mike in dover, pennsylvania, on our democrats line. caller: regarding the two earlier callers comparing president obama's war strategy with president bush's. i would first like to bring up that he won the nobel peace prize. obviously he did not win it for the purpose because the deadline was two weeks after he was inaugurated, but his perseverance with diplomacy in a middle east has paid off. i do understand a lot of the frustrations that republicans have over the war strategy right now. like the last caller, i understand -- just like her, i would love to have the troops

home. but this is a lot of politics right now. we ought are already going to lose a couple of seats. it all boils down to -- he knows he needs to establish and sold as a credible friend to the republican party so he is going to do some things that he probably does not want to do and democrats don't want to do whatsoever. it all boils down to politics really. he has been a good president. thank you very much for your time. host: alabama, richard on our independent line. go ahead. caller: i just want to comment on pretty much -- i think we should pull out all of our troops out of there. i kind of agree with that person earlier about, it is all about ideology -- host: wyck de think the troops should be pulled out?

caller: we are trying to establish a government that does not even work for our own country. we can see it right now slipping away from us, between our parties, are democrats -- they're really and know -- we need a median, i believe. right now i believe obama is totally taking advantage of these -- forcing the executive order down our throats. everything is changing so fast and we cannot take care of what we got right now on the home front. host: is president karzai a credible start -- partner? ms. is a report on "huffington post," it right thing about the brave new world foundation. "we killed those pregnant women after all." following this story about a

rate -- night raid by u.s. and afghan forces and today the forces made a major admission about their responsibility for civilian deaths. district heights, maryland, john on our democrats line. caller: you asked a question, whether mr. karzai can be a credible partner for america. i think we need to reverse of that question. can america be a credible partner for karzai? because we call ourselves a nation who -- people of laws but then again we only want to apply the law to where it benefits us and anybody else that does not work. my understanding is, no. that whole part of the world over there, they know more about the correctness, to face, lined, have paucity -- to face this, lying, hypocrisy, of our own people. as long as we agree and the

partners and nobody has anything else to say but america. host: hang on the line a quick second. i hear what you're saying. 20 give your reaction to a couple of things quoted by afghan president karzai here in "the wall street journal." he said obstructive intervention by foreigners in the election. he said at the paper thin curtain that separate assistance and occupation. if we don't stand for our sovereignty, it will take long before that assistance turns into occupation. and afghanistan is being used by western officials who want to install a public government in the country. do you agree with the sentiments there by mr. karzai? caller: all we've got to do, my friend, is look at how our government is treating us here. that will answer our question for what he is saying. the ethiopian gentleman had a good observation. one of the gentleman had a good observation of how corrupt. our own elected officials do not

represent us, so how can they sit down with someone else and tell them how to run their government when they can see our own elected officials talk of both sides of their mouth and don't have the american people and then is at heart. it is all about, like the gentleman said, politics. it should not be about politics. it should be about the laws of this country is founded on and the american people want the representatives to look at the law so when they speak to the rest of the world they could have credibility and not be like hypocrites. host: portland, oregon, and this is jeremiah on our republican line. caller: i am a wounded soldier -- blown up by two ied's in afghanistan and there is nothing i would not do to go back and that is the job. host: how long ago? caller: this is in 2007-2008. i was with the x 70 engineer,

i'm a combat engineers and i drive around and look for ied's. when you are driving through these towns and you see the smile on these kids, that is the future of it. host: you are saying if you could, you would go back? caller: i tried my hardest to go back. i am on disability the rest of my life for it. trust me, i would drop everything i have a right now to go back. the afghanistan policy, compared to the iraq policy, president bush was correct and right -- we have one in iraq. host: you read some of the quotes by karzai. what do you think? caller: if he told li stand against the caliban or outside

it -- told police stations against the taliban or al qaeda, he would be overrun quick so he -- if the totally stood against the taliban or al qaeda, he would be overrun quick. it is a crap game. host: you are on disability. are you able to work? how are you doing? caller: no, i am mostly bedridden, the medication i take -- i take a lot of psychological medications. i have pulled people out with no legs, so forth. and i still would go back and drive and keep those roads safe -- if anybody needed to know, i

have taking care of four people. host: jeremiah, thank you for calling in and sharing your story on "washington journal." on veterans, a front-page story in "the baltimore sun." vets next battle is finding a new job. they write that young, unemployed veterans who served in iraq and afghanistan faced even lower odds of finding jobs and is the economy than their civilian counterparts. a chart from the bureau of labor

statistics accompanying this piece, matching veterans and the darker purple against non- veterans in unemployment rate and you can see an almost every category, up through 35-54, that veterans have a higher rate of unemployment. north carolina, penny, good morning, independent linek independentenny -- independent line. kenny. caller: the last seven who called as an example of what happens when you send people into war with no strategy, the basic rules. this is what happens to our treasure and then you have to look at hundreds of thousands of veterans who are like this guy over here. with karzai, this is a guy that bush put in. most people that bush dealt with were crooked, even the guy from pakistan, i forget his name, the president who they voted out. you know, we had a chance when

we first went in there to do this thing right. there was an opportunity. there was a window of opportunity. when you do something wrong and you do not do it right from the beginning and you -- especially when we reelected bush, the downfall. it has been messed up so long that this will be hard to get right. i think obama needs to let the american people know that, let them know that the task became just almost impossible now. notice of the drug, when bush first went in there -- or after bush went in there, the drugs, the horror when growing, went up twentyfold. i think -- 20 times as much heroin is being grown. host: thanks for calling in. indianapolis, good morning to jennifer on our republican line. caller: i just wanted to say that i actually agree that he

is a credible partner, karzai. i think we should work with as many nations as possible, in many different kinds of nations, and i also think that you personally are a racist republican. that's all. host: jennifer, thanks for the call. the white house, going back to the group referred be his administration, the easter egg roll -- going back to the ross refeutherford b. hayes administration, the easter egg roll. and this story inside "the wall street journal." the pope said on sunday he did not explicitly address the allegations of sexual abuse by priests that have ripped through europe in recent months and reignited controversy in the u.s.

some scenes from yesterday's in rome on eastern -- easter sunday. the democrats' line. go ahead. caller: forgive me, i'm a first- time caller. i am a little bit nervous here. but as far as general karzai is concerned, no, he would night -- not make a credible partner for the united states. he is like any other dictator, if he asked me. he is very defiant. not willing to go by the sanctions that president obama or anyone else set for him. even with the new sanctions that obama wants. no, i don't think he would be.

i do disagree with a lot of the other callers calling in saying that obama needs to step up the, and his foreign-policy is like bushes. no, it is nothing like that. i don't think it is like that at all. if you think about it, when we first went in on 9/11, our intentions were good when we first went into afghanistan. we were supposed going after bin laden and the taliban and everything like this. but bush dropped the ball when he started this -- changed his stance and started looking at iraq. a caller came in and said that iraq would have been a safe haven. if that is the case, then america, the united states or anyone else, should go after all nations that would be a safe haven. you know what i mean? we went in under false

pretenses -- remember, it was above the about weapons of mass destruction, which turned out not to be the case. but my point is that, obama's foreign-policy is nothing compared to bush's. you have to establish yourself first. host: thanks for calling in. thanks for being a first-time caller. inside "the hill close what they write about comments made by john lewis on the 42nd anniversary of martin luther king by assassination. he says the country still lacks a "moral leader."

one more call here, lewes, delaware. karzai, a credible partner? caller: yes, he is. of course, his government wants to keep these people because they get their drugs. and this government is corrupt. how can they go somewhere else and tell them how to be? thank you. host: thanks for your comments. we turn our attention to the transportation security administration and the new airline security screening measures that went into affect for flights coming into the u.s. we will talk to clark kent ervin, but first a news update.

>> republican party chairman michael steele, in remarks earlier on "good morning america" defended his record and dismissed insider criticism. saying he was "very angry" about the to thousand dollars the party spent for a night at a sex-been a hollywood party. some leading congressional republicans have criticized his style, but stopped short of calling for his ouster. he attributes his problems to " and name to republicans who don't like me. come more violence today in pakistan. the u.s. consulate in the northwest city of peshawar was hit by two suicide car bombs. explosions killed at least three people, but no reports of u.s. casualties. meanwhile, police say the death toll from a separate suicide attack at a political party rallies elsewhere in the u.s. have risen to 41. in russia today a suicide bomber blew himself up at a police station, killing two officers

and wounding two others. the latest in a string of recent attacks. the obama's car exploded later, wounding an investigator bearded pig -- the bomber's car exploded later, wounding an investigator. >> what we need is policy-makers in washington to develop a road map so we can get it done. >> something about energy policy would like to talk about on your block? at the new c-span video library you can search, watch it, clinton, and share it. over 160,000 hours of video, from yesterday or 10 years ago. every c-span program since 1987. the c-span video library, cable's latest gift to america. >> if you have a process where it takes years to get an answer, and you are bogged down in the courts, which what is threatening our industry right now, that is not a good answer for anybody and it certainly does not make the agency more effective.

>> verizon executive vice president for policy and for congressman tom tauke calling for the federal government to take a fresh look at communications policy, tonight on c-span2. >> "washington journal" continues. host: viewers might have seen quite a bit on the clark kent ervin. you were also inspector general of the homeland security back in the bush administration. here to talk to us about these new screening procedures for folks coming in to the united states announced on friday by the administration, what changes? guest: as you know, in the immediate aftermath of the christmas day bombings there was a blanket targeting really of those with passports from 14 countries of concern, countries that have been linked to terrorism -- yemen, saudi arabia, pakistan, now nigeria, etcetera. people transiting to the united

states from those countries and also americans who happen to transit from those countries are automatically -- or work automatically subject to secondary screening, pat downs, technology screenings. that has changed now. instead based on intelligence. if there is a reason to believe based on a person's name, nationality, backgrounds, other information that other intelligence agencies have, then that person will be subjected to secondary screening but not a blanket approach to these countries as a whole. host: where is the intelligence coming from? guest: a variety of sources. different parts of homeless security, cia, national security agency, state department. an attempt to bring relevant intelligence streams to the other to target people who should be of concern, as opposed to a blanket approach. host: were all of these changes to limit -- driven by the attempted christmas day bombing? guest: to be fair, the department of homeless security,

secretary of napolitano, has been working for quite some time before the christmas day bombing to improve aviation security, as we would expect. but there has been an intensified pushed since the bombing. and there was a lot of objection to the blanket approach. these new measures have drawn praise from wide quarters, including the privacy community, and i think rightly so, the step in the right direction. host: are they doing this to shape the bugs out of the system ahead of the summer traveling season? guest: certainly the summer travel season will intensify the number transmitting data but i think there has been such opposition to these measures that there was considerable pressure on the administration to relax them. host: clark kent ervin, particularly we are talking about folks coming in to the united states. the numbers are --

if you are watching us from outside the united states, online, or whatever, you can reach us on a special line -- 628-0184. tsa has been operating -- the administration started without a leader, a confirmed head through congress. has that been a debilitating situation for them? guest: i think it has been. on a day-to-day basis, of course, the agency operates just fine but just fine is not an acceptable standard for transportation security administration. the kind of bold moves that need to take place as far as policy deployment, for example. there are a number initiatives, like 100% screening of air cargo. these measures can only be undertaken by somebody appointed

by the president and -- united states senate. it is incredibly troubling, nearly two years into the administration would don't have it confirmed tsa head. host: back to the issues of people flying into the united states but let us talk about the no-fly list and also profiling. a first of all, the no-fly list. does this new decision change that at all? guest: it does not. it really does not have anything to do with the no-fly list. it is the secondary list. those are people are automatically subjected to intensified screening. the no-fly list is a relatively small. 2000, to 4000 people, about loan there is in the kit -- information to indicate those people are a particular threat to aviation. at least in theory, it is possible someone not known of being suspected of being a terrorist, but nonetheless expressed a desire to for an aviation, would be on a no fly list. conversely, there are people on the no-fly list that are not terrorists.

it really is specifically limited to people about whom there is particular concern and they might be a threat to aviation. that said, i would argue that certainly in the post 9/11 environment and certain post christmas day bombing, that the no-fly list should be expanded significantly because anybody known to be a terrorist, knowing that terrorists targeted -- it should include a larger share of people about on their general terrorist concerns. host: what about the term of profiling which can be kind of a politically loaded term, depending on how you use it. would you say that these new measures to reduce -- produce -- reduce ethnic/country profiling in favor of -- guest: i think it was a fair criticism of the prior system, one could call the profiling because of was focused on people from those 14 countries, in respect of of whether there was particular information with regard to any individual person from the country.

conversely, now only if there is specific intelligence against a specific person will that person be subject to intensified scrutiny and this seems like that is how it should be. coach -- host: "the new york times" said it is picking up -- based on picking up fragments of information. however they put together? guest: let us take the example of the christmas day bomber, abdulmutallab, we have pieces of insulation -- his father came into the embassy and expressed concerns that his son had gone to yemen. he of course gave the agencies the name of his son, umar farouk abdulmutallab, and the nsa, the eavesdropping agency, picked up intelligence that a nigerian with the first two names have been sent to yemen. you put it together and umar farouk abdulmutallab shows up at an nigerian airport down to the united states, he at that point ought to be automatically have been subjected to secondary

screening and it did not happen because we did not have those intelligent strains put together. host: ideally under the system he would of been caught? guest: we can't say for sure but the likelihood -- likelihood is greater. i would say it is somewhat his striking we have not had a system in place like this before hand. it seems logical to me and i think it would be logical to your viewers. host: you were in the bush administration. was there talk about a system like this that coordinates all the information question of guest: not really. the cpp, another part of homeless security, customs border protection, uses a system like this once a flight is down to the united states. it is charged to determine who is entering. host: they would be on the air plan already. guest: that is the problem. and that's gone -- in fact, in the abdulmutallab case, there's a -- with the question. it would have been too late. we need to do that at the inception of the flight.

host: lots of callers. susan on our republican line. guest: hello, thank you. we are creating all of this terrorism and we would not need all of this it is rare but not exist. guest: but -- host: we have to terminate this. we have a rule that you cannot call more than every 30 days. we will see you and 30 days. louisiana, david on our democrats line. go ahead, good morning. washington, d.c., jeff on our independence line. caller: good morning. a couple of comments and maybe a question. i commend you on the program, transportation security agency. there is definitely a need for improvement in the way in which to that agency operates. in the years since it has been

in existence -- i have been kind of watching the performance of this agency and it is really, really in need of some improvement. one of the things, talking about the profiling and so forth. that is a necessary feature of this agency. and along the lines with with the latest of before, i am not going to say that israel should not exist but any time we have this situation where we continue to send signals out to the other folks around the world that we are going to support is run the matter what -- and i am not anti-semitic, and i respect their right to exist and everything, but they also have to respect other people's, too. host: we will get your response. guest: the only part of the comment i would respond to it is the, of necessity, in his judgment, for profiling. i strongly disagree. i think it is not only wrong as a matter of morality but it is

also proved to be a very, bad counterproductive counterterrorism strategy. tracking but two recent cases of deepa did jane and the pauline ramirez case indicate terrorist come from all races and genders and ethnicity so i think it makes sense to apply these techniques to all people in perspective of what the background is if, if -- evidence that they pose a threat. host: new port richey, florida. caller: are you there? host: we are, go ahead. caller: i wanted us all to take a deep breath because now we are stepping forward with taking these pieces of communication, now finally putting them together and hopefully they will communicate with each other. that has been needed for a very, very long time. just a little background. i am here in florida. a little old lady, i'm white. i have been to other countries.

i have seen how things happen in other countries after 9/11. my twins, who are now 25, two are going to fly, one on a honeymoon, on a cruise ship. please answer this question -- my number one question. how our cruise ships being handled under this new communication of but three -- homeland security, passport, and transportation authority? cruise ships, can you address that? and then the next one is, inside the united states, but -- like, my daughter is going to new orleans next month. when she goes next month, will these new procedures be something that is going to change specifically, will it take extra time to go through intrastate kinds of checks and how will it delay flights