sure that we can speak to that point. certainly, people who are politically conservative are much more likely to oppose same- sex marriage. people who are politically conservative are also much more likely to be in favor of lower taxes, less government. so there could be some correlation there but i cannot speak to that directly. host: next phone call from east point, michigan. caller: to the caller from tennessee -- i just had my breakfast and almost lost it. this is 2010. get over it. we have a right to be married. i know many parents that are

raising kids. i know plenty of conservatives who do not understand why we cannot be married. it is ridiculous. the religious right keeps on sticking their nose in our business and they want to tell us how to live our lives. it is a modern movement. get over it. guest: i am not allowed to express opinions one way or another, but this is something that you often hear from people who support same-sex marriage. let me focus on what they set about raising children. those who support same-sex marriage will say yes, marriage is about children, and yes, committed gay couples are raising children. this is a big argument that are -- that is made by advocates for

same-sex marriage. host: there are reports that the judge in today's case may open up his court room to the cameras. guest: the opening of the trial is interesting. first of all, it is interesting. it is one of the first trials that the ninth circuit has allowed to be televised. i think one of the reasons why the plaintiffs in the case, those who oppose proposition 8, those who support traditional marriage -- we have to get our ducks in order here -- the reason they are interested in this is because one of the things to be hashed out in the trial is if there is any legitimate reason my the government should forbid same- sex marriage. if the state can show there is a good reason not to allow it,

that would essentially allow them to say people protection, in this case -- equal protection, in this case, it is not applicable. but if they can establish a benefit in limiting same-sex marriage, then it will be harder for them to say that that clause does not apply here. but getting back to the television, one thing that a lot of people associated with the case was along the public to see the debate. supporters of same-sex marriage have said publicly, we think we are going to win the debate in the courtroom. we will be able to show that there is no reason outside of prejudice and discrimination, religious tradition -- of course, given our constitutional framework is not the servant a

determinant in the case -- they will say that will help bring public opinion along with us. host: as in your thought -- is in your thought that to gain victory, they need to have victory at the supreme court level? guest: some have begun to think that way. i think they were very disappointed at what happened in new york in december where the new york state senate -- same- sex supporters believe that they would approve it. they did not and voted pretty substantially -- 20-14 -- against the bill. in new jersey, the same thing happened in january. now there is a new governor -- there will be a new governor, chris christie, who opposes same-sex marriage.

we have been trying it at the grass-roots level, trying to get it done, even in a place like maine and california -- the voters, any time there is a referendum, with one exception, voters have voted against it. arizona was the exception. that was 2006. then in 2008, they approved a ban on same-sex marriage. some people who are frustrated that it is not moving faster might say, let's go right to the supreme court and see if they can find a constitutional right to this. host: and today would be the process of that? guest: very much so. for your viewers, this is akin

to the abortion issue. right before the roe v wade case, some states have banned it. it was being hashed out at the state level. the supreme court essentially came and cleared the landscape. there is a constitutional right up to a certain point in the pregnancy. that changed everything overnight, literally. i think people are looking for something like that, a magic bullet, in a sense, that would dramatically change everything. will that happen? no one knows. host: jay from memphis, tennessee. caller: i am not sure the state constitutional amendment actually run afoul on the 10th amendment and equal protection

clause in that marriage is sanctioned -- is a contract sanctioned by the state, not government. the ability to marry two people should rest with the state. it is not just telling gay people that a man cannot marry a man, a woman cannot marry a woman. it is telling everyone. i do not know if it runs afoul on that because it limits it to everyone. is that a task that they may take in this? guest: i am not sure. i think the 10th amendment could come into this. at the end of the day, equal protection says what the supreme court says. let us say they make a determination that gays and lesbians are a protected class in the same way that racial minorities, religious

minorities, women, are a protected class. then it would almost certainly apply in this case. the california supreme court, looking at the california state constitution, says that gays and lesbians in california are a recognized class. they've ruled in march 2009 that there was a right. at the same time, they ruled that they were in a protected class. even the same-sex marriage was overturned by proposition 8 in november 2008, even though that have been, the ruling still stands in the sense that gays and lesbians are still a protected class, the city --

according to the california state constitution. host: next phone call. caller: i have heard the word prejudice and a couple of times. you are talking about 39% of the public in favor of this. i am not sure if public opinion is the answer. i wonder how things like slavery would have done with registered voters? it is the role of the government to take care of those who are not in the majority. guest: people who support same- sex marriage make your argument. we cannot have the protection of minorities -- the protection of

certain rights of minorities cannot be held hostage to the whim of the majority. the founders created a system in which that could not happen. this argument is put forward quite frequently by supporters. opponents, on the other hand, say what we're talking about here is not some kind of right that has been taken away from people. it is not like slavery, civil rights, women's rights. what we have is a radical redefinition of something that has been defined one way. the union between man and woman. this is not a rights issue. it is a social engineering question. the american public is not ready for this kind of social, radical re-engineering.

those are some of the arguments made by both sides. host: james tweets -- a follow-up on that, i wanted to ask you about the role of the right to privacy. guest: i do not know what the polls on interracial marriage. i know that in the 1950's, 1960's, i have read public opinion shifted on civil rights issues in this country. you had a second question? host: the right of privacy, where does that come from? guest: there is no direct reference to privacy, in terms of behavioral privacy. there were always specific rulings, but nothing to

behavioral privacy. i have the right to live my life the way i want to. in the constitution, there are questions about searching your house. but the sort of privacy we talk about when we talk about issues like abortion and same-sex marriage is something that has built up over time via court precedentce. lawrence the texas -- v. texas dealt with sodomy laws. there were laws on the books banning sodomy. the court overturned those laws. in each of these cases, the court had articulated -- and in

other cases as well -- that implicit in the constitution, even though it is not directly stated, there is a right to behavioral privacy, a right to marriage, a right of a woman to have certain control over her reproductive choices. other sorts of rights that have been articulated as well link to this right that you have a certain privacy right over your body, over your life. . .

host: about 15 more minutes with david masci, who is now with the ku center on religion and public life, he senior research fellow, talking about the case coming up in california on same-sex marriage. the case will be heard today. here is mobile, alabama, ruth, republican caller. caller: i think it is interesting that they do not ask for the right of matrimony, especially holy matrimony. the derivation of the word "matrimony" is the same as the

record mother. -- as the root word mother. matrimony implies joining together for the situation for a mother to have children. you are talking about [unintelligible] all these things seem to be attacked on the higher qualities of human life. it seems like they want to destroy and bring things down to a very base quality. guest: you mentioned -- the caller mentioned "holy matrimony" and that leads to something else that is very interesting about this whole debate, which is the role of churches and other religious organizations play. every same-sex marriage law that has been enacted so far has

stated categorically that a church cannot be forced to marry a same-sex couple. and in america right now, there are quite a few churches of and -- of the evangelical christian churches, a roman catholic churches, and some of the other churches that do not -- that are opposed to same-sex marriage. and i do not allow any sort of same-sex marriage ceremony in their houses of worship this whole question is rich with ethical and moral and religious overtones at the same time there has been a move towards same-sex marriage, there has almost been an assurance that the first amendment right of churches and other houses of worship to set

their own agenda is protected. that being said, there have been cases where churches have come into conflict with the law because in massachusetts, after same-sex marriage was enacted the state told charities that they had to allow same-sex couples to adopt children. the catholic charities said, i'm sorry, we cannot do that. and they took themselves out of the adoption business. they were the largest private provider of adoption services in the state of massachusetts. a similar to the situation has risen in d.c.. the same sex marriage law has not taken effect yet, for growth

-- probably not until march, but it probably will take effect and it is unlikely to change it. the congressional leadership is telling us this. if that happens, there are some questions about -- particularly catholic charities again, which is the largest social provider in the district of columbia. the district is saying you have to give benefits to your employees. host: it broadens it out to a larger -- guest: yes, and there'll these basic questions. but the basic question of what does the catholic church to have to marry same-sex couples, they will remain exempt. there is a clause that protects churches in this way.

host: next up, democrats line, we will hear from a lane in nyc. caller: i have not a comment. i have friends -- i have a comment. i have friends who have been together for 60 years. not allowing same-sex marriage is ridiculous when you consider over 50% end up in divorce. this anti-american is ridiculous. it is these people who are loving, caring, and there are many committed couples in the gay and lesbian community. i'm just a 77-year-old heterosexual woman, but there is

no reason in my mind to deny these people marriage. they certainly are no danger to the sanctity of marriage considering the divorce rate. people are so self righteous. host: thanks for your comments this morning. a case gets underway tomorrow -- this morning in california, san francisco. at the district level, how long will this last? guest: it will depend on how many witnesses both sides want to call. i get the sense that just from reading about the case that both sides have a lot of witnesses that they want to call. it could run weeks. host: with a call folks who are in committed relationships or in same-sex relationships?

i had guest: no doubt that they will. i am sure there will be a lot of experts called who will talk about marriage from a sociological perspective. you know, do children do better in certain kinds of situations with a single parents, with a mother and a father? is there a difference between same-sex couples and opposite sex couples raising children? i'm sure these will all be hashed out during the course of this trial. there will almost certainly be an appeal and i would be surprised if either side didn't appeal if they lost. the thing is, if the ninth circuit court of appeals rules that same sex marriage is not a constitutional right, i think it would be more likely that the supreme court would let that stand. again, i do not know, but i am speculating. on the other side, if the ninth circuit court of appeals rules

that same-sex marriages protected by the equal protection clause, the right to same-sex marriage is protected, i would be surprised if the court did not take that up. host: what is the expansion of individual rights? guest: it is considered very proud -- and very probably the most liberal of the circuits. it is entirely possible that they could rule in favor of those who support same-sex marriage. during a preliminary hearing when judge walker is talking to the attorney for those who opposed same-sex marriage, mr. cooper, he asked him at one point if there was any sort of real reason why the state should limit this particular practice.

cooper surprised a lot of people by saying -- i am paraphrasing, but he basically said i do not know of anyone write off the top of my head. i think we're in for a very interesting trial. i think it will be extremely commented on and covered. and again, it will almost certainly lead to a -- an appeal. host: will you be watching it on you tube? guest: definitely. [laughter] host: michael on the republican line. caller: when it comes to marriage, have they really thought about if it is to same- sex or bisexual or transsexual? is there a limit? guest: in makes the limit the -- the comment that opponents of syndex marriage makes ought --

make all the -- that the opponents of same-sex marriage make all the time. it is like opening pandora's box. if you open this up, why can't you allow a brother and sister to marry if one of them is sterile and there's no question of show a children? why can't a person mary 10 people as opposed to just two? opponents of same-sex marriage say once you open this door, you're opening yourself upon for basically defining marriage into utter meaninglessness. supporters of same-sex marriage say that is just not true. what government and what our court do every day is draw lines. we let certain things happen and we that certain other things not -- don't.

just because we grant a new right to somebody does not mean we have to grant this right to every possible, conceivable combination. the callers argument is an argument that opponents often make and their arguments on both sides in this particular facet of the debate. host: one more call for you, bakersfield, calif., tony on the independent line. caller: 3 points, first of all, freedom of religion in furs that we have a right to to reach their own. i'm heterosexual in california and we are pretty much like, live and let live. the second point, the separation of powers doctrine, religion to stay out of the business and affairs of government. the third point, tax-exempt churches and they want to control what they do not have to pay for. religion is for weak minded people who are too lazy to give

serious thought to the critical social issues like same-sex marriage. to reach their own and that is pretty much the mind set of us out in california. and keep in mind, i am a heterosexual. let them go about their business. it is nonsense that the church goes poking its nose into every aspect of our lives. they do not pay taxes and they want to control what they do not pay for. host: tony, thank you for your call. any last thoughts on that? guest: opponents of same-sex marriage will often say they're not trying to tell gay people what they can and cannot do in their bedrooms. what we're doing is protecting what they see as a traditional marriage and all of the benefits, and when i say that i mean the broader social benefits that flow from the social institution of marriage. the argument again, especially the one about not legislating

religious morality, which is what your caller was referring to, are often brought up by supporters of same-sex marriage to say the first amendment also has not just a free exercise clause, but an establishment clause that essentially is intended to disentangle the government from a religious organization. on the other hand, religious people and religious organizations have for -- have first amendment free-speech rights, they have the right to make the arguments they want to make. there are all these sorts of competing interests that are at work here. as i said to you before we started, there are all these different moving pieces in this debate. i think we are going to see all kinds of things going on at various levels, state legislatures, more voter referendum, more court cases, including this case that we talked about extensively in california.

the one thing we can say about where it is going, i cannot really say what is going to happen. i can say that this is not over and we will be talking about it for years to come. host: i appreciate you being here today, almost losing your voice over today's case. you can read some of david's work at pewforum.org. coming up next, we will take a look at afghanistan and the civilian government in afghanistan, selena assistance to afghanistan with william taylor met with the institute of peace. first, a news update from c-span radio. >> more on general stanley mcchrystal's remarks earlier on abc "good morning america." he believes the true surge in the country is turning the tide against the taliban. adding debt to a recent traditional meeting of elders

and they described and optimism of the future and a sense that the tide is turning. president obama is sending an additional 30,000 troops into afghanistan. that will bring the total u.s. trips to 98,000. secretary clinton takes off today to australia, new guinea, and pop and a canny -- australia, new zealand, and papua new guinea. it is to strengthen our relations with allies in the western pacific. in return to negotiations on at the nuclear program depends on better relations with washington and the lifting of stations. president obama's special envoy for human rights in north korea speaking earlier in seoul, said the kamras mission -- regime must improve its human rights record before any normalization of relations. the administration announced funding of nine projects that

are intended to increase fuel efficiency. more than half the money will come from the $787 billion stimulus package. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> today on the c-span network, afl-cio president richard trumka talks about the economic future of working families. that starts at 1:00 p.m. eastern from the national press club. later today, we will return to the press club as massachusetts attorney general and others meet in a debate to fill the sink -- to fill the senate seat left by the death of edward kennedy. in congress, the house returns tomorrow for its winter break. members will double in at noon eastern and voting will be postponed until 6:30 p.m. eastern the senate is back in january 20.

they will consider a judicial nomination. the senate is live on c-span2. in the meantime, health care negotiations begin this week. also, democrats discuss a retreat to discuss jobs and health care. president obama will be there to talk about his experience with health care legislation. the aim is to get a final bill to the president before the state of the union address sometime early next month. >> i am always concerned about the potential unforeseen consequences, unintended consequences of new regulations. new regulations, or regulations of any kind, act as a tax. if you tax or regulate something, you tend to diminish it. >> today on the communicators, republican fcc commissioner robert mcdowell on efforts to create a national broadband plan. that is at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2.

host: william taylor, former ambassador to the ukraine and the institute of peace. your to talk about the civilian leadership in afghanistan. let's start out by asking you the best way for the u.s. and its partners to get a functioning civilian authority in afghanistan. guest: the functioning civilian authority has to recognize that the afghanistan people need to be represented in that civilian authority. the afghanistan people are looking to see what kind of an organization they will put together. a lot of people would like to see an afghan in charge of a civilian organization. the trick, of course, is finding the afghan person who could actually pull all of this assistance together and pull all

the work of the afghan ministries are doing together into a coherent, focused effort. the civilian search that we talked about is really an effort to get the afghan government to be in charge and to deliver services, whether they be held services or education services -- health services or education services, to the afghan people. we do think it could be a senior afghan that could do this. but with the ability to coordinate all of the assistance that is coming in from afghanistan from various donors. host: this increase u.s. state department presence, etc., who is coordinating that now? guest: there are several people doing coordination there. one is ambassador tony wayne, new worked for ambassador karl eikenberry in the embassy. -- who worked for embassador carl eikenberry in the embassy. the united states government

provides a very large percentage, well over half, of the overall civilian assistance coming into afghanistan. ambassador wayne is certainly able to coordinate those assistance efforts. there are, however, other assistance efforts coming in, other resources coming in from the donors, whether it be the prince or the u.n. or the world bank. -- whether it be the brits or the u.n. or the world bank. host: and you see the role of the afghan government to choose this afghan person to be the one coordinator, or to have of this coordination. guest: i think afghans need to be in charge of this effort. host: ahead of this surge there are stories this weekend out of canada about the cabinet picks for hamid karzai.

what is the concern over the choices that president karzai is making? guest: he has now made two set of choices. he nominated one slate of cabinet officials, about 24 of them. 17 were rejected by the parliament. but arlin is in a healthy move, asserting itself. this is a good thing -- the parliament is, in a healthy move, asserting itself. this is a good thing, checks and balances. he looked at the first slate of nominees by president karzai and parliament did not like them. they did confirm the most important cabinet choices from president karzai, the minister of defense and the minister of interior, which handles all of the police. the minister of finance, the minister of agriculture, when

the biggest recipients of assistance. -- one of the biggest recipient of assistance. those picks are clear. president karzai has recently over the weekend submitted a second state to replace those that were rejected the first time. these are lesser-known people. the second slate are lesser- known people. many people have not heard -- many afghans have not heard and the international community is still examining these, but they may be [unintelligible] host: the issue is afghanistan assistance. our numbers are on the screen. let's hear first from raleigh, n.c., matthew on the democrats line. caller: good morning, this might

be old hat for the gentleman, but i would like him to express for the viewers what the geographical reality is in -- as far as leadership in kabul and the rest debt of a -- and the rf afghanistan and the kind of disconnect that exists and what we would like to see involved. guest: a good question. there are several aspects of the choice of people to be the afghan government. one is, as you say, but geographical representation. and here we do see in both the previous cabinet and the current cabinet an attempt to put people in cabinet positions from all over the country. a second aspect is the more sectarian and trouble representation.

president karzai made some promises, of course, to some of his supporters during the campaign. this happens all over the world. this happens in democracies all over the world where you make promises to your campaign supporters. in this case, the promises were for cabinet positions. that means that there are some cabinet nominees -- as i just mentioned, some have been rejected by the parliament -- but some nominees who represent tribes that do not represent the whole country. this is a problem the president karzai is now having to face. as i mentioned, parliament has rejected some of these tribal representations'. this is a healthy thing, but it does put an important pressure on president karzai to do as you suggested, to ensure that there is representation across the country and in the government in kabul.

>> next up is rockford, chet. caller: we have all of these strategies against terrorism. we try this, we try that, we tried everything. and once we have bin laden cornered, we let him go. this makes no sense. do we want this to go on for the rest of our lives? thank you. guest: you are absolutely right. this is not going to go on forever. we have an important amendment to that country. we have a moral commitment. we have an understanding of what we need to do to bring the people of a afghanistan what they would like to have. but it is not unlimited. the afghan people have a responsibility to select their leaders. the elected leaders have responsibility to provide good

government. if that happens, then we can succeed. -- we can succeed in providing them with stability. that is going to be important. it is not unlimited in time or resources. host: the preliminary military increase, 30,000 troops sometime in 2011 -- and some time in 2011 the apparent drawdown, what is the time frame there? guest: the state department has an embassy in kabul and we reopened that embassy once were able to go back in after 2001. i am very sure that the u.s. government, through the embassy manned by the state department and many other agencies, will be in afghanistan for the duration. we will be there. the embassy will be there. the ambassador, the political

adviser, the economic counselor. they will be there, it is a long-term commended. it is not a long-term commitment to have 30,000 troops. the long term commitment begins to become clear sometime in 2011. host: the "new york times" running over the weekend about president karzai's cabinet selections writes about bagram airbase and they write the agreement signed by the ministry of defense clears the way for the american military to begin a program of training and preparation for the afghans to take charge there.

what concerns do you and others have about the afghans been able to take over a facility like that? guest: this is a very good thing to happen. for americans to be running the corrections system and the system of putting people in jail is not the end point that we want. we want the afghanistan government and the afghans themselves to be charge of people in jail, manning those jails. this is not something that an outside power should have to do for a long time or be expected to do for a long time. i think this move will transfer authority for these jails and prisons, it is a very good move. host: indiana, john, on the democrats line. caller: it appears to me that karzai may be helping keep bin

laden going, and even telling him what we plan to do, or is acting as intelligence for him because they want to keep him. karzai knows that as long as we are there, he will be there. the other comment i have is that there are 20,000 taliban in the whole country of afghanistan and maybe 100 to 200 al qaeda. i do not understand how the military cannot take care of 25,000. there was a show of a helicopter flying over this town and they said, that is where the taliban are. why don't they just take helicopters and invade the place and get rid of the taliban? host: i will follow his up with comments on hamid karzai, a tweet hear from monte.

guest: several good questions here. first, on karzai helping bin laden, i would be very skeptical of this. i see no indication that is the case. president karzai won a disputed election that was messy. there were allegations of corruption. however, most people agree that he won the majority of votes in that election. president karzai owes his office not to the americans, not to the international community, but to the afghan people, as messy as the election was. i do not think there is any indication -- i have not seen any indication that he is helping terrorists. the point about 25,000 taliban,

they are so integrated into many of the cities, towns and villages of afghanistan, it is not clear which person on the streets is a taliban and which is not. further, within the taliban there are great differences. there are leaders of the taliban, many of whom -- probably most of whom are across the border in pakistan and who are ideologically committed to overthrowing the government in kabul. these people we cannot really get at. we would like to be able to get out, but we cannot. they are, as i said, mostly in pakistan. the rank and file people who are taliban are not as committed, or not as ideologically committed to those tenants, they're there for a job. -- committed to those tenets,

and they're there for a job. they're there for an uncle or a brother, for a life. they are there and can switch sides. that is not about wiping out 25 -- 25,000 taliban, but winning them over. the last question on the street, are we propping up an unpopular government like we have done in other parts of the world? again, i would say, as i mentioned, this presidential election was won for the afghan people to make. -- was one for the afghan people to make. there were a couple of strong candidates that ran against him and by all accounts -- most accounts, president karzai came in ahead of them. we are trying to help the government there, but not with any particular person. host: our lines are open with

your calls. we have an independent scholar, robert, kansas city. caller: my question is, when i went into the army in 1956, the war had to be declared by the united nations. even when we went to korea, they did not call that a war. they call that a conflict. but now we have changed the language and we have war on everything, war, war, war. why did they changed this from war to conflict or from conflict to war? guest: you are absolutely right, the conflicts we are in, the wars that we are in now are

different from the world -- from world war i or world war ii were there was a declaration of war in both cases. we have not changed the system that requires the congress to support what the president is doing, whether it be in iraq or afghanistan in this case. the congress is being asked each time for resolutions. supporting what the president has done. congress has passed every year to pay for and pass legislation that provides funds to prosecute the war in afghanistan or iraq. while the declaration of war has not been used, the resolutions and the support from the congress is still required. host: our guest this morning, ambassador william taylor, served in vietnam, a platoon leader and company commander.

next call from california, go ahead. caller: i think a little bit about post-franco spain with the reestablishment of the monarchy. i'm curious if you think there is any force or a group interested in the reestablishment of a monarchy in afghanistan? doesn't it seem a bit correct all that it could be a uniting force among the tribal groups? host: was there one time a monarchy in afghanistan? guest: there was, indeed. i served in afghanistan in 2002, 2003 and met the former king. he shared the palace with president karzai. he has since died. and in answer to his question, yes, there are some people in afghanistan and would like to see monarchy reestablished.

mainly, their relatives of the now deceased king. -- they are relatives of the now deceased king. it would be difficult now to go back to a monarchy at this point. but there are folks who remember when the king was in power. there was not much war. we did not have many rights. we were poor, but these were not fighting. i think it is unlikely they will go back to a monarchy. host: the outgoing envoy to afghanistan raise concerns about civil in authority in afghanistan. the "washington post" reporting on this. what is the holdup? guest: the holdup is in a couple

of respects. the 10% directed to the government, i am sure, is accurate and that is money that the united states, or britain or canada provides directly to the government of afghanistan to use as they see fit to help balance their budgets. the other 90% in this case actually goes from u.s. -- from u.s. aid, the international development agency, to a contractor. for example, the u.s. will contract with a contractor to build schools or to build clinics. most of the time, that work on schools and clinics is coordinated with the minister of health or the minister of education in kabul. even though it is not directly to the government, it is in coordination with the government, at the direction of

the government. there is coordination in providing teachers or doctors were not medicine and supplies to the clinics. -- or doctors or medicine and supplies to the clinics. it is also true that the part of the assistance that does not go directly, it is still done in coordination and cooperation with the government. host: next caller is from william on the republican line. caller: i remember vietnam, it was the same way. you could not tell the v.a., from the regular vietnamese citizens. -- you could not tell the viet cong from the river vietnamese citizens. i'm seeing the same situation over there in afghanistan. another thing, the russians, they did not really lose. they got broke. are we going to pull out when we are broke? guest: many people have drawn --

you and i both served in vietnam and many people have made this analogy. i think we have learned some things. i think the united states has learned something since we were in the army and i think the army has learned some things about how to deal with insurgencies. right now, we are focused on the afghan people. general mcchrystal and president obama have agreed and focused their attempts to improve the lives of the afghan people, secure the afghan people from the attacks that are coming from the taliban. i believe we have learned something since vietnam. the russians, of course, had a wholly different view. they went in to try to flood the place, controlled place, as they had controlled other parts of the russian empire, the soviet empire.

that was, again, to get the resistance of the afghan people. and indeed, they finally pushed the russians out. we're working with the afghan government to protect and support the afghan people, and that is the difference between us and the russians, and even what you're trying to do in vietnam. -- what we were trying to do in vietnam. host: kansas city, democratic caucus, good morning. caller: i would like -- democratic caller, good morning. caller: i would like to know what we're doing to capture bin laden. are we missing the point here? we have lost so many american lives. we have doubled the amount of casualties of 9/11. at what point will we achieve our objective? guest: with love, i am sure, to capture or kill bin laden.

-- we would love, i am sure, to capture or kill bin laden. that is not our only objective. our objective is that the united states will be secure. and that can happen if the bin laden's or the taliban do not have a place from which to operate. we want to make sure that the afghan government can secure its people and can secure its territories about groups like al qaeda can operate from there to attack us here in the united states. -- cannot operate from there to attack us in the united states. the way to do that is to support the people and be sure that they are not providing a base for al qaeda. host: talking about civilian leadership in afghanistan, a serious a call from pennsylvania. caller: i was wondering if you

could comment on the general attitude of the afghani people toward the u.s., particularly when we do eventually get out of their. i mean, are we expecting them to say, hey, thanks, america? what is your understanding of their gratitude? guest: that is a good question. i served both in afghanistan and iraq, and in iraq, there is not a good feeling in general about the american occupation. in afghanistan, it is quite different. the afghan people are pleased to be free of the taliban. and be freed them from the taliban. they're pleased by that -- and we freed them from the taliban in 2001. they are pleased by that. and the taliban there is declining, well under 10% at

this point. and the afghan people have been generally supportive of the united states. when i was there, i would get great welcome in almost all of the country. that level of support has declined. it is still well above 50%. it is well above 50% of the afghan people who support and appreciate what the americans and the international community are trying to do in afghanistan. it is still a supportive environment that we face there. it has taken time and there are afghans who have lost brothers, lost fathers, and have a bad feeling about some americans. those are in the minority at this point. if we succeed, will be able to leave theire proud and instruct -- with the strong support of the afghan people. host: james on the independent

line. caller: i would like to know why nobody talks about hamid karzai sitting on the board of unocal with congressman -- with condoleezza rice, the cheney, and the pipeline that was built is never talked about. the leader that the people wanted was a gentleman who was assassinated. at the same time that he was being killed, karzai was being rescued in afghanistan. why is this never brought up? host: what do you know about that? guest: president karzai, and many other people, some americans, europeans, previously over the last 30 years have been looking for ways to tap into

central asian gas, natural gas, piping it across afghanistan, serving the growing market in pakistan and india and further east. this has been a goal for many people. and then mr. karzai, well before he was president, of course, he and other international folks work trying to get permission to build the pipeline. the war in afghanistan, the fighting, the uncertainty and instability has kept the planning for the pipeline in the preliminary stages. it is very difficult to build an enormous pipeline across an area that is unstable and has the problems from al qaeda and the taliban. but it is not a bad idea if at some point in afghanistan is stabilized, to go ahead and build the pipeline. host: here is clearwater,

florida, democrats line, go ahead. all right, orlando fla., on the republican line, robert, hi there. caller: these religious wars have been going on in that area for the longest time. for us to step in now and think we can change things is foolish of us. we should get out. the we should clean our own house, for one. the people live in these countries, let them decide what they want to do. civil war is -- not to say it is good. we went through our own circumstances back in the day, but they need to resolve these

problems for themselves. host: when we do get out eventually, what do you see the u.s. president looking like, both from the military and civilian standpoint? guest: i agree with the caller that we need to let the afghans run themselves. i would say in answer to your question, bill, we need to prepare for the time that we are not there. and we are not there, we would expect is the government's that is elected -- is a government that is elected, responsive to the afghan people, delivering services to them -- health, education, clean water, some kind of stable economy -- that is what we would like to see the afghan government providing to the people. the afghan people would like that. we will continue to be there in terms our assistance programs, as we are in other parts of the

world, to help them build of that capability. i would imagine our military presence would be way down, however. and we have talked about the gradual decline in our military presence beginning in 2011. host: but some presence will be there for years. guest: i would imagine so. host: the associated press has raised a number of members of nato killed in afghanistan to six, that makes today the deadliest day so far. cincinnati, on the independent line, go ahead ohio. caller: [unintelligible] how much are private

corporations involved in this also? remember, china, we had problems. we have vietnam [unintelligible] host: any thoughts? guest: and not sure i fully understood the question, but it is certainly true that in places where we have been, whether it be germany or japan or vietnam that american corporations are able after those nations to stabilize to go in and make investments, make money for american stockholders or american workers. it is certainly true that our efforts have led to a general stability and economic development that has been good for both those countries and for this country. host: we talked about the nato deaths today, including the u.s. service members killed.

the story in the "washington post" writes about the danger for some contractors in afghanistan. they're right about particular deals with kuwait and iraq. the agility, which had begun under the contract in 2008, this year, 30 of its employes have been killed and 300 trucks destroyed. getting the civilian peace right in afghanistan, there certainly has to be stability on the military side. one of the recurring themes in these contractors in afghanistan, and somewhat in iraq, is the corruption, the money that has to be paid. how is that going to be dealt with? guest: corruption is a problem. it is a problem in iraq, in afghanistan, in the united

states and europe. we see it with congressmen and city council members in jail for this kind of problem. and it is certainly a problem in afghanistan and iraq. here we track them down and put them in jail. and we do not see that in iraq and afghanistan. that is what they need to come to. host: is it considered to be the way business is done in afghanistan? guest: it is our lead the way business is done. i do not believe it is considered -- considered to be the right way. it is the way it has been done over chain -- over centuries. making those changes will take some time, but it will come. host: lakeland, fla., chris on the republican line. caller: i do not understand. he says he would like to see the afghan people to be able to

build the economy. on the other hand, why can't he built his own economy here in the united states? we have problems right here. why are you putting your nose into other people's business when you cannot fix your own problem right here? guest: we do have big problems in the economy, no doubt. and we have work that we need to do to put people back to work and get our economy moving again. that is absolutely no doubt. we also have to secure the american people. the american people have to be sure that they're not going to be attacked by a force that is organized out of afghanistan. that is why we are there, to protect the american people. host: hostloss chris is gone to mexico, don on the independent line. caller: you were just recently talking about corruption and you

drew an analogy between corruption in the united states and corruption in afghanistan. i think that is fallacious. i think that the corruption is entirely different in afghanistan. in afghanistan, it is by estimates now -- we are paying 10% of everything we spend their to fund the enemy. there have been respond -- reports that have gone out in the alternative press. and i wonder, should we really found the enemy? and then go ahead and fight them? i find is just ludicrous. -- i find this just ludicrous. you mentioned that terrorists have come from there, yet, none of the terrorist that have come to the united states have come directly from afghanistan. there have been fighters that have gone there and then they have been trained in other places and then they come to the

united states. and we have generously offered them visas. host: a few minutes left. let's get a response. guest: of course it makes no sense to fund the enemy, but it is very clear to everyone -- i am sure, to even you -- where the attack on the united states was planned and why we had to go into afghanistan in 2001 to take the vacation -- that the location where the attack on the united states was planned. and directed and trained. and we are doing that. that is the reason we need to complete the job. host: going back to where we started this conversation, about civilian leadership in afghanistan. you wrote that president karzai issued a appoint a super minister for economic assistance and development and its primary interlocutor -- and

a primary into a maturinterlocu. how much has this affected the ministry your talking our backs guest: this minister that has coordinated all of the assistance going into afghanistan, would have to be named by president karzai and approved by the parliament. the parliament has shown the pastime and now looking at the second this late that is -- has shown this past time and now looking at the second this late that it is not true is going to rubber-stamp his picks. -- is not going to rubber-stamp his picks. host: are you looking for the kind of person in afghan that

would have some international spirits, may have studied overseas, served in organizations overseas -- the u.s., europe and elsewhere -- to bring those types of skills back to fill those types of -- this type of role? guest: the person with those skills would probably do a good job. the we do not say it has to be someone who has studied or worked abroad. again, this would be decided by president karzai and the parliament. but this would take a major coordinated effort of a lot of international. there's a london conference, and of later on this month and this person would have to address the london conference and be able to convince these donors that would be there in london that he could better organized and account for the assistance coming into afghanistan. host: a couple more calls for you, flynt township in michigan, democrats line, go ahead. caller: i just heard you talking

about a pipeline running across afghanistan. i have heard before that there was a person on their that denied the existence of the pipeline. why would they deny the existence of the pipeline, which i heard them do? and you admit that the pipeline does exist. and since you have been so honest on the pipeline, we also have to be honest with the fact that we have bin laden cornered by tora bora and -- at tora bora in the caves and we shifted our direction to iraq, so they let bin laden go. guest: i want to be clear about the pipeline. the pipeline does not now exist, but plans to build the pipeline

have been in people's minds and even on pieces of paper for years and years, probably 20 or 30 years. these plans to bring natural gas across afghanistan would be good if afghanistan were secure. it is not now in existence. if it can be so, that would be a good thing. i am very sure that we did not have bin laden and let him go. i am certain that is the case. yes, we did shift our focus to iraq, and that was probably a mistake. however, it was not one that we would have let bin laden go. i cannot agree that was the case. host: to florida, republican column, dale, good morning. caller: i just have a couple of caller: i just have a couple of statements to make and i wil