host: we will read your e-mails as they come in. if you call in, make sure you turn down your television or

decisions out of the company's hands. bp was collecting about 15,000 barrels of oil per day at the site. u.s. officials up to the leak estimate to as much as 40,000 barrels per day although i and sunday, coast guard admiral thad allen said they believe it was closer to 35,000 barrels per3 they want bp officials to place funds in an escrow account to take care residents affected by the oil spill. president obama plans to bring up the idea wednesday with a meeting with bp executives. that call is echoed a capitol hill in a june 10 letter to be be released on sunday. the senate majority leader harry reid and other democrats ask them to establish a $20 billion

account. pressure mounts, while meers and a report that florida beaches remain active and open but two pensacola bay and a close to the beach to shrimping, crabbing, and fishing. we'll tell you what this means for the future of energy policy. tama bay.commpabay.com reports s well. president obama is heading to the gulf coast which will include a stop in florida. what do state officials want him to know most? guest: they are eager for more federal resources.

they want more skimmers. they are pressing for a better claims process, faster claims. host: it seems that the ool slick is getting closer as the president arrives. the oil slick is as close as 3 miles off the florida coast. what steps are florida officials taking to prepare the beaches and prepare the areas for the inundation of oil? guest: they deployed a lot of booms we hear about. they have skimmers in place. they have marshalled many resources. they have a lot of people in the pensacola area to begin9kw3sp e cleanup process. host: as the president makes his fourth trip down to the gulf

coast and this time the first stop is in florida then he will return on tuesday to speak to the nation. what do you hear that the president will be talking about in that all office address? guest: clearly, this has become a crisis for his administration. i think he will try to provide some more direct hands-on leadership on the issue as well as ratcheting up the pressure on the be paid with the escrow account that you were referring to. host: alex leary covering this story, thank you for being with us this morning. we are asking you what this oil disaster means for the future of u.s. energy policy. here is portland oregon, denise on our democrats blind.

caller: i don't understand all the details, but i have learned that the biggest problem of this oil spill is that the government seemed indebted to the industry that they cannot get anything done. they are so entrenched with big business. that is the biggest reason i have learned that obama has not been able to get anything done. host: you see the issue as much of a government problem? caller: and an economic problem. does the problem they cannot do muchhabout. big businesses paying the bills. they pay for it -- they paid for his election. he is trying to make friends too many people he is trying tos please. host: numerous lobbyists do the bidding of be paid. -- of bp.

our independent line, good morning. caller: i see no change in the policy of america, the government as long as corporate america and they're paid for minions in congress are in charge it will be business as usual. what is happening in corporate ammrica, they are trying to privatize revenue and socialized losses. to is all about the block, making the money and not taking care of the average working man. one good example that is coming up and everyone can watch is the$

earth and extract all these minerals. unfortunately, it is horrendous what is happening in the gulf for the government does not care. it is obvious from obama's reaction. i went from republican to democrat to independent. host: thank you for calling in and attack on the story that you mentioned. u.s. identifies mineral riches in afghanistan. they say that could escalate conflict and corruption. there are huge deposits of iron, cobalt and copper. it includes many minerals that are in transit -- that are important. afghanistan could become the

saudi arabia of lithium, a key ingredient to the manufacture of batteries. the well was discovered by a small team of pentagon officials and u.s. geologists. on energy, here is john in johnson city, kan., a republican caller. caller: good morning. in terms of the history of the oil spill, it has been going on about two months, is that correct? host: yes, it's been about two months. caller: more or less, let's do a quick history. three days after the explosion and the oil spill happenee, are you aware that the dutch offered us ships with skimmers so that we could begin skimming the oil?

our government rejected those offers. they also issued a waiver allowing nonunion labor, non- american flag ships to do skimming. george w. bush authorized waivers. he got a lot of criticism but that is because he allowed other ships coming in. you probably heard of saddam hussein. the leadership of saudi arabia, they were smarter because they brought in ships with skimmers

throughout the world. you need tt do a story of what they did compared to what we are doing. i agree with the independent caller who talked about the minions whooare paid. do you know how much money british petroleum gave to barack obama? host: can you tell us how much? caller: it was about $1 million. that was about his biggest contribution. host: where do you get that information? where can folks find that information? caller: just check it out. host: thank you for the reminder about the story about

afghanistan. u.s. begins to tap d in the gulf spill. the .s. has submitted its second request to the european union for specializzd equipment to contain the oil seeping into the gulf of mexico. they accepted the canadiaa offer of 9,480 feet of bone. they are soliciting bom and others skimmer's from other countries. eagle river, wisconsin, democratic caller, go ahead. caller: i usually lead democrat but i am fading quickly on that. we cannot trust the oil companies to tell us what is really going on or tell us the truth. they basically of the government. we cannot expect our government to do anything about this except to sell us out.

the last guy from kansas should click his heels and get back to kansas because he does not have a close. this is not about cleaning up the mess now. this is about what we will do five years from now, 10 years from now, 20 years from now. host: does this oil disaster make a demarcation line in u.s. energy policy? caller: this has to set the demarcation library there is no other way around this. we have known this would happen since the early 1970's that we would have problems with energy. companies and oil lobbies and bought out. we need public financing. this goes back to the election policies and the fact that big corporations all of our government. independent, go ahead caller:

this oil spill will cost a lot of money and what does it cost to go to the moon? there is plenty of heliim readily available on the moon and it is processed into nuclear fusion. it is all over the surface of the mud and rocks and the dust. we know there is water on the moon. we could get up there and colonize. we can get underground possibly. we can get robot excavators. we can get that helium 3 up there. host: we are asking about energy

policy and what the disaster means about the future of u.s. energy policy. one senator who will have a hand in that in terms of the energy bill is senator john kerry, the head of the foreign affairs committee -- the foreign relations committee and the senate. he was asked about whether the gulf spill will make congress less inclined to pass his energy and climate bills which calls for new offshore drilling. he says he disagrees. he said we will not stop drilling in the gulf to margaret terminate wells out there. do you think americans will just stop driving to work? that will not happen. of the fear factor this year in elections but we will stay on this. in terms of investments, there

is a chart on this eetensive piece of what members of congress invest in and where they serve in terms of congressional committees. when public duties and private investments overlap, this is the chart that says the executive branch officials must divest themselves of all these industries that their agencies oversee very judges are required to recuse themselves from lawsuits involving companies where they have ownership member. as of congress can sit on committees overseeing industries in which they invest for this graphic provide a breakdown. this covers 2008. in the energy and natural resources area, there are -- there is $33 million invested in

energy and natural resource companies by 51 members on six different industry-related committees. riverside, calif., our republican line, good morning. caller: i have a question all the politicians that we have now should be in jail for treason. host: white treason? caller: i do not think they should be getting money from something like this. starting from the top, he should be in pete and put in jail. this is a disaster. that is all i want to say and you have a good day. host: the president and congress will have a busy week for all oil-related issues pretty president is heading to the gulf

he will be there today and tomorrow visiting mississippi first then alabama and ben florida. congress has a couple of key areas which we will cover on c- span 3. here is a story about the president's visit to mississippi. the governor argues that the coverage of this bill of the -- of the oil spill has heard is state more than the actual spell. ill. heavy cancellations dragged down revenues in motels last month in mississippp. it was down 50% on average rate a local hospital is cutting employee hours because of fewer tourists and your patience. wingate, north carolina, go ahead caller: i think the

president [unintelligible] bp should say it is your problem now clean it up. bp wants that -- wants them to do that. host: baltimore,jnck maryland, independent caller, go ahead. caller::this is my first time calling. host: welcome. caller: i hope you give me a+ little bit of time. i am 24 years old. i am not heavy into politics.

i first had a problem when they looked at the cap on companies being able to devote as much money as they possibly could on presidential campaigns or any campaigns. i thought that was strange and nobody understood or grasped the concept of this. no matter how much money we have, the people of the united states could never outbid exxon or bp. i see this oil spill and they they fund everything we do.ment, people look at these politicians and they would not have their jobs to the was not for us.

the only way government or this situation could be rectified is it week, as citizens -- there are people who might not like somebody -- this is the emotional. there are many people who are losing their families, their homes. at the end of the day, we are all americans. we are sitting here watching our country, what does get traded off. for money. at the end of the day, we catch -pthe flak. host: we appreciate your input. here is allan park, mich., a republican caller.

caller: i should not be close to my tv at all. i grew up in florida but i live in michigan now. i truly believe this will change our energy policies in the future. it will not do this overnight. this will be a minimum of 20 years. that's how long it will take to get into a green energies. the gulf oil spill, our largest problem has been that our president did not make a solid sound executive order one or two weeks into this oil spill. these people are in trouble down there. our coastlines are in trouble. there are hundreds including one we have. there are hundreds of people

that have volunteered their technology, their own expertise to help correct this thing. host: go back to the executive order. what would you want it to do? caller: keep bp within 5 miles of that oil rig plugging the keep them out of the containment and extraction business. host: who would take care of that, the u.s.? caller: everything on the water would be out there if it was left to the people. an executive order to rapidly approved contingency plans for the government, for our government, rapidly so that we could get mobilization quickly out there.

we just have to have it. for god's sake, keep bp out of the mix. they don't need to keep making that decision. we have enough organizations or things that can be improved by the government to get somebody in charge down there and make on this decision so we are not wasting bp money. no one wants to do that. host: a familiar face in this is coast guard admiral thad allen. there is a report about his leadership. he is the public face of a government effort. admiral allen has stumbled at times and publicly touted the early success of thh top tell

strategy to smother the runaway oil well even as executives were shying away from that. he dismissed the suggestion from ken salazar that the government should cap the well. he said the government did not have the resources to do that. dealing with hurricane katrinn work in his favor. birmingham, alabama, on our democrat line, go ahead. hello? i don't have birmingham. that should be birmingham. go ahead. caller: i have a suggestion to stop the oil leak. you can get this [unintelligible] and mix it with some of this

power. --powder. you can use robert --rubber. i have another idea. get a small tree and put it in the hall. ole. [unintelligible] you can get a rowboat and fitted over that hole. host: thank you for your views. we have about 15-20 minutes of your calls about what is set for

the u.s. energy policy after the gulf oil spill. the british prime minister complained last week about white house criticism of bp, saying it was hurting bp stock which is important to retirees in the uk. this headline succesays the u.k. should back down over be paid. are independent line, go ahead caller: thank you for cspan but i want to talk about all the

promises that have been made i want people to understand that the money going into the candidates, look at the money they spend and you wonder why they spend the kind of money. look at the kind oo money that3 from bp. they get in there and fight against anybody, they say even obama received money from bp, and they -- and these companies have a privileggd right to do anything they choose to do. nobody including the president can do anything but hope this thing will be resolved. with the citizens have to stand up and stop being driven by these 80 people that are

interrelated -- by these idiots people that are interrelated in this country. host: there are a number of calls from the gulf coast this morning including this one. this is for lauderdale, a republican line. caller: good morning. i don't know how true this is but i hear there are kill switches they have to use around the world but in america, these oil rigs don't have to use them. maybe they should think about that. number two, they complain they want them offshore so when accidents happen it would not endanger people and that does not seem to change them a thing. and hugo chavez as is done ass* * *.

guhost: tony heyward will be thursday. if you want to see all of the past year is, you can go to our website, c-span.org/oil spill. there's a special section for this and leaks about the oil spill. here is a sweet. -- here is a tweet. governor haley says the oil spill is no big deal. new york is next and this is john of our democrats online. go ahead with your thoughts. caller: i thank you for cspan.

the coastline in the coast is be spoiled anyway and that could change policy. everything is correct anyway. -- everything is wrecked any way. that is a shallow coastal i compare to the other oceans. -- that is a shallow coastline compared to the other oceans. there is deep water life under see that is being killed.+ if there is nothing left to lose, that will change policy for the worst host: kimberly, west virginia, on our independent line. go ahead. hello? caller: i thinn the oil spill is a cover-up just like 9/11. host: describe that further.

what do you mean by a cover-up? what is being covered up? caller: i think this happened to destroy ouu waters and a lot of work for everybody else. i think 9/11 was a cover-up because when the building came down it was like a demolition the way it was set up. i have seen fell on it and i have also seen -- i have seen film of that and reporters said the building had already gone down and had not gone down yet. host: you don't believe the 9/11 commission and all the reports that have come out about 9/11? caller: no, i do not. host: let's go to the houston, texas, capadia, go ahead with your thoughts.

caller: i have not heard anybody clearly delineate the problem in the gulf. what i mean is that on the one side you have been out of control oil well that is still flowing. on the other side you have the oil coming ashore. the two things have to be dealt with. as far as the spreading of the passed by congress a few years ago, the president should require by law to contain the oil which the president has failed to do.

you can connect the dots. there is something in the background of president obama. his grandfather was mistreated by the british people in africa apparen. host: what did you say about his grandfather? caller: he was mistreated. host: and that ties in with bp? caller: yes, in the muslim world, if you are born of a moslem father, you are always considered a muslim. it does not matter whether you convert to christianity or any other religion. host: the president does not consider himself a moslem. caller: i know that. host: our democrats line, go

ahead, gary, indiana. caller: if you go back to the ccrcle graph you had earlier, there was one of the circles that had communication and the electronic industry's contributions. host: yes. caller: that is indicative of an emerging and mature industry that we have now, a false industry that encourages huge amounts of money that go toward advertising, commercials, lobbyists, the whole thing. i have undergone a conversion of sorts or they start to understand the huge amounts of money and pressure and employers these corporations are

distorting and not allowing the matured the base that should be going on. instead, we are all sidetracked from a fall in eight messages that happen every sunday from pulpits in this country worrying about muslims and gun control and nonsense. meanwhile, it is like a boa constrictor. every time you access, it gets tighter on the middle-class person. it is suffocating our democracy. host: this relates to a chart. the chart is online at washingtonpost.com. we are asking about oil policy and what is ahead for energy

policy in the wake of the oil disaster. jay is on our independent line and you are next. caller: i am a first-time caller. i was ttinking maybe there was a conspiracy. why do they have to drill almost 3 miles down to get two relief wells? why can't they drill 500 feet down to get a relief well? what about drilling three or four more calls and dropping bombs down there? host: why do they have to drill so deep? caller: it had a pictoriallof how deep they were drilling. host: the energy and environmmnt

committee will hear from the headd of a number of major oil companies to mark rabaul be alive tomorrow on cspan 3. here's a story -- major auto companies to moral and we will have that live on c-span 3. -- major oil companies tomorrow and we will have that live on c- span 3. the majors want to use this opportunity in front of a subcommittee to make the case for continued new drilling in the deepwater gulf. drilling has been placed on a six month moratorium says the oil leak began. many executives feel that will be extended. one more piece of that is in " "the washington post." exxon is distancing itself from bp.

one executive recognizes tighter drilling requirements but he called the six-month moratorium on necessary. fredericksburg, va., on the future of energy policy, good morning. caller: thank you for cspan. since we do not know what happened to the blow up for a renter, how can we continue to drill for oil? if the failure was one device and that is the only one we have that i know of any well, they are all about he same for deepwater drilling. if we are going to go ahead and drill, we have to be sure that the inspection of these devices are done. it looks like osha was not doing their job and the first place. the governor wants more drilling but wants more money.

one has to wonder what the rationaleeis. our democrat host: slide is next. caller: first-time caller. i lived in louisiana for a number of years back in the 1980's. i am familiar with the coastal areas they are talking about. it is devastating. i feel for the folks in louisiana because i know many, many of them. we will never know how many ticking time bombs we have aa the bottom of the gulf. they keep talking about the existing deep water wells. we don't know. there could be another one that goes tomorrow. we will never know. money and politics, i share everybody else's disgust with politicians. i am pessimistic about our political system because not only is it broken, it seems to

me that it is designed to be unfixable and recently the supreme court has put its stamp of approval on it. i see things getttng worse and worse politically. one more comment about republicanns-- they are just going over the top here. they have become the political version thepavlov's dog. host: the front page of "the orange county register." michelle obama talks to marines at camp pendleton. flag day is every day for some. they have an opinion on flag reporte.

flag day originated in fredonia, wisconsin. one teacher thought was important to recognize the birthday of flag day which was a june 14 in 1777. the day was officially established by the u.s. proclamation of woodrow wilson in 1916. 30 years later, harry truman signed an act in congress designating june 14 as flag day. the flag is a direct reflection of the people and many enemies burn our flag as a symbol of their hate for us and what we stand for. on flag day, it is our job to contribute to the american brand which stands for justice, fairness, and the generosity.

our independent line is next. caller: last night of a coast- to-coast radio, they had three hours of coverage about the deep water -- deep water drilling. russia has been doing this at 40,000 feet. they have not experienced what bp did in the gulf. that well was about 25,000- 35,000 feet. they experienced a pressure that was unbelievable between 20,000 and 70,000 pounds of pressure. the flow rate is about 4 million gallons per day. they do not think they can stop this thing could go on forever.

they did not expect this. this was an accident. the united states, bp, our military were all in this together. quit pointing fingers, do something to solve the problem. host: 1 more of view on the issue, warren, ohio caller: [unintelligible] why is president obama not willing to send ships from other countries to help them? we need all the resources we can get. they have not acceetee help to

stop this. host: you are breaking up but thank you for the calls and all of the calls in this segment. in a moment, we will talk to the first director of national intelligence and a former assistant secretary of state, john negroponti. we want to talk with the president of the national association of public affairs network. welcome to cspan. guest: thank you for having made. host: what do you do? guest: this is a nonprofit that was formed to develop best

practices for state networks across the country and to provide guidance and advice to grass-roots groups that are looking to create a state pubbic affairs network in their state. host: how many states have dedicated public affairs that works? guest: there are about 20 now. they range from alaska to flore , conn to washington. host: talk about why your organization is in washington this week. guest: the state public affaiis networks are geared to raise profiles. the state networks create programming that is similar to what cspan does in many ways. many people think of us as the state version of cspan. we provide coverage of state government and all three branches, executive, legislative, and judicial branch

coverage, symposia and current events around the state that contribute to the public debate on issues being tackled by state governments. in many ways, we are nonpartisan. we are non profit corporations in our states. we have grown in a regulatory environment that does not contemplate our existence. the reason we are here in washington, d.c. this week is to raise the profile with the fcc and members of congress. we provide transparency and openness to the governmental process in a way that both congress and the fcc are looking at as one of the key elements as to what is needed in our democracy. we are here to say that we do that type of coverage every day. we provide transparency and openness. for those congressman who don't

come from states that don't have a public affairs network. they do not understand the great work being done every single day. host: our viewers can find more about your organization t napa an.com. in just a moment, we will speak to ambassador john negroponti. we will be right back.

host: white house adviser david axelrod will talk about the steps the government is taking to deal with the oil spill. on thursday, bp cdo tony heyward makes his first appearance in front of congress. that is thursday at 10:00 a.m. eastern on cspan 3. host: should the federal communications communication -- should the federal communications commission regulate the internet? that will be tonight on c-span

2. see what your member of congress said. search the congressional chronicle on c-span in video. every speech on the floor since 1987. we also have the cspan congressional directory available at c-span.org/store. we have three new books for you. each have a unique contemporary perspective and perhaps something new to you about lincoln, the nation's highest court, and the greats sites and lives of america's past presidents. it is a great gift for father's day. >> "washington journal"continue as. s.

host: john negroponti joins us. we will have a new appointee. you were the first. what was the office meant to do? what was its intention? guest: it was meant to oversee the entire intelligence community. in the context of the time, after the weapons of mass the intelligence we had and the 9/11 commission we had, there was an impetus to eform the intelligence community and put someoneein charge of the overall community. that has been a collateral responsibility of the director of the cia. the view was that that person was so involved in the day-to-

day running of the cia that he did not have time for his community management responsibilities. host: as you look at the office now, do you think it has lived up to the expectations of the 9/11 commission and congress? guest: the legislation was a product of compromise. some people wanted it to have a lot of authority and some wanted to have none at all. some war against it being created. i -- some were against it being created. i think it probably doesn't have as much authority as it should have. ed man responsible is and there was a lot of rhetoric in the preamble of the legislation about the importance of this position. when you got to the specifics, they may not have been sufficient host: over the weekend, your confirmation hearrng back in 2005, you talked

about various fiefdoms between military intelligence, the cia, national security. does that still exist? guest: the key thing in intelligence is integration in information and having it in technology. things have been happening. there are still issues between these agencies. the director of national intelligence is the person who can really help bring all that together from a budgetary point debut, from an overall direction point oo view. host: ambassador negroponti is here to talk about national security. the numbers are on your screen.

made of the presidential daily briefing and who gives that. why is that important? guest: that is the president's daily exposure to the intelligence product of this large intelligence community of hours. it is a way of keepinggthe president apprised of what is going on in the world with good, high-quality, in-depth assessment i made a low point of attending all those briefings every day. president bush received them six days a week from 8:00-8:30 in the morning. were along for that and made the bulk of the presentation. it is a very important way of bringing to the president's attention, usually early in the day, what has gone on overnight

and the analysis of various key host: your work on that begins early in the morning and the intelligence collected overnight begins earlier than that. guest: right and these are deep dives, analyses that were fiie pages long that had been in it is -- it was not just overnight intelligence. it was the analytic product of the intelligence committee. analysis. i think it is the quality of analysis per you can collect all the information you want and the it correctly, you do not haveyze much host: would you say that the quality of analysis leading up to the iraq war was inherently faulty?+ guest: that was the failure. wmd situation correctly and

rebuilt and improvements when i took over as dni to avoid the repetition of that kind of episode. can you give us annexample of how you would improve analysis? guest: it comes down to double checking. sometimes, you have a set of certain country that has nuclear weapons or is developing a nuclear weapons program. you might take those seven facts and give thhm to a completely different team and keep -- and get an alternative analysis. u.s. them to come up with a different theory. -- you would ask them to come up with a different theory.

gueshost: what are the biggest administration faces now? guest: they need to keep an eye out for international terrorism. we don't want to be surprised. we want to get the best possible information about people who are plotting attacks against the country. then one has to keep a good view of what is happening around the world, the rising powers, what is hhppening with respect to china, russia, and other situations around the world. nuclear non-proliferation is a big one. host: as the former director of national intelligence, some have pointed out that after the

bombing attempt and more recent attempt that mr. blair was the fall guy of some of the breakdown in intelligence. do you agree with that? guest: you can go back to pearl harbor. literature on that. hindsight is 20/20 vision. as you live through this, it looks like isolated segments are pieces of information. when you piece them together after the fact, it makes a coherent story. i am reluctant to second-guess what happened in that particular situation without having personally reviewed the facts. host: let's get the calls, ontario, toronto, on our independent line. good morning. caller: i follow these things as much as i can but what about the

would-be terrorists got -- that got on a plane in nigeria? wasn't he put on the plane and put back on? i don't know who it was that enabled him to do that. did anyone ever find out what happened? guest: i am not sure which case you are referring to. nigerian who came here at christmas,,he did in fact have a passport. the issue was that there was lagos, nigeria about the reliability of this individual. with the benefit of hindsight, we know that information was not acted uponajl' whereas perhaps t should have been. host: our democrrts line from nantucket, mass., good morning. caller: were you around with the

i iran-contras. ? you were around when the poison was given to saddam hussein? you have been around in many $avztshaky things. you have been nothing but a professional government worker. you made yourself important and god bless you. host: any reaction? guest: [laughter] host: indiana, on our independent line, go ahead. what was going on before the gulf incident occurred? . .

take, have been more domestic agency do more domestic intelligence agency workkon these areas? guest: this is an area that we've addressed and the changes. we created the national security bureau of the fbi.

this was on the recommendation of chucc robb and others, and the president adopted the recommendations. previously, the fbi had been strictly focused on making cases to prosecution, law enforcement. while no one wants to derogate from that investigation, the feeling was we wanted to enhance their investigation capabilities. some have to just that that we -pgo so far as the united kingdm to create a united intelligence agency. i do not know of any serious advocacyyfor the proposition. i would be categorically against it. our intelligence ought to be international in nature.

host: there is some concern about what is being called "home grown terrorism." guest: that is best left up to local law enforcement. to a certain extent, some of it is a copycat phennmenon. they see what is happening around the world, read the internet,,and they get these ideas. unless the day linkup with serious ideas of international3 serious threat. host: i do you believe these incidents, the christmas day bombing, these are repercussions of policy? guest: i do not want to downplay it too much. it is surprising that these

cases have risen, to some extent, but they have had some serious instances in western europe, for example. host: dave. you or next. let's move on. jim, on the democrat line. caller: why do you think hindsight is 20/20 when it is nothing but your opinion looking back? host: tie that in to u.s. intelligence.. it sounds like you have something on your miid. caller: hindsight is 20/20 --

guest: i think i get your point. there are still the judgment and opinions involved when you look back to write history. there is no doubt in many of these situations you have a lot more facts available to you and retrospect than you do when you are carrying these things out. and i know from my personal experience, ambassadorships, when you are carrying things out, you never have the benefit of the complete set of facts. there are always important things that you do not know but you have to make assumptions about, as you go forward. you can still make errors of judgment as to what the significance of something nce. i would not argue with that.

host: you finished your career in the bush administration. what was your focus? guest: i was at the department of state. we have 57 belsen-some people. -- 57,000-some people. i don't with substantive foreign-policy issues as well. relationships with pakistan was one of them. iraq, to a certain extent, latin america, there is part of the world. host: there was a piece over the weekend in the "wall street journal" that talks about hillary clinton. guest: and that is his opinion.

only the president can decide. if she were to move to another position in the government, it would be a loss to the state department. another point i would make about my previous responsibilities, linking it to your question, there is a real need to strengthen the foreign service's of the united states. she has been supportive of that program. host: another opinion piece, back to the issue of the intelligence director, in the " wall street journal" --

"inherently, awkward" do you agree with the aat? guest: i think there needs to be some sort of bump of what the relationship is, but no matter the definition of the job is the relationship of the director with the preeident i felt like i had a good relationship with george bush. host: who was the cia director while you were there? guest: porter goss was the director for most of the time that i was there. host: let us go to the republican line. georgia in north carolina. caller: two questions. i understand there are 18 intelligence agencies in the government. why are there so many and

doesn't that create some redundancies? i also understand there are an enormous amount of consulting firms in washington, d.c. that do nothing but consult for the federal government. is this necessary? guest: on your first point, 18 intelligence agencies, of course, some of them are relatively small capabilities within each government department. sort of like an in-house intelligence capability. the department of state has 300 people it needs basically to digest the intelligence and tailor the material for state department principles. i would submit to you that any intelligence community, there

are really five major agencies. if you took those five, it would account for 90% of the personnel in the intelligence community. and that is not an unmanageable number. as to contractors, a lot of it is a question of the government needs personnel. congress limits us to a certain number of full-time people. very often, you have to go to contracting to meet a particular need. particularly, after 9/11, there was more contract in after that. host: concern over the iraq war

about halliburton and other agencies like that, are there concerns in the intelligence field about contractors doing work? guest: in ny of these activities, there is a limit that you can ask these contractors to do. you really want someone who is in the full-time chain of command. on the other hand, if you have analytic, logistical work that needs to be done, they can be done full well by contractors. host: and michael in louisiana. go ahead. caller: can you hear me? my question is, after 9/11, some

of bin laden's family members were in the u.s. who allowed them to leave the country? was there a focus for them to leave the country? guest: at the time that that happened i was ambassador of the united nations. i was not directly involved in that matter. what i remember it is there were a number of his family members who are themselves against what he has done, that had prominent positions in their country. not everybody in his family has the same ideas about the world, the same agenda. host: mr. negroponte served as ambassaaor to mexico, the

philippines, and later on we will be joined by ryan crocker. as you look to iraq and afghanistan, what are your thoughts? guest: as far as iraq, better. i was there from 2004 to 2005. certainly, better than 2006, when there was rampant sectarian violence. the fact you have had one prime minister in power for four years, that they are taking over security. when i arrived in june 2004, they had a grand total of one battalion in their army. now they have close to 500,000

troops to help maintain security. as we are withdrawing, we aren't leaving them in pretty good shape. -- we are leaving them in pretty good shape. it was an interesting post. it was one of the most gratifying things. we were able to carry up the first successful elections in the iraq after the overthrow of saddam hussein. i think we were surprised by the peaceful outcome of those elections. host: mike, on the democratic line. caller: i was watching this is really -- isreali flotilla att

ack. it is clear what was happening. every middle eastern islamic country is up in arms. they are in the streets protesting. kill, it is about protecting. but when we have terrorists killing muslims, in the hundred, we do not see much. do we have a hand in telling these modern -- moderate muslims what we see? guest: let me make two comments on that. when i was ambassador to the un

, there was a lot of bias against israel. i was constantly working with the israeli delegation among others to try to fend off these lopsided resolution that would almost invariably condemn israel but say nothing about terrorism or anything else carried out by the palestinian side. this is a constant issue. you may recall, it is one of the areas where we had to exercise our veto power. there were things being said about israel that we could not accept. the more general point i would make is, these kinds of situations will continue for the foreseeable future, until there is some enduring peace in the middle east. i think it is attainable.

hopefully, the parties can get back to working on that in the earnest, some time soon. host: the prime minister announced in the overnight the establishment of an inquiry on that flotilla raid. louisiana. charles on the republican line. caller: god bless our troopp and their families. i have two poonts. we have the finest intelligence in the world. sometimes we make mistakes, but god bless the people who give us the information. my second point, and please answer this for me if you could. sandy berger stole classified

documents out of the archives and shredded them. it, there is no question in my%- mind. why did he o this? please enter. guest: -- answer. guest: i wish i could enter. i am not aware of anything in the public record. on your first point, about troops in the intelligence community, i agree with you. i served in various embassies around the world, including in

saigon, so i have had a long association with the military. the capabilities and education of law enforcement today is nothing short of spectacular. i agree with you on that. i agree with you as well on the integrity of our work intelligence capability. not just human capability, but all forms of intelllgence. we have a positively dedicated and brilliant work force. host: what sort of academic background makes a good analyst, intelligence officer? guest: language, knowing things about different countries. of course, the various types of technical intelligence. if you are doing nuclear non- proliferation, you have to have

some technical competence to be able to make judgments. host: 10 more minutes with ambassador john negroponte. president obama recently nominated james clapper to replace dennis blair. in an article in the "wall street journal" they discussed his role as dni. guest: each individual agency bears their own budget. perhaps the dni could have a stronger hand in that. the power to hire and fire. intelligence agencies would be

strengthened by that. but i would not go so far as to consider making this a cabinet department or anything like that. intelligence is a support function it is not the function of the freestanding cabinet, if you will. theelast thing i would urge the powers that be to consider might be to make the director of national intelligence a position that is fixed term in duration, just like the director of the fbi. that would elevate the position3 intelligence has become sort of a political football in this town. host: you say that they should have the power to hire and fire.

would that not contribute to the conflict with the cia? guest: authorities are sttonger within the cia compared to other authorities. i believe he nominee to head of the cia based on the recommendation of the dni. across the board, greater personnel, greater functions could be used. host: the louisville, ky. harold. independent line. -- and louisville, k-- not with-

louisville, ky. guest: there are an incredible number of people who want to come here to lift. host: batna rouge. democrat line. caller: i have two questions. the first one deals with the economy. how can this agency provide independence? secondly, i know the independent -- the agency had different ways of gathering information. lately, different politicians

have been using racial profiling as a way of gathering information. what is that role? guest: with regard to your first point, if you are suggesting and of these agencies are so autonomous that they are not under any supervision, i would submit to you that that is wrong we have a system of checks and balances in the country. certainly, when it comes to intelligence, oversight from the white house, you have very strong congressional oversight. the literally -- literally dozens of committees that

oversee intelligence. i did not get your point about racial profiling. of course, the intelligence community is not involved in any of that kind of activity. host: in "in the atlantic" lee hamilton said that intelligence was not feasible based on the president's leadership. he writes -- guest: i think what they are referring to is the unfortunate public discussion then got into

concerning who would appoint filed chiefs. if possible, i would like to avoid those types of public spats. issue, when it occurred, it was+ taken to the white house, and they decided in favor of the cia. that was a bad on come for an agency to be overruled by a so- called subordinate agency. host: and on an issue that was not so mucc -- guest: i decided to make it an issue. i decided cia chiefs would be by representatives.

caller: i wanted to make a comment on what you said about israel. i just wanted to say, your comment is bias against israel. israel can invade countries and the u.s. just turn their head the other way. guest: when i was mbassador of the united nations, if you look at the record of the general assembly, sometimee there were 40, 50 resolution and waiting to condemn israel for one thing or another. we were trying to introduce some balance into those things.

from time to time, palestinians would carry out terrorist acts against israel, for launch rocket attacks from the gaza. it is a two-way street. as i said earlier, this debate will go on until there is meaningful pieceace over there. host: next phone call. caller: good morning. in recent years, much more classified information has found its way onto the pages of "the new york times." why is this information leaked -- guest: you are breaking up, but

i think i got the drift of your question, which is why is there so much classified information being leaked? i do not know, but it is appalling. i am particularly concerned when i see documents given to the press. i do not know what we can do about it. i think part of it has to do with intelligence officers themselves who have to exercise more disciplined in who they talk to and what they ssy. some of these people are now writinggtheir memoirs, intelligence operatives. i have serious questions as to whether that is the right thing to. host: germantown, maryland. john on the democrat's line. caller: i know that we have technology that can analyze things from our space. the fact is, colin powell told

the correct war on the notion that we were going to experience a mushroom cloud. why wasn't it made known in the intelligence community? guest: your question goes back to one of the most serious intelligence failures. this whole wmd fiasco, relying on this source known as " curveball."

i was with the secretary when he made that announcement. he made that decision in good faith. the main debt decision based on intelligence provided to him and he believed it was true. that turned out not to be the case, and that was important -- unfortunate. host: next phone call. caller: good morning. given the hard chip that the country has gone through, most presidents focus on education which leads to intelligence. i was wondering why then it is always the first thing to go.

i wonder why expectations are so high for you to get into the military. usually, the military was going to shake you up and make you a man. guest: i do not know, that last part, but you are right about education. we have fiscal difficulties in the country at the moment, and we will come to grips with that. however, education is extremely valuable. as i said, i think the level of education of our military officers is extremely high and impressive. certainly, to be a good intelligence analyst, you have to have a good education. host: ambassador negroponte is

here for 10 more minutes. we want to give a look at the announcement and get your thoughts on th nee new dni. >> our intelligence community has made great strides since the 9/11 attacks. we have struck blows against the leadership of al qaeda, disrupted many parts. as we saw in the failed attacks in detroit, we need to do better. we need to constantly evolve, a that is why i have ordered purports to see how we can strengthen intelligence, and i will be looking to jam to make sure that we have the most capable intelligence community possible. intelligence must be analyzed

quickly, shared, and acted upon decisively. that is what i expect as president, and that is what our national security demands. analysis you had mentioned. he made recommendations to congress. i was aware of those are you? guest: i am not aware of the reforms he recommended, but not me say this about jim clapper. he is an excellent choice. he is the kind of person i am talking about. even if he is not a 10-year appointment, he has had a lifetime experience working on intelliggnce matters. host: of the only four, were you the only civilian? guest: i was, and even though i

did not have military experience, had quite a bit of diplomatic intelligence and experience. running five embassies, also had applied station chiefs. host: next phone call. caller: i was wondering if the u.s. intelligence and national security agencies are involved in getting background checks of politician running for office. for example, the president of the united states. that is a key position to national security. hostt are u.s. intelligence agencies involved in background checks? guest: the state department's

bureau of security. do they check other databases? i do not know. i imagine they do. but the intelligence agencies themselves, i do not believe, are involved in directing background checks, except in the case wherein they are betting their own employees. -- vetting their own employees. host::how big is that agency? guest: about 1500 employees. it wathere was a national counterterrorism center. there were a couple of offices that came over for the long-term intelligence. host: christine on the

democratic line. caller: good morning. the gentleman that called before me was trying to get to tte notion in our country about the birther situation. i believe the president has full rights and was voted in a legally, and is in fact, a legal citizen. however, there are a group of people who believe he is not a citizen and has no right to be the president. i wondered if there is a government agency that would have to vetted the people running for president, and find out if they are a legal citizzn, and therefore, had any right to run for president?

host: ambassador? guest: we advised companies on doing business abroad, market so forth. we are a strategic advisory firm. host: thank you for being with us this morning. in just a moment, we will be speaking to michael tomasky. we will be speaking about progressive politics and issues in the news. first, an update from campaign 2010. >> today we areefocusing on alvin green. he'd be down a south carolina state representative despite

never having a radio ad or speech. some in south carolina, including jim clyburn, are calling on green to get out of the race. what is the status of the inveetigation? >> on friday, he assembled a team of experts to go over the voting. they have turned up what they are describing as a few red flags. discrepancies where the absentee vote went one way in pre- election numbers, but then the other ay.

in any way, they have the right to protest. they have until noon to submit a protest to the south carolina democratic process committee. if they accept that, there will be a hearing on thursday to see if there needs to be a revote, and then they will move on from there. >> how long could that take? >> not that long. it is a court process, from what i understand. they tried to show a body of evidence, but the burden is on the campaign to prove there is something nefarious going on. this was not a close election. a 30,000-vote that alvin green won by.

>> what is the reaction of the green? >> he says he is going to stay in the race. we tried to call his home over the weekend. he has done some television interviews. you can tell in those interviews that even he is surprised that he won. some people are saying he was the first name on the ballot and that helped him. others say that' the fact he is african-american help him. some believe he is a republican plant, although, there has been

approved to that. >> the washington post said that this was a $10,000 filing fee. >> he said that that was money that he put up himself. whether or not it was his money, we do not know. nobody can really recall him doing a campaign speech. >> some are around the country might be surprised that some are accusing republicans of planting someone in the race. but south carolina has a history of this? >> yes, they do have a history of meddling in races before.

the radar of state officials. the winner would have to go up against jim demint, so there is a question as to much effort the republicans would put into this, and until we know more about that, i do not think we can say that republicans are behind this. >> it does not sound like mr. greene as much of a chance in the general election anyway. >> yes, that is why you are not hearing more about this. you have the state party chair asking your presumptive nominee to step down. that should tell you quite a bit about what they believe their chances are in the general election.

host: michael tomasky is an editor at "the guardian" of london. he is here to talk about the relationship of president obama and the liberal wing of the party. in an extensive piece that you wrote, "against despair" -- what is this despair that we talk about? guest: this feeling thatt president obama has not been aggressive enough on many measures. the stimulus was the first instance. a lot of liberals wanted it to be larger than it was. that continuessthrough health care, financial regulation reform, discuusions on energyy i do not know how widespread it

is, but reasonable unhappiness from that perspective. what i do this i try to argue that if you take a closer look at history, as some people do, even moments of reat liberal triumph, were full of moves to the center, by presidents who are mindful of not wanting to be seen as too liberal. i try to lay that history out and show that making progress o3 long, hard process. host: you mentioned the new

deal. guest: it took a long time for the new deal to really coalesced and change the direction of the country. there were also instances when president made consciously- centric moves. franklin roosevelt, his 100 days. the first bill he passed the of the emergency banking legislation. the second bill that he passed, within hours of the american team banking act, is something much less remembered. the economy act. it cut the salaries of employees and veterans, and was introduced for the urposes of fiscal stability. it did not have the support of liberals in congress. he had to pass in with more centrist republicans.

liberals write that part out of history. similarly, with lyndon johnson, the first piece of legislation he passed was not some big great society thing. the first thing he did was pass tax cuts. host: do you think candidate obama, noo-president obama, the hopes to hide? guest: there is a question whether he is responsible for the or whether or not people did it to themselves. i talked a little bit in the piece about the hope that was there in november 2008, when he won and took the stage in grant park.

without analyzing it scientifically, there is some combination there of thing that turned ut to be pretty hard to deliver on. i do not think, however, that americans were fully ready to embrace liberalism. host: you also write that worth remembering are three crucial points. more americans were willing to identify themselves as liberals. votes on issues like civil rights. all of those things were known by liberals and progressives

guest: they were, but the last one has proven to be a more dramatic difference then i think obama anticipated. one can call this naive, i suppose, but i think he genuinely thought he could do something to break the partisan logjam in this town and be a different kind of president and bill clinton wants. i think he was genuinely surprised by the republican wall of opposition he faced. maybe that is to his discredit, but it is a jet -- different situation than johnson faced in 1965. nearly half of the republicans voted to support the medicare bill. host: michael tomasky is the

editor of "than democracy" as well as "the guarrian" of london. let us go to phone calls. barbara in grand rapids. caller: i have a comment and then a question. i do not know if it was you, but last week there was someone named daniel white, and they asked how he got his money for his organization. it turns out george soros, the billionaire socialist, is the one that sponsors him. host: who? caller: moveon.org.

he lied on the air. george soros paid for his job. you did not go into it. host: who is the guest you are talking about? caller: daniel white. he pretended he was from another organization. host: i am not sure i was even on the program that day. tricia from alabama. independent line. caller: good morning. i was really trying to get through on intelligence. i just want to make a statement and ask a question. my son is a sergeant in the

marine corps. he was coming home for a visit to me. london but not let him through with his passport. it makes me curious how easy it is to get through? host: staying on the topic of the war. congress is set to take up a supplemental bill. clearly, there are members of the democratic party who are not voting for more war funding. is this an area where progressives feel like the president has let them down? guest: yes, a lot of people do. i personally do not. what they're trying to do in afghanistan is tremendously

hard. but yes, i think there are some progressives who are upset about that. the facts on the ground are fairly dismal. counterinsurgency is very hard. i do not know where this is going to go. i do not know how many liberal votes are set up against this. host: what kind of opportunity does the president have with his oval office address, his meeting with bp officials? guest: i think it is a good opportunitt to take back some control of this situation. it is funny, these oval office address is.

i am not the only one who has wondered why he has not used that foruu more. we are in the midst of a big financial crisis and he could have explained to people what the situation was, what he was trying to do. it is a good forum for any prrsident because there is no media or republican response. it is just the president sitting at his desk. i have been bewildered why he has not used it to this point, it is a potentially strong way to communicate. host: diane in cleveland calle. caller: i am disappointed in the american people. this president is doing the best that he can do.

a lot of things that he is trying to do is being stopped by the republicans. if they could work with him, a lot of these things could get done. a lot of you progressives are nothing but clinton supporters. this man is doing the best he can. we appreciate him. i want to tell everyone in america, you do not speak for me, you do not speak for half of america. you speak for yourself. you write on your blogs and you let people talk about his family, his kid. but when somebody says something about israel, you get angery.

guest: i am a supporter of the what we began talking about, this piece described to liberals and progressives on what they should avoid. some wanted more progressive ideas in the health-care debate, for example. people should push for that, do all of the political activism they had in their will to do. the main point i am trying to get across is that liberals, obama supporters, should not get into the frame of mind where he is a sellout, he is no good, this and that. host: bruni on in health care debate, the president -- early

on in the health-care debate, the president let go of public funding for health care. how do progressives view the law that was eventually enacted? guest: i think people are proud. most people are also mindful that it is not polling all that well. it is better than when it passed in march, so that is an improvement, but again, your average liberal would wish that the public option were in there. let's see when implementation begins, how it unfolds.

host: our previous caller mentioned blogs. your latess piece is on harry reid and his senate race. why shouldn't he be smug about that? guess: first of all, i speak for only myself. because it is a tight race, because he had fairly high negative numbers, reid and his people were happy that she won the race. where she is, they represent the extreme right. things have worked out well from his perspective. from the numbers i have seen, he tends to be ahead of her.

nevertheless, it will be a close race. i think i wrote that after the results and there was some euphoria that i was seeing on liberal blogs that he would take to victory. i just thought, not so fast. host: next phone call, don. caller: i have a couple of questions. there was that big thing about obama not being born in the country. they have a document that he was not even born here. it is amazing, america seems to forget about that -- host: who has facts? caller: it was all over fox news and everything else. when he was other did into

congress in illinois, he wanted to put his hand on the koran. he is a -- host: we are going to let that one go. this is a discussion on policy. name-calling has no place here. leave that at home. . ..

caller: yes, i did vote for obama, but i did have dual mind knows when i voted for him. view is going to do this for the working class and he was going to do that her -- e was going -pto do this for the working cls and he was calling to do that, but when it comes to the corporations, he pulls his punches. hi of red blood that you have talked about -- i have read a lot that you have talked about. i read a lot about teddy roosevelt. he was a republican. he was actually for the working lives.

host: we will let you go and hear from our guest. guest: that is true, by and large, he is known most famously for the sherman antitrust act. the parties were lined in different ways in daud -- those days. there were a lot of liberal republicans and conservative democrats in a way that is just not the case now. i would like to learn from the caller what specific things he thinks the village of between obama and the corporations are. host: he used the term pulling his punches. it would you agree? guest: i think that is in some

ways a fair criticism. obama is not a podium pounder. i think that he considers himself a peacemaker. i guess every party hopes for reporting compounder. caller: i kept myself as a pretty strong liberal progressiveb -tk. in general, i think obama is a -- is an ok president, but i disagree with some things that he stands for. this does not come as a surprise to me.

his plan back in 2008 to expand the quarter in afghanistan -- the war in afghanistan hot an-- the one i did find interesting is the article and click "new york times" this last week about classified information. and continuing to prosecute the army of sirhan lead to the clause by vero from venice -- from the pen -- the classified

video from baghdad. guest: he makes a lot of interesting points. one of which is said it is worth remembering. obama did say a lot of things in 2008. he did make a lot of these positions clear. he said he was going to continue the war in afghanistan. and some liberals did not believe that, that is on them, not on him. i would say in reading and talking, that is the one area that there is the most of his appointment. but there is a sense that he would give it away from those --

he would have put away from those bush policies. host: you write that democrats in congress share the blame. how does he overcome that? guest: it is a tough thing. the democratic party on the hill is somewhat more ideologically heterogeneous than the republican party.

there are a very small number of moderates in the congressional republican party. among the democratic caucus, i think there are 20 something that you could call straight down the line of liberals. and 20 something that you could call slightly centrist and about another dozen or 15 who are conservative. the democratic party has always had a hand in this. host: in the blanche lincoln debate, and you think came out on top of that? when shalik and one that, but who you think -- blanche lincoln

won the debate, but who do you think was affected by that? guest: i would thinn that other democratic senators will -- who are from some states were f labor is a little bit stronger might have gotten the message of labour could come into their i think they showed a little muscle, depending on which senator they take a look at next. host: this is debora from hersman, tennessee. caller: i have the greatest concern for womennof this country and i pray for women, and men as well. i wonder why things are not

being done. this country was built on trust and love of god. we need to follow through and being more responsible for what we can do for others. we need to talk more about what we are doing and what can we do best. i see people struggling with regard to day care vouchers. they do not have the money to pay for child care. and then there are educational successes and a good job searches. i am wondering what avenues we

have for people who work for that -- when people who work for the state or theegovernment tell us they will get on something immediately and in weeks past and you do not see progress made. host: deborah, and going to let you go there. guest: she makes me think of a lot of things. it is an inteeesting set of questions. we look at afghanistan, there is little progress. bp oil's bill, why is it taken so long? -- bp oil spill, why is it taking so long.

democrats do have a special responsibility when they are in office to try to major government works and is effectivv. -- make sure government works and is effective. host: this is the front page of the guardian. i want to put out a story that we talked a earlier in "washington journal," david cameron was critical of the administration's comments on bp. i was going on between the peader of the u.k. and the president? guest: i think cameron was for the careful in his comments.

aita in this is something that is drawn up by the right wing british media, quite frankly. obama called cameron and over the weekend. i can understand the concern on the one hand, but i think i understand why it bp was taking criticism in the united states. host: georgia, independent line. caller: what ever referred to us -- whatever we referred to as

president obama, he is progressive, liberal, marxist, socialist. if one team that puzzles me is -- when i look at his background and how the media priorrto election failed to inform the people of president obama's background. they were like, well, we did not know anything about this guy. now we are finding out. if he is not a builder. he tears down.

and you look at an organization like there -- like a corn that is correct in the -- like a corcorn that is correct in the process -- corrupting the process. guest: i wonder about the you are taaking about tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of people losing their jobs. would they really propose no bailout at all and risk the ricochet affects of that? the small banks that would fail, the community banks that would fail of -- as a result of the

banks getting in trouble. and then people pay this picture that he could not wait to get in there anddit is hands on these banks. i thing that is wrong.

caller: kollhof

guest: you backed out. and so we're short of your commitment, we will be careful not to be left alone with more enemies than we can deal with. it is an ambivalent relationship. we see the taliban attack the government. the military itself. state structures. they have declared war on the pakistani state. we are seeing them respond with an effort inside of pakistan. but also, in a more cooperative endeavor given the challenges and threats we face jointly.

he was an ambassador in the 1990's. lesley on our independent line. caller: hello. when you started the conversation, you mentioned%+ threats on hezbollah. i am not sure of the term you use. maybe you could repeat the term on how we should be dealing with hezbollah. i know that the country of lebanon on has been financially in better shape than almost anywhere. i am wondering what exactly you are saying that the u.s. -- how the u.s. should be engaging with hezbollah because our relationship with love and on would be a friindly one. what exactly are you saying and how should we be relating to

hezbollah in engagement? are you talking about the george bush pollcy which is non- engagement ann military force? or are you talking about diplomatic sit down, let's talk? guest: thaa gives me a chance to expand on my earlier comments. i think we need to do a number of things. first, we have to have a strong and effective relationship with the lebanese government and with the llbanese armed forces. they are a series institution in the country. we have had an uneven relationship over time. we now are in gauged with them and we need to continue to give them training -- we are now engaged with them and we need to

continue to give them training and to one day be a substitute to hezbollah. in terms of engaging with hezbollah, i mean just that. we talked to virtually everyone in lebanon, but we do not talk to hezbollah. and i think weeare weakening our own hand by not talking to them. we do not know very much about them because we do not deal with them directly. we do not know with their differences and divisions are. i am sure they are there. we will learn more by talking to them and we might see some advantages that currently we are blind to. this is not a bush policy or an obama policy. it has been a consistent policy that we do not talk to terrorist groups or organizations.

when i was in iraq we talked to anyone who would ttlk to us and we did not worry about labels. the influence we were able to bring was a big help in winding down the insurgency. i would like to see us be more creative not just in iraq but in lebanon and elsewhere in the world. host: so you're ok with us talking with the taliban. guest: i am ok with it. it does not mean confering recognition or anything else anymore than it meant talkkng with insurgent elements in barairaq. host: there is a story about

rhee integrating some former detainees as the headline risky experience that they consider redeemable. do you think it is a good idea? guest: we have to be adaptable in these battles situations. again, the individuals who are coordinating the effort in afghanissan, general mcchrystal, has been at this a long, long time with great success in afghanistan and iraq. general petraeus has been with me for a year and a half in barack and he is overseeing both efforts. we bring a lot of cceativity to this effort. >host: 8 republican caller.

-- a republican caller. caller: i do not take issue with anything your guest has said. when all the noise is at out, something like your guests are conspicuously absent from the so-called round tables. it sounds as if it is their job. logic rules. we have a president if he attempts to perform along these lines, he is called a cobddler of terrorists. he is called a socialist and a secret stalker. insanity.

my party. we do ot have a chance. our foreign policy should be3 criticism at the shortest edge. this gentleman who was -- he brought nuclear weapons to pakistan. from this point forward, our house was on fire and we had to start trying to figure out the relationship between pakistan, india, iran. this is a tough neighborhood host hed. host: he called it a tough neighborhood. guest: i would like to comment

on the first part of his remarks. i could not agree more. we')e fighting real battles against real enemies in these tough neighborhoods of the world. back here, the level of extreme partisanship has gone to the3 this cannot be about labels and bumper stickers. i have been proud to serve as ambassador in both democratic and republican organizations. there is a continuity among them on issues of national threat and strategy. our adversaries are all fairly well united out there. we do not do any service by going after each other back here at home for no particularly good

or logical eason. just because the politics oo identity. now i will talk about the tougher neighborhood beyond our borders. host: the think it makes it tougher back home for people like yourself, does it make it tougher to be an ambassador for foreign seevice officer knowing politick the go along stateside? guest: what you have to do is stay in your lane and do what you were sent out to do, which is to make assessments, make recommendations, carry out policies, engage the people in your assignment. don't get caught up in the political swirl back home. that is what i have tried to do

as ambassador to iraq. you cannot be oblivious to it. host: next call from cincinnati. ccller: i wanted to ask about someone in basra and he did not seem to have power. his father was an ayatollah. he went to ayatollah school or some kind of thing. if he graduates this school -- host: who are you talking about specifically? caller: i do not know his name. host: any idea of that? guest: i think our caller is talking about the head of the

trend that is from central iraq and the son of a revered and distinguished grand ayatollah who was assassinated by saddam hussein in 1999. he has been in iran studying theology since the beginning of 2007. he has taken himself out of the political discourse in the r iraq. %+e longer he's there, the less influential he will become. is a proud state. they have limited affinity towards iran against whom they fought in a bitter ground war

from 1980 until 1928. the longer that he is in iran, the less politically influenced he becomes. host: michael on our independent line. caller: my question -- you have worked in pakistan and work with the government'. at the time, we needed the government to crack down on the talbot coming in -- on the taliban coming in. what has been the tone of dialogue with the government that rose toopower in less than democratic fashion, you could say. our relations with pakistan -- is it aimed solely at fighting pakistan -- and fighting terrorism or about autocracy and

nuclear non-proliferation, guest: that is a great question. i do believe that that relationship does have to be a broad one prick it cannot only be about fighting terror. hasted be -- it has to be a broad one. it cannot be only about fighting terror, the improvement of good governance, the extension of rule of law, everything pakistan needs to stabilize as a secure democracy. that will take a long-term u.s. commitment that will have to transcend administrations. we started on this with a significant packages that were by no means limited just to military insecurity. we now have the blue bar administration -- lugarrpact

which has good governance, education, as well as for security assistance. pakistan has a lot problems. they are not going to be fixed overnight. we need to establish herself as a strategic partner over the long run and then just stay with tit. i applaud the continuity and i think we need to carry that forward. host: connecticut. caller: can you hear me? i have a question.%+ at the height of the iraqi war, there were billions and billions sent by plane. bush appointed a consulting out of the bahamas

to track this money. some of the money went to the right place but the majority went to places they cannot account for it. are there anything in place so this does not happen in afghanistan? guest: this gets at accountability, how our resources are used. one of the innovations in bairaq was the creation of the counsel and it has been headed up by stuart boland. there has been a similar , special inspector general for afghan reconstruction. i think the model is the right

one. iraq where we learned to fix a lot of things. drawing from that experience and applying it to afghanistan and developing the structures for monitoring inspection investigation and oversight are what we need. host: connecticut. democrat caller. caller: in the lead up to the iraqi war went george bush was saying about the weapons of mass iraqi war went george bush was saying about the weapons of mass government's trying to give the document that showed they had destroyed the weapons of mass destruction and it did not seem to make any difference. did you have any input to try to

get the message through to the bush administration that they had destroyed these weapons? what do you think the chances are of an israeli strike against the iranian nucleaa facilities within the next six or eight months? . .

guest:ñgjp we have made some chs as to how intelligence is put together that will serve as well in the future. the community got that one wrong. wrong. great question on iran. of all the challenges that america faces in the region over the next few years, iraq, afghanistan, pakistan, perhaps one of the greatest maybe the prospect of an armed iian. there are several ways to deal with it. we could accept and attack. i don't think either of those are good options for us or for israel. we need to do exactly what we have been doing. we did it first on the the bush and administration and now under the obama and the administration

by making this an international threat toward -- not just a problem for israel or the u.s. to engage the international community. we need to do everything we can to impede their effort to develop nuclear weapon. we want to slow it down and buy time and that is a good investment.3 world with us but ii will be very hard. host: under 15 minutes left with our guest. he is now the head of the george bush school of public policy at texas a&m. here is a call from texas, good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i see that the main problem is the war is not obama. the problem is howard stern's anus.

host: arlington, virginia, go ahead caller: i am polish american and i just watched the polish news. polish will pull out their troops from afghanistan. the main reason is the policy and how to manage the country. and how to manage the country. we have to change the policy war in afghanistan to help the3 instead of spending so much money on the military industrial complex, we have to redo the roads which are dangerous and many other things. we have to enrich the heart and soul of the afghani people.

we're spending so much money on companies doing business in afghanistan. guest: thank you for the question. been a tremendous ally both in iraq and afghanistan. i served with polish forces in iraq. their courage, commitment, and achievements are a great credit to poland and our bilateral relationship. in afghanistan, i think we are pursuing a complex multi- faceted policy that is focused not just on security nd military operations, but also trying to help afghanistan build a viable and sustainable infrastructure. this is not new. when i reopen the embassy in -pafghanistan in 2002, i made te case that in addition to our

traditional assistance programs in areas like agriculture and education we need to make a difference in infrastructure because the devastation was so total that improvements in agriculture, for eeample, were not going to count for much if farmers could not get produce to market. that led to american products like our involvement in the kanduhar-kabul highway. we cannot do it all. i am pleased to see efforts underway to try to coordinate afghanistan across the board. this will require a huge international effort. we will not prevail. the afghan government will not prevail. just by military means. afghans have to see that their

life is getting better and more importantly that the prospects for their children's lives are far better and they can support the current afghan government and its international backers led by the united states. the alternative is letting the country revert once more to the taliban. hoss: we will hear from riverside, georgia, good morning. calleryou are on the air. go ahead. hang on, i pushed the wrong button. there you are. caller: thank you for taking my call. can you hear me? host: weekend. caller: we talk about democratic elections and whether we like it elected because fatah is allally about taking the people'')s mon. we have also given nuclear weapons to pakistan, india, and

israel, yet we want to hold iran to another standard regarding their desire for what they say is a peaceful nuclear program. we have nuclear weapons here that we are supposed to be downloading with russia. we let israel dictate what is going on in the region.. israel is supposed to be our democratic partner. yet israel is dictating everything that is going i would suggest and i hope that the ambassador would agree that we leave that region alone and let them work out their own problems so that we can take care of our problems here at home. we have soldiers all over the world.

pe have been a germany, japan. let them come home and let them take care of their own people. host: you want to wrap up the military and diplomatically? caller: i would say militarily but not diplomatically. guest: i would have to say that we see what happens when we disengage from these tough parts of the world. we disengaged from afghanistan and pakistan after he soviets pulled out of afghanistan in 1989. c:í7incidently, on the way out e door in 1990, we slapped sanctions on pakistan because of their nuclear weapons program. does not correct to say that we supported it or gay nuclear weapons to india or pakistan. -- or gave a nuclear weapons to

india or pakistan. india or pakistan. we disengaged. military terms. we did not completely disengaged diplooatically but we were no longer much of a force. what happened? that was the road to 9/11. the afghan civil war haapened. the taliban emerged on top in the early 1990's and gave sanction to al-qaida. a few years later, we got 9/11. host: why did we disengage in that region? guest: we figured that there are strategic competitor, the soviet union had been defeated in afghanistan better work there was done. we saw the world through purely bipolar terms. we knew it would be essie in ñiafghanistan -- we do it woulde

messy and afghanistan. faugwe thought we would let them fight it out any way they could. we would not be engaged. it was a failure of engagement on our part based on a failure of imagination. we will not have that excuue this next time around if we decide we want to disengage now militarily. we know how bad movie goes. i, for one, don't want to see it again. host: john, on our independent line. caller: i am so infuriated over what is going on with our country

host: let's go to front royal, va., on our rrpublican line. caller: first of all, i love george bush and i pay all the criticism of him. i hope the school is doing well and i hope the library in dallas is doing well and i hope he is happy there. to the issues -- first of all, he had surveillance. our country was safe when they put in surveillance of all the wire tapping and so forth which got so much criticism. got so much criticism. all that time, they were able to do tteir damage. by the same token, i wish that

george had jumped right in in iraq right from the beginning. every day they waited and allowed for all these people to investigate and to all that stuff, ,ñsekr&oge0s i knew, do it because i knew their work nuclear-weapons there and i am most people feel there were. even though they have not found on, that doesl ss not mean theye not there. host: any response to her comments? guest: the george bush school here at texas a and m is named after george h. w. bush, the 41st president and his library is here at texas a&m. the 43rd president with which i was privileged to serve is establishing hisibrary in dallas. two separate presidents, two different schools, two different

libraries. half hosthost: democratic calle. caller: george bush started this by bombing the middle east and staging of us in saudi arabia. that is where we went wrong. ronald reagan created saddam hussein. he case - he gave him tens of millions of dollars in military aid and when the monster got out of control, papaw bush added to take them out.. that is what started al-qaida and the jihad movement and that has gotten us where we are. the fact that you can casually sit there and defend your ridiculous behavior. we have strength in iran and almost destroyed america and the process with thesezú" ridiculos illegal foreign wars that are against what this country was founded on we have no business interfering.

we are using is real as our hezbollah over all these years. host: major point, let's hear from the ambassador. guest: that is a point of view. i was present at the time of the 1990-1991 and desert shield and desert desert storm event. i was director of the iraq- kuwait apart from the state department. i would take a different point of view on that. president george h. w. bush's decision to use u.s. military forces to liberate kuwait was a critical step not only in and of itself but also in establishing that the united states would be decisively engaged in the post- cold war world, not a new world order as it turnedut