we will look at u.s.-hungary and relationships with the hungarian 5 -- foreign minister. . .

a good thursday morning to you. we are going to add one other phone line, active duty military personnel, for your reaction to the top command position change in afghanistan. that number for active duty, if you would love to get your perspective, 628-0184. we will get to your phone calls, e-mails, and tweets in just a couple of minutes. an interesting ticktock story, those of like the back channel of washington. a piece in "the new york times," short, intense deliberation. he tells us the drama began monday afternoon when vice president joe biden flying home from illinois to andrews air force base took an unsettling phone call from general mcchrystal. it lasted barely two minutes. the general told the vice president that there is an

article coming out what not like. mr. biden asked the staff to investigate and milan, aides handed an article. after digesting it back at his residence in washington, mr. biden put a call to mr. obama at 730 that evening. hours earlier, the white house had and sells gotten wind of the article and a young press aide distributed copies to all of the top officials and mr. obama's national security circle. the press secretary walked a copy of it to the president and the private quarters. after scanning the first few paragraphs -- a sarcastic, profanity lace description of general mcchrystal's discuss that having to dine with a french minister to brief him about the war -- mr. obama had read enough, he ordered his aides to convene immediately to the oval office. the lead on this story is, by the time he woke up on wednesday morning, president obama had made up his mind. we know that decision was to

replace general mcchrystal was general david petreaus. we would like to know what you think. hudgins bill, alabama. this is victor. you are on the air. victor, you are on the air. caller: thank you. host: go ahead, please. caller: good morning, susan. how were you? host: fine, thank you. caller: i am so glad that obama made the right decision and that -- are you hearing? host: yes, sir, we can hear you. caller: general mcchrystal -- when i looked behind who support him, i did not see black and when white people get together, this is how they talk about black people. it is all about this respect. abominates to fire him because

these republicans always find a way to disrespect obama. host: i have to stop the at this point. if you read the article, general mcchrystal's aids recorded conversations about the entire national security team, the rest of whom are white folks. how does it stand up in your case? caller: what i mean by that is their conversations is disrespectful to obama's administration. and therefore -- demeans whenever he tries to do for america. host: washington, d.c., william, democrats line. caller: good morning. you know, i don't even think in the afghanistan occupation it matters who the top general is. it could be general dwight d. eisenhower or it could be gomer pyle. the result is going to be the same. it is not a war, it is the

occupation of a foreign country in which we have no business being in. at this point, i consider the war sort of a political insurance policy for president obama. if he pulls out of afghanistan and there is some sort of terrorist attack, it does not matter where it came from -- it could be done by people born right here -- the right wing or the redneck population is going to say, that is because we are not taking the war to that terrorists anymore. we left afghanistan. but when you think about it, terrorists don't need training camps. they need passports. they need flight simulators. all of the stuff they are able to obtain right here. i remember the bush administration had a line in which they said, if we leave

afghanistan, the terrorists are going to follow us home. whether they meant that theoretically are literally. are they going to stowaway, swim after the battleships? . it's got i'm going to stop it. we understand your point and opposition to war in general. let us move on to our next comment as we digest the president's decision to replace his top commander at afghanistan. a north carolina, deborah, independent line. caller: thanks very much. i just wanted to support the president and this decision. i think it was the right decision. i think that mcchrystal had become almost a colonel curt from joseph conrad's "heart of darkness kleist -- "heart of darkness" character. he just was not on board. i think we will see things move now in afghanistan. and i am very pleased with the

president's decision. host: debra from north carolina. general mcchrystal released a statement after the announcement yesterday. here is what he said -- back for your telephone calls. the next phone caller is from upper marlboro, maryland. democrat. caller: thank you for c-span but i'm just so impressed with our president. this sophomoric moved that this general made -- you know, i was in the military. i have flashbacks of being in bars and all of this macho talk

and everything. but it really, it really shocked me that that kind of discourse went on between a four-star general and his staff. and apparently being so naive that they didn't think that this reporter was going to run this story, of all magazines, rolling stone. it shows such sophomoric thinking, if i could use that term. but one thing -- we have the right man at the right time in the right job with president obama. he walks softly but he carries a very big stick. and people are realizing what he truly is. he is not flashy. he is not shooting from the hip

or his gut or looking into putin's eyes or that sort of thing. the man is brilliant. it he is a compromiser, he is a strong leader, very charismatic and america is going to look back and history is going to show that this man was the right man at the right time doing the best job possible. thank you. host: dennis from maryland. next is a call from eddy, airforce base in massachusetts. independent-minded caller: how are you guys doing? for me, i am active duty military. for me, there is no way the president had to keep the general on. i am an and listed service member. but you can't send soldiers out on the field -- and i was in iraq and we do what we have to do -- but there is already discourse anyway, naturally, because you are fighting a war

and thinking about your safety. the thing that gives us confidence the -- there is a purpose. even though we don't see the purpose. we all complain among speech other. but we go in and do the mission there but if the general that it is in charge, if he is saying the same thing, it is harder for me to get my soldiers under the to take anything serious that i am saying. in my opinion, it had begun. host: from a command standpoint, it makes sense. how about specifically, do you have a reaction to the selection of general petraeus? caller: it makes sense to me also. it is obvious that he wrote the book on what we call counter insurgency. for continuity, yes, i would understand why they put general petraeus there. as you guys know, a lot of the people in the military -- serving in iraq and afghanistan -- it is a revolving door, so a

lot of the enlisted people anyway, i know we served under general petraeus in iraq. it is all the same. so, it gives us a familiar commander, a familiar voice, and the trickle down. host: how long have you been in the service? caller: 17 years. going on 18 years. at host: thank you so much for adding your perspective. caller: thank you. host: we do have a special line for active duty military if you would like to be part of our natural -- national discussion on president obama to except general mcchrystal's resignation. on the line with us is kevin barrett, who has been following us for the publication "stars and stripes." what can you tell us that the general press has not really published about this decision? guest: i think one thing that is a little missing is the voice of the troops who are in afghanistan, who are in the war zone. it is interesting what your last

caller said. we hear similar remarks from the war zone, that the troops think petreaus has done a before and maybe he can do it again. but a lot of them also say, tomorrow i will do my job just like i did yesterday. it does not seem to change much for me. host:, rick, the much publicized -- tom rick, and much public military writer, he had a piece of this morning. before generals seemed to be sacked more regularly than today. what happens to somebody like general mcchrystal and his career now? guest: his military career is over. it would be extraordinary if it wasn't, at this point. what he does next -- some generals have tried for political spotlight. but i think given the way that mcchrystal was ousted, because of his, say, lack of media

savvy, after a career spent away from the spotlight, i can't imagine him making a run for the electorate -- electorate any time soon. host: we read in the press and it was such an immediate decision. the general will never go back to afghanistan. his belongings are shipped immediately. tell me about the transition. still has to be the confirmation, i think, before you see general petraeus head down there and take over as well. but there has already been talked about not just mcchrystal but his entire staff, at least a good portion, would also be replaced with people who are familiar ith general petraeus. and also on the civilian side, there is talk that ambassador aiken very -- that there needs to be a larger purge -- ambassador eikenberry.

host: this is a coalition project with the u.s. and the lead. we also have relationships with the other countries involved. how does it all work between u.s. military and coalition partners? when there is a big change like this. yet guest: position as commander of nato troops and u.s. troops as well. it is the same command structure as it was before. host: when you have a top command changeover, is it pretty much seamless for the operation or disruptive? guest: i think it depends on the circumstances. this choice was obviously try to make it as seamless as possible. by accounts overnight, everybody seems to agree, almost total lack of opposition to sending in general petraeus. perhaps nobody could have gone in with the least amount of

rubles to the water. he wrote a book on counter insurgency. he was mcchrystal's boss. he has the trust a pretty much the entire washington establishment, republicans and the hill to think tanks to the general public. he is also very well known internationally because of his role at centcom. he flew all over the middle east, country to country, seeking -- shaking hands. i can't imagine anyone else who comes in with not only the trust, but authority. host: has there been discussion in your news room about the longer-term impact of the training of generals and the need for increased political and media skills? guest: not in our newsroom. the talk overnight was, well, there goes our access for a while. host: no more reporters anywhere. guest: don't expect to get an energy -- exhibit any time soon. last night general petraeus said

he will not be doing media engagements for a full 30 days. we will see if that holds. one report this morning says there will be in a presser -- there will be a presser later this afternoon. we will see if they will go forward with that. media training for general -- you know, this general mcchrystal was chosen specific live for skills at war and not for media training. what you had several gaffes through the media -- while you had several gaps through the media, this last one was on salvageable -- unsalvagable basically. host: kevein baron, you can read him and "stars and stripes." next up is newton, north carolina. you are on the air.

caller: good morning. i am a retired first sergeant with 30 years of service. i must, and general mcchrystal. in general has a thin line of margin of error. if history was to repeat itself, general eisenhower was known for his organizational skills because he had other members of the armed forces involved. no man is bigger than the war. i must commend the president of the united states to make the wise decision of replacement. no better choice would be general petraeus because he is the author of insurgency, how they operate. and then the other thing is that the small guy, joe private, you have to look out for him because he is the one who is facing a different challenges that this country is going through, as well as the world. this is my first time ever

making a comment -- being on the television like this. but i commend the president for making the wise decision because he is the right man at the right time. thank you very much. god bless america. host: thank you for making your first call. next up is jersey city, new jersey. dominick, independent line. caller: good morning. it has been a year or a year and a half cents i called and i think this was an excellent opportunity to call in. what we are looking at is a situation -- i served in the marine corps. i voted for president bush twice and i voted for president obama. i think the way it has been reported through the media, say, from the right wing, fox news, i watched both channels and have taken notes. there is a feeling from the general point of view, he was disgruntled, not receiving the troops he wanted or the support

or his plan put into place. but he wanted to stay in the country for another decade. he wanted 170,000 troops. the british, the russians, and the united states before have not conquered afghanistan. everyone knows this. pakistan more so than afghanistan. what took place this week when "rolling stone" released the article was something -- i can't believe a west point general for starr and his staff conducted themselves in this manner. "rolling stone" is not at fault. the reporter is not at fault. they will do their job, whether of left-wing or right-wing or what ever. but a general and his staff leadership and then having it come out in the manner it did, tantamount to almost mutiny if

you were in the navy. it was told disrespect for the command structure. so, president obama was backed into the corner. i would like to thank the american people so far the call did. in the military, you do not get the opportunity to bash the leadership, whether military or civilian. he called general jones, a decorated general of the united states marine corps, joint chiefs of staff, his superior, one of his members or his aides called him a clown. they called biden, bite me. they were mocking members of the staff. i think it could not be regarded. it could not be taken. regardless of mcchrystal's qualifications, there are other generals and the united states army that could have taken over and handled this and obama did the right thing. host: he is talking about

"rolling stone." the washington post style section writes about the magazine.

that is in this morning's "the washington post." here is the president. >> it is a change in personnel but it is not a change in policy. general petraeus fully participated in our review last fall. he both supported and designed the strategy that we have in place. in his current post at central command, he has worked closely with our forces in afghanistan. he has worked closely with congress. he has worked closely with the afghan and pakistani governments. and with all our partners in the region. he has my full confidence. and i am urging the senate to confirm him for this new assignment as swiftly as possible. let me conclude by saying that

it was a difficult decision to come to the conclusion that i have made today. indeed, it saddens me to lose the service of a soldier that i have come to respect and admire. but the reasons that led me to this decision are the same principles that supported -- the strength of our military and nation since the founding. host: that is present of, saying no change in policy. but the capitol hill newspapers suggest that policy is not without controversy and debate. let me show you some of the headlines. this morning in "politico," petreaus to the rest go, obama turns the bush's iraq general. petreaus to inherit the board divisions. dr. oz bipartisan praise. inside -- restarts debate.

before the mcchrystal meltdown, or funding has been stalled -- carl levin announced in a press briefing yesterday that he will move quickly on confirmation, probably as early as tuesday of next week. next week is going to be a big week for confirmation hearings because 12:30 p.m. on monday, the supreme court pick, elena kagan, also goes before the panel. we will have live coverage. like astaire, south carolina. mary, democrats line. what do you think? caller: i think it is long overdue. i hated to see general petraeus replaced by anyone younger and less experience. i think the respect follows the

line, somebody greater than all mankind. then the president and the people will work together with him. he does not say that he has to walk in front of him but at least walk beside him and don't put yourself in front of him. we need to utilize all of these people who need jobs in defense of our country. and we do not need the world. about our dirty laundry and people wanting to boost their -- we do not need the world hearing about our dirty laundry and people wanted to boost their careers. mcchrystal probably has a great plan. i don't know if he is democrat or republican he sounds not what the president is. i just think he has put his foot in his mouth but it is kind of a golden foot and his mouth because now he is going to be run down by the press to find out what all of his ideas are. the thing about general petraeus, he has a following of

intelligent media that work with him and prepared the ground in djibouti and different places to get ready for this war that our previous president, you know, enacted. not wanting to talk out of school in any direction, but i think he could not have made a better choice. if you will see a whole new moves. but he needs to be able to choose his officers and be able to pull people in around him that he trusts. host: mary, thank you. fort jackson, south carolina. derrick is on the independent line. active duty? caller: yes. host: what is your perspective? caller: my perspective is basically we have a chain of command we have to follow. being in the military for a while, basically when you go outside and publicly pretty much to voice your opinion -- we have public affairs officers that we

actually have to go through to get media approval. when a general but it, it is very irate -- when a general does it. host: what has been a chapter on base? caller: on bass, it has been pretty calm. for jackson is a training installation. but again, we are hearing opinions of soldiers. and again, your leadership is your key. and when there is some type of dissension in the leadership, it is hard for it is listed soldiers to follow that knowing there is going to be animosity. host: what branch are you in? army? caller: army. 18 years. host: thank you so much for participating. mike tweets us -- we are asking you about what you think about the decision to sack

general mcchrystal and bring in david petreaus to lead the war effort in afghanistan. it sacramento, chad on the republican line. you are on. go ahead. sorry, we are goingo move along. knoxville, tennessee, linda, democrats line. caller: am i on? good morning. general mcchrystal committed suicide by president. a variation of the well understood phenomenon of suicide by cop. people do it when they have gotten themselves into an impossible situation, they need to get out and they cannot pull the trigger so they for someone in authority -- for someone in authority. i think mcchrystal sold this strategy in afghanistan to obama's team when they came in. they were desperate to find a way to solve this unholy mess. now mcchrystal figured out he

will not be able to make it work, at least not in 18 months he has less to do it. and he needed i get out of blame for a card. he used "rolling stone" to do it and commit suicide by president. host: knoxville, tennessee. linda on our democrats line. "the new york times" they move forward to general petraeus's leadership. new mission for petreaus -- make his own plan work. they write from kabul --

of course, just recently, he had the other incidents where he fainted during his appearance before a senate panel, saying that he had become dehydrated. during the questioning next week, i am sure some questions will come up about his health status.

new orleans, louisiana. jay is on our republican minded good morning. caller: i think this whole incident is manna from heaven for the president, because if you can imagine, down here it is a disaster and the federal government is not just not helping us but hampering our efforts to help ourselves down here. it is ridiculous what is going on in the country. the economy -- the president of the united states is not an entry level executive position. this man is not a chief executive. he is not a statesman. he has no experience. he is the most incompetent man we have had to serve. i did not know where people say did -- get off saying he is the right man at the right time. if you want to destroy the country, he is the right man. bottom line, this is a distraction from his failures as a leader and he is going to write it as long as he can and

eventually it will be over and then he will move on to the supreme court nomination and hopefully that will take the heat off. but sooner and later, he is going to have to pay the piper and face up to the fact that he is going to be in the jimmy carter hall of fame. host: jay was calling from new orleans. a couple of headlines about the gulf oil spill. "wall street journal" frontpage.

also in the papers from "the new york times" national page. bp is pursuing alaska drilling that some say is risky. calls also, from "the new york times" today, impact on the gulf war fish. endangered status for bluefin tuna in the oil disaster. finally, bp claimants offered rate to pack -- fast payout. that was in "the financial times" this morning. back to your phone calls. alcott, maryland. eddie on the independent line. caller: thank you for having me.

it had to be done. i wish to the troops did not have to go through what they had to go through. it was unnecessary. what the last caller touched on -- mcchrystal, he is a smart guy. he knew what he was doing, talking to that reporter for "rolling stone." host: do you agree with her theory? caller: not really, that he committed suicide, but i do think that maybe he was tired. i have a regular job. i fix air-conditioner is for a living. but when i'm out there, it is really hard just doing my job. so i can imagine being a four- star general or a president -- one thing i want to say real quick, americans, we have to really look at ourselves and be a little more conscious of how

hard it is to run this country. how many problems we have. we need to be more like the greatest generation, who stop complaining and got off the couch and did something about it. host: tweets us -- let's go back to phone calls. buffalo, new york. herb on our democrats line. good morning to you. caller: good morning, susan. i wonder if most americans realize while general petraeus is held in high regard? when he was in iraq, yes, he did hold down the amount of american casualties, but how did he do it? he created what we called the awakening councils, which meant we literally spent billions of dollars of our tax money to buy the suni insurgents at that point so they laid down their arms, not shoot at our boys.

the same idea is even used in afghanistan today, where we are actually literally paying the taliban not to interfere with our supply lines from afghanistan -- from pakistan into afghanistan through the past. so it looks like petreaus going back into afghanistan, probably will use some of his same theories saying, hey, taliban, don't fire at us. we will give you billions of dollars which, in effect, will be trying to buy the enemy. in my opinion, susan, a crazy theory -- if i had a magic wand, i would say, first, simply get out. because around the nation, we are in deep trouble for the

sick, lane, and port, -- cutting for the sick, lame, and port. host: from "the new york times," jack abram loft, who spent time in prison for fraud and corruption, he works at a kosher pizzeria in baltimore. it says -- also in "the new york times" this morning, they cover cnn's decision to bring elliott's big sur to the anchor dax -- eliot spitzer to the anchor desk.

also, jim demint on the front page of "the washington times." they are suggesting he is expanding his clout all the way to utah with the wind of might leave. -- win of mike lee. that is "the washington times" today. the last -- al gore has an opinion piece in "the wall street journal," along with david blood. if you get on any political website today, you will find a story about a former vice president that he is surely not pleased.

it is virtually everywhere. oregon investigated sex accusation against gore. this was broken apparently by "the national enquirer" about 24 hours ago but it is now all over the political news cycle. let us go back to calls. we are talking to you about president obama's decision yesterday to accept the resignation of general much -- general mcchrystal and put david petreaus in charge of afghanistan. harold is on our republican line. caller: how are you doing? host: what are your thoughts on this decision? caller: i am an army reservist, commissioned officer.

what needs to be known here is as a commissioned officer for the united states military, we take an oath to protect and defend the constitution of the united states, which is a living document, and to obey and support our president. what the general did was -- it was insubordinate and it was disrespectful, and thanks to "the rolling stone" it was exposed, and the citizens of the united states can see that. and on polished general with no media savvy -- unpolished general. i hope we can move forward in the next opportunity we have coming with general petraeus, who is well versed in counter insurgency, well-respected, that there will be a media savvy or

media relations -- i would say, opportunity for the military to show the citizens of the united states that they understand that they are support it -- subordinate to civilians, and they respect and they support them, the mission, to continue the battle of counterinsurgency. i just wanted thank you for the opportunity. and i see the light in your eyes as the military personnel has called. it appears he seemed to be very committed. thank you for your support. god bless you, and god bless america. host: we have about six or seven minutes to take your calls. but other big events going on in the nation's capital, continued work by the house and senate conference committees -- house- senate conference committee on

the financial reform bill. i would like to show you headlines this morning about it. first of all, from "the new york times" this morning, lawmakers at an impasse on trading derivatives. "the financial times" telling us and their headlines that reform is closer. and here is "the wall street journal" this morning -- negotiators ease finance role. banks and auto dealers said to take less of a hit. on the line with us this morning is kevin hall from mcclatchy newspapers. he has been following with great detail the house-senate conference. thank you for being with us. what is important to know as we go through this day? guest: it is called d-day, derivatives day. it comes down to how the last two items on the agenda and are derivatives and what is called the volcker role. both the fact what -- both in

fact what banks can and can't do. taking a closer what it had been, which was called the glass the goal -- glass-steagall did not permit banks to do proprietary trading and kind of this mix of your money and my money, which is part of what got us into a bonanza crisis. a very controversial, and they saved the largest part for last. it is an interesting dynamic. you've got two different pressures on each chamber. on the senate side, the senate bill, which was used as a base for this debate, the senate version would put a total ban, almost complete ban on commercial banks having derivatives -- instead they would have to spin it off. blanche lincoln from arkansas got it in there, and a house had

something much tamer. on the house side, her standing strong on the senate side but on the house side, a new democrat coalition, 69 moderate democrats who are more pro-business or business friendly. they are threatening to withhold support if it is in there. the problem now is not republicans, but democrats. the senate needs 60 votes to avoid a filibuster on the bill. senator dodd has to keep liberals like maria cantwell, russ feingold, some of the more liberal wing of voting for this bill, or he is going to have to get more republicans to vote for it. on the house side, more moderate democrats threatening to withhold support. host: on the theory that dynamics and the room affect the outcome. they have been added for a long time. they have got to be tired.

at this point, is that light of the end of the tunnel fuelling adrenalin or are they really tired and you can see the effects? guest: no doubt they are tired. it kind of is like the wimbledon match tied at 59 match points, these last two issues are kind of how all of us will judge whether or not this has been a worthwhile effort, to the degree of which they will try to change the system they had that got us into this financial crisis. host: now it is time to find the energy to get through it. guest: the other part is the ball or rule, whether banks -- volcker rule, where at the spin off proprietary trainee -- trading so they did not blurred the lines. it affects really the largest banks of the country and there is really already a high

concentration of assets in those 10 or 12 banks. there is a lot of state in the last two days. host: half a second, if you will. on the decision to exempt all loans from the reform process? guest: the house had it. the senate did not. it looks like a house is going to carry the day. the senate offered a compromise in which they would be exempted but they would clarify that the federal trade commission would still have the authority in this new consumer bureau, the bureau of consumer financial protection. they would do something similar where they would have a bit of an agency overlap. it is not a direct oversight of this new bureau, but it does give them some oversight over it. it is a workable compromise. host: wws the thinking their support for detroit? what motivated them? guest: to do the compromise?

i think the auto dealers are very influential in house races. they are big political players in local elections and a think there was a lot of support in the house. i think it was more bare knuckle politics. host: thank you for your reporting. kevin hall, covering this for mcclatchy newspapers. national economics correspondent. let's go back to your telephone calls. brookville, florida. tammy, democrats line. caller: i heard earlier, one of your earlier callers called in and of talking about the oil spill down in louisiana and being that president obama is an entry-level -- or referring to him as entry-level. well, one of the things i know, some of the best ideas, being a supervisor over various organizations, some of the greatest ideas come from fresh people who are not tainted by the system and the good old boys

have done things in the past. one of the things i think is, when you look at all of the major things that president obama has had to deal with, from the economy, to the oil spill, to the war, and some of those things were running over from the past presidency. i think, whether he is a great leader or the worst one we have ever seen, surely there has been dramatic effects that more working class americans needed to be saved from, where it seems the republicans have distanced themselves so far from the very people that really built the country or helped build the country. if you begin to think about this war. i think when you really began to laugh -- look at the effects of the ranking, from the top to bottom, we really began to recognize how leadership that has no authority or respect can really cause catastrophic

damage. and when you look at -- that he did not recognize or care in a time of war, everyone under him was in danger. host: almost out of time. palm beach, florida. lewis, a republican line. caller: i just have three quick statements, ok? mcchrystal had to go. i was and the army, and there is no question. you don't talk about the president -- even though i am a republican, you don't talk about president obama like that. two. when afghanistan started, people -pwould say, it is another vietnam, and i laughed at it. well the rules of engagement, the government, it is starting to look like another vietnam. and the last statement i would say, hillary clinton used to run an ad, who would you want to answer the phone at 3:00 a.m. in the morning?

it is a good question. a lot of people should revisit it. host: thank you for making the call. the last is jeff calling from 29 palms, california. service member on the line for active duty military. go ahead, please. caller: i just wanted to call and comment on mcchrystal's resignation and petreaus's upcoming appointment. i know i heard some commissioned officer called in earlier -- i am personally in the marine corps and i just wanted to call and give the junior enlisted members opinions. i am also in the infantry, which is a big divide. we support mcchrystal and we are all pretty sad to see this happen. host: can you explain why? can you explain why you are said it is happening? caller: pretty upset because i was kindred spirit with general

mcchrystal more so than a lot of the senior leadership. he did a lot of good stuff in afghanistan. and like a lot of my seniors and marines i look up to, they look up to him and have nothing but good things to say about him and what he did. host: how did you process the officers dissension with civilian command? caller: i mean, i guess you can just chalk that up to that is how the officers side has to deal with it. they are kind of more like management, give up. maybe that would give you a different perspective. host: do you think that if the president had decided to accept and biology and kept them in place, could he have been effective? -- accept his apology and kept in a place? caller: i think that is the best thing -- i think that would have been the best thing for the war in afghanistan. which is, you know, looming on everybody's minds because we're all just waiting for our turn to

go. host: very early morning in 29 palms, california. you are the last voice on this. thank you so much for making the call. jeff from california, enlisted man and the marine corps. we are going to be back to this topic later on. congressman tom akin, republican from missouri. he also has a son serving in the region. we would like to ask his perspective of the decision and policy in afghanistan. that will beginning at 8:30 eastern time. next, we'll introduce you to the white house national drug control policy director. he will talk about this nation's policy about illegal drug use and the effect on society. we will be right back.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> this weekend on c-span2's "book tv," recounting of the 1945 death penalty trial of willie mcgee and the beginnings of the civil-rights movement. on "after awards" 45 days in a dark cell after being captured by taliban fighters. he writes about it in "captive." veteran wall street journal reporter on an inside account of rupert murdoch's purchase of "the wall street journal." find the entire schedule at book tv.org and find us on twitter. >> starting monday, once the

confirmation hearings for supreme court nominee elena kagan, live on the c-span network and at c-span.org, north carolina replays on c-span2. to learn more about the highest court, reid c-span's latest book -- "the supreme court." candid conversations, providing unique insight about the accord. available in hardcover and as e- book. c-span is now available and over 100 million homes, bringing you direct link to public affairs, politics, history, and nonfiction books all as a public service, created by america's cable companies. >> "washington journal" continues. host: i want to introduce you to our first guest, making a return visit, gil kerlikowske, white house drug control policy

director. in the first year of the retina ministration, president reagan announced the nation's war on drugs. his wife nancy was involved in the just say no campaign. we have the establishment of the office you now hold. in those decades, i would wager this country has spent billions of dollars on drug education, introduction, prosecution, and yet drug usage rates continues to grow almost at an alarming rate. what are we to take away from that? guest: i think one of the things, not calling it a war would be quite helpful. it is both a public safety problem and very much a public health problem. and in dealing with it holistic play -- and president obama released his national drug control strategy a little over a month ago from the oval office, dealing with it hold mystically and a balanced way. it will probably have more effect in the long front -- long run. it is about prevention, education, and treatment, and it is also about the criminal

justice system. host: to do it effectively, the policy community has to understand root causes. maybe that is what i'm getting at. what is the understanding among people in your line of work about what is at the heart of americans' interest in drug use? guest: here is what we know does not work. we know if you just give young people and isolated message, don't do drugs, here is a couple of classes and health care, etc., that that is not effected. it has to be a continual. has to start at an early age and it can't just be about drugs only. it is about choices involving a magician, involving nicotine, involving alcohol, and drugs. lastly, it has to come from a variety of really trust the messengers. parents or caregivers, neighborhood, community groups, faith-based groups and teachers. we have learned a lot more in the last decade about prevention and treatment quite a bit. we know that actually can be

effected. we just really need to just put our shoulder to the wheel. host: i want to understand more about the point that comes out often from documents in your office, you often use the word balanced approach. contrast that -- it seems like a change in direction because you _ the word balanced approach. it must be a change in direction from the past. guest: i think it has been talked about an awful lot. but the vast majority of the emphasis seems to have been on both interdiction, whether it is the southwest border out of south america or somewhere else, or the criminal justice system. over the last few years and the titular we really started to move the ball with drug courts and prevention programs. the thing we really have not done -- in this country we have been quite successful dealing with crime over the last decade. even when people thought it would go up in the bad economy, it has continued to go down. that is because there have been

innovative partnerships. real collaboration between the state and local level. we never applied that same concept with dealing with drugs. we have had treatment over here, prevention over here. by the way, we have law enforcement over here. they have not really come together. now you have a police chief in this role will actually wants to bring law enforcement in the treatment and prevention mode. host: how is congress backing this up with dollars? guest: the president and the 2011 budget request asked for a 13% increase in prevention funding, and a little less than 4% increase on treatment on -- host: has congress decided? guest: they have not. but i spent a lot of time with members of congress. it is not really matter -- the good thing there is about the drug issue when it comes to politics, it does not have a d aor r after it. i have not met anyone who has not been personally affected because of a friend or family

member themselves, or a colleague at work or a neighbor. host: i want to invite you into this conversation about the drug problem, the issue in the united states and our policy objectives in trying to head it off. it's a telephone number on the screen. we can also take your e-mails and we can take your twitter messages the harmful use of prescription drugs, can you talk about that, please? guest: the cdc released a report over a week ago. there will be other reports that will come out. they all document an increase in prescription drug abuse. these are drugs that are not coming across our border, but right out of our medicine cabinets. we have the ability to actually do a pretty good job of preventing that, through take

back programs that help dispose of those in a safe way, through educating parents so they actually know what is in the medicine cabinet, and also young people really don't recognize the dangers of these very powerful, very addictive drugs because, well, after all, they think they are a prescription. they did not buy it from a piece of tinfoil out behind a gas station, is out of a pill bottle. the spike in emergency rooms and deaths is driven by prescription drug abuse. host: what is the single biggest challenge your office faces right now? guest: to help people recognize that this is still an issue. president nixon talked about drugs being public enemy number one. right now we have a gulf oil spill, afghanistan, the economy, jobs issues, etc. but when i spoke with the president and i think about the

southwest border, domestic relations, health care costs, law enforcement -- all those things have a drug nexus, and our foreign relations with colombia, mexico, russia. host: how does u.s. drug use, both legal and illegal drugs, compare with some of our biggest partners? guest: well, because we are such a large nation, so many people, we have the largest number of consumers. because our economy is still fairly strong in many ways, we do use far too many drugs. secretary clinton has mentioned this a couple of times. as i understand from the most recent reports, we are no longer the number one per capita consumer nation, but just given our size, we use too many drugs. reducing our own demand was certainly help us and it would

help a lot of other countries. host: you mentioned the nexus between the drug issue and national security. i wanted to show you a headline from just this week, writing off fromresident statement mexican president felipe a. calderon, calling the u.s. the world's biggest drug addict. guest: we have heard that an awful lot. secretary clinton and others have talked about how we have to recognize mexico in a variety of ways on the drug issue. one of course is introduced -- one of course is reducing our own drug demand but exchanging information from a law enforcement perspective and trafficking. we helped mexico open up their first drug court. as an ambassador here from mexico said, cannot think of mexico as it production nation,

but we are also a consumer nation. host: the first call this morning is chris from brooklyn on the republican line. caller: 94 c-span. sir, i am 44 years old. i do not -- thank you for c- span. circle i'm 44 years old. i don't think you answered susan's question to the truth is, we had al capone during prohibition and rum runners come and then we decriminalized out of all again. when we made gambling illegal in many states, we have illegal gambling except las vegas and other places. we do not have problems with that. california currently decriminalize marijuana. many other states have. i am just wondering if there is a disconnect in your

understanding of what adults like to do in the privacy of their own home in responsible ways. we are not talking about hard drugs when we are talking about the drug policy in america. we are talking about everything . with marijuana being a class-one drug, i think there is a disconnect between your understanding of what adults do responsibly and everything else associated with drug use and abuse. as far as to been goes, i can tell you, drug addicts are drug addicts, and no faith-based initiative and reeducation is going to help them. it really is an industry unto itself, and i wish you would really address susan's question -- what, in all your years of experience, it in your belief, is driving this business? thank you, and i will take m

your answer off the air. guest: i do not think i have received a question from someone who does not know what is going on. we know that treatment works. we've seen all kinds of acts completely recovered, be back with their families being productive citizens. we also know that crime and violence did not disappear with the lifting of prohibition. we also know that as we increased illegal gambling, the number of -- with as we increased legal gambling, -- other than disagree with you on every point, i appreciate the call. host: this is matt on our independent line, from lakeland, florida. caller: think you for taking my call. thank you, mr. kerlikowske, for joining us this morning the last caller was wrong. i'm right with him. we need to get away from these archaic laws, and the drug

control used to be called a war. there is a huge disconnect. you talk about people not being productive. when we are talking about things like cannabis, there are many productive, intelligent, contributing members of society that, in the privacy of their own home, who is anybody to legislate what they can and cannot do? if we want to empty our prisons of people who do not belong there, who are criminals by definition of these archaic laws, we need to stop this. if we want to stop a lot of the crime and everything that is occurring because of drugs being brought across our borders to let it be done across our country. host: it's a variation on the other kollek. let me ask a specific question -- on the other caller. let me ask a specific question -- for all intents and purposes, california has already

legalized pot. what effect has it had? guest: i would think the number of counties and cities that has seen the effects -- and right now at the website at ondcp, we have listed a number of counties with problems -- they have put back -- pushed back signal really with land use zoning or licensing. we saw new laws passed in colorado regarding medical marijuana, and some of the problems associated with that that were just signed by governor richard. governor schweitzer in montana, where they have -- governor ritter. and governor schweitzer in montana has said that -- one problem is the marijuana cafes because that has been around for a long time. they are now closing the marijuana cafes literally by the hundreds because some of the problems associated with this. the other problem is the states

handle these things. i do not know, having run a police department for many years -- police officers that are spending an inordinate amount of time, injured on anyone pause privacy and anyone pause home over a small amount of marijuana. host: and the tell you a little more about his background. he is a graduateeof the fbi national executive institute. he has spent his life in law enforcement and policy regarding that, including as police chief for seattle washington, police commissioner for buffalo, new york, and served in the st. petersburg police department and later as police chief at port st. lucie. he also served as deputy director of the u.s. department of justice. we have been talking about the white house balanced approach, but you come to it with a law enforcement background. what most affected your views

about drug use and drug policy over your career? listening to the officers and detectives that become incredibly frustrated. they are the first ones to be supportive of drug courts. they are the first ones to be supportive of treatment on demand. i have never heard my colleagues, former colleagues of police chiefs and sheriffs, call it a war. i have heard them say we cannot arrest our way out of the situation. so looking at those, not being soft on drugs but being smart on drugs probably makes a lot of sense. also, treatment is about half the cost of incarceration. guest: sharon, democrats line, you are on. caller: mr. kerlikowske, you started out by saying that we should change the name of the

war on drugs, but you can put lipstick on a pig and it is still a pig. putting people in jail for using and selling drugs, in my opinion, is the most immoral government policy this government has had since the vietnam war. i'm sure you know you can get over an addiction, but you cannot get over a conviction. i think the only solution is to legalize drugs and regulate them. thank you for letting me express my opinion. guest: you know, the example i would give you is that we already have a very tightly regulated controlled system now in this country that is totally ineffective. that is over prescription drugs. i mentioned the fact that prescription drugs are driving the spike in deaths. drug overdose deaths now surpassed gunshot wounds in this country. that is pretty surprising to a lot of people. in 16 states, a drug overdose

deaths surpass car crashes here we have this tax -- surpass car crashes. here we have this tax, regulated policy, and yet they're falling into the hands of young people, they are misused, abused, and they are driving people literally into the grave. host: here are some statistics from the 2008 substance abuse survey. 25 million people aged 12 years and older reported using illicit drug or using a controlled prescription drug not medically in 2008, and the estimated cost of treatment, emergency room visits, to one to $15 billion annually. will you put a little more context to the statistics? guest: i think the context as we do not understand some of the dangers of the drug abuse issues. the issue was brought up of active duty service and veterans medicating with

prescription drugs, self medication. so we really need to understand that if we approach this in a very smart and balanced way, through treatment, through education, that in the long run we will have much of the same success. kind of the analogy of out of all-in pared crashes and driving -- we have had -- alcohol- impaired crashes and driving -- we have seen those numbers decrease dramatically. not that more should not be done, but why we apply that to drugs? host: tampa, florida, you are on. caller: mr. kerlikowske, thank you for being here and answering questions. african-americans are disproportionately are arrested and jailed based on your department's policies and the

reagan administration policies. what are you guys doing or do you intend to do to change that problem? in addition, as you mentioned, prescription drugs have become a problem. would you say that, being that americans have a problem with prescription drug abuse, that the afghan war and the war on terrorism is enforced or reinforced with our drug use? in other words, are we supporting terrorists by over using drugs? guest: i think you brought up two good points. one is that there has been a disparity in sentencing regarding powder cocaine and crack cocaine. the administration is clearly on the record about removing that disparity when it comes to sentencing. as a former police chief, i certainly support that because i think that the disparity in sentencing was unfair and cause

significant harm in relations, particularly with law enforcement that needs the support of the community and information when it comes to crime. the other part that you brought up about terrorism and the fact that funding for terrorism can flow from illegal drug sales or trafficking is an important point, and that is why in afghanistan in particular, there is a specific strategy that has been developed with ambassador holbrooke, ambassador of eikenberry, and many others. host: the u.n. member states have had a decade and a half long effort, working together to eliminate or significantly reduce illicit drug production. they did not meet their 2008 objective, and now the same objective by 2019 talk about the international cooperation and where we see the effects of it.

guest: the united nations office of drugs and crime release their 2010 report yesterday, and the cooperation was very good because we see this as a global issue. as i said, i have been to mexico three times -- columbia, afghanistan, russia, etc. this is not just an american issue, not just a neighborhood issue. clearly in some of the most impoverished countries, people are becoming addicted to drugs. that is because traffickers are pretty smart people. they decided to pay their employees in product rather than paying their employees in some currency. so that extra product ends up editing people, even in very poor countries. >> what are some of the contours of the international cooperation? guest: it is much better now. having been president of a

large chiefs association, i have never seen better international cooperation when it comes to sharing sensitive information about drug traffickers and financiers, and those are the people certainly that we need to concentrate on. whether it is our new agreements with the russian federation as part of the by national group that president obama and president medvedev organized, whether it is columbia or certainly our improvements with mexico. i think secretary napolitano yesterday, in her remarks on the southwest border, talked about an increase cooperation. it is a global international business. host: next phone call for the director is from byron, michigan. lee, independent line, you are on. caller: good morning and thank you for c-span. can you hear me? host: yes, we can.

caller: i do not hear myself except for talking out loud here. this is not a drug problem that our country has, this is a liberty problem. this is about liberty. we as individuals have the liberty to decide these questions for ourselves, and people do. i am a successful business owner. i have myriad friends with great jobs, with great houses, great family, all successful people. we smoke pot. it is none of your business. you should get out of our lives , and if the police state would get its boot off the neck of that all people in this country who have the liberty to choose to use marijuana if they want to, you would have a spurt of productivity. i want to say one more thing.

these laws are enforced against .he vulnerable and the weeak if you happen to live in an area without any people with dark skin to pick on, then they pick on kids whose parents cannot afford a lawyer. we have had on "top of the nation" a couple of years ago, on and puerto rico, a judge in the michigan court of appeals -- npr, a judge in the michigan court of appeals explained that the system picks on people that are weak and vulnerable. and then you ruin their lives over nothing. that is what i would like to say to you. we use, we take our liberty. you do not have to give it to us. we take it. you punish some small little 1% of the people who do it, and that is wrong and immoral of

you. goodbye. host: 1st about the selective enforcement? guest: i have been involved in selected enforcement for a long time, and when i would get letters or phone calls from people who said that -- and one was striking just before seattle, a woman who had been arrested many years earlier, and now she sent a letter to the captain's saying, "i just want you to know that what happened to me, -- because of what happened to me, i have been clean and sober now for two decades to cope with higher from the same group that everybody else does -- for two decades." their part ofther the treatment program. research tells you that whether you go in with handcuffs on or not on the door, the outcomes are very similar, where people have gotten treatment as the result of some intervention by a

police officer. host: she and other callers underscore for them the difference between a marijuana use and other drug use. guest: that is the issue that is in front of the focused in california, but there are a couple of things that people need to realize about marijuana. in my own home state of washington that i just left, the number one voluntary call to a hot line saying i have a problem with substance and i need help was for marijuana. marijuana is associated with a variety of dependence issues. it is associated with other problems, so if it is not just a benign, simple, harmless drug. it actually has consequences. host: our next phone call is from oregon. mike, on our democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning, susan. it is a pleasure to speak with

you. you are one of my favorite people. hello? host: we can hear you, mike. caller: this guy is delusional. i came back from amsterdam a couple of weeks ago, and the state and about how amsterdam is closing down tennis shops -- can bis shops -- there are a few that are being closed down, but the rest of the nation, the over 1800 shops nationwide are functioning fine and well. the main thing with this is the nnabis is aan add t priority one drug right up there with heroin and cocaine. that is ridiculous.

the netherlands has the lowest hard-core drug related statistic in europe -- i was on to say worldwide, i might as well say worldwide -- with all the industrialized nations. it has the lowest hard-core drug related statistic. something tells me that maybe they have got it right. don't get me started. host: mike, we are going to end the call. we appreciate the call, although not the ad hominem at the beginning. guest: it is supported by all the documents that have been reported in the newspapers in the netherlands about the number of marijuana cafes that are being closed. host: this question from gary duncan -- "please ask your guest if the strength of marijuana is

greater today than in the past. that is what i have heard." guest: research has been done on the thc in marijuana, and that is also expressed in the world drug report. as gone up significantly, an average of 2% per year for the last number of years. so the marijuana that old people might remember is not the marijuana that is out there today. host: if the congress does not grant you the amount of money this year, how will your plans unfold? guest: i think we have very unique collaboration is right now. we ask people from the department of justice and the part of justice and health and human -- to all come together as we put together president obama's national drug control strategy. the other thing in that strategy is the president asked us very clearly to hear the voices of

the american people. that is why we travelled from portland to boston to florida to ask people, whether they were in recovery or treatment or prevention programs, what should be in there. we think some of the very smart collaboration's, not trying to start out brand new building on federally qualified health centers that already exist, to help and do a better job when it comes to prevention. we will work through it. host: this is a telephone call from oliver on the independent line. caller: good morning. actually, it is from yarmouth, massachusetts. my comment is on the prescription drug problem. the drug problem in this country, at a number of decades, i considered it a big problem. but as of late, i would say in the last decade, the prescription drugs have really become a huge problem.

i mean, i see all sorts of people that have had problems with oxycontin, oxycodone. these are opiates. i cannot believe that our government is not taking greater steps because this is not a drug gang war criminal enterprise selling these things, this is doctors releasing them onto the streets. how can it be allowed? we have control over the prescriptions, the doctors being controlled by the dea. how can this be allowed? i do not know if drug treatment works that effectively on

opiates come on heroin addicts, and that is what all these people that are using -- on opiates, on heroin addicts, and that is what all these people are using. there are so many people that are young on this right now, i think it is an epidemic. host: oliver, how do you know about this close-up? guest: honestly, i am a police officer. i have been for 20 years. 20 years ago, it was very rare to see a kid with a prescription drug. now it is more common than marijuana, and i am horrified that while we are trying to fight this war, trying to do something to stop this, all of a sudden this huge problem, this prescription drug problem, and i just cannot believe it is coming from legal avenues -- from doctors and pharmaceutical companies. i do not see how this can be

solved. guest: there are a few things about the prescription drug problem that the government has been doing and working really aggressively on. one is the prescription drug monitoring program, state-run databases that help health departments identify doctors who may be over prescribing. they also identify patients who may be doctor shopping. the other is certain prescription pads and other forms so that these things cannot be stolen or counterfeit or used or misused. also, working with colleges, medical schools, to a lottof doctors through med school, get very little information about addiction. they get very little information about pain management, which is a pretty complex area. lastly, working with hospitals, talking to them about accreditation standards. but the most important thing would be to educate parents

about what is in their medicine cabinets and to educate young people that these drugs are very dangerous. host: just this morning on the way in, i heard a story about this, about the rising use of illicit drugs by medical professionals, pharmacists themselves. how large a problem is this? guest: the rate in which that professional group can become addicted is slightly higher than the general population. a lot of that is because these are drugs that are very easily available. the good news is that, particularly with doctors, there have been treatment programs that medical societies have put together over the years that are unbelievably successful. they can work very well. that should tell us something about treatment, that it can be effective. host: this story concluded with the observation that medical professionals have mandatory

random drug testing, not done in the medical world. is that something that is on the table for consideration? guest: individual state medical societies, medical boards, actually make their own decisions about that type of thing. i know that physicians have gone to treatment because of an addiction problems that they have gone through, as part of that treatment program, continuing examination and testing. host: john, on the republican line, good morning. caller: bank you, sir, for taking on this role for our country. you're the head of the huge bureaucracy that for years and years has been throwing money at the drug war. inherent in the human species

is this euphoric need to feel euphoric. for years and years, anything that makes you feel good, humans would partake in. so, yes, our addiction -- addiction is a problem. you do have hope for treatment centers. prescription medicine is becoming far more -- what i would say to you is you have a huge opportunity to redirect firms away from fighting a drug war and going after marijuana use, because for the most part children with marijuana use is a huge problem. adults with marijuana use, it is going to happen. you can spend billions and billions and you will never stop marijuana use. but what i say to you, sir, is you have a huge opportunity here to redirect money towards methamphetamine abuse.

you know, take a whole new control over, you know, the illegal drug wars by maybe even issuing people that want to have that speed an alternative treatment. take the demand away from the illegal drug trade. there are some serious problems out there, but i would like to see some redirection of funds away from the drug war towards prescription abuse, towards methamphetamine abuse. host: thank you, los angeles, california. guest: i think the national drug control strategy, we clearly recognize that more emphasis has po be put into prevention, into treatment. the other key part is this can be done oftentimes through very smart collaboration's, by bringing everyone together to work on this. we saw that in the development of the strategy. now the hard part comes with

putting this together to actually put the flash on the bones. host: he started by saying you are the head of a huge bureaucracy. guest: it is actually very small. we are just a little over 100 people, and we are a policy shop. i give the president and the administration advice on the drug policy, but we also produce the president's drug control strategy, which directs all of the large bureaucracies -- department of justice, health and human services. it directs them when it comes to following the president must directives on drug control. host: on the website, whitehousedrugpolicy.gov, you can find details on the national strategy to reduce drug use. it is a five-year goal to reducing drug use, with specific targets about the next decade on

drug use in america. all of them are percentage- based, like 15% reduction. but it did not tell me 15% from what. guest: we have a large number of people in the country that have a diagnosable substance abuse problem that do not recognize it, and they do not receive any help for it. one of the programs that we have, which is part of the drug treatment and recognition issue under primary health care is screening brief intervention referral to treatment. physicians and nurses understand that if you go in, most people see a health professional once a year. if you go in for, regardless of whatever it is, they can ask you a few questions about all, about substance abuse, and they can give you a very quick analysis

about whether or not you may have something that needs to be looked at a little more but they do -- number two, and a dimension that is done early can often be more successful and less costly. host: last telephone call you is from chapel hill, north carolina. democrats lined. caller: i have a couple of things. i am a medical marijuana patient. i have had a degenerative disease, diagnosed 20 years ago paid one of the problems i have with mr. kerlikowske these days is on july 23 last year he was in fresno, california. i am quoting him. "marijuana is dangerous and has no medicinal value." he said this 12 days after a cbs sunday morning interview an oncologist from the san francisco general hospital. dr. abrams said this --

"i think marijuana is a very good medicine. i am a cancer doctor, i take care of patients who have loss of appetite, nausea, pain, difficulty sleeping, and depression. i have one medicine that i can treat all those symptoms instead of five different medicines to which they may become addicted." now, marijuana has been used for thousands of years from a medicinal standpoint. the former coke up of the united states has -- pharmacopa of the united states has cannabis within its scheduling. so i have a real problem with mr. kerlikowske spreading lies when there are physicians who have studied this for decades. he is just discounting this information. in israel, they have been studying this for 25 or 30 years, and they have actually developed to where they can

prescribe actual teachers to wear is measured out. guest: last year what i meant to say, and that is during the press conference, is that in the institute of medicine report, smoked marijuana was not seen as medicine. there are parts and components and a number of research grants that are out there now that are continuing on to look at the parts and components of marijuana that can be helpful. no one wants to see someone come at a patient suffered. host: that's it for our time. thank you for being here this morning. i will direct our viewers to whitehousepolicy.gov. we will take a quick break and we'll be back to the topic of the war in afghanistan and the firing of general mcchrystal yesterday. our next guest is representative

todd akin of the armed services committee. he has a son who was a marine officer in iraq at felucca. he has another son in afghanistan. he has a personal perspective on this as well. >> it is 8:37 here in washington, d.c. in some of the headlines this morning, the containment cap over the ruptured well in the gulf of mexico is back in position and working again. although workers on the scene say it will take some time for the system to get back up to full speed. bp says the cap had become a safety hazard and needed to be reset after getting bumped by an underwater robot. five americans are looking at 10 years in prison after a pakistani court convicted and sentenced them on terror charges. the five young muslims from the virginia suburbs of washington, d.c., were arrested in december. their lawyers say they will appeal the decision. toyota ceo akio toyoda out and

apologize for the massive recalls of the company vehicles. toyota was facing shareholders for the first time since the reputationrmaker's was damaged by the recalls last october. queen elizabeth has made her first appearance at wimbledon in 33 years. last time she visited in 1937, she presented virginia wade with the ladies' singles championship. britain has won a singles title -- britain has not won a singles title since. although in decades past the tennis club maintained a tradition of the a bao or curtsey to royal attendees, that practice was dropped in 2003. andy murray says he still might make the bowsprit those are some of the latest headlines on c- span radio. >> this weekend on "book t.d.,"

alex heard becomes the 1945 death penalty trial of willie mcgee and the beginnings of the civil-rights movement. jere van dyke and his guide spend 45 days in captivity. veteran wall street journal reporter sarah alice and within sight account of report marc klaas purchase of the "wall street journal." more than 30,000 viewers have already joined us. >> starting monday, watch the confirmation hearings for supreme court nominee elena kagan, live on c-span networks and c-span.org. see replay's every night on c- span to. -- on c-span2. providing unique insight about the court. available in hardcover and as an

ebook. c-span is now available in over 100 million homes, bringing you a direct link to public affairs, politics, history, and nonfiction books, all as a public service. created by american's cable companies. washington journal continues. host: here as promised is representative todd akin, serving as missouri's second district representative for his fifth term. he has two military sons. he himself, an army officer in the past at fort bulbar in alexandria, virginia, and also as a member of the army rotc. president obama fired general mcchrystal yesterday. was that the right decision? guest: well, the president clearly has the right to fire generals. it was a tough decision for him.

by doing that, it creates a lot of problems. if he hadn't done it, it would have created problems. it was one of those tough situations. host: what do you think about the selection of david petraeus to replace him? guest: david petraeus has a good reputation on the hill. mcchrystal was a very capable guy. he was particularly effective in terms of special operations. he was very much a get the job done, kind of kick them in the sea, kind of guy, and a man's man, and all. both were viewed as competent, somewhat in different ways. host: david petraeus and general mcchrystal, an architect of the coin strategy, which is being deployed in afghanistan. are you a supporter of it? guest: yes, i think there has to be some kind of overall strategy when you are in one of these counter insurgency situation

spirit that has to be a tactic that you are employed in. another general, general allan, a very competent guy, marine corps, was somebody that we got to know when he was at the naval academy. but the combination -- there has to be some sort of a strategy for how you win hearts and minds and develop these situations. one of the big mistakes we can to make is we come from washington, d.c., and if there is a hurricane, washington, d.c., should help. if i am hungry, the government should help. we are very top-down, and get these little free countries have to be built from the bottom up. this counterinsurgency plan is a way to try to win those villages and hearts and minds of the individuals. that is what makes it very difficult for the president, because general mcchrystal was well thought of by the leadership in afghanistan. host: the news in the past month

from afghanistan has been pretty mixed, i would say, at best. casualties are up. president karzai is not optimistic about our efforts there and is beginning to forge his own relationships with the taliban. many of the analysis this morning suggests there will be lots of questions on capitol hill about whether or not, no matter how much money, no matter how many trips, we can never be successful there. guest: we have always heard that. that happened in iraq. "well, we cannot win, so we have to leave," and then six months later we win, basically. these counterinsurgency situations are very difficult, and this one is made difficult not to because of what is on the ground but overall in terms of the command climate, it has been very difficult. you had the troops on the ground in afghanistan, already in the longest war we have ever fought.

the president comes in and says i want to review the strategy. that takes 10 months. it almost appeared like dithering around. certainly the troops on the ground are waiting to be given orders, for somebody to take control and say here's what we're going to do, come up with a plan, so you take 10 months to get that going and that creates a sense of tension and frustration in the troops, which you see boiling over in this incident. on top of that, the ill-advised policy of revealing do not ask, do not tell, when all of the military draft gives us time to work through this and we have a couple of wars going on. do not saddle us with this big social question. you put those things together along with the fairly traditional tension between the state in the department of defense. a continuous friction which says you do not have from the top, somebody who is on top of the situation managing that, knocking heads between them and saying here is the plan, but get

on with it, giving a sense of distance from the white house. all those things create some of the tension as well as some of the other point you make. host: the president's remarks seemed to signal the diplomatic efforts as well as the military with, the tension has to stop. do you think there needs to be changes among the leadership and the group of people that general mcchrystal criticized? guest: it might be necessary to do that. there was a lot of friction between them, and we play better when we play as one team. we really worked for almost half a year on what were the mistakes made in iraq and what were the lessons learned? one of the biggest lessons was -- and put in this context years ago, we had a thing called goldwater nichols where we said we did not 13 different military taking care of america -- the army, the air force, and the

navy we want one teen -- we should be seen commerce, justice, the state department, dod, together. we applied to solving a problem. i think we have not learned from that, and that is why you see that for action. also, it is a sense of a vacuum to some degree from a top-down leadership point of view. host: you reference parallels with iraq. one journalist writes, "in the look ahead to general petraeus' an oil-richq is country with an educated no class. afghanistan is a shattered state whose social fabric and physical infrastructure has been ruined by three decades of war. in iraq the insurgency was in

the cities. here is spread across the mountains and in the forbidding countryside." host: that is correct. these people are not central government people. that has to be built very much from the local level. there has to be a local sense of capabilities with local police, and ability to protect themselves from the taliban and other people that are outsiders. that ground up has to be a major part of this new strategy. host: let's go to calls. middletown, new jersey, is first. caller: good morning. this is for representative todd akin. first of all, these people have been warring for centuries. this is not a new fight. they have brought this to a new level. if anybody in washington thinks that you can develop a strategy, you had better think again, ok? our young men and women are

being chewed up. i am a disabled never and myself, and i know firsthand that the v.a. right now is overwhelmed by these returning servicemen coming in. we have service members coming home from these failed states, and as we speak today, car bombs are going off in iraq. that is not a stable country. the ones coming home, the news media does not cover that. they cannot get jobs, they are homeless, and they are committing suicide in record numbers. what is congress going to do about that? guest: there is certainly a voice of pessimism in terms of what can be accomplished in these very sort of counterinsurgency situations. certainly the situation in iraq is a lot better than it was years ago when it was being run by the thug that originally ran the country. they have been making some progress. does that mean that they are what you call an up-and-coming modern system of republics in

the model of peaceful governments? certainly not. was the price paid, and was it high? yes, indeed, it was high. allujah as an full marine. my other son and death -- my other son is in afghanistan. host: st. petersburg, florida. harry, on the independent line. caller: what do you think would happen to the military services people like general mcchrystal would go around -- are you there? guest: we are hearing you, harry. caller: if mcchrystal got away with what he did, don't you think the lower servicemen would start doing the same thing? the next thing is, would you please define to the american people the tax dollars that you are spending in afghanistan -- what is your definition of

winning? guest: i think those are good questions, and that is why the president had to fire general mcchrystal. it's sort of an odd situation for somebody that has had the level of professional experience that mcchrystal had to have had some kind of an imbedded reporter from some sort of counter cultural "rolling stone." there seems like there is a back story there. why was he there in paris? that is an odd situation. most people that get to the level of being a general or, for instance, in a congressional office -- the person who talks to the media is either the candidate or the person who is a congressman, or somebody that is in charge of the public relations. but you do not have everybody who works in the office making comments to the media, which is what happens here. that talks about a lack of discipline, and i think the sense of frustration with the state department, perhaps with

the administration, boiled over as some of these officers shot their mouths off. i think the president probably had to fire general mcchrystal, but it does create problems because now organizationally you are going to be pulling general petraeus, who is really in charge of the whole area, you are going to pull him down and put him in charge of afghanistan, whereas before he was running iraq and afghanistan in that whole area of the world. what is the definition of winning? i think the main thing we are interested in is not having afghanistan be just a haven for terrorists to launch attacks on our citizens or citizens of our friendly allies around the world. i think that was the whole reason for going in. it had been the source of the launch of the attack on the twin towers, and we said we have got to clean that rat's nest out so people do not continue to come from their using the money that they make from selling heroin to

the european market, using that money to attack our country. that was the idea. i do not think we're trying to create any kind of paradise, but at least some kind of a stable nation that will not be a major supporter of terrorism. host: terry, you are on the republican line for president. caller: i have to disagree with obama on this, and i have to disagree with the congressman. i was in the regular army, on special forces, 20 of group from alabama. that is what i was. you are just not going to win this war in afghanistan. with major armies and everything. that is basically what the special forces are trying to do, and that's what mcchrystal was doing. but there was a difference of opinion of how to fight this war when obama became president. that is what i got from the

"rolling stone" article. the soldiers were complaining that they could not perform their mission, and mcchrystal, a four-star general, went on night vision with the soldiers and witnessed what was going on. he stayed with the policy, his commands from obama, the commander in chief, to perform a mission, what they want to perform, even though he disagreed with it. people need to sit down and read this article because nowhere did i see general mcchrystal offending the commander in chief. trust me, like i said, i was in the service eight years. there are ways that you can go back to hire officers without being court-martialed. host: thanks for the call. congressman, did you read the

rolling stone article? caller: i read the whole thing, yes. that is why this is a different -- a difficult situation. the crystal is a great guy on the ground. he surrounded himself with very aggressive competent officers. he is the sort of guy that will go out on patrol and he understands what is going on on the ground because he is willing to take charge and make decisions. he is a very effective leader, from a political point of view, to allow the officers to make some of the comments and quotes that they did, that is very rosslyn to the fetters of the administration. as i said -- that is very ruffling to the feathers of the administration. i think general mcchrystal was chosen -- he claimed he voted for -- he is a big city democrat who voted for president obama. i think obama chose him to run

the operation because he felt comfortable with him. but, as i said, there have been a lot of things that increase the sense of frustration, and terry is right, one of those is the tension between winning a war and defeating your adversaries, and being very sparing and careful not to hit anybody who is an innocent bystander. when you are on a situation like afghanistan, who is really innocent and who is not? who is really your enemy and who is not? if they have a gun than you can shoot them, but if they drop the gun behind a bush, you cannot touch them. so those kind of policies in terms of that balance of winning the hearts and minds of the people, that is a very tough war to fight. but general mcchrystal is a very competent guy, so terry is right about that. he had a lot to be frustrated with. as i said, the 10 months of dithering on the part of the administration trying to decide what they are going to do, then having these policies about don't ask, don't tell, like it's

some kind of social experiment -- you have the longest war going on in the history of our country, so there is a sense of frustration and i think that boiled over in this incident. host: philadelphia, march, democrats line. caller: good morning, congressman, good morning, susan. i'm a democrat. i will come out and say i am against the war and the conduct of the war. i am a retired federal employee. my wife is a current federal employees. i didn't get a raise this year. i find out next year they are going to rees -- freeze raises from federal employees. i find out that we are giving $1 billion a year to the afghan war lords to protect supply lines, and they are turning around and giving millions of dollars of taxpayer money to the taliban. we are going to freeze federal employees' salaries, so that means my wife and i are going to have to cut back spending. and we are using american lives,

american treasure, to pay off the taliban? the conduct of this war is becoming more and more ridiculous, and we are sick and tired of it. you know, there is no end game in sight. guest: well, certainly this is one of those ongoing complicated situations, and it is difficult in the time when financially we are just spending so much more money than we have here in washington, d.c. in fact, many of us think the entire federal budget spending system is broken. it has gotten so bad that the u.s. congress since 1974 has always created a budget. this year the pelosi congress is not even attempting to create a budget. there is no budget in congress. so your point is well taken that there is a lot of financial stress, tremendous overspending on the part of the federal

government. then to have money being siphoned off in various ways, particularly trying to build infrastructure -- and that is what some of that money is used for, to try to build roads or put clean water into a village so people can have clean water. there are a whole series of things like that. it is a messy situation, not an easy thing, the war, in this kind of environment. that is why there has to be good leadership, and that is why there has to be consistency and a clearly well thought out plan as to what can be accomplished. i believe you have to have state department and dod and all of our resources on the same page, which they are not. there has to be the attention of the administration, the priority with what is going on, with the longest war we have been fighting in our history. roll your sleeves up instead of just casting blame on people. so all of these areas need to

be sharpened up significantly, and it is a bad thing for us to have general mcchrystal, a very capable on-the-ground leader to be fired from his position at this time. host: another call from philadelphia. richard, independent line. caller: i'm calling because i think it is good that they got rid of general mcchrystal because the morale is going down in the service. i am a wounded marine from afghanistan. i do not think is right that he said what he did about the president. i would like to comment on that, please. guest: well, the president was in a difficult position because some of the comments were to bid to mcchrystal or a tatoo some of

the officers around him. at -- or attributed to some of the officers around him. i believe that he had the sense that he had to relieve general those difficult situation because no matter which way, it was kind of a loss. it puts our strategy -- mcchrystal was one of the main guys that work on the counter insurgency strategy. he got along well with the afghanistan leadership, as well as people can, i suppose. he was well respected by many of the troops because he was a hands-on guy. it was not an easy decision to relieve him. it makes a more complicated situation out of something already complicated. but the american troops, not in never underestimate how capable americans are if you just let them get the job done and get out of their way. but you have to give them a clear strategy and you have to support them. and i think that has been something, that oversight has been something that we really

need to work on. host: michigan, paul, republican line. caller: i think basically he should not have been fired -- mcchrystal should not have been fired. because once in awhile you get a general that speaks up, or an officer that speaks up for the enlisted man. here we have a situation where the engagement is putting troops on necessarily in harm's way. if they are not hit, then they can shoot back. this is dead wrong. you know, macarthur was fired for the same reason in correa -- truman made a blunder and we are still living with that blunder -- in korea. what is happening now is we need somebody to speak up for at least the enlisted man here. they cannot speak up for themselves. they are put in harm's way. and the congress should be in on

this 100%. they are not there. they are a wall, as far as i'm concerned. and i'm a retired master sir -- master sgt. guest: i did many of the points you made are accurate. speaking from the point of view of somebody in congress, it is a very frustrating situation for us because we are not commander in chief and we cannot allow to do that role. that is the job of the present. you are right, the sort of policy that says you cannot fired a must -- unless fired upon, that is very frustrating for our soldiers. you do have a pattern of this in the military. if you recall the great movie patton, the guy was a fantastic general but he was not too good at public relations and eventually got sidetracked and replaced because he issued his mouth off. so there are some of the people who are some of our best generals and most effective and aggressive leaders, sometimes get in trouble politically this way. and mcchrystal certainly has

gotten himself in trouble and has been fired for that kind of an error. it does surprise many of us, though, that he would have had a staff that would make comments off the cuff to the press. and it almost suggest that maybe this rolling stone reporter had been so in bed with them that they started to trust him and they let their -- guard down in terms of what the personal opinions were. as i said, i think there is a lot of reason for frustration for our soldiers. my son just came back from afghanistan. first of all, 10 months to try to study the policy is and only to go ahead with it -- the don't ask, don't tell, situation, which the military leadership completely disagreed with. and then you have the friction between state department and the 0 d. all of these things contribute -- and i guess one other that i didn't mention, is setting a date for withdrawal.

that was just plain stupid. it can never say exactly when you will withdraw. all it does is encourage your opponents. there have been a lot of mistakes from the top down here, and there needs to be a steady hand, somebody who is willing to take a look at the situation and solve problems and not just cast blame. host: de believe the july 2011 date is a soft target for withdrawal? guest: everything i heard the president say, it seems like it's lips and changes over time. so i don't take it too seriously. the trouble is the enemy will take it seriously. they really believe we will pull out at that date. of think it is something that president bush wisely did not give people specific dates. he said, you know, the enemy has a -- we will stay in there until the job is done. you can't say, well, we will then go and then at his vacation time, and everyone will take off and go home. that leaves the sense that we

might as well stand back and wait and the taliban will take over again. host: texas, democrats line. caller: i am glad to see mcchrystal go because i think he has been not making any headway. why can't we just go in and destroy the poppy crops, pay the farmers for the next 10 years and come home and take away the taliban's income? thank you. guest: francis, that is a very tempting type of scenario. i did not know the people are aware of it, but there are types of microbes that would be sown in the soil that would make it that poppies would not grow in afghanistan any more. you've theoretically can score to the earth so that pop is cannot be grown over there. of course, that destroys the income of a great number of people in afghanistan without replacing it for something else. part of the idea of these provincial reconstruction teams is to put things like almonds and things that can grow and produce a valuable crop that

does not require a great highway system to get them to market, and tried to replace the poppy with something else. but certainly the idea of destroying the property -- the poppy is what provides the terrorists with the money they need to do their planning. so, something those turnarounds -- the question of how you will handle the heroin trade. it in the main thing, if you were to sell it to legitimate companies as painkillers but keep it from getting into the hands of the narco terrorists. host: petreaus confirmation hearings have been expedited. we'll update you when we get the exact schedule. all of these questions expected to be as general petraeus takes over command. our thanks to congressman todd akin for giving his views on the switch in leadership command in afghanistan and overall prosecution of the war. guest: thank you, susan. pleasure to join you.

host: we will introduce you to hungry's foreign minister. we are excited to embark on the g-20 gathering of nations. a lot of issues to talk to him about. we will be back with janos martonyi. >> in the headlines, initial claims for jobless benefits fell by the largest number in two months last week. but are still above levels consistent with healthy job growth. despite the drop of 19,000, claims are at about the same level they were at the beginning of the year. analysts said the high level of requests for jobless aid is a sign that hiring remains weak, even as the economy recovers. a new orleans judge could decide today whether a government ban on deep water drilling will continue. the obama administration has asked u.s. district judge marvin feldman to delay his decision to lift the ban until the appeals court reviews the case.

earlier this week the judge struck down the deep water drilling ban, declaring it "arbitrary and capricious." obama administration lawyers filed the paperwork yesterday on their attention to appeal that decision. a spokesman for afghan president karzai is expressing confidence in general david petreaus possibility to take command of the nato war effort in his country. that, in spite of reports that president karzai had hoped that general statham mcchrystal would stay in the post. despite his public criticism of the obama administration. a spokesman today calls general petraeus "a trusted partner that knows the country. it was a controversial derivatives -- threatening pelosi's vote count on wall street reform. congressional democrats tried to mend divisions in the ranks. but attempts to negotiate with the author of the derivatives language, senate agriculture

committee chairwoman blanche lincoln of arkansas, hit an impasse yesterday. at a leadership meeting, top democrats told her the language was causing problems in the house but senator lincoln told "politico" last night she has no plan to budge. those are some of the latest headline on c-span radio. >> let me say to the american people, this is a change in personnel but it is not a change in policy. general petraeus fully participated in our review last fall, and he both supported and helped design the strategy that we have in place. >> learn more about the president's choice to head u.s. forces in afghanistan, general david petreaus has been on c- span more than 40 times. watches appearances at hearings, briefings, and other events online anytime that the c-span video library. it is washington your way.

>> this weekend on c-span2's "book tv," alex heard recalls the death penalty trial of willie mcgee and the beginnings of the civil rights movement. ords" -- war "captives'." and reporter about the inside account of rupert murdoch's purchase of "the wall street journal." find the schedule at book tv.org and find us on twitter. host: to hungary's foreign minister janos martonyi. he was the minister of foreign affairs from 1998 until 2002. very much involved in the foreign policy debates for his nation. we are very pleased to have you

here at the table this morning. we have been talking all morning, as you know, about the change of leadership in afghanistan. as a very vibrant member of nato has troops on the ground over there, what does it look like, this change of leadership, from your perspective? guest: i do hope that there will not be many political changes. it is an internal matter. we understand the reasons. we have for the time being roughly 400 people. we committed ourselves a couple of months ago that we would increase our contribution. that would mean by the end of this year we would have roughly 500. so, we are there, we are committed to the job. i don't think this is now timely to discuss about the final, let's say, political outcome. so, let's try to do the job

first. host: what does success look like from your perspective? guest: success? it is very doubtful if we can win the war militarily. what is, however, absolutely sure is that we cannot afford losing. so something in between, which should be a political solution. but as long as it is achieved, we have to being present and given the fact that we got in together, we can only leave together. host: we wanted it to phone calls. the minister will be with us for just half an hour. there are really many large issues you may want to explore. let me give you the phone numbers -- the g.-20 gathering as much

focused on economics. we have been reading so much about europe's economic issues. that is also an area we would like to explore because it impacts foreign policy. let me just move right into that. the papers are full this%+ morning about the disagreement really on strategy between the administration and european capitals. the question at the heart of g- 20," "usa today" says, to spend or to save. guest: we are doing both. i think that is the only way out. better to save only, these austerity measures, or to stimulate only, i think, with all due respect, the long debate. the government adopted 29-point action plan a couple of days

ago, and this is a mix of both. we want to save, of course. discipline is the key issue. we have to speak to the budget deficit. but at the same time, we have to stimulate the economy. so it is based so-called " friendly discipline that we have to establish -- growth-friendly discipline. at the same time you have to economize and save money. in hungary, we target first the political cost -- cut in half of the local government councils. thousands and thousands of people will lose their extra revenue paid by the taxpayer. at the same time, we reduced the budget for the government, and also we reduced cost expenditures for the public a live look owned enterprises. -- for the publicly-owned

enterprise. a bank tax, which is not that much loved by the banks but is supported by 95% of the population. we are about to introduce a flat tax of 16%, to be more competitive. we introduced a very robust support policy for smaller and medium sized enterprises. up to certain profit level, 10% corporate tax. all of those are measures of stimulation, if you put it that way. but at the same time, we have to stick to the budgetary deficit figure because we know very well that kind of sovereign risk is still lingering behind -- not in our case -- but the market is hysteric, as we all know, and we have to pay much attention to this phenomenon, whether this is hysteria or not, perhaps --

perception is reality. host: i should tell our audience that hungary is not one of the euro nations, it has its own sovereign currency, but your economic health has to depend on your neighbors. there is much speculation on the future of the euro and whether or not it will in fact survive. do you have any concerns about its survival? guest: not about its survival. personally i am absolutely convinced that the euro will survive. in fact, the present crisis will be handled. these are costs which are, to my mind, pessimistic. the bureau is having problems, but all kinds of economic governments introduced in the european union. i think this is a very good direction. if you look at the developments, which will be finalized later this year in october, we will

see that the global impact will be that there will be much more fiscal discipline, much more monitoring and sanctioning. and at the same time, the macro economy -- will be introduced. the basic problem, which was created by the establishment of a single currency without putting a common economic policy behind it, will bade ultimately -- but it must be done. otherwise of this kind of divergent development in the national economies within the european union cannot be tackled. so we need much more cohesion. that is what we have been saying for years. member states in central europe. we have to have a robust cohesion policy because the differences -- so the differences between economic development be mitigated and there will be more cohesion and

therefore a common economic policy can be introduced. host: the other big topic is the best-russian relationships. our viewers probably know from this report, russian president medvedev was in washington today. there will be a meeting about economics between the two. at the same time, the senate is debating the new start treaty. but i would like to take some viewer calls and we will come back to you about that. montgomery, west virginia. jason on independent line. you are on but the foreign minister. guest: a couple of points i would like to make. first of all, if a global economy could work, then the hero would not have crashed in the first place. second of all, 50% of americans are now aware that groups like the jeep-20 is trying to implement a type of a global government -- g-20. we want the new world order to fail because we would rather have our national sovereignty than a global government.

guest: this is a debate that is also going on within europe. clearly when we talk about european economic governance, you have the member states many of whom are jealously watching these developments. and they look at it as kind of an infringement on their own national sovereignty and economic policy. what you have here on a european level you might have on a global level. there are differences. i do believe that there should be some global elements in the economic policies as well, because you do now have a global economy, like it or not. and some of the challenges, some of the threats, some of the risks, can only be tackled on a global level. of course, you may debate on the

issue whether the g-20 is right or not, but clearly g-20 is a forum where almost everybody is represented and europe, by the way, right from the beginning tried to play a leading wall because europe has experience how to reconcile national approaches into a single for a common policy. in many respects, it worked very well in the last 40 or 50 years. in some respects, it didn't. but i believe that european integration can be used as a kind of model for the global world as well in order to find common solutions for common problems. host: oklahoma, warrant, you are on the line. guest: this war has caused a huge problem as far as the global economy. there cannot be a political

solution to a religious war. there god does not come to the political roundtable. as far as a european strategy that might be discussed between you and our nation, don't referred to it as a political solution to the war because it is all about religion, and have a nice day. host: a question, as you respond to the viewer, how controversial this hungry's participation in afghanistan at home? guest: we have been lucky because we have not suffered too many losses yet, thank god. this is for this reason why public opinion is not that much hostile toward the hon gary and presence in the war. -- hungarian presence in the war. of course if there were a lot it

might change. but for the time being the public opinion, even though it does not like to much, accepted more or less. i think that as far as the political solution is concerned, yes, there is a fundamental ideology behind of that war. we all know that. but that is actually at stake -- whether we accept that fundamental ideology or we try to resist. and that is a global issue. that is a global challenge. and that is why i believe to be present in afghanistan is not just and complications stemming from an alliance, but also a fundamental issue which is to protect and defend our basic and fundamental values. host: our next phone call comes

from sturgeon bay, wisconsin. nicholas. guest: it has been generally assumed that general mcchrystal made a similar mistake. i'm wondering if the foreign minister would consider that it was a planned event and that he simply didn't want to bring his soldiers into a fight that they could not win because of political strategy was defective and the military strategists were tying the hands of the soldiers in the field. guest: i am afraid, i am not able to give you the answer to this question. whether this was a design plan or not. well, i doubt -- the conclusion that i can draw from this. and maybe i should not say this here and now. but whenever you meet with the journalists, you have to watch your language and you have to be

careful, especially if you are an army general. host: savannah, georgia. greg, independent line. guest: thank you for c-span. you are a highly intelligent man and if hungary ever fires you, i hope our country hires you. about mcchrystal, he should have studied history a little more, he would of known about macarthur. you have to separate politics from military. the commander in chief has to make decisions. but i want to thank you and your country for your support in the middle east. it is so important for our citizens to know there are other countries in the world who feel the same way and have the same concerns. that's all. thank you, sir. guest: thank you very much, sir. just one brief comment. you mentioned general patton and

macarthur, and this morning when i discussed this with my colleagues, i referred to these two generals who were also fairly blunt at times in their languagg. but maybe these are different times. host: let us move on to u.s.- russia relationships and what hungary's view is. right now there seems to be a spirit of economic cooperation. president medvedev was yesterday in silicon valley and was meeting with leaders there in business. bringing home some new contracts. it seems like the thaw is on economically. the new start trader dtv. what is your country's you? guest: to put it briefly, we welcome it. for us it is important that russia be engaged. and we welcome also this recent policy of the new administration. in fact, we are doing the same. we also have very fundamental

economic interests with russia. we have very important trade. of course, energy supplies, a key issue for us. and despite the fact that we used to have some misunderstandings or issues with the russians, now i think we both realize -- and i am speaking about russia and hungary -- that we need to have a transparent, reliable relationship based upon mutual respect and on common interest. and if my understanding is correct, that is now what is happening in the relationship between the u.s. and russia. coming back to the global threats and the global challenges, clearly there must be an increased cooperation now between the united states and russia. that is why i believe this policy of engagement is the right one.

it does not mean that we give up our fundamental values and principles. we stick to them. but we respect the other party and then we also expect from the other party to respect ourselves. host: what specifically are your perspectives about the tension -pbetween the two superpowers or missile defense in poland? guest: sometimes we tend to forget that the world still has far more nuclear warheads which would be sufficient to destroy the whole world. then -- i was young, of course, of the imminent threat for the whole world. fortunately the last 20 years, we kind of forgot about this. but it is still there. so i think this is the reason why we are still dreaming -- i myself and dreaming about a nuclear-free world, even though

i know it is not realistic for the time being, but we have to go in this direction. and every small step in this direction is to be welcome. that is why i believe that big countries or small countries, are all interested in this kind of nuclear-free world. if the u.s. and russia take a role in that, we would be happy. host: next, columbus, ohio. live on our democrats line. guest: good morning. i salute our foreign minister from hungry herr, because -- hungary here, because this nation was against the islamic empire at the time. this was many years ago. the hungarians put up a tremendous fight against the muslims and stopped their

takeover of europe at that time. we salute hungary, and i just have a couple of observations and some questions. endemic in that area -- iraq and iran and pakistan, afghanistan, there is some much instability there. yet, we tried to set an unrealistic goal of ourselves, at least the americans tried to win the war. this is the mentality. we've got to win the war, or else we are a failure. i think we just need to get a cap on the instability and realize that it is not going to be a stable system like we have here in america and in the west. number two -- with no europeans

don't want an islamic empire at their doors. that is the goal of this -- of osama bin laden, they want to create an islamic empire. yet europeans have immigration laws that allow these muslims in their countries and in great numbers. and we know that the europeans are with us, at least they talk about being with us in our battles against this islam on the march again. but really the u.s. is doing the heavy lifting in terms of all of a -- all of the troops and treasures. my question is, why don't the europeans put substantial numbers of troops -- like host: we are going to stop it with the

question. we have a lot of callers. thank you for your participation. guest: first and foremost, i thank you for your remarks with respect to the 150 years warned of -- war of hungary against the ottoman empire. all through that period we defended europe and christianity against the invaders. but i woull like to assure you that now we have the best possible relations with turkey and we support strongly the member should did membership of turkey in the european union. -- membership of turkey in the european union. as far as immigration is concerned, yes, it may cause some difficulties in some of the japan countries, but also at the same time, i would underline that europe definitely needed that type of immigration. that was one of the key

elements, the key factors in the economic growth and development of the last couple of decades. so, we shouldn't forget about that. we have nothing against islam. in fact, we have very much in common with islam. we all believe in a single god -- whether we are christians or muslims or jews. what we have the problem with is the fundamentalists, which i believe is in a minority. one of the fundamental questions for the future of this world is, which are the two or three -- i think we have all interest to support the moderate islam, and that is one of the reasons why i believe that we have to fight the fundamentalists. host: alabama, for foreign

minister from hungary. guest: so good to hear from you this morning. i was just watching your show, i thought that your name was markoni -- i was going to give you a call because i was working on some private experiments. i have been an engineer and a was putting together a drive registry -- host: are you going to bring this back to hungary, the time is short. guest: i really can't think of anything -- host: thanks. i am going to stop you because it is not marconi, could sign sure you are familiar with the radio inventor of times past. neptune beach, florida. guest: i would like to thank --

host: yes, i can hear you. caller: i would like to thank the hon variants for participating with their army, their blood, and wealth, and i hope we succeed in afghanistan. i think they're rolling stone article about mcchrystal, from what i heard, he took 90% of the article and all of the slanderous comments when the contingent was in paris getting hammered, just trying to get acquainted with the guy who was on to write the piece. it is a shame that they expressed glenn beck and rush limbaugh's sentiments out loud and front of the rolling stone reporter. host: we already discussed your reaction to general mcchrystal's firing. let me close with a broad question. as the g-20 summit is under way, what is your rate -- major goal, the country's major role and

participation? guest: what we can do is we can try to contribute to the european union's position to be expressed in the g-20 framework. i think our basic national interest is that the global crisis be over and there will be european contribution to this. we know the european economy is now lagging behind. i would like to express my conviction and hope that the european economy can recover. we are all tied together in this exercise. the more we can achieve in the global area, the more helpful it can be for europe and the country. host: europe has a stake in a financial reform discussions

because it was their real estate investments that affected the european nations as well. i'm wondering how closely your country is following what we have here and whether you have a point of view. guest: yes. we are following it very closely because we very much have the same problems. for us, it is not the mortgage. for us, it is the loans. many of my fellow citizens took in foreign currencies like swiss francs, or the bureau, are the japanese yen. and because of the revaluation of the currencies, these people have to pay back their loans in a much higher amount. and that causes big, big problems for them. first for them, and also for the banks. verisimilar, believe me, all of the world. whatever happens here all over the united states, it immediately has an impact in the world. that is exactly why we believe global solutions will have to be

found for all of these problems. at the same time, as i said, we not introduce a bank tax. why? we know very well that banks also have to make a fair contribution. that is what is called a fair burden sharing. the last 10, 15 years, banks have made enormous profits, so now we are negotiating with them. we don't want to impose on them solutions but we tried to negotiate. i think that is the way, the approach that has to be followed on a european and also global level. host: thank you very much for making c-span part of your visit to the united states. i appreciate your interaction with our callers. i am going to turn to domestic issues as we wrap up. first we will have open phones, and you can, and anything you have heard. we have had a lot on the table. but if you want to bring of a new issue, feel free. before we get into open phones,

we want to talk about a new survey c-span has coming out. here is a story that sets the pace from "under times." gop bears down as kagan hearings near. in advance of that, c-span has worked with a polling company, robert green is the principle, to do a new public opinion poll about the supreme court public knowledge and attitudes. thank you for being with us. guest: thank you. host: a couple of major findings. first of all, if we could go to the details -- which of the three branches of the federal government is best serving the public interest. what did you find question on guest: we found that of the three, the judiciary was seen as best serving the public's interest. 48% said the judiciary branch. 27, the legislative.

25, executive. host: did the data tell you why that was? guest: there were some additional questions that gave insights. of the three -- i would say at the time, it is fair to say, it's fair amount of public dissatisfaction with the government, the federal government, and of the three branches, the one that is the one the best is the judiciary, in their view. host: another finding of this poll -- tell people about how many participated and what kinds of people participated. guest: likely voters in the next general election, which is, of course, the fall. we conducted 1512 interviews, it was conducted late last week, june 18. the margin of error is 2.5, 95% confidence level. host: i think this is the third sensible you have done with us, so we can have tracking

questions -- third such pulled you have done with us. the senate confirmation hearing. there is ddscussion about where it gives good inside of the nominee. guest: what we learned is the senate confirmation hearings, in fact, don't particularly give good insights of the qualifications of the nominees. 59% say fair or poor inside. essentially three of the five likely voters. 41% say excellent or good. this was a little bit of a surprise. host: this is also an interesting statistic. as i just showed you -- "gop bears down on kagan." you asked how many could name the individual president obama nominated. these numbers are pretty impressive lead tilted. -- yes, only 19% could

identify -- we ask the same question a year ago with justice sotomayor, an 24% drop from last year. in other words, only 19% could correctly name elena kagan as the potential to -- as a nominee, excuse me, to the court, a potential justice. host: it has its work cut out to stir public interest by monday. over all, it is it because people are not adjusted who is being nominated to the court? what is your additional questions tell you about public interest? guest: i would say, yes, there are a series of other stores that have simply dominated the news. i think sotomayor's nomination -- obviously both women nominees. at the time of the respective nominations.

but simply other news this crowding out the nomination. host: last question. we don't have it on a graphic. but you could tell us a statistic, when you ask people today whether it matters and nominee is male or female? guest: basically, most of them, above 60%, say it doesn't matter. what does matter, truthfully, is they are less interested in -- i think the sense of diversity is a bit different now. host: what does diversity mean? guest: over 60% say they wish the nominee was not from harvard, yale, or columbia. there is a sense that perhaps we are a little less averse than we need to be in terms of background, the legal training of the people nominated for the court. host: thank you for being with us. we have the full result -- a

result of the ball on our website, c-span.org. and questions about the interest in televising the court's oral arguments. thank you very much for being back with us -- with us this morning and telling us about the interesting results you found through the supreme court survey. let's get to your telephone calls pretty quickly. we will open up the phone lines until the top of the hour or. i will ask my producers to quickly get me some calls appear, if we can. you can send us a message on twitter in these last 15 minutes or so, any topic that is on your mind, i am willing to take them on open phones. texas, dawn, independent. -- don.

caller: our educational system and how it affects the future. we arr pouring a lot of money as far as the amount of dollars, but those dollars are ineffective because of the lack of graduation rates and the lack of college preparation and skills and skilled craftsman. i just think the infrastructure of this country cries out for innovative ways of educating the populace. and we have to get out of this arcane, if you did not go to i believe or most elite schools, then you cannot aspire to the top of any type of industry. host: thank you. pensacola, florida. tristan, democrats landed caller: i was calling in regards to the gentleman who was on earlier. i don't want to butcher his name. i will call the mr. k -- call him mr. k.

the drug policy person. i believe your opening question was what does he feel the root cause is to the drug epidemic problem. i don't ever recall him really fully addressing it. and i think because what we need and there is someone from a behavioral science background in his position that can really address the social issues and the people's lives, they're up -- upbringing, the daily things they go through, the reason why they use drugs. and as far as -- because, you know, he is from law enforcement background, so i think his whole approach from that posture. i think someone from the behavioral science from would be good. one more quick point. as far as prescription drugs go, i remember reading an article and "usa today, what i believe from 2004, some of the highest paid ceo's when we have those

issues, and i believe the ceo for pfizer, his estimated average salary was about $25,000 an hour. i think what you have there, those are the big drug dealers, those are the big drug dealers. if we from law enforcement perspective tackle the so-called drug dealers that are on the corners of but not tackling the big issue where you have everybody strong out on prescription drugs, then you've got four-hour relief, eight-hour relief, 12-hour relief, so we are not tackling the big health issues, that is where i think a lot of the problems stem from. host: thank you. next is columbus, mississippi. you are on the line. caller: teary -- thank you. i am pretty much a republican. but i am calling about the situation with the oil.

host: cynthia, hit the mute button. caller: the oil spill. the natural environment, the wildlife and the coast is pretty much -- for what is going on in this area. i think that our eyes have been gouged. host: i will move on to eva from virginia beach, virginia. caller: good morning, i'm a first-time caller. i would really like to say to the united states of america, polls are overrated. i am so sick of all of these polls been taken. the polls that really matter of the votes on voting day. thank you. host: next up is hamilton, ohio. ronald, democrats line. you are on. are you there?

caller: about the oil spill, i heard every -- people say they should get every ship out there in the whole world. do you realize how hard it is to turn and maneuver a ship and you have all of them in that one area? you will have more accidents. you really have to consider how the coast guard is trying to coordinate all of this. as this bill gets bigger, they bring in more ships. that is the only way they can do it. host: next up, now pleasant, iowa. anthony, republican line. caller: i think the firing of general mcchrystal was unnecessary. but he also made comments that were unnecessary. but i would like to get general -- i think he would make a good addition to it and the republican ticket in 2012. military man, nobody else in the republican bill has more foreign policy experience as general mcchrystal. he would add eight -- to the

ticket to mitt romney or pawlenty, who already have a good grasp of the economy. host: anthony collings from the caucus state of iowa. south bend, indiana. independent line on c-span open phones. caller: good morning, susan. thank you very much for c-span. how you guys can put up with some of the questions and answers you have to field. host: you know it is a lot of fun. caller: as far as general see anyal -- i don't way how season general will has a chance to cancel the stick in "rolling stone" or at least clean that up and did nothing to even let his bosses know that the article has beennpublished, this has been a mistake. i think it is possible that he

felt that the civilian establishment was going to make it virtually impossible for him to accomplish the military job. becoming a scapegoat -- general mcchrystal gave general petraeus the opportunity to force the issue in afghanistan and washington. his general petraeus can hold it his own with the media and the politically correct community. this could be an excellent stepping stone to elected office if he is able to walk away unscathed. it is unlikely general petraeus will -- cannot sweep general mcchrystal's name and under -- under under the rug. host: two colors and he road is -- two callers in a row on the political future of mcchrystal. caller: unemployment bill. i want to know when they are going to get on board and past

the unemployment bill. there are over 1 million people now that have no money to pay their mortgages and their utilities and their groceries. if they take these people off the unemployment, they are going to end up on welfare, which is going to cost the government even more. so, why can't the democrats and republicans come together, some agreement, and do something for the unemployment bill. it seems like they don't discuss it until late at night. i have been watching c-span -- everyone is tired and wants to go to home. host: de know anybody collecting benefits? caller: yes, i know quite a few. many of my friends. host: next is a long island, eileen, republican line. caller: there is one thing i think we are forgetting, that americans are pretty tough. we have been. i am 72 years old. i did not have any family to

speak of. i did go off to college for 16, for nursing, support myself and when my husband died left us with practically nothing, actually. all my four children went to college. it is a dream that you have to grasp, hang on to, and work towards it. i think too many people think they can get on the line in -- free this, free that. i think americans, one of the reasons we are going under is not only because of obama, of who i did not believe is any kind of leader at all. i believe he is not a leader, never was. but anyhow, i think people have get back to, what can you do for yourself and your country and people take care of other people. we are missing that in today's society, as far as i can see. host: lots of opinion pieces in the morning papers. the senior fellow for new

american security -- "lose a general, when a war." the basic thesis is the u.s. was better off when it fires donald more frequently. dodi fayed general's more frequently. -- when it fired general's more frequently. next is a call from missouri. this is jim, democrats line. caller: i was calling about rep akin. he repeatedly kept talking about the white house did the ring for 10 months, and then he -- dithering for 10 months and then he said we needed to have a well thought out solution on how to

get out of afghanistan. i think by dithering, he indicates what republicans do, just -- it is not terrible decision making to take two months to think about all of the implications -- you know, trying to find a word to reflect badly on president obama no matter what he does. that is all i had to say. host: thank you. "the new york times" editorial. they write --

that is "the new york times" today. brittan 10, florida. republican. caller: thank you for taking my call. two issues. regarding all lie, -- oil, i would like to mention, some people think it is just for gasoline. but if you are thinking about gasoline, think about the human being, the human side. if your arteries are getting old, and you have to replace that with oil by product. if you have new eyes, contact lenses, petrochemical byproduct. everything inside the house and outside of the house, even roads are made of oil. how you dispense of that?

no way. talking about marijuana. people think it is good because it makes you feel good. yes, it is, it does make you feel good. but from pharmacology, why don't you let them read the book of pharmacognosy -- it will cut about the brain, heart, high blood pressure, and kidneys, and the bad things that happen with these organs. host: next, utah, anthony. what is on your mind today? caller: i and just calling in to say that this whole mess we are having with our comeback and general in afghanistan and being relieved and been replaced by general petraeus, who basically had to take a demotion, from centcom commander to combatant commander in afghanistan. what a man? that is the type of person who

looks out for his country first, and their career second. i just wanted to say kudos to general petraeus. however, i believe general mcchrystal also was doing a great job, and that man needs to -- he has my thanks also. thanks, susan. host: he mentions general petraeus. that is the attack of the opinion writers took this morning. "the petreaus hail mary." they write --

that is "the wall street journal" this morning. next is a call from jacksonville, alabama. republican line. caller: good morning, susan. i read an article in my newspaper a few days ago. i'm sure it was george will who had written it. he had talked to a young soldier back from afghanistan who had been fighting in marja. according to this young soldier, they are sitting ducks. they are not allowed to fire at the taliban, because they are among the civilians. they were not allowed to fire some kind of player that would light up the sky so they could see where the people were

shooting at them. and they were not allowed to do that. it looks to me like they have a+ war going where nobody is allowed to fight. we need to get people in the military who can run this war and not a bunch of civilians who know nothing about fighting. my husband was in the military. he felt like a sitting duck, too, because they happened to be in the philippines when world war ii started. i think you need military people to be running the war, and not a bunch of civilians. host: doesn't that policy, did not that come from general mcchrystal? caller: may have come from him but i do not think it originated from him. host: might do some more reading around the reporter who did this story. there is a lot of discussion about this policy and the debate among soldiers on the ground. it was one of the issues that were discussed in the interview. we have about one minute left. we have about one minute left.