host: president barack obama delivers his first date of the union address tonight and the economy and jobs are central to tonight's speech. we will have live coverage of this evening here on c-span, c- span radio and c-span.org. to endç at 8:00 p.m. eastern te for a historical look. following that at 9:00 p.m. eastern time the president will give his speech and then the gop response all covered here on c- span. first, your thoughts on what issue you want the president's address tonight. democrats, dial --

remember, you can follow us on facebook and twitter and send an e-mail. the facebook address is facebook.com/c-span. and you can send us an e-mail, journal@c-span.org. linda feldman wrote this story from the christian science monitor. "can obama get his mojo backed?" what will be the tenor of the speech? guest: the person the president needs to do is to reassure the people that he hears them, got the message not only from massachusetts senate election but the overall decline in his popularity in the last year. and then he needs to pivot toward what he does plan to do. he does know the economy and jobs are the number one issue.

but he is prepared to do what ever it takes to improve the situation with jobs. host: what happens after tonight's speech when he delivers this message on jobs and the economy, where is ago next and how does it keep up the message? guest: he needs to just keep pounding away. he has had two trips on his main street tour, going out into the country. we expect a lot more domestic travel this year. tapping a bit into the populism he started to engage him, telling people he is going to fight for them, that he is focused on the middle-class, that he is not giving up on health care. i think this is key. congress might have other ideas but he does not want to give up on his agenda. he has said as much. he believes the problem is really and how the policies were sold, and he takes responsibility for that.

host: on healthcare there are polls that show americans do want the president and congress to stop focusing on health care and put more focus on jobs and the economy. how will the square and that -- how will he square that? guest: congress has been meeting and said essentially they will slow it way down on health care, they cannot politically afford to keep pushing full steam ahead and trying to push it over the finish line. now is synch earliest they would get something about it is late february but the closer to the election, the harder it will be to get anything passed at all. the president has hinted that perhaps he will try to do a scaled-back version, but he kind of backed away and said he was not giving up on a comprehensive health care. but i think the handwriting is on the wall. host: this is the first day of the union address for the president. he addressed congress and join

sections -- joint session springtimes. is this a bigger speech for him tonight, and has he been practicing? who has been involved in the speech writing of these comments tonight? guest: this is by far the most important speech. he gave a speech in the joint session of congress in february, was not the state of the union, and then the joint staff -- speech on health care. this is a critical time. the election in massachusetts this last week was just a real wake-up call for this administration, that they were really off course and they really had taken so long on health care. it just a bit them terribly. the speech he has been working hard on, they have been working on it for months. you have his speech writing team and his top aides weighing in. the president himself is active in what he will say. as is usual, the revisions will

be taking place up until the very last minute. host: did the white house given the indication of who will be sitting with the first lady? guest: i spent yesterday with the first lady. she was giving a speech to the wives club of the joint chiefs officers out of bowling airforce base. this has been one of her big issues, support for military families. one of the points that came out and discussion what some white house aides is that she will have six military sitting with her in the first lady's box tonight, including the two police officers who stopped the shooter at fort hood last year. host: do we know from the rest of the administration, who will not be there this evening?

guest: i'm afraid i don't know that, sorry. most of what about congress -- host: can you tell us more about the pomp and circumstance before the speech? guest: the president is really at a very rough patch in his presence in but the members will still be lining up for the hearty handshake and kind of i-5 -- i do not know if it is literally a high fives. but it is a big televised event, a lot of americans will be tuning in and everybody wants that moment on tv with the president of the united states. host: linda feldman is what the christian science monitor. and to your phone calls, what would you like to hear the president say tonight? college park, maryland, stephanie on the line for democrats. caller: i guess for me in the economy is one of the main

issues obama should focus on. i think he is trying with the spending, talking about the spending cuts -- and it is a start. no matter what he does, that our people or are going to complain setting the spending cuts, it is not enough. people don't want him to start talking about cutting social security and medicare and medicaid, probably the two main things basically bleeding us dry. but basically it is suicide to talk about those two. so we are going to have to go with, i guess, the spending cuts that he suggested. that is basically all i have to say. host: little rock, arkansas. paul on the republican line. caller: the morning, greta.

i would like the president to talk about jobs and the economy. and during the campaign he promised to save millions of jobs. also promised to create millions of dollars. since he has been president he has created a huge deficit, sent $100 million to haiti, and there are many people right here in america who are unemployed, people who need jobs, and i feel that he should concentrate on taking care of the american people first. host: that is the headline in "the wall street journal" and "the new york times." it says --

host: new york city, luis, independent line. the trustee secretary will be testifying about what he knew about aig and that will be at 10:00 a.m. eastern time live on c-span3. also testifying as former treasury secretary hank paulson. we will have live coverage on c- span3, oversight of federal aid to aig. go-ahead, independent line. caller: please, i am a little nervous. give me a chance to explain myself.

i would like for the president to come out and not ask any more but to demand that the republicans and a republic -- democrats pass the senate health bill. we, the people, we need it. you have not had any help from the democratic party. in fact, so many of them ran for president and lost, they don't want to see you succeed, either. please tell them if they don't, we the people -- they will not be there the next. massachusetts, massachusetts sent a message back to you, mr. president, they love you. they sent a president to your

own party that if you did not think enough of ted kennedy's seat to come out and fight for id g-8 -- fight for it, that goes for senator kerry who wanted to be president and couldn't because he cannot have a backbone. host: the line for democrats, north carolina. w3caller: i would like him to hp people who is retired -- or retired. i can hardly live. he can address something, help for retired people, please. host: of bloomington, north carolina, jack on the republican line. caller: i hope tonight focuses on -- hello? host: we can hear you, jack. caller: tonight i hope the focus is on jobs. unfortunately i feel like i have

been watching moby dick and barack obama has been captain ahab chasing the white whale of his socialist vision but i think the massachusetts voters sent a strong message. they wanted jobs, which in turn will help fuel the rest of the system. it also the interesting thing is now, after a year of watching the democrats pushing their agenda without anyç input from the republicans, the electorate in november, is going to look at them like a cheating spouse when they say, trust me, trust me, i really want to cooperate. they will respond to what they have seen over the past year, that the democrats don't want any input from anybody, they would do exactly what they want. i hope he focuses on jobs to get our economy back on its feet. host: a little bit more on

tonight's address -- obama will focus on new agenda, reining in spending and bo)áur'g education will be the theme. a the president will call for 6.2% increase in education spending over last year, including up to $4 billion as part of an effort to revamp the george w. bush era programs that expanded testing to measures to the progress. that is "the washington post." after the speech the present plans to take a newly energized populist message on the rose in the coming days, voters to florida and new hampshire, both 2010 battleground states, that he will fight for them. also the overripe -- overriding theme of the state of the union address scheduled for 9:00 p.m. eastern time is the economy. the president will describe detailed initiatives court middle-class families. details you can look forward to in the president's speech to not -- tonight. denver on the independent line.

you are next. caller: thanks a lot, greta, you are doing a great job. host: what are your thoughts about the speech tonight? what would you like to hear? caller: there are a lot of things i would like to hear but specifically i would like for the president to talk about what he plans to do about local crime that is rampant across the country, and i would also like for the president -- all classes of americans, he needs to address that, i think. and all the callers calling in talking about what he needs to do here locally first -- i would suggest they need to get a little bit more education. but the main thing i would say, because i want to give someone else a chance, is especially those callers that are unemployed, don't have a job, if

they go to their local library and just ask -- say they want to see the -- map program. they can have a job. i would suggest orleans, first. host: i will leave it here. can on silver spring, maryland. -- ken from silver spring, maryland. caller: i know he will get the points on joblessness and the economy, but i really want to speak to how he promised to do the non partisan thing. i am 50 something years old, and i don't remember any politician, president, and heard the visceral hatred. i want to remind people he have only been here a year. that the republicans ran everything for a number of years and the mess we are in the, please give him a chance to

work and come out of it. he is a much more temperate man that i am. i would be angry, but i'm glad he is that way because the hatred i hear from my own state south carolina and some of the other southern states just shocks me, day in and day out. i just wanted -- want him to talk about -- i want him to seek their help -- at a cost of hurting the country, putting him down. host: washington, missouri, on the republican line. caller: thank you a lot for taking my call. i'm looking for him to talk about jobs and the economy. i think he needs to do that first and foremost. i think the other thing he needs to do is stop lying to the american people about what he is going to do. he lied to us in the first year. now he is going to talk about

the spending freeze. it is not going to happen. it is not going to make a difference. they've already got the money for 2010. host: what he wants to hear from the gop tonight? virginia gov. bob mcdonnell will give the gop response after president obama speaks. what do you want to hear from him? caller: i think we need to hear from him conservative fiscal responsibility. if we don't work in that direction we will be out on a limb. we are $14 trillion we are going and it is not sustainable. and i think the best thing he needs to do is stop lying to the american people. host: a little bit from "the washington post" about republicans. house republicans in preliminary talks to draft a broad agenda similar to the 1994 contract with america. and senate republicans are seeking to unite around smaller legislative proposals on key issues, to serve as contrast the

mass of bills last year on health care reform and energy. pitch we have conclusively concluded the senate does not the comprehensive very well, from republican senator lamar alexander said he is urging an energy policy based on four ideas endorsed by all of the republican senators, 100 new nuclear power plants, dramatic -- dramatic increase in electric cars, increase offshore oil and gas drilling and research and development of alternative energies. jonesboro, north carolina. tim on the independent line. guest: -- caller: all you do is hear his voice or see his face. he has done nothing but in a political campaign mode from day one and lying to the general public and it is about time he does something.

that says he is going to do. instead of lying and letting people get in between him and everybody else so he can blame it on somebody else. host: does that include health care reform? caller: dawna right. the only reason he is board is because what happened to his mother. he has a hard on for people like that and the health care system, rather than take it out on the people who honestly of the ones that are controlling it. host: don on the democrats' line. you are next. caller: i was on to ask if the president would talk about -- two earlier callers about obama being a liar. he has not been lying. he is doing the best he can with what he got and the report -- conservative republicans, and they will not help you do

anything. they sabotage whatever he tries. but i want to talk about international terrorism problem. i know the united states has to protect itself but we have some serious domestic terrorism within our own borders. and i am not talking about the mexicans with arabs but you have a right wing conservative supreme test groups that are tearing but country apart. they got to shut that down. host: gorman beach, -- normandy beach, florida. caller: i want president obama to define who we are on the scene. i'm fromq a blue-collar automotive family and it was called the arsenal of democracy.

i heard that americans only do three good things -- they do hollywood, marketing of gizmos and gadgets, and financing -- who and what are we as americans? we know we are -- if you know who you are, you know what we do? what are we on the world stage. the largest public works in the history of humankind, the interstate system. i saw a proposal -- and oregon's senator -- is that in for structure that is already there, we had easement, right away. host: patrick from san francisco.

caller: i want to thank c-span from doing what you do. i used to watch the far right and far left just to figure out. then i started watching just c- span and local news and a half to tell you, i learn more about politics and politicians. i'm sorry obama weaseled on single payer. if we had single payer for everybody none of this panicle -- penalty thing, companies could bid for administering it, it should be fine. the previous caller talked about something about defining as. i just finished an e-mail to a friend. we need the obama road map. we have the johnson this and the kennedy that, we need the obama roadmap. campaign mode is over. instead of being politically correct, how about just being correct?

host: washington post reports this --

philadelphia, democratic line. caller: i hope the president will take the time tonight to explain to the american people -- just tell them, each one of them takes out a pencil and a pad and explained how we got the country in the massive deficit we are in it right now. for those of us listening in this morning to c-span, go back 30 years. from the beginning of the country until the end of the carter administration, this country only had 950 something billion dollars in national debt and but from 1918 to the end -- from ronald reagan to end of the first administration this country had ran up $4 trillion worth of debt. after clinton -- when clinton

left, after eight years of clinton we had a surplus, and what happened? in 2001. we had a mass of another tax cut, two of them and the country went into recession. when george bush left office we had $10 trillion built up in national debt. if the country -- in 200 years did not build up $1 trillion worth of national debt but in the last 30 years it built up almost $9 trillion in national debt and only thing that happened was massive tax cut and increased spending. you can't keep cutting taxes and putting everything on the credit card. host: members of congress listening into tonight's speech in the house of representatives chamber may not have a pen and pencil but some may be twitter ing.

if you go to twitter.com, c-span fees, we will have all of the twitters on the page to look at. right now if you want to send an daljit a twitter book your comments about what you want to hear from the president, both to twitter's website and go to c-spanwj. connecticut, roger on the republican line. good morning. caller: what i would like to hear him talk about tonight is why you are keeping secret, sealed it for 18 years, the money that went to aig and goldman sachs. i would like to get -- have c- span get an investigative reporter and discuss this. i can't understand how they can't steal something up for 18 years that the money put out -- public put out loans to aig and goldman sachs. i think it is absolutely terrible. thank you. host: front page of "the financial times" has this

headline -- "liberal unease with obama" talk about yesterday freezing domestic spending. and here is "the new york times this morning, about message. it says a failure to communicate or the wrong message? it says, obama will accept responsibility but not necessarily blame. the state of the union address is mr. obama's third appearance, offers the opportunity for the president to restate the goals of his administration as it tries to turn the election your conversation to the economy. the speech will be punctuated with a handful of new ideas, come forehand -- it would largely be an opportunity for mr. obama to return to the proposal this let him into office. caller: i would like to see mr.

obama talk about the economy. i would like to see him go back to his campaign promise of checking out nafta. nafta has been the biggest problem the country has faced since it was put into affect. there is no way we can never bring these jobs back. nafta should stand for no americans for this agreement and pass this should be cancelled all free trade agreement. we need fair trade agreements. problem like to see him put tariffs on the cheap products coming in from overseas like we did in japan -- for japan and the '70s. host: on the line for democrats -- connecticut. doug, good morning. caller: correct, first of the like to say, one of a job and you look marvelous this morning. -- wonderful job and you look marvelous this morning. good morning. host: good morning. we can hear you. caller: you look marvelous this

morning and thank you for the show. i would like to have the president speak about the stimulus package and the numbers they are trying to show us the jobs were created or preserved. we see nothing in connecticut. small fire stations, $6 million -- $6 million jobs. and the supreme court justices, i would like to find out if we could somehow reign of these guys in the, maybe have term limits. what they did last week for campaign spending for big corporations, then we put a slant on the side -- the unions, the market share has dropped so much in this country and unions were formed to protect the worker. they are still here to protect the mark -- workers. collective bargaining, benefits. the unions, with the market shares that have lost and the numbers dropping off with the economy, hard to make their rent or their mortgage or their insurance. they will not have the money to spend like these large

corporations of the same message will not be getting out there. thank you.

i would like to see him tell the truth on how we got here. i wish c-span would go back into their archives and play the one that they had alan greenspan who set himself, we were wrong, they were wrong with their policies of nafta and and getting rid of the all of the regulations that kept america safe.

so, i would like to see that address. and you should play the archive of alan greenspan when people call in to say how we got here. i don't understand why you don't play that. caller: -- 9 host: about the current fed chairman ben bernanke, gathers more support according to a headline in "the wall street journal." majority leader harry reid scheduled a vote thursday to overcome a potential filibuster committing the support of 60 senators to pass. final vote would only require a majority for mr. bernanke to be confirmed again. the dow jones newswires survey showed 52 members supporting the nomination while 19 opposed. the others who have not said how they would vote. on tuesday, senator tom harkin, democrat of iowa, and john ensign of nevada, said it would vote against the nomination and nearly a dozen others made known their support. in new poll found the public

split. about 18% said they were positive about mr. bernanke and the same share said the negative. of the rest, 19% call themselves neutral and 45% were unsure. cape cod, massachusetts, bill on the republican line. what did she do you want to hear the president address tonight? caller: entitlement programs. the very first call today was a young lady who said that people -- social security, medicare, medicaid leading this country dry. what is leading this country dry are people who are on entitlement programs. i would like to see the president announce drug-testing for people who are on welfare, people who have food stamps. i would like to see the president announced that women or on some type of welfare but children, that if they don't name who the father is an assist the government and finding the father, that they be taken off the entitlement program and that they will not be paid for having additional children. thank you very much.

host: on the deficit this morning, and "the new york times." rising criticism for budget deficits and solutions. the cbo yesterday released a new deficit projections show went on a small improvement over its forecast from last summer. the 2011-20 deficit is $6.60 trillion. it says policy changes that could impact the deficit freezes all discretionary spending would shrink the 2011-2020 deficit by $1.30 trillion, cut troops in iraq and the afghanistan, cut it by $0.60 trillion, expand 2001- 2003 bush tax cut, that would grow the deficit by $3.20 trillion. extend other expiring tax provisions of that would expand the deficit by $2.50 trillion and adjust the alternative minimum tax for inflation, that would grow the deficit by 0.7.

queens, new york, roger on independent line. caller: good morning, greta, how are you. what i would like to hear from the president is a more combative tone. we will hear a panoply of things. we will hear about job creation and various things of his agenda. he must show the middleman -- people on main street, that he is going to fight for us. he must show a combative tone. yes, he is trying to be bipartisan, but i think everybody can see -- the people, independence especially, want to see him fight for us. it is as simple as that. actions always speak louder than words. unfortunately -- i hate to say this, he has to do you sell many of us want him to be our champion, and of story.

host: michigan, don on the line up for the democrats. caller: thank you, greta. the bottom line is, we live by the constitution -- if we lived by the constitution and bill of rights we would not be in this mess. get rid of the wiretapping. they don't go get the terrorists merely trying to hurt us. but the bottom line is, they don't tell the truth. we have to do it. with the people will have to stand up for ourselves because nobody else is. host: open "the financial times" has a piece, times change. what he told last february and what you might hear tonight. on the deficit, what president obama said last february is it has never been more importance to insure as the economy recovers we do what it takes to bring the deficit down. in addition to johns, mr.

obama's -- how he squares the two is likely to provide the most interesting packages of the speech. this year's deficit will be $1.30 trillion. congressional budget office warned of rapidly rising deficits will strangle the economy isn't mr. obama and congress does not raise revenue or cut spending. a bill to create the debt commission failed yesterday. it said an open "the financial times" that the president now will announce his own debt commission but it will not have the congress vote up or down on what the debt commission says. "the financial times" says the commission will be charged to and the plans to tackle both medium-term deficit and long- term spending on entitlement programs. however, even if republicans agreed to name members they may select antitax hard-liners

making it impossible to reach agreement. experts say it difficult to have political support for a far reaching fiscal consolidation when there was no pressure from the bond market. administration officials believe that would make more sense to develop proposals that would be presented after the midterm vote in november rather than put specific proposals out and risk legislators locking themselves into fixed positions. washington, d.c., jeff on the republican line. caller: good morning. i would like to see the president talked to the american public about rolling back some of the tax cuts for the rich and let the public know that if he needs to raise taxes, that he will because somebody has to pay for the programs. the supreme court ruled that all of the gains we had in campaign finance and we should also acknowledge that -- yes, there are a lot of polls saying a lot of different things but let the

public know that they need to stop running on gasoline fuel of taxes. everytime a turnaround people are talking about, my taxes, my taxes. if you want jobs you have to be willing to pay taxes. lastly, i would like to know how many lines the have for democrats, republicans, an independent and i called three times in the democratic line and did not get through and called five times and got through on the republican line. host: we have one line for each. who will be at tonight's speech and who will not? looks like secretary of state bill clinton will not be there tonight. this is "the washington post." she would love to be there, but london is calling. and also who will be and the first lady's box? the style section of "the washington post."

is dollars chance parrot -- a scholar's chance. one of the nine students who participated in the d.c. scholarship program and he will be in the first lady sponsored this evening. cotton one, arizona, steve on the independent line. good morning. caller: i think the american people tonight listen to obama -- we will be like a bunch of greenhouses, we will get white washed. the thing is, he will sit there and say he will put a spending freeze. well, it figures out to be a little over, i think, $2 billion over two years and over $1 trillion deficit. that is just pennies. all it is, just whitewash everybody. and this health care bill, pelosi and read for saying they were going to take it slow. they are still on the back room

trying to figure out how to pass this. what they are going to do, they are going to do different techniques -- dick morris, advisor for bill clinton, and get on ditmars.com. -- dick morris.com. it will run it through, and they will say the unions, the woman give this benefit. what they will do is run it through and then they will get back and used the 51 votes to where they can go ahead and be exempt from this. get onto dick morris.com and he will explain what will go on but is health care bill. host: last call, what issue do you want to hear from the president? the democrats' line. caller: i am hoping obama is listening this morning to c- span and i'm hoping in his speech -- my brother's keeper.

the policies and efforts he has made are remarkable. the man has worked very hard. i am hoping in his speech he will talk about some of his success stories. that he will talk about the jobs that have been lost -- how the numbers have decreased since this administration. some other programs like cash for clunkers that was a success. there have been many success stories. we were on the brink of disaster, disaster, and he came in. he had to do some increases in spending to curb some of that. it is remarkable that the republicans have been so oppositional, and those who are in the border states -- i am sorry, the swing states, was said, they gave obama a chance but it appears that they were so willing to say, well, we gave him these few months and we want to throw a lot of office. we want to go back to the same

policy -- massive tax cuts -- that got us into this horrendous situation? those who are committed to the values of the democratic party, i am my brother's keeper. i do believe that what we do to the least of us we do to all. host: jerry, we will leave it there. that will be the last word on the issues you want to hear from the present but we will talk about the state of the union coming up next representative chris van hollen, a democrat from maryland, and heads of the commission and the house to re- elect democrats and also the assistant to the speaker. we will talk to him next about the state of the union and the midterm elections. first, an update from c-span radio. >> more on tonight's state of the union address from white house press secretary robert gibbs. speaking earlier on "the today show" mr. gibbs says the president hopes to use the speech to ensure people the country is on the right track. on the st. -- at the same time, mr. gibbs says every president

makes mistakes, including barack obama. house republican whip. kantor says people want to hear that the president have listened and he has learned how to make washington work better -- house republican whip eric kanter. timothy geithner testifies as morning about his role in the government's efforts to prevent the collapse of aig and also his ties to the wall street banks at the time. a house oversight committee hearing begins at 10:00 a.m. eastern time. here live coverage on c-span radio or watch it on c-span3. the federal reserve wraps up the two-day policy session today. analysts expect interest rates to remain at low levels. the current term of the chairman ben bernanke expires this sunday. the senate vote to confirm end to a second term is scheduled for tomorrow and the senate. what the senate live on c-span2. , the report on new-home sales due out this morning. it is expected to show a rise over the previous month. a report yesterday showed home prices rose for a sixth straight month in november.

those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> tonight, president obama delivers his first state of the union address to congress, laying out his vision for the future of the country and his plan to deal with issues such as unemployment, health care, and wars in iraq and afghanistan. the state of the union address tonight, with coverage at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. you can also listen to the president -- president's address live on your iphone with a c- span radioapp. >> this weekend on book tv, how the growth of the muslim middle- class and the middle east stood -- could end religious extremism. and the political cartoons of dr. seuss, published during the war years in the 1940's. and then neocons and presidential foreign-policy going back to the nixon administration. find the entire weekend schedule on book tv.org.

>> "washington journal" continues. host: rep chris van hollen, what do you want to hear from the president? guest: and little recap of where we have been the last year. the president will point out a year ago the economy was in the free fall and will stabilize but not yet turned the corner. it was the american people want to hear is what is the plan going forward. i think the president will talk about jobs, accelerating jobs, making sure that we have fiscal discipline in the out years, that we hold wall street accountable, and talk about some of his proposals for accomplishing those objectives. in addition to the completion of health care reform. host: on health care reform, polls are showing americans want the president and congress, democrats, to stop focusing on health care and switching their focus to jobs. the democratic leaders, according to papers this morning

-- you all have not given up on health care and you don't want the president to give up on it. how do you square the two things? guest: we have been focused on jobs sent day one. economic recovery plan was about making the investments in the economy necessary to stabilize and get us out of free fall, and that has been successful. we are out a free fall. now we need to turn the corner which is why the house passed in december a jobs bill and the president i think will talk about important components of that investment in infrastructure, he will talk about middle-class tax relief and tax credits, job creation. it in health care costs under control is an important part, making sure we have a strong economic foundation. individuals, families, businesses, premiums are going through the roof and the federal deficit will be bad in the future if we don't get health care costs under control. this bill, as cbo has found,

will reduce the deficit and over a period of time. if we are interested in fiscal stability in the out years we need to get the skyrocketing health-care costs under control. host: if the american public does not believe -- is there a message problem? host: of the debate on health care has clearly dominated. it is a complicated issue. it is important to get it right. but the fact we have been moving forward on jobs initiatives during that period of time i think has been partly lost by the media coverage of health care, the twists and turns of that debate. i think it will be very important going forward. as we continue to focus on jobs and pass additional jobs measures, let people know we are focus like a laser beam on these

issues. again, the economic recovery bill has succeeded in getting us out of a free-fall. the economy was declining at a rate of 6.5% this time last year. now the economy is showing positive growth. it jobs were just going through the floor. now, what we have not only recovered and have not gotten positive jobs growth, at least we are not losing 700 and did it thousand jobs a month like this time last year. and the stock market has obviously recovered compared to what it was. this does not happen magically appeared it is the result of actions that were taken. were they sufficient? no, that is why we will continue to take steps. all numbers -- here is the headline in "the financial times" this morning.

"liberal unease at obama." frontpage. here is something in the story this morning and "the washington post," some quotes from the liberal blogs. it is official, obama is an idiot. brock herbert hoover obama. and obama liquidates himself. obama's self-inflicted lobotomy it proceeds apace. it is the president risking alienating the liberal base before the midterm elections? any concerns, the base you need to turn out on election day? guest:: the base, i think, wants to see the economy recover as fast as anybody and that is why the president has been focused on job creation and has made a point and saying the most the poor thing we need to do to improve the deficit situation is to get people back to work. we want to get people back to

work so that they can pay the bills and meet the rent payments, but also if people are not back to work, obviously the deficit will continue to get worse. so, that has to be job number one. but what the president is saying here is we also need to get our long-term fiscal house in order, and we have taken a number of steps. and the house we are working very hard to pass what we call pay as you go. if the federal government and, to launch a new program will have to find reductions elsewhere or some way to pay for, like a family has to pay for things. the president will probably announce the creation of a commission to develop recommendations for deficit reduction. i believe this idea of a freeze in the budget growth is a good one. the president has pointed out this does not mean you freeze every individual program. he will increase education. but if you are going to increase one component, you have to find

and offset the one forward. host: jones' bill, south carolina. walter on the line for democrats -- jonesville caller: i keep hearing the president needs to stop focusing on health care but focus on jobs. we lost our jobs to countries that have health care and we will not get our jobs back until we fix health care. health care comes first, then the jobs. i just want people to know that. it guest: you make a very important point about the relationship between health care and jobs in the economy. first of all, in our system today, usually if you lose your job, you lose your health care. so there is a direct connection, a direct link between job security and health security. and the other point you made is worth emphasizing, which is, it is a very important part of our economic competitiveness in this global era. in many parts of the world, companies that are our

competitors don't face the same health care costs because of the health-care system the operate in, which means our employers hear it who do have to take on the costs, the rapidly rising costs, have difficulty competing with our international economic competitor. you are absolutely right this is an important part of our economic growth and international competition. host: silver spring, maryland, independent line. caller: of -- why don't you divide the bills into five separate bills and pass it in a bipartisan way, rather than just jamming one bill, to thousand pages? it would be much easier. newt gingrich's proposal was silent -- five separate legislation that would target the stuff you are suggesting,

this and that. why not divided into five separate and pass it and claim victory? guest: thank you for calling. first of all, nobody jamming anything through. we have been debating the measure for about six months. this has obviously been a conversation we have been having in this country, health care reform, over a much longer period than that. we had hundreds of hearings, lots of input, nobody is jamming anything through. with respect to dealing with this as one bill, perhaps a dozen interrelate. let me give you an example. when the president was last before congress to give the address on health care reform, every member of congress -- democrat and republican alike -- got up and cheered when the president said we want to make sure people are not denied health insurance coverage if

they have pre-existing conditions, if they have some health element, they should not be barred from getting health insurance. everybody clapped their hands. if you want to get rid of pre- existing conditions, you have to bring everybody into the pool, otherwise people will gain the system. they will wait until they are sick until the get insurance. you have to bring everybody in. if you bring everybody in, you need to make sure it is affordable. you cannot ask somebody to pay all of their health-insurance bill if they absolutely can't afford it. so you have to have some way to pay for it. if you have to have some way to pay for it, you have to have some revenueç source, what we t affordability credit. we need those to make sure we do it in a way that reduces the budget over time, when this bill does. it is interrelated, which is why it is very difficult to pick apart little pieces and move them separately. if you were to just pass a bill to say, for example, let's prohibit people from being excluded based on pre-existing conditions, the result would be premiums would go up, health

insurance companies would raise premiums, and that is why you can't do that piece alone, you have to do it as part of a comprehensive package. host: does that mean a reproach and doing it bill by bill? guest: if you had to do smaller bills, you would not be able to do a more comprehensive piece. if you want to do something that is comprehensive, that hits all the aspects that the original house and senate bills did, it would be difficult to do that on a bill by bill bases. taking one at of time -- at a time is a root that is being considered but the result would be you will not get obviously all the way have and the bills, the more comprehensive coverage, which is why another option that is the religion under consideration is taking the agreements that have been reached between house and senate

and using them to amend the legislation that is already in progress. host: does that mean reconciliation in the senate? guest: it would mean what we call majority rule and i am glad you raise this because it is important you understand. the constitution requires 51 votes to pass a bill in the senate. in reconciliation, budget reconciliation, was designed for things that will reduce the budget deficit, which is what this will do. so, people who think you need 60 -- let me say this week, people who think 40 out of 100 is a w3majority are using the bernie madoff accounting, it just doesn't fly the american people understand that out of 100, a majority is 51. so that is an option on the table. it is an option -- if you read your constitution on how many votes it takes, that is what the constitution says. >> when will the decision be made by leadership in both the house and senate on the way

forward on health care? >> i think in the next few weeks certainly you will have a decision based on input from our caucus. and they are receiving input from constituents. and we will be brought the best way forward. host: next on colorado -- guest: let me just say, there is a lot of talk about the massachusetts election. the fact of the matter is the day after the election use all health care premiums going up just as fast as the day before the election. you saw people denied insurance because of pre-existing conditions the day after, just the day before. so, the need for health-care reform has not gone away and the american people, if you ask them about the components of the bill, whether they support or çóoppose them, the majority support the components of the bill. talking what has happened is and all the back-and-forth and negotiations, people have understandably seen things they don't like. for example, the special nebraska deal. even senator nelson says he doesn't want that in the bill.

and that should not be in the bill, things like that. so people are understandably upset. at the use of a backlash. but when it comes to health care reform and the need for it, acting most people understand we need to move forward in this country on that sum -- something that important. host: of victoria on the republican line. caller: i am a registered republican since 1960. i am c. of all of a company. i am also a licensed real-estate broker -- i'm a cfo of açç company. i also can see that medicare is running on fumes. you can compare what is happening here with what happened in the holding debacle. the people that made the money on wall street are still making the money, and we bailed them out. what are we going to do when anyone can see that the insurance companies are making a

lot of money on this, and when medicare will crash, are we going to bail them out? what is the democratic party have an answer to that? guest: you raised a number of issues. the response to the point about the wall street bankers. that is one of the reasons the president has proposed and the house has already passed a fee on the very, very biggest banks, over $50 billion in assets, to make sure the taxpayer gets repaid for the rescue funds that helped save the financial industry as an effort to make sure that contagion did not spread to the full economy. .

it actually -- the cbo has found it expands the life of medicare because we get rid of some of the extra subsidies that were given, reimbursed with taxpayer dollars. we have said there is no reason one group of providers should get additional taxpayer money over others who are getting reimbursed. we need to move forward in terms

of other reforms in medicare to make sure we extend the life of medicare, going forward. also, as part of this reform, we close the doughnut hole in the prescription drug care program. host: on the democratic line. laurel, maryland. caller: i am a democrat and i am satisfied with what the president is trying to do. what i want oall of our representatives to remind people is the budget before him did not have the love of the wars for the double you are talking about they keep on talking about cuts in the budget. they are not even adding that picture money.

i was for the public option. i have a pre-existing condition, lupus. i had to have a kidney transplant. no, i am not dependent on medicaid, but i also have bluecross blueshield. these people that have medicaid, medicare, and they do not want to help anybody else that is the point i want to get over -- that is the point i cannot get over. guest: with respect to medicare, it has been a very successful program. it has kept millions of seniors from falling into poverty. we need to do everything we can to preserve and strengthen medicare, which is why we are

closing the doughnut hole. as you say, as we strengthen medicare, it is important to strengthen other parts of the system, moving forward. we currently have 40 million americans who are not injured. those are people who are not only not getting the help they need, but they are hurting everyone else in the system. when they do not get primary care, they end up in the emergency room for that primary care. everyone else pays for that, if either through higher premiums for through taxes to hospitals. they get support. as we bring more people into coverage, we will be able to reduce the amount that everyone else is paying one word to the

accounting part of your question, you are right, the president inherited a budget process that was full of gimmickry. he said we are no longer going to hide the cost of the expenses. the war in iraq was kept off of the budget to disguise the impact on the deficit. the president has said we are going to be transparent about all these things. that is why, when you look at the president's budget, it shows in increase in the deficit. that is also why the president is committed to a path to reduce the deficit, including a freeze on portions of the budget. but also, he supports the pay-

as-you-go provisions i mentioned here. host: in a poll in the "wall street journal" it says americans aecho that sentiment n congress. democrats in congress get 41% of the blame. 56%, very little. should the president bring up george bush tonight? guest: i think the president should challenge everyone who is listening to come up with their best ideas. standing on the sidelines or running away from these problems is not an option. i think he needs to raise the policies in the past, not in the context of placing blame, but

for the best examples that our republican colleagues are proposing. what i mean by that is the best evidence of what republicans will do if they were to have control is what they wouldid ine past. they are proposing going back to bush economic policies. those policies got us into this mess. the lack of oversight and transparency on wall street helped cause the meltdown in the financial sector. i think the president's point will the, turning back the clock is not an option. he will raise past policies, not to point fingers or place blame, but to say to the american people, you do not want to adopt those policies that got

us into this mess as a solution. that does not make sense. host: next phone call. caller: my question is about the t.a.r.p. program. i am an independent and i voted for president obama, and like you said, what he was left was ridiculous. what scares me amongst is if this t.a.r.p. plan was not pushed through, the world economy was going to fail. what does that message said to us human beings that that is how vulnerable we are? i would like your opinion on that.

guest: thank you. i would agree, if you go back to september more than a year ago, and that action had not been taken, things would have continued on a rapid downward spiral, and you would have seen the collapse of a deep financial industry. that is why, as distasteful as it was, saving the rest of the industry was an important step. now that they have recovered and the rest of the country is hurting, we need to make sure we recoup those moneys for the taxpayers. that is why the president has proposed the biggest banks do two things. london, proposed a fee so that we get every dollar of that money back. also, this fee would create a

fund, so in the future, when people make the bad decisions, that they will have to pay to get themselves out. secondly, we want to put in place mechanisms so that sirens go off one big financial companies begin to get so large, their failure with a friend to bring down the economy. so two mechanisms. in early warning system that would allow people to prevent the big companies from taking the irresponsible actions, if they are so large that their failure threatens everyone else. number two is a fail-safe. if one of them more to go under, there would the money that they contributed to.

i have to say that i was disappointed when that bill went through the house. we did not get support from our republican colleagues. holding wall street accountable and fixing the system, as you suggested, is an important priority. host: peggy on the republican line. california. caller: he is going to cause another attack. he took bush's foreign policy and gave it steroids. both sides of congress are strangled by aipac. i was looking at the 9/11 commission yesterday and nobody talked about the page where it talked about the motivation, why we were attacked. we were attacked because of our support of israel and the

suppression of palestinians. host: why you believe that? caller: i have heard from congressman and i have read a book about it. it is a fact. host: where are your facts? caller: c-span, "book tv." host: her comments on president obama? clearly, the president will be talking about his foreign policy and all the efforts he is undertaking to fight the war on terrorism, and especially in the aftermath of the christmas bombing in the review that took

place as a result of that. if you look at with the president said, he said he would do everything he could overseas and domestically to improve our security. the president has done what he said he would do in the campaign, which is to continue to responsibly draw down our troops in iraq. the august deadline for troops will bring us on track for next year. the president has also focused on the al qaeda threat along the afghanistan/pakistan border. the fact of the matter is, despite previous efforts, al qaeda remains active. as you have seen in recent weeks, the president is active

in yemen and somalia to make sure we have good intelligence and we fight these rights as they emerge. with his back to the middle east, the president took major initiative in his cairo speech and is taking steps through his envoy george mitchell. it is essential that we continue to middle east peace and try to resolve the conflict between israelis and palestinians. that is an important part of what gives fuel to the extremists in the region, as well as many other things. if you look at al-qaeda and usama bin laden, they have a long list of grievances. at the end of the day, we need to not just win the war, in

terms of taking an aggressive response, but continuing to win the war of ideas. extremist ideology is not something that should be able to take root around the world. we need to work with our friends and allies to make sure they do not get a foothold in the world. host: laurie on the line for democrats. caller: looking at what is happening in congress, it is these deals that are being made that is entering the democratic base. i am for the public option. it is a light wind and byron dorgan introduced the importation plan of drugs from canada.

it seems they do not care about the american people. host: when you say "they," who are you talking about? caller: congress. it seems the only people that are benefiting are the insurance companies. guest: yes, they oppose the public option. that was in the house bill. they opposed the measure to eliminate the exemption from antitrust laws.

so health insurance companies have been fighting this. they have been putting a lot of money into ads, trying to defeat health care reform. we do not want to hand them a victory here. they have been resisting important parts of this bill from the beginning but we need to push forward. the status quo benefits nobody except for the internet industry. -- insurance industry. that is part of the reason it is important we move forward on health care reform. remembering health care is an important part of getting our economy back on track and making

sure we are competitive in the international marketplace. host: after the scott brown victory in massachusetts, what is your prediction for the house in 2010? do you lose any seats, do you expand? guest: i will not make any predictions. we said more than a year ago that this was going to be a tough election year. it always is the year after a new president. we are working hard to beat that historical trend. this will not be 1994 all over again. of course, that is the year the gingrich revolution swept

through the house. there are many differences between now and then. we need to focus on getting people talk to work. i think you will see them as the theme of the president's speech. really posing the question, do you want to go back to the policies of the bush era that got us into these problems? again, not to lay blame, but to point out some of the alternatives that others are proposing are the very policies that created the problem to begin with. yes, it will be an interesting election, ago when ford, but our members have been doing everything to let their constituents know what they are

doing to try to get the economy turned around. host: chris van hollen is the assistant to the speaker. thank you. coming up, we will take a look at the state of the union addresses from the past with a historical perspective with dennis johnson, a professor at george washington university. >> treasury secretary timothy geithner is in front of the

house this morning as they look at a.i.g. also expected to testify as former treasury secretary hank paulson. live coverage beginning at 10:00 eastern. tonight, president obama delivered his first state of the union address to congress, laying out the future for his vision for the country. the state of the union address coverage beginning at 8:00. you can also listen live through this c-span radio app. \ > >> this week on "book t b" the political cartoons of dr. seuss.

also, the neocons and presidential policy going back to the nixon administration. get the latest update on twitter. host: dennis johnson is here to talk of up tonight's state of the union address, but also looking back and other state of the union addresses. can you think of an appropriate comparison for tonight's state of the union? after the president's first year with an economic situation like he had, headlines that read "liberal funnieunease," cau come up with a comparison? guest: it is pretty tough.

he might have to go back to bill clinton. at this time, the company was coming back strongly. of course, is big problem -- his big problem was his agenda. he famously had troubles with the monitor talking about health care. but you also have to go back to ronald's -- ronald reagan paused first term. there were positive signs that he was going to do something better. there was a lot of anticipation at that time. i think those would be good parallels for barack obama. host: how did they use those speeches to take on the years as president?

guest: when you look at all three of them, they are probably the best communicators that we have had. from ronald reagan, he acknowledged people in the audience, american heroes. that was unprecedented. in 1992 we had this terrible snowstorm. president reagan in an alleged one of the heroes -- recognized one of the heroes during his speech. since then every president has done something similar. but only to talk about their policy but also to acknowledge average people who are considered american heroes. capt. sullen burgeburger recent.

host: let us go back to the clinton address from 1996. >> we must answer here three fundamental questions. first, how do we make the american dream of opportunity for all, a reality that all americans are willing to work for? second, how do we preserve our old enduring values as we move into the future? third, how do we meet these challenges together, as one america? we know big government does not have all the answers, we know there is not a program for every problem. guestwe have offered to give the american people a smaller, less bureaucratic government in

washington, and we have to give the american people one that lives within its means. the era of big government is over. we cannot go back to the time when our citizens were left to fend for themselves. host: your reaction? guest: that was an interesting speech. i think republicans in the audience were probably saying, my god, he is stealing power lines. that is what we were going to say. it is true. president clinton was taking the standard policy speeches and policies thrust by republicans,

so i think they were perplexed by that. what you have this sort of day exercise. how many times can you get members of congress to stand up and applause? this was a mixed reaction. republicans wanted to applaud things that the president was in fact saying. host: do you think president obama will steal some lines from the republican party tonight? guest: he probably will. he will talk about economic discipline, certainly about cutting the budget. he will talk about getting jobs back. who knows if he talks about smaller government or not, and whether that will have a resonance with the american

people or not. host: some facts about the state of the union. woodrow wilson first delivered the state of the union in person in 1913. the first televised broadcast was president harry truman in 1947. you can see how we have evolved. why is the state of the union important, it is the first one for a president important? guest: the state of the union is something required by the constitution. it says from time to time.

it does not say exactly what he will say, but he is to report. of course, our convention has been every year at this time of year. for someone who has never given one, it is extremely important. for one, things are not going so well for the democrats. it is time to rally the troops and fundamentally tell the american people and congress what he wants to do. host: can the president speak to short or long? guest: yes, the president can speak too long. bill clinton talked a lot. typically, these speeches are about one hour long. of course, they are punctuated with applause, and that sort of thing, but if you go past one hour, you are losing people.

45 minutes is probably the maximum you want to have. host: talking about tonight's speech and past presidents speeches. next phone call. caller: i want to make a comment for a lot of the people calling in. i think it is obvious we have an educational crisis, not only with young kids, but with adults as well. a lot of people are forming opinions on things they probably do not understand. for instance, you have the senate and house of representatives, the president -- i am sorry, i am nervous. they need to be more respectful to the president and they need to listen to how things work, and understand, before they form

an opinion. i think the president has a lot of good ideas. if people in the senate are going to take sides and block everything, then they need to go. i have to an mba, i am unemployed, and i am about to lose my insurance. host: thank you. why is the state of the union in the house of representatives chamber? guest: simply, there are not enough seats in the senate to accommodate all the members. you have 100 members of the senate, 438 in the house, members of the cabinet, supreme court, members of the ambassadorial cabinet that may also be there. physically, the only place that

you could do it is in the chambers of the house of representatives. host: hillary clinton will not be at the speech tonight because she will be in london doing her job. is that unprecedented? guest: no, not at all. what has happened in the past decade is one member of the cabinet is designated as the catastrophe cabinet member, if something were to happen, god forbid. there has to be one member physically not present so that government can carry on. that is the role she is playing now. host: seated in the chamber will be members and former members of the house and senate.

the chief justice of the supreme court will also be there. guest: it is a relatively recent principle, but probably important. host: next phone call. betty from california. democrat line. caller: i do not understand how the republicans -- it is not one thing that the president said or did that dathey stood with him. democrats respected bush when he was in office. i think obama, he said he was bipartisan, but i think what he

wanted was for them to give him ideas and that he would evaluate them, not them taking over his program. if he does not do exactly what they say, and they would throw it out. i wonder why they do that. they have not banded together to do anything to help the country. that is what we are interested in. we are not interested in partisan fights. i was wondering, when are they going to stop fighting, for the sake of the people? host: republicans will be giving a response to the state of the union tonight. that will be delivered by bob macdonald of virginia. he will be talking, presumably, about the republican agenda. why is it that the opposing party gives a response after

the president delivers his state of the union? guest: that is a fairly recent phenomenon, too. the idea is not equal time is not fair time. if you have people watch and for one hour, it is basically the political junkies, the people who watch c-span, who will be watching the response from the opposing party. host: the most recent response coming from and louisiana governor. he was criticized heavily for his response to president obama, the way he came out, the way he was speaking. talk about that. as far as message, what can the other parties do in order to compete?

guest: you are referring to bobby jindal. a lot of republicans would say that he is our next hope for the election, but the problem was not the words that he said. it was his staging. he came down the stairwell. the situation was entirely wrong for a response to the president. if you are sitting in a studio, that is probably the best thing you can do when you have people standing behind you, you can never control what is happening behind you. the setting was wrong, the way he delivered the speech was wrong. it left republicans flatfooted and critics were saying, that was done very good at all. host: jim on the republican line. caller: this guy is a

knucklehead. he is a professor but he is a piece of junk. host: next phone call. my apologies for the name calling. caller: hello? good morning, greta. not have been in this country for 20 years. i am from jamaica. host: we are going to put you on hold. as a reminder, you have to turn your television down. peter from new york. democrat line. caller: thank you. unfortunately, that person who expressed what he feels about you, i do not think that is right.

but i want to point out the problem that we have with this conversation. i did not really care when the high definition broadcasts of the state of the union was. i want you to discuss the state of the union. obama is going into a chamber that is so self-ridiculing, when you have chief justices who say that it is ok for chinese or filipinos to spend as much as the one on the election. barack obama, who worked hard to get elected, walking in and talking about controlling costs , when on the first day he came in he could have gotten that

medicare bill repealed. the fundamental state of our union needs to be flawed when no one will take responsibility for the state of our union, but just told the ideological or business ties as the motivation for their lives, as opposed to the founding fathers. guest: thank you for that comment. i think your comments tell us something about the state of the nation. a lot of people had high hopes when president obama was elected, worked for him. we have so many issues that are complex and the answers are not coming so far and they are the

cement -- disappointing some people. others simply say is the wrong track. it illustrates how complex and emotional these larger issues are. certainly, we have some bigger fights coming up. this is the nature of washington. good people fighting amongst each other for policy things. very often, it is not pretty. unfortunately, that is how democracy works. sometimes people get very disappointed. host: the caller brought up joe wilson and one of his remarks to the president, calling him a liar. to you expect -- is that type of

reaction unprecedented? yes, we have never seen that. -- guest: yes, we have never seen that. what is interesting was in 1835, there were something like 350 guns that have to be checked at the beginning of the speech. it was a very contentious time. they were fighting over abolitionist slavery. in comparison, and joe wilson -- in comparison, to wilsojoe wn saying you lie is not the same thing, but it is still not good. host: next phone call. caller: i am proud of joe

wilson's standing up. i did not realize that president obama was a liar until now. how are we supposed to pay for health care? he has his priorities screwed up, don't you think? host: what do you want to hear from the president on health care? caller: i don't want to hear nothing about health care. get the jobs first, then worry about health care. i thought he had enough brains to run when he was president. now i know that his administration is just as stupid as he is. callerhost: how does the presido about addressing today's issues? have past president unable to do that effectively? guest: i think you have an interesting point. there are a lot of people who

are frustrated with this idea of health care. one of the real problems is, does the president harp on health care tonight? painter will be no. the real achilles heel will be jobs, the economy. one of the important themes will be jobs and job creation. there will be a number of things to talk about, but certainly, if he will talk about jobs. host: johnson city, tennessee. steve on the independent line. caller: i wanted to ask your guest, it is all about jobs, just like the last person. president obama has made so many promises to the american people over the past year.

that is why he will not talk about health care. he has no other means to get it passed other than with the 51 votes. i am unemployed. i am on unemployment and it is about to run afouout. they have had these figures have about people in the united states, unemployment at 10% in most states, but it is as high as 12%, 13% because there are people who are not even claiming any more. i want the president to get us trump'jobs. guest: you have a good point. job creation, people losing

their jobs, fearful of losing their jobs, is a major problem for the president. the economy turned sour the year before he came -- he became president. it is extraordinarily difficult to affect the economy in this way, but he will try. everyone is asking, what will you do to get the economy going? that will definitely be a theme. host: will he give specifics? guest: probably. host: do people listen to specifics? guest: yes, they do. the question is whether or not those specifics go into policy. we have had president in the past -- presidents in the past that have made big promises, and

unfortunately, a lot of it does not pan out because congress cannot do it or it falls by the wayside. you remember president clinton and health care. host: knoxville, tennessee. david, good morning. i think we lost him. ohio. republican line. caller: i know the president does not vote but we elect people to represent us. the deregulation of bank, mortgages, for -- foreclosures, i wonder when the house and senate are going to pass bills on predatory lending, adjustable-rate mortgages. it is the house and senate that

create this. the president only speaks. it is the house and senate that we elect to office. when are they going to represent the people? guest: what you have it is an enormous number of things on the plate of the house and senate. finance regulation, curbing banks', certainly they are among the big issues, and they have not gone to it yet. of course, the president does not have a vote, but through the president -- state of the union, meetings with congress, through pressure, can certainly try to do things.

but it is enormously difficult, and you are right, it is congress's job. host: birmingham, alabama. bobby on the democrat line. caller: i would like to hear the president address medicare and medicaid because medicaid is being killed by all the young women and everyone else going on medicaid, having more children just to get more money from medicaid. then you have your older people on medicare barely making enough to buy their medicine. on less history serves me wrong, i believe many years ago the government borrowed money from medicare. was that money never paid back? they have given back the

stimulus money. what needs to be paid back is the money that was taken away from medicare. the last thing i want to say is president obama is the most disrespectful president we have ever had. some of the things that we have been saying to the president are disrespectful. by one of many like to hear him address medicare and medicaid. host: stephen, northampton, pennsylvania. caller: i have a problem with a false this coming from the congress on the democratic side, trying to reward people for non- activity. socialism has come to the forefront. the american people see right through this. the american people do not believe in their government

anymore, and that is a bad thing. we are being led down a path of non-competition from anywhere from preschool love all up through the adult level. jobs are leaving the country and everyone is lying through their teeth to make things look good. host: let us take his first comment, people not believing in their government. is that added pressure to the president tonight to address that sentiment? guest: he is right. there is a greater distrust of government. it is not just simply people not supporting the president. congress always has sale level of trust among the american people, and it is lower now. it is also a problem for

republicans this whole movement, the tea party movement, a patriopatriots, it is all geared toward moderate the republicans. so you have controversy and bitterness on all sides. it is a very toxic time in america. people did not trust government or understand what they're doing. the missiles are what we see today in some of these instances that your guest has mentioned. host: houston, texas. what are your thoughts? caller: fit as a republican, -- as a republican, -- and i have

been a republican for a long time -- but what should we do here? we cannot have a magic wand. both sides need to start working together on this. what would he do to bring this country back to what it was? if you do not have a job, no health care, that means the government has to pay for some of these people. jobs, health care, everything is important here. republicans are opposing everything, but i have not heard anything that they would do. guest: 01 of the difficulties here is this issue of bipartisanship. president obama pledged when he

came into office that his way of handling congress would be different. we would break through all of this toxic discourse between democrats and republicans. frankly, that has not happened. this morning and john major, the house of -- boehner, the leader of the republican party, just said, do not blame us. you find that republicans are standing foursquare against the president on many issues. it is frustrating for the administration. to reach across that the vine is an extremely important thing but it is also an extremely difficult thing. host: one of the callers from of joe wilson. we are gathering tweets from

house members. here is one from joe wilson this morning. you can find members of congress tweeting during, before, after the speech tonight. next phone call. patty from dallas. caller: everyone is talking about jobs. where were these people with clinton and bush? everyone is talking about taxes. you cannot run a household if you do not have everything in. if there are no taxes, what have tax cuts have done for us? nothing.

if you have no revenue, how can you sustain anything? it does not matter what president obama says, tries to do. we just have to get down to the nitty gritty. this is a hateful, racist country, and it is going to be that way. no one is going to work with him. all they are going to do is put him aside. for that man talking about jobs, as an african-american female, i am going to tell him what they always tell us just pull yourselves up from the bootstraps. host: how has the president reached across the other side to connect big piece of legislation -- enact big pieces of legislation in a bipartisan way?

guest: we just had president kennedy dining in 1963, lyndon johnson coming on. after that state of the union address, they talked about civil rights legislation. back then, it was a totally different time. the south was controlled by conservative democrats who were against civil rights. lyndon johnson had to reach out to republicans and was successful. at that time, you may also recall we had a 75-day filibuster in the u.s. senate against the civil rights act, that was finally broken in june. that is one of the most significant examples where the president has reached out to another party. host: manassas, virginia. independent line.

caller: my question is regarding the agenda. there are about 580 congress people and senators. i want to -- i watched them sit up and get down applauding. i also know they have staffers. it seems like they guide policy. they are told what the senators think, and then they come back and say what they should stay. is it more than that? just gguest: as a former staffer myself, members of congress could not function if they did not have members of staff. in the house, you generally have eight people per each member of congress, about eight people in the district.

in the senate, it varies according to population in the state. some will have 20, others will have 60 helping them. it is important to have staff, but members of congress will tell you that they come up with their own ideas, speeches, agenda. that is technically true, that staff has a lot to do with it. the bottom line is, you need to have staff to get your job done. host: if you want to continue this conversation about what you want to hear from the state of address, go to our web page journal@c-span.org. do not forget we will have coverage tonight of the state of the gain in beginning at 8:00 eastern time. we will preview the president's

address before the house and senate as well taking a look back at past presidents. up next, we are going to switch gears and talk to the former ambassador of iraq and pakistan, ambassador ryan crocker. first, an update from c-span radio. >> more from joe wilson on tonight's state of the union. he says you will not hear a peep from him tonight. after calling the president a liar in the last address, he said he would be on his best behavior, saying that he has been getting plenty of ribbing from friends and family members. the president and vice-president will announce grants for high- speed rail tomorrow in tampa,

florida. secretary of state hillary clinton arrived in london to meet with delegates from the middle east and europe to discuss yemen. the u.s. and britain may push for more control over counterterrorism operations inside yemen, so the foreign counterparts says that he will not support a continuous presence. .

>> tonight president obama delivers his first state of the union address to congress, laying out his visions for the future, and plans to deal with the issues. the state of the union address tonight with coverage beginning at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. you can also listen to his address live on the iphone with the c-span app. >> this week, the growth of the muslim middle class in the middle east could and muslim extremism. >> this guest on the author published during the war years in the 1940's. also, these guests on the neo- cons. find the entire weekend

schedule booktv.org ended the latest updates on twitter. host: the former ambassador to iraq and elf, and now the university dean from texas a&m university bush school dean -- two big rack and afghanistan. the me get your reaction to this. the u.s. played a key role, finding data and weapons -- hopes to kill al qaeda's leaders. what do you think of this effort? guest: i have no knowledge of the specific things we're doing now with yemen. this is consistent with the british policy. -- with a prudent policy.

we are in support with the yemen government. we must assist them for it to succeed. it sounds like that is what we're doing. host: help viewers understand yemen -- why this country and what has happened leading up to it? guest: yemen has faced huge challenges, not just in the last few years, but over the decades. there was not a strong central authority. various tribes have tremendous levels of autonomy. there is a rift between the north and south. at one time there were two separate states. there is turbulence, instability, and conflict. this is an environment in which groups like al qaeda can find

space to establish operations. host: in afghanistan some other headlines on the situation there. here is "the new york times" -- the u.s. wrestling with the prospect of offering an olive branch to the taliban. it is bound to be messy with the different parties. this is from "the financial times" -- poised for a taliban talks. the finance minister has raised the prospect of involving the taliban across all strata of government. do you agree? if so, why is it necessary?

guest: broadly speaking, you cannot kill your way out of an insurgency. clearly military force plays a role. in the end, ending an insurgency requires an arsenal of tools. that includes negotiation, accommodation, reconciliation. that is what we did in iraq, used the hammer of military force to the surge. we also engaged with anyone who would talk to us. the trick is knowing which tool you need at which time. i do not think a strategy of negotiation only with the taliban will be affected at all. here i think we are on the right policy trek. the surge in afghanistan constitutes the hammer.

you bring that down on the rock of the taliban and their allies. you start to open up some cracks and some fissures. once that happens, engagement and reconciliation makes sense. you have a prospect of success, but if your enemy thinks he is winning is not likely to be inclined to reconciliation or accommodation. so, first we have to change the strategic logic in afghanistan as we did successfully in iraq so that the taliban and its allies consider again whether or not they're winning. that is when you get the chance for reconciliation and accommodation. host: the use of money in this situation, bringing the taliban in, paying them to become part of the afghan government -- talk

about that. why is that a strategy to use? guest: the taliban is not a government, not monolithic. it is various constituents with different motivations and reasons for being in this fight. we need to find different motivations and reasons to take them out of the fight. money, believe me, can help. we employed money in iraq as the awakening too cold. we offered jobs to young iraqis who may have been actually in the fight against a set one time. money to do things in the civilian sector. money to serve armed elements under iraqi and u.s. control to

be in the fight against their former allies. again, reconciliation does not take place with your friends, but rather with your enemies. economic incentives can have a lot to do with reconciliation. host: general stanley mcchrystal has said "i think any afghans can play a role if the focus on the future and not on the past." what does he mean there? guest: it is important to look at the passed precisely to understand what general mcchrystal may have meant. afghanistan's past is one of extraordinary violence and turbulence, not just since 9/11, but since 1979 and the soviet invasion. for many afghans, most, the violence is all they have ever known.

what i think general mcchrystal is talking about is, think about a future that would not be like the past. the future with reasonable levels of security and stability and opportunities. host: what is the historical relationship between afghanistan and pakistan that americans need to understand to better understand what is happening in the region and the u.s. efforts there? guest: great question. afghanistan cannot be a drastic or dealt with in isolation. i think the obama administration has been absolutely right in having an afghanistan and pakistan strategy.

incidentally, the same thing we worked hard on during the bush administration when i was ambassador to pakistan. a lot of orders in the broader middle east are quite artificial, drawn by colonial overlords often without regard to national and ethnic divisions. nowhere is that more the case then in afghanistan. the duran line drawn at the end of the 19th century was deliberately intended to divide the pashtun population of that area. that presented security challenges then, just as it presents challenges now. so, this was a line drawn not to

unify groups, but to divide them. that means that line has been highly porous ever since its inception. on the pakistani side of the federally-administered tribal areas. they are separate from the rest of pakistan. the simple authority has ever been able to fully control them. not the british raj for the decades, or the pakistani government today. there is a huge challenge that comes in part from the way the duran line was drawn to try to divide pashtuns. while they are the largest of

the ethnic groups in pakistan, there are more in pakistan then in afghanistan. so, again, a major challenge for the governments of both afghanistan and pakistan. and for the u.s. and allies of both countries to help the move towards stability. once again, anyone who thinks this can be done simply by the application of military force could not be more incorrect. this will require all the instruments of power, economic and social development, schools, clinics, employment opportunities, as well as the judicious application of force. it will require these instruments over a long period of time. host: let me get your reaction to the ap reported this morning that the taliban says on the web

that the london conference taking place tomorrow on afghanistan will accomplish nothing. guest: that is exactly what i would expect a taliban to say. it would suggest to me that they are indeed rather worried that it will accomplish something. host: the ap is also reporting that a 11 suspected taliban militants including two senior officials have been captured. new york city, steve. on the independent line. caller: good morning, and thank you for c-span. my question is short. first, what is a connection to saudi arabia? what is the saudi contribution guest: with respect to young

men? or afghanistan? or all of the above? host: i'm sorry, ambassador ryan crocker, he is not with us anymore. guest: generally, saudi arabia is the largest and most powerful country on the arabian peninsula. they play a role in all security and economic issues. it is of course a member of the gulf cooperation council which does not include yemen. saudi arabia has substantial interests in yemen. there are over a million young menis who worked in saudi arabia. recently we have seen a fairly significant conflict on the young meni/saudi border

involving a coalition of yemeni tribes that have attacked into saudi arabia. saudi arabia has some significant security concerns. saudi arabia is a strong and close u.s. ally and we are consulting closely with them when we look at the challenges that are coming towards all of us from the soil of yemen. host: democrats line, good morning. caller: ambassador, i will try to be civil. can you please take the opportunity there to come clean with the american people? admit that the bush administration used propaganda to launch the war in iraq

regarding the muffins -- the weapons of mass destruction and yellow cake? now is your of virginity to come clean and straighten the record. there are people who believe the bush administration lied to us. guest: as the question suggests there are a lot of very strong views over what the u.s. did in iraq in 2003, and the reasons for doing it. i think it is a healthy debate, and one that will go on for a long time. there will be an unlimited number of phd theses out of a great university where i am and many others who will review this overtime, but hey, you know

what? my focus as a foreign service officer was with the challenges we face once the decision wason taken decisionce crossed the line of departure for those of us involved in policy implementation the debate is over. the country is committed. and you cannot rewind the tape. you can only go forward. certainly, my time and efforts in iraq in 2003, and later as ambassador in 2007, 2009 were all directed towards shipping and developing the future. i did not have the time or leisure to focus on the past. many others will do that. it is a healthy process. it is 2010 -- almost seven years after intervention.

we have an obligation to our own country and to our own interests to continue engagement in iraq and do all we can to help the iraqi government and people to get stable. host: are the lessons to be learned from the decision to go into iraq? guest: i look at this in an historical context. the middle east is a complicated region with a long, complicated history involving the west. when you look at the whole stretch of the broader released from morocco in the west to pakistan in the east every single country there with the exception of the center of saudi arabia has been occupied by at

least one western army over the last 200 years or more. it conditions how they think about it and react to us. a lesson i have absorber over many years in this region is, if you're contemplating major decisions -- and no decision is more major than a military intervention -- you really have to understand the region in which you are proposing to intervene in its own terms. its history, culture, the areas around it, how they will react. to fully understand all those complexities. and to understand that when you intervene militarily, you

are setting in motion forces that will create consequences you cannot possibly foresee. you need to know as much as you possibly can, and be ready to accept a considerable amount of risk over the things you do not understand. more narrowly, i think, we have learned a lot from iraq both before and after 2003. i think our process of developing intelligence estimates which are very important in the policy makers has been considerably improved since 2002. host: los angeles. caller: i lost a nephew in iraq and am very angry about it. have you heard of a certain book concerning israel and help the

jewish neo-cons wanted to go? it is online, please read it, sir. guest: i have not read that particular book. i sorry for your loss. one of the things i have done since i retired at the end of april from the foreign service, is to be engaged with gold star delays in my part of the country -- the northwest -- and i have great admiration for their courage, a commitment, and the sacrifice of their loved ones. again, i think what we did and what we did it in 2003 will be debated for a long time to come. but i am totally persuaded that

we did not do it is rreal's urgings, nor do i see any dark conspiracy behind. caller: good morning. what i would like to ask the ambassador -- the u.s. government's main job is to protect the homeland. coming from the department afghanistan, and security the number one terrorist threat is the right wing extremists of the conservative party. or anybody who opposes the wars. do you think our country would be better served if the military were here to protect us and not spread throughout the world and the middle east? like you said, intervening in all other things and dropping

drones on yemen and pakistan? guest: well, you're absolutely right that the primary duty of any administration is the security of america and its people. that was true in the bush administration just as it is true with the obama administration. the challenge comes with figuring out how that is best done. in the world of the 21st century where are threats -- our threats come from non-state actors, like al qaeda, it is more complicated and more difficult in many respects than it was during the cold war era. to all the c-span viewers, think carefully when you use the word

"enemy" and don't use it about our fellow citizens. this is a great country. it holds the first opinions, many different viewpoints, and the nature of democracy is that it is an adversarial. that is as it should be. i have been out in a part of the world where the enemies are real. they are actually trying to kill americans, not just shouting at each other in debates. i have seen up close and personal what america's enemies look like. what we cannot do is demonize each other. a good debate is essential to help the democracy, but at the end of the day we are all americans. sometimes we just need to take a deep breath and reflect on that. host: ryan crocker, here is a

headline -- iraqi commission bars nearly 500 candidates from parliamentary vote. one your phrases it like this -- she would like you to comment. guest: the controversy over candidates for the election in march is a good example of the challenges that lie ahead. iraq is not yesterday's war by any means. the development of iraq and its challenges will go on for a long time to come. this controversy is one example. it is why the west needs to stay fully engaged in iraq --

increasingly by non-military means. we do have to stay engaged. that was the whole thrust of the strategic framework agreement that we negotiated at the end of the bush administration, setting out a framework for our cooperation with iraq in a range of areas. that was important to the bush administration and to the obama administration. the vice president's recent visit makes that clear. these are iraqi issues that iraqis will have to work through. our involvement, helping them find a satisfactory solutions will be key in this case and

many others for years to come. host: san francisco, john, on the line for democrats. caller: could that the ambassador, on the cost of the afghanistan and iraq wars? in the current budget we have huge deficits. wondering how much each war will cost us in lieu of these current deficits? republicans did not tax these wars. i believe we are paying for this. guest: the cost of both wars are clearly considerable. they or something we must take seriously.

earlier i commented on the things we need to think about before we engage particularly before we engage militarily. this question raises another good point. as you contemplate the risks and costs of engagement, you also have to considered with the risks and costs of the disengagement might be. this is a point that general david betrays and i tried to make before congress in 2007. if you are tired of iraq, the cost of us in blood and treasure and want to change course, then you have to think carefully about the cost of that change. about what it could be. our point back in 2007 was that if we disengaged then under those circumstances from iraq,

the costs could be astronomically higher both in dollars and in threats to security than the costs of sustained engagement. and i would say the same about afghanistan. there we have a recent historical example. we were heavily engaged in afghanistan in the 1980's, not by conventional forces, but in support of the anti-soviet jihad. when the soviets withdrew in 1989 so did we. we ended our engagement, and did our associations, moved away from pakistan which it been our most allied of allies. and imposed sanctions on them. we just walked away even though the conflict went ahead without us in a different form.

what we saw in the 1990's with the taliban taking hold in pakistan, giving space to al qaeda, it was literally the road to 9/11. so, we're back, engaged again, both militarily in afghanistan and economically/politically in pakistan. so, if we think this war is costing too much and need to and our involvement, we need to think about what would happen if the adversaries who combined to attack us at home once have a clear field in front of them for a second time. wars are expensive. first in the lives of young men and women, and then to our budget.

but defeat and disengagements can be even more expensive. as painful and expensive as our engagement is, increasingly less so in iraq because we have helped bring that country to a better place, but certainly in afghanistan the cost of disengagement would be far higher. host: dearborn heights, mich., on the independent line. joe? caller: hi. thank you for your service, sir. i have been looking at a map of the areas and the question in iraq, saudi arabia, afghanistan, and pakistan. with the strategic and the region of iraq and saudi arabia

being an assumed ally, would our strategy and intervention in afghanistan and pakistan be setting up our chessboard as being like iran? guest: you are right first to look at a map. americans are truly great people but we have our challenges and limitations. one of those is on geography. so, good time for all of us to take a look at that map of the broader middle east and just see who is next to whom, and what geography tells us about politics and options. in the region we are engaged in pakistan and afghanistan, have a number of close friends and allies, as you noted saudi

arabia, and the other gcc states as well as the government of yemen. we need to listen carefully to our allies, not only tell them what we want to do, but get their perspectives. they lived in the neighborhood, are directly affected, and have informative it views. the first thing is to listen to them. listen to the saudis and other friends. listen about afghanistan, yemen, about iraq, and certainly listen to them about iran. we have not had the opportunity to talk much about iran, but clearly its quest for nuclear capability is a serious threat to our interests, and to the

region more broadly. when we look at that challenge and our options, there are two options that began with an "a" -- acceptance. accept that they will get a nuclear weapon and live with it. the other is attack. i don't think either are particularly good options, and double think our friends in the region do either. the process that the previous administration started and the current administration is following of engagement, working with the international community, the security council, the your opinion, our regional friends to do all we can to make it clear the irani and nuclear quest is not an american problem -- but an international problem.

to do all we can to dis- incentivize the iranians from proceeding requires all we can do. its requires a painful multilateral effort in the region, united nations, and elsewhere. that is sustained engagement is the best course open to us. host: agusta, mississippi, on the republican line. caller: yes, ambassador, i am pleased to talk to you. my dates and times might be mixed up, but if we had not gone into iraq and taken the initiative to try to take out saddam hussein, in the years following when lebanon and israel were fighting and saddam hussein would have been in power with his army in place, then you

think it could have cost -- don't you think it could have cost the catastrophic conflict if he had had his threat, been in place? the bush administration took him out. guest: that is a great question because it focuses our attention a bit on alternative courses of history. in many respects as we look back on the decision to intervene in 2003, critics sometimes assume if we had not everything would have been just fine. well, everything was not just fine then. i was involved in the washington in much of that debate.

i recall clearly in 2002 that we were looking at the saddam hussein regime that probably was the most evil government in the world since world war ii with the exception of the vietnamese regime -- looking at one that had defied more than any number of chapter 7 security council resolutions which call on the international committee to use all necessary means to fill their agenda, and was arguably therefore the most defined nation to the whole post-world war ii international order since the u.n. was created. the sanctions regime was in trouble. people were tired of it.

we owe ourselves the intellectual honesty to consider what would have happened had we not intervened, and it might have been a very difficult, dangerous, and pleasant process. would he have played a role in the conflict between israel and hezbollah in lebanon? i am not inclined to think so. saddam hussein stayed out of previous arab/israeli flights. was a smart enough not to get engaged when the israelis invaded lebanon in 1982. so, i am not sure it would have been an issue.

what i am sure of is that his regime would have continued to do horrific things to his own population. and have posed a significant threat and risks to the region, to the international community, and to the u.s.. we will never know what shape that risk might have taken, but it would be incorrect to assume that if we had not gone in there in 2003 all would have been fine in the region. it most definitely was not during the 1980's and 1990's. whatever it would have been, it would not have been fine had he continued in power. host: you did not mention a relationship with al qaeda

though had saddam hussein still ben ami power guest-- had saddam hussein still been in power. hostguest: it is entirely possi. he had shown in the past are remarkable flexibility as to who his tactical allies were. i would certainly not rule out the possibility. host: austin, texas. caller: embassador, i would like your opinion on the myack report from the homeland security that was disseminated to police boards through the nation where they said that the right wing conservatives, christian

fundamentalists, returning iraqi veterans were the biggest threat to homeland security and should be handled with care. guest: i have not seen the report, and frankly i would be a little surprised if it were couched in exactly those terms. look, america faces all kinds of threats, many of them and external, and some domestic. we have to take them all seriously. there had been attacks, horrific ones in this country. the oklahoma city bombing is a case where it was carried out by our own citizens.

we always have to be careful to make a balance between security and the liberties we prize. you will see that constant tension within an administration, congress, as it should be. as i said earlier, we have to be serious about serious threats. but we cannot demonize our political opponents by calling them "part of the terrorist campaign" or aiding and abetting terrorism, or whatever up a tent is in play at the moment. -- what everep epithet is in ply

the moment. it is wrong and does harm to fellow citizens and clouds the issue. concerning the real issue of terrorist threats as a weapon in political debate -- that takes our mind off the real threats out there. not only do we unjustly abused our fellow citizens and our own system, but that distracts ourselves from threats actually out in front of us. host: phoenix, ariz., on the independent line. caller: you mentioned that saddam hussein was the most brutal and worst state dictator in the world at the time. i would like to know who is now the worst, and we should now attack? b, you mentioned the cost. of cost could you explain to me

if it is prudent to cut taxes when you're trying to fight a war and pay for soldiers returning? guest: you pose in the first part of your question a very important point that americans need to reflect on. to be clear here, i did not say the nature of this a down hussein's regime -- the said on hussein's regime was a justification by itself for armed intervention. -- concern saddam hussin's regime. it was a terrible regime and all would not have been fine in the world if we had not intervened. more broadly there are some very oppressive regimes otherwise and

some very tragic examples of what can happen to innocent people. that is when regimes go unchecked. the darfur regime is a case in point. rwanda in the 1990's. it is a question for americans -- we hold to universal ideals that in our view apply to the entire world, not just to americans. at what point should we contemplate the use of our force for purely humanitarian reasons? should we intervene militarily in darfur? should we have in rwanda?

i don't have answers to those questions. as we consider how posture ourselves going forward in the 21st century, these are debates that we need to have so that we might as a people have done some mental and emotional preparation before the next crisis, humanitarian or otherwise. and before we feel compelled to make decisions at the spur of the moment. in terms of taxes and the funding of the conflict, administrations must make those choices. wars are expensive. they must be funded somehow. decisions on when, whether and how to raise taxes are all part

of the debate administration's need to have and the american people need to be involved with. host: the republican line. caller: along lines of the other caller a one to ask -- first of all, i just watched on monday the british inquiry about iraq and their involvement in the war. they were saying in 2002 a general and donald rumsfeld and asked the rich to join -- asked thebrits to join the war. they said they could not because they had to have a vote for the house of commons, but were very concerned because they knew that saddam hussein had been

shooting down the pilot and no- fly zones. he had already developed a long- range missiles which were mobile. the other problem they believed was that they were trying to prevent a surprise attack on the u.s. which would of been worse than 9/11 because it would have been chemical, biological. host: are you familiar with this guest: i am familiar with the inquiry under way in the united kingdom, not with all the details. what the caller was nothing there takes us back to the very

difficult decision at the time. saddam was a threat to international peace and security. one dozen u.n. resolutions said so. there had been efforts to shoot down u.s. and u.k. aircraft in the no fly air zones. it was a dilemma at the time. we will face further hard choices and dilemmas ahead. i would hope that the debate over iraq would rise above simply recriminations going one way or the other, and focus a bit on process. we thought he did have a weapons of mass destruction -- that was what he was signaling us and what the intelligence estimates

told us. it turns out he did not, but that was not what we knew at the time. hard choices. iraq was a hard choice. the debate as to whether it was the correct one will go on for years. as an american i hope part of that debate will be less about recriminations and more about how the u.s. deals responsibly with threats from abroad. host: md., on the democratic line. caller: throughout history -- it seems like the middle east is a civil war -- have you seen for we have gotten in a civil war and another part of the world where we were successful? and if we were successful, how? how could relate to current

problems in the middle east? guest: that is a great question. is the middle east a civil war? it is a range of complex conflicts, some might be characterized as that, others not. it is very important for us to understand the region in its own terms. that is what foreign service officers to. we know the language, live there, the culture and history. understanding what is actually happening in a given area, and why is pretty important to understand what our options are going forward. i would not stop what happened in iraq as a civil war.

it got very close to it at the height of the sectarian violence between sunnis and shi'ia. but american samoa how does that fire was it also burned out fairly quickly. iraq does not have a history of sectarian conflict. -- but as hot as that fire was, it burned out quickly. they revolted against the violence in their midst. it is important for us to understand the history, i understand there was a fairly good prospect. there was a decisive and swift intervention by as. it stabilized the situation. knowledge of these situations in their own terms is critical.

take us back a bit to our own history. we fought an unbelievably brutal civil war ourselves. that war did not lie in fundamental, historic differences among americans. it lay in unresolved issues involving the structure of our state and society. particularly the rights of states. vis-a-vis the federal government. this is part of the debate now in iraq. understanding other people's complex history is informed by our own, assessing how difficult the challenges are is always preseudent. host: mike?

caller: good morning. sir, a few things -- you look like a deer caught in the headlight with all due respect. you do not look comfortable. it is not so bad that we went in there, but that we went in there on a lie. this is what i do not understand. young men and women have lost their lives. the lie that george bush and his administration told is going to pay for it -- we will pay for it for generations. you cannot make the right. host: embassador ryan crocker? guest: that was a comment rather than a question. i was in the washington in 2002,

2003, and in iraq just weeks after saddam fell. as i look back i don't think we have a situation of deliberate lies or conspiracies. these were hard issues. challenges posed to the international community buy saddam, and to us. i have seen the assessments at the time. those the intelligence community produced pointed to the existence of weapons of mass destruction. those weapons did not turn out to be there, but i do not believe for one minute that those assessments were the result of a carefully orchestrated conspiracy. they were produced by people

trying to do the best they could. the careful look at how we did not get it exactly right has led us to improve process that will serve the american people well today. host: look into the future of afghanistan, a headline -- afghan leaders hat -- always more than just had care is losing its cachet. an attempt to devise order of that was afghan rather than regional or ethnic. this quotation says is clear that he is a pashtun. do you have confidence in that government or any concerns there? guest: both. just as i did in iraq.

the leaders in both these countries face huge challenges. literally just in staying alive. i got to know karzai what a first arrived in afghanistan in 2002 when he had only been in office for a few weeks. eight years later he is still in office facing extraordinarily y challenges. there clearly are a lot of problems. i got to know him personally. but never had he might be wearing at the moment, one thing i am persuaded of is that he is an afghan nationalists. host: next phone call riverhead, new york. caller: ambassador, good

morning. i had the recent experience that the third person i talked to came from iraq mentioned it to me that the came from mesopotamia and blamed england for forming a country. they did not bear animosity towards us for coming over there, but felt the only way their country could survived between the different factions was to have a dictatorship. i was wondering if you had experience with any of those ideas? guest: there are as many ideas in iraq about the direction of governance as you might find it in this country. borders throughout the region

are artificial in many cases. those borders really have not changed over the decades. iraqis and iranians fought and died and hundreds of thousands during the war of the 1980's to defend their borders and their nations. so, the borders might have been artificial in conception, but are pretty solid today as the boundaries of independent states. should or can iraq only be governed by a dictator? i do not think so. we are seeing the abolition of a pluralistic, democratic form of government that will face al