it outlaws some of the riskiest practices that led to the housing bubble, including loans written with no documentation of the borrowers' income. we'll be looking at some of the details of the financial regulatory overhaul. but let's go to the phones. massachusetts on our line for republicans. ted, you're on the "washington journal." good morning. caller: good morning. and thank you for c-span. my opinion of the financial regulatory overhaul is that it's basically rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic. when you think about the collapse and the credit bubble and everything that happened over the past three years, it was really predicated on the biggest expansion of credit the

world has ever seen, and that was really only made possible by the fact that the dollar is unsound for currency, and that could never have happened with a hard currency that was backed by the dollar, backed by gold, excuse me. so all of this is just kicking the ball down the road that's setting us up for the next asset bubble and collapse, and it's really no solution to the situation. .

>> >> i want to talk about miss warren, who's in charge at the top. that gentleman got a name. i just want to keep it in context. if you notice, when she has a hearing and miss blair, who's

in charge of the fdic, they degrade them like they're useless, and they're the only ones that can save this country. i mean, fdic covers our savings, correct? they got to go back and separate the bank system. my brother-in-law used to work for lehman brothers, and they made a lot of money years ago. but i don't know if they did this bull -- host. . whoa. let's move on to dallas, texas. good morning. good morning, sir. caller: thanks for taking my call. host: good morning. caller: my call goes to the situation with fannie and freddie, who used to be one of the cornerstones of many, many mutual funds and were one of the rocks that helped the new york stock exchange in place for many, many years.

now they're derided for this morning crisis. my comment goes to the conservatorship of the government since they've taken over. it seems they've done almost everything in their power to run both of these agencies straight into the ground, all this legislation that they just passed to control these mortgages. they've been continuing to do it and spending billions and billions of dollars and driving these companies farther and farther into history, and i'm just wondering what the purpose of their conserve forship has been. host: b.k. out of dallas, texas, on our line for independents. we're hearing from a lot of independents and democrats this morning. we want to get republicans involved in the conversation as well. the number for republicans, 202-737- 001.

democrats, 202-737-0002. independents, 202-628-0205. in "the wall street journal," they've got a list over on the right side of the page that talks about what's in the bill, some bullet points, and we'll go through some of these as well, some of the other charts and various other papers. but for the government, resolution authority, it says regulators may seize and break up troubled financial firms whose collapse would break up troubled financial firms whose collapse might cause widespread damage. it sets up a liquidation procedure run by the fdic, and establishes a 10-member oversight council to monitor and address risks to financial stability. we'll take a look at more of these in just a few seconds. baltimore, maryland, amy on our line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning.

host: amy, is the financial regulator bill, what dmps, in your opinion, is it going to make, if any? caller: i don't think it's going to make a difference, because the truth is that, until we weed out a lot of these people that have caused the problem, us homeowners that have came into a devastating situation of losing our homes, it's really going to be a disaster again and again and again, because in order to clean out or weed out people that have actually destroyed the hard working, struggling, poor class or middle class poor class or middle class folks, they have no meaning or understanding of what we go through in this life to gain and get a piece of anything. and when you set up a scam and

destroy hard working people, it takes a lot to build their confidence in you again, and my main thing i wanted to say was, i heard this story about, you know, these people not checking out these people's background when they sold them these mortgages. well, let's talk about the mortgages that was totally fraud, packages that was designed to scam hard working consumers. it was just as much fraud in these mortgages as subprime or whatever the other one was, i can't think of the name right now because i'm anxious. but it was just as much fraud as it was subprime and preliminary mortgages. preliminary mortgages. host: amy, you think there should be more criminal penalties for the people who put these mortgages out there

to begin with? caller: yes, i think most brokers, because i've done a lot of research since i was damaged, and i'm telling you it really destroyed my image of having that ability to drive and make money and help others to build their ability to live a decent, clean life in this american society. host: let's move on to carrollton, texas, on our line for republicans. fred, go ahead. caller: good morning, and thanks for c-span. i just wanted to say that i haven't read the bill yet, so i don't really know what's in it, but one of the things i think is most disappointing about the financial markets is that we don't hold anybody accountable. people can be as free as they want to be, but when society, us, the federal government has

to step in and fix somebody's mess, then that company, as officers, need to go to jail, possibly even the board. and the way i think of it is it would be like drunk driving laws. basically, you know, you go out, they have a good time with your friends, and you do something stupid and get too drunk or get too carried away or inebriated, and you wreck your car, you hurt yourself and everything else. when the cops show up, you're the one that's in trouble the one that's in trouble because you used your freedom to basically force society to clean up your mess. and that's the financial markets ought to be regulated. if we show up and have to fix everything, you're going to be in trouble. and that's the way i think it ought to be. host: next up, lexington, kentucky, bill on our line for independents, you're on the

"washington journal." caller: hi. hope everybody's doing well out there this morning. i am totally, totally affected at the moment as an american. i grew up being fed the american dream. i did some years as a military professional fighting to keep people free who were back here totally undermining the foundation that the american population stands upon. they were institutionalizing oppression. these banks have not failed for the first time. they fail on a periodic basis. what i've seen through firsthand observations is approximately every six to 10 years, this country has a banking crisis. now, whatever current crisis in the gulf, this is a human crisis caused by big oip. crisis caused by big oip. my observation indicates that the banking crisis, if it was caused by the housing failure, the housing industry failure,

that, in fact, was caused by big oil coming in and taking $5 a gallon for gas away from americans who could not afford that. all of their reserves were depleted as a result of that, and the financial institutions who blame this on fraudulent loans, those fraudulent loans loans, those fraudulent loans were going to the chosen few among the 5% who have totally decimated the lifestyles of millions of middle class, lower middle class, and a lot of upper middle class people are falling by the wayside. something that i don't something that i don't understand, as a military professional, whenever the federal government stepped on me and damaged me, i was allowed a piece of paper to write down my claim and there was a clear channel for submitting that to the submitting that to the government. i would suggest to you that at this moment, this government

has totally alienated a massive number of people in this country. it has destroyed the livelihoods of a massive number of people in this country. it so freely can defend those destroyed in the gulf states by b.p.'s negligence, and it can force heroically b.p. to restore the livelihoods of those people. well, what about the other people that are falling by the wayside right now, whose livelihoods are gone, whose ability to support their family has been eliminated by governmental negligence, malicious governmental negligence on the part of people that we trust? and i'd like to suggest some solutions here. host: pill, we're going to leave it there. thank you. you've given us a lot to work with. in "the washington post" this morning, below the gold, for

consumers, federal protection with some teeth. they write, although praising the establishment of a consumer protection agency, advocates chafe at an exemption granted to auto dealers, as well as a provision that would put oversight of controversial annuities out of the reach of the securities and exchange commission. some measures, such as stricter standards for brokers who give investment advice to individual investors, could go into effect only after a study is conducted. this frustrates some consumer activists who say it leaves the door open for continued influence from lobbyists for large financial companies. and that's in this morning's "washington post." shawnee, kansas, on our line for republicans. john, you're on the "washington journal." caller: good morning! how are you? host: john, what's on your mind regarding the financial regulatory bill? caller: first of all, i hope you give me as much time as you gave that gentleman that talked about everything in the world. anyway, i think that this bill

will do nothing to solve the will do nothing to solve the -pproblem, or that is, or certainly very little. the principal problem -- ok, first, we have a 2,000-page bill, which, of course, is their favorite approach to anything that's going on. it's got to be at least 2,000 pages or they won't pass it. pages or they won't pass it. now, what they need is a 100-page bill, and the first thing they need to deal with is the corruption at fannie fare and freddie mac. they are the great enablers that brought these junk loans, and they are not being affected by this law whatsoever. why is that? well, we've got barney frank who said there was no banking crisis. we got chris dodd, the good buddy of -- what's the name of countryside, countryside mortgage? and these guys haven't been to

japan yet. those are the problems that need to be fixed. and, of course, as long as the democrats are in charge, we're not going to have any changes, not going to have any changes, are we? we're regulating all kinds of things that have nothing to do, zero to do with the prices. host: all right. we're going to leave it there. in the "wall street journal" this morning, looking at what's this morning, looking at what's in the bill for banks, we've got a couple of items regarding the volker rule. largely -- largest firm from trading with their own funds, banks can make small investments in heege and private equity funds limited to 3% or less of a bank's capital and banks may not bail out funds in which they are invested. back to the phones. brooklyn, new york, on our line for democrats. good morning. caller: did you say james? host: yes, james, go ahead.

caller: good morning. and thanks for taking my call. i'm listening to these guys talking about the democrat party and the mortgages and this, that, and the other. nobody has looked at the bush administration that was involved in freddie mac and all these other institutions stealing for eight years, robbing us blind, totally blind, and nobody has nothing to say. the reason they keep talking about the federal government is because we have a president by the name of barack obama. i think if we would just take time out and look at it and get ourselves together and stop blaming each sexore take a look at twhea did down in texas when they took the money from the people there and all these other corporations, freddie mac and -- freddie mac and fannie mae was set up to scheme and take the people, give them

these mortgages, the float mortgage. ain't no way in the world. ain't no way in the world. i own the home for years in nassau county, and i had no problem whatsoever, because they tried to give me those mortgages every month. it's the fraud of the american people. we let them go all these years, ok? why don't they open the places back up, like in pennsylvania, ohio, and indiana? plenty of oil is still there. host: we'll leave it there. we're going to take a look at other items in the news this morning as we continue our discussion regarding the financial regulatory bill. will it make a difference to you? in "the washington post" this morning, michael sheerer writes about former vice president cheney, who was admitted to george washington university hospital on friday after complaining of being uncomfortable, raising the possibility of further heart trouble. the article goes on to quote peter long, cheney's spokesperson, who says the

former vice president cheney was not feeling well and was seen friday afternoon by his doctors in their offices at george washington university. long said in a statement, "on the advice of his physicians, he was admitted to the hospital for further testing. he is expected to remain in the hospital over the weekend." back to the phone, tom on our line for republicans out of greenville, south carolina, this morning. go ahead. caller: ok. i several points to touch on. the bill is good and bad, as all bills do. derivatives had a necessary product in the financial world and i believe have more visibility is always good. so we can have a view of where

the particular excesses are taking place in an individual market. companies like b.p. being allowed to sell insurance policies that were not backed, so therefore, when the house burnt down, there was no money there to pay the policy off and cause the federal government to come in. i think it's somewhat logical that we should have to have that insurance companies -- to have back the policies that they're selling. host: overall, from what you've seen, tom, will this bill mack a difference or will it be business as usual on wall street? caller: i think the bill -- unfortunately, wall street is full of people that went to harvard, yale, and they say that the biggest, the brightest, and the smartest, they always find ways around whatever washington writes.

it will take some time for them to manipulate the situation. in the short term, i think there's simpler ways, and i'll bring up one suggestion. in 1987, tax act took away short-term depression for investment property, and i believe that if we were to revisit short-term depression for income-producing property, it would answer two questions. who are the buyers and why are they going to buy? host: in the "baltimore sun" this morning, a watch that's happening in the gulf of mexico , as storms are brewing out there. storm could halt oil siphoning. officials plan to pull equipment off the gulf. this is talking about a tropical storm that is brewing in the gulf and could have some effects on the clean-up. oil spill. computer models show the storm

taking one of two possible routes moving northwest towards routes moving northwest towards the border of texas and louisiana or northeast across the spill towards the florida panhandle. five days before gale-force winds are forecast, thad allen, the coast guard admiral thad allen, said b.p. would begin with the withdrawal of tankers and equipment now capturing oil from the well. it would also shut down the rigs that are drilling, relief wells, which are designed to ultimately plug the leak. a storm becomes a hurricane when the winds hit 64 knots or when the winds hit 64 knots or 75 miles an hour. back to the phones in our discussion regarding the financial regulatory bill. will it make a difference? on our line for independents, out of augusta, georgia. george, go ahead. caller: yes, good morning. i en jew your show, watch it frequently. this is the first time i've been able to get through. one of a callers ago stole a lot of my thunder, but i'll

reiterate and amplify a little. . the poor people needed to be able to get a mortgage. the poor people needed to be they were encouraging and in

demanding this company's subprime loans pitta -- and loans. it did not stop anything to stop burning madoff. something else will come up in a couple of years. i think government is parted the problem. caller: thank you for taking my call her doha i do that think it'll make a difference for th.

the problem is the lack of manufacturing. we have the attitude the board business, that it is bad. large companies employ people. when you say large companies are bad and you do things to run them out, if they will take their business to other parts of the world. the problem unless we get it together and start embracing the businesses, we will not have the economic engine to keep the country going in a way that the country can really survive and thrive. thrive. that is my basic opinion. i think it is a band-aid. until we solve the problem, we

are going to have issues. host: the president says that we now san on the verge of victory. republicans say it ignores fannie mae and freddie mac. the bad loans helped trigger the melted down. your thoughts? caller: i do not believe that i agree with fannie mae and freddie mac. i think they were a big problem. i think they are largely responsible for the short term crisis. what i talking about is more long-term. over the years, we have had policies both environmental and

labor that tried the business out of . things are not going to be quite the way they wear. host: at the ohio, a democrrt. caller: i am really disturbed about the fact that we constantly hear how they low- income mortgages have affected the failure. yes, there for a lot of low- income mortgages made. the fact that standard wars led to the large banks raised the bundle mortgages add chervil and and double insurance they collect on them and raise the price of gasoline so they could insure the failure of the low income fire in their intent to pay down the mortgage has to be looked at more. i am really disturbed and no one

i am really disturbed and no one has done anything about the role in this. host: in the philadelphia inquirer he has, witnesses picked -- they to begin monday 1230 p m. if you will be able to see it on

c-span3. he will be carrying them throughout the week. you'll be able to see the only aired every night and 9:00 p.m. eastern for them that is the confirmation hearing and the senate judiciary committee of elena kagan. back to the phones on airlines for republicans for the chicago. caller: thank you for taking my call. financial reform may have an unintended consequence of may be stifling the economy. and do not believe fannie mae and freddie mac have such a good role. they were actually behind the times of the private bankers who

really expanded market underwriting guidelines. if the economy expands and home prices and expand, americans have to be mindful not to use their houses as an atm machine for the a that is what got into this mess. hon flee, it will not stifle expansion in the economy again. host: among the charts and graphs, this from the "new york times." regarding shareholder protection. host springfield, missouri.

welcome. caller: good morning. i believe the financial reform bill will have some effect. bill will have some effect. it will serve to rein in how big financial institutions operate. i think they've learned something from past experience also. i expect them to operate in greater fiduciary responsibility. on fannie mae and freddie mac, the caller from illinois was correct? fannie mae and freddie mac was not really involved in creating the mortgage crisis. there are public report filed

with the sec, because they were holistic companies. the people who know nothing would assume what they read, they could see that the 2,003rd 2006, the market share decreased 50%. they were not involved in the subprime is. they may 30-year mortgages. the loans that caused the crisis were all adjustable-rate mortgages financed by wall street for do it too is not until late 2006 when president bush put a new person in charge veiny -- fannie mae the country

wife actually went to fannie mae and said that if you do not start buying some of our loans and we are not going to give you any of the prime loans to d. host: we will leave it there.

philadelphia on airlines for republicans. what do you think about the financial regulatory bill? caller: yes and no. only because we do not need it. we did not needed 30 years ago. if people look in the rearview mirror, the inflation we had during the 70's and what they chose to do with the credit industry so they could make these loans. the credit industry would be able to charge higher interest able to charge higher interest rates from the women forward now to 1997. there is a woman who was the head of a small part of the treasury department.

she had appeared before congress. she sukkur knows where it did not belong to the she swore that if we continue with the truth is, we've put the facing what we face today. now we need a new bill. it should have been 10 years and years and years ago. during the hearings in 1991 or 1992, christopher dodd chose to add to the bill the investment banks as opposed to savings and loans. host: let me ask you about the "new york times" regarding

derivatives. what are your thoughts? caller: dreamt his are perfectly fine. -- derivatives are perfectly fine. they are not too risky as the mortgages were. ok? as far as overseas companies having to do it, i say no.

why do not we outdoors the whole government, outdoors everything? -- outsourced the whole government, out source everything? host: next of the cincinnati ohio on our line for the democrats. caller: i actually see the biggest problem in the fact that we started creating mortgage- backed securities. back in the days when i was growing up, we had mortgages that were held of the things that actually loan to the money. -- at banks that actually loaned you the money. if they have a cap in the organization, they would create derivatives off to a million

different places. caused a serious hedging of these mortgage backed assets. >> thank you for your call. >> in the "washington post."

host: that norborne check -- that gingrich, louisiana. caller: good morning. host: what do you think about the bill? caller: nobody knows. no one has read it. host: nonewe are asking you. caller: no one knows what is in the bill, believe me. we have to pass it so we will know what is in the bill. that is the same way here. they do not know what is in the bill. once we do find out what is in

the bill, we are going to realize that we have lost a lot of our freedom with this bill. they can come in and inspect everything and shut people down. it dishes terrible. -- it is just terrible. i will tell you where the big problem is with the market. it was obama and his acorn people going in enforcing these banks and loan companies to make these loans to people who did not pay them off. host: we will have to leave it there. we are going to take a short break. one may come back, we will be talking about the g 20 summit. you are watching the "washington

journal." we will be right back. >> c-span is not available in 100 million homes, bringing you a juror trying to public affairs and nonfiction books, created by america's cable companies. >> the lottery is prescribed by

law it demand outpaces supply you have to do a lot to read. >> i think this is a civil rights issue. it is not just about race. >> sunday, "the lottery" producer in the anti-tartar school sentiment facing that school. >> arsenal. it is not a change in politics. they fully participated in our review last fall. we helped design the strategy that we have in place. >> learn more about the president's choice to help forces in afghanistan. what is appearances at hearings in briefings on line any time at the c-span video library.

"washington journal" continues. host: we will be discussing the g-20 summit for the next 45 minutes. to get a start did we will introduce the former chief economist with the u.s. agency for international development and is not the global economy and development senior fellow at the brookings institution. we want to get started with the dow jones news writer who is at the summit. good morning. welcome to the program. guest: good morning. host: what is the agenda for today's meetings? guest: the d-20 have not really

start to. what is going right now is the g-8 summit. what is going to be front and center is a consolidation, a debt reduction. that is probably going to be one of the it not the most important items on the agenda. host: how does what they are talking about this morning set things up for the d20g-20 meeti. host: we were told last by officials that debt reduction was a key items discussed as well. in the context, they were

talking more about the pace of debt reduction as opposed to the whole concept. they agree that nations need to reduce debt. it is a question of how fast they should do it. host: there is a headline in the "baltimore sun." it shows a picture of president obama joined with other national leeders. how is president obama going to people to do what he feels needs to be done in order to keep economic recovery going on in the united states? callerguest: i think we have tot this in context. different countries are coming along at a different rate of recovery.

you find pretty much countries like china, they are recovering very strongly. then you have the other end of the scale, country's life greece and some of the european nations which have huge debt. it is all about trying to find a balance between the right prescription for the different countries. i do not think there is one size fits all solution. it is coming to a balance of what is the right rate of debt reduction that does not lead into a double-dip recession.

i know there was a lot of talk about a risk of the g-20 nations. it looks like officials are laying down the notion of the risk. they are trying to present some type of common thread. host: we began by talking about the financial regulatory reform measure working its way through congress. is that getting any play? is that part of the discussion between president obama and other world leaders? caller: i am sure it will be discussed. financial regulatory -- reform

is a key item. there is no real consensus. probably the consensus they will come to it each country takes their own policy prescription. if you look of the global tax for instance, there is no consensus on that. there will not a consensus on that. i think it will be along those lines. they will probably come and say agree on reform -- i think that is probably how it will work out. host: thank you very much for checking in with us on the g-20

summit. guest: thank you for having me on. host: we will continue our discussion with colin bradford. welcome to the program produced what is the major south of the kent changes between what is going on -- significant changes between what is going on at this meeting in the one in september? guest: what i think they anticipated in pittsburgh was that by now, the end of june in toronto, they would be able to say we are on track in economic recovery. instead, we had had greece in between. that really upset the king.

-- the game. countries have had to stabilize their own. there is always speculation. now they are in this different game as the dow jones reporter trustee to. there are different policies and countries to cope with the pathway along the route from pittsburgh to a torrent of. host: in the "philadelphia inquirer." obama meets resistance. why seen meeting this resistance? guest: the debt levels are higher and of greater concerns. you have david cameron in britain who just announced with liberal democrats that new

budget for britain from a very austere. q. have elections for the president of germany. angela merkel's chancellorship hangs in the balance. these are real? -- facts of domestic finance. one is the creek crisis and the impact. and the uk. the second is that they have had to cope with the debt issue in a significant way. i think in the short run, you will have this difference and maye something that angela

merkel may be well advised to easy up a bit on her stance on austerity. it may help her political situation. what isg oing to go on here is the leaders tonight and tomorrow in toronto will shift the conversation away from the short term differences and invest them in the longer-term discussion of something called the framework for strong, sustainable, and balanced growth. they now agree to it in pittsburgh. pittsburgh. each of the countries that already done this at a finance minister level. they submit to treasuries of how they think they are macroeconomics policy is going to go over the next five years. then the imf takes those and

comes up with an analysis of whether or not these are consistent among each other. one concern is that you have differences -- some countries want to export their way out of this. the country's one to decide that, someone has to import. otherwise, we have an imbalance. the second thing there is huge concern about the relationship between the united states and china. we import more than we export. they export more than they import. we import their capital. they have capital surpluses. they lend this money. the problem there is not the form but the scale. the word "balance" means getting away from having these deficit surpluses concentrated so much in these two countries.

the way they are doing that is collectively work thing -- working together to travel is under strong, stable, and balanced. since it cannot agree in the short-run, the smart thing to do with the to go and talk more about this framework which is new and important. they can agree on the measures of that. you had the chinese ease up on this and introduce flexibility for their chain treat regime. you had the u.s. take a huge step over the last couple of days on financial regulatory reform. those are two very they pieces in the overall longer-term effort to fit the world economy back on a recovery path that is stable, strong, and balance.

>> we are talking about the summit going on this weekend in to arunta. -- in the toronto. republican, 202.737.0001 democrat, 202.737.0002 independent, 202.628.0205 . .

there's been massive investments by china in africa. and there's a lot of concern about how that might work over the longer term. there's a lot of concern about how that meshes with the development strategies and path of africa, and how it -- how china's financing meshes with financing from the rest of the world. but i don't think that's coming up either as a part of this global conversation in the g 20 today or tomorrow that i just mentioned, because it's a relatively small sliver in the whole pie and i don't think it probably came up in the discussions about development aid yesterday because china is

not a member of the -- not yet a member, anyway, of theo acd in paris where the donor nations, which china is now certainly one, discuss foreign assistance and official development assissstance. so i think it's an important issue that you raise. i'm not sure you are going to get any insight into it from either of these two summits. >> for those not familiar witho ecd, it's composed of about 34 countries, most of whom started out with the transatlantic world. >> we want to show the viewers, and we will list for our listeners the countries that make up the g 20.

any significance regarding south africa is the only country in the continent in the g 20? >> you're not the only person to raise this. this has been an issue all along is the fact that south africa of course has this storied history with the end of apartheid and so on. and so in some ways it is a stellar country to have at the table. on the other hand, it isn't the typical south african country and there's always been a discussion, shouldn't it be nigeria? well, maybe. nigeria is the largest in the continent, but it's not the most stable. so there's been a lot of discussion about whether south africa is really the most africa is really the most appropriate country, south africans themselves have made an effort in their presence to represent more than themselves, to represent the continent

themselves. but that's not the same as having other african countries there. if in seoul, korea in november, the next summit, the koreans will propose to put development within the g 20 in a different way than in the g-8. you notice yesterday there was a lot of foe focus on foreign aid. aid. most, since there are 10 emerging markets in the g-20, they have a different take on this that development is an internal dynamic, that it is more than aid. it is trade. so there's a different way that g-20 could frame this. and if the g-20 does take on this development issue, i think you can expect that they will have to have more of the lower income developing countries at the table and you might see a seat or two going to other african either nations or

regional groupings. host: our next call, joseph on our line for republicans out of virginia. caller: good morning, gentlemen. my comment has mainly to do with the united states. clearly, obama is a socialist and is killing small business in the united states. 80% of employees in the united states are hired by small business. obama's plan about using big government to hire people eventually, the taxpayers pay eventually, the taxpayers pay the government employees. if you don't have a taxpayer base paying the government employees, where is the money coming from? i mean, it is clearly the guy is a socialist. he is killing small business in this country.

he can put this country on its feet by providing ways and means for small businesses to hire people. they are scared to death of his plans and his taxes. guest: well, first, i would have to say respectfully that i am not sure that the label that you are putting on the president of the united states is is quite the right one. there aren't many socialists around these days who don't believe in the market. believe in the market. and i'm not also sure that you have interpreted the president's policies exactly right. but even if you have, i mean, i would say that the fact that the congress was unable to pass because of republican opposition the extension of unemployment benefits, for example, really in a way is sort of protects the interest that you represent on the other hand i think it illustrates the flaw in it in the sense that

you really have to look at -- these are people who are trying to get jobs but who can't get them. so the government steps in and provides provisionly in the short term through this recovery and recession period payments that allow them not only to put food on the table but to buy things which employ other people. so there is a cartoon in today's "washington post" which shows a helicopter pulling the life savor from a swimming -- a stranded person at sea, which is what happened i think this week. so i think you have to be careful to not misinterpret the strong fiscal moves, the public spending moves that the president had to take and that other g-20 nations made in the london summit last april and the huge infusions into banks

which was absolutely necessary to sort of save the financial system so that we aren't in as bad shape today as we could have been for sure if those have been for sure if those actions had not been taken in london last year. i think you have to be careful not to misinterpret those as idea logical moves on his part. i mean, if anything, it seems to me that president obama is a mag mattist and he moved -- pragmatist. pragmatist. and he moved with the facts. he didn't move with the mindset of coming to office to say, ok, i'm going to be the big tax and spend democrat. it seems to me that he is interested in using the government as a way of resuscitating the market economy, not destroying it. host: let's take this call from indiana on our line for democrats. mike, go ahead. caller: good morning, fellows. guest: good morning. caller: my question again is for mr. bradford an it again has to do with the united states.

for one thing, i think that the guy who just called in is totally wrong. the republicans have killed a lot of bills, or all the bills, really, aimed at helping small businesses, and i was really wanting to hit on the free trade act. the free trade acts that we have. and i was wondering about your opinion, whether they should not be fair trade acts so that labor, who has been villified this morning, should be at the table and make sure that there's a living wage. guest: it's a good point. i think that it is interesting. and normally in summits over and normally in summits over the last 20 or 30 years in g-8 summits they've been instruments for promoting trade liberalization and free trade agreements and trade rounds where liberalization takes place. and you will notice, it will be

interesting to see what happens in torrento this weekend, but i think you will see very little assertions of that sort about promoting still further liberalization on trade. i think the do hah round, which is the current round underway which they have not been able to conclude because of major political resistance in industrial countries to liberalizing agriculture, i think you are not going to see much movement on the trade issue. so i don't think you're going to see a huge de cla ration o about let's do fair trade instead of free trade. but i think you will see it dampen down and say we need to not usher in a new era of protectionism. but on the other hand, this effort for strong balanced growth that i mentioned a few minutes ago is meant to chart a path in which free trade and fairer trade can take place in a balanced way so there aren't exports subsidized by an undervalued exchange rate on the part of the chinese, for

example. and obama reflects this, it seems to me, to not get gung ho again for free trade, not be idea logical about it either in the sense of saying free trade is absolutely liberalizing more is absolutely essential to the free market economy. i think we have a trading system that can work towards fair trade if we just move forward on these macro policy arrangements to generate more jobs. host: marry who writes -- mary sends us this twitter message and she asks, has world financial crisis brought the eu and g-20 brought to a more mixed capitalist economy instead of deregulated free market corporatism? guest: the short answer is yes. and i think that what she is pointing to is precisely what you see happening in the g-20 you see happening in the g-20 on the financial regulatory front and you see happening in the congress in the last two

days. host: let's take this call from florida on our line for independents. caller: good morning, gentlemen. mr. bradford, last year current eu president famously said that, this is the first year for global governance with the establishment of the g-20 in the middle of the financial economic crisis that has taken hold. what i see is incremental trade agreements like nafta got, the north atlantic free trade agreement, and also the security and prosperity partnership that was signed in canada. these incremental trade agreements i see are a threat to national sovereignty. and what we have here is a gaggle of collectivists that are further seeking to channel power to the few, into the hands of fewer and fewer

people, and in which people like me will have no say in the matter because these people are unelected for the most part and are untouchable through national and almost international law. what do you say to that? guest: a gaggle of collect vists. that's a new one for me. i'm going to remember this. because i think it does reflect a lot of concern that a lot of people have. the g-20 is an informal mechanism. it's a gruping of leaders without any bureaucracy, without any sect tat. they are staffed out by their -pown national governments. almost all are elected nationally in some form or another. but i've been doing a project that i've been asked to do by the korean government who will share the seoul g-20 summit in november. and what they've asked me to do is hold two large conferences to discuss precisely the problem that you point to. is there is a lot of concern in

the g-20 countries and governments thomse and certainly in the nong-20 countries about those that are not at the table. so what we are looking at is innovations for g-20 summits which may be able to make it possible to have the input of civil society including labor unions of ngos, of legislatures, of nong-20 countries themselves. there are 173 countries not at the g-20 table. so there is an effort here to meet this point that you are making, the very strong implicit criticism that is involved within the collective gaggle that you mention is to make sure that the g-20 does not do as the g-8 tried to do, which was to make decisions or at least provide strategic guidance for the world, without including the voices and views

and perspectives of countries that are not there and groups that are not there so that they in fact can provide direction which is based not just on the views of the 20 but the views of the world as a whole. host: how do members of the g-8 and now the g-20 get picked? how do you get into this fraternity? guest: this is one of those things that is part of the history which makes the question that just came come forward. it is self--selected. what happened was the last crisis was the asian financial crisis in the late 1990s, and it turned out that paul martin in canada, the finance minister at the time, came to washington and talked to larry summers who was deputy secretary treasury at the time and they came up with a grouping of countries, with input from others but they basically came up with the list of countries that you listed. so it's an arbitrary

self-selected grouping. but on the other hand, we have been proposing the transformation of the g-8 to the g-20 for the last years, a group of us. this has come up often in these discussions. and the -- if you asked 20 people in a room to make a list of the 20 countries you want to have in this, they would all come up with different countries. but when you look at the countries that are there, it's pretty well balanced. and everybody could pick one or two that they would rather take off and one or two that might go in. but once you start fiddling with that the whole thing starts to fall apart. but the important point is that you have three islamic countries there, very interesting ones. indonesia, you have turkey, which is a bridge country between the east and the west, you have saudi arabia, which is an arab middle-eastern oil country. so you have got not only you

have three muslim countries there instead of none in the g-8 or even in the g-8 plus five, there were no muslim countries in that grubing. so you have three different ones. and then you have three latin american countries, south american countries, south africa, and four asian countries that are new from the emerging market world along with australia and japan. so six asian countries instead of one in the g-8. so this is a much more diverse grouping, china india and drabrazill are there. so it is a grouping that it isn't perfect but it is one hell of a lot better than the g-8 and it is not bad when you really look at it. host: we're talking about the g-20 summit, the next call comes from ed on our line for democrats out of detroit, michigan. caller: good morning. i just had well first a point and then a question.

one is that you mentioned the one is that you mentioned the crisis with greece and it seems that germany both on the g-8 or g-20 level in the last summit that took place with these countries, germany -- china addressed the global recession was very he is tent, i don't know if they did make a move to increase their stimulus money to try to address the recession that was going on and so they seem to be a very reluctant partner. and the second question i have is what -- since this is a global worldwide crisis and these companies, even though some might be based in the united states, they're multinational companies, the concept of having aag-20 recovery fund that is administered maybe through the imf or some entity so that all the players step up and

actually contribute their equal parts. because it seems as if though the united states has been carrying the burden of the global crisis by bailing out these firms while they might be based in the united states, the other couptrizz benefit out of what our contributions are and i don't see any of these other countries stepping up. and i think germany is a perfect example. guest: i think the thing that does explain germany's more moderate and conservative fiscal policy is the fact that the germans, after all, still even though it's a long time ago, remember the role that inflation played in the 1930s and 19 40's and led up in part to the second world war. and so of all the countries around the world, the germans are the most concerned about controlling inflation. and so there are attempts to be very conservative monetary and fiscal policy in germany for that reason. so the current manifestation,

and now the -- the fact is that germany did do its part in april of 2009. there is a huge debate that you are remembering about whether or not all the matic stabilizer, like unemployment that we were talking about a minute ago by the u.s. congress this week was whether things like unemployment compensation counted or not. now, germany and the continental european countries tend to have stronger welfare states so they have in place thee f these automatic stabilizers that come into play immediately when downturns occur where as the united states and england tend to be thinner on those kinds of mechanisms. so that debate took place, which i did the numbers on it. there really doesn't -- the automatic stabilizer should have counted because unemployment compensation is exactly like a tax cut cut. so it's a false debate when in fact their welfare state

mechanisms did contribute a lot. there isn't a g-20 fund to bail out institutions. whattthere is is the international monetary fund, which you mentioned. and it's a universal membership organization. everybody contributes by quotas to it. and the united states to the imf. so that it's a burden sharing mechanism. and that's the intention of it. the fact is that all of the major countries have in one form or another shord up their banks, shord up various industrial firms and others, insurance companies that have been in trouble. so there has been a sharing of the burden i think more than you allow. host: newark, ohio on our lines for republicans. caller: i want to ask the question of i know we're merging into the one-world system.

i know we're merging into the one-world system, where is your individual freedom? your individual, like the united states has had in the past. i know you're smiling over this because you're totally into this one-world system. you will never control people through organizations that are socialistii. why, when you talk about these third-world countries, what caused them to be third-world countries? the lack of freedom? -- to be entrepreneurial? people? they lived under someone else's subjew congregation? and the only way you can get the united states in this is to take us down to that level. guest: well, i was only smiling because i think this is a concern that a lot of people concern that a lot of people have, and i've heard it often before so i thank you for your

comment. the other thing is that there is a sense when the term global governance is used as it was a few moments ago, that this is global government which is reflectd in your comment which i understand and sympathize with. but let me assure you from having been fairly close to this g-20 operation for some time, is that this is a pretty informal arrangement that's going on here. this is a meeting of leaders, political leaders who most of whom are elected. and they try to work out because the world economy is becoming a single integrated entity and to some extent that does erode national independence. no country alone, not the united states, not china, not even europe acting among themselves together but alone as a regional power can actually take care of the greek crisis. they had to call in the imf,

for example. they couldn't finance the greek crisis by themselves. so in this world where there is so much spillover effect, so much interaction among the domestic economies of the major countries, especially, what you need is some kind of guidance need is some kind of guidance system, some kind of place where you can try to coordinate, which is what is going on in toronto this weekend. so just because you see it tomorrow morning's paper is a picture of 20 leaders, don't think that this is some sort of rigid control system. i beg you to take a close look at it and realize that this is, if anything, too loosey goosey in the sense that there is too much room for man nufere outside of it. so i would be careful about that. and the third -- most of the countries at the table, think of india, for example, which did indeed have a delonal history under the british but on the other hand is one of the

great democracies in the world. south africa went through this incredible transition from a partsdzyide to full democracy. brazil, mexico too. so going from a transition. and these are countries that are very big industrial countries which are growing fast and are part of or have big populations, so they are part of the global community and it just doesn't make any sense any more to think that we can eedser go it alone or just go with the countries like us in europe or north america. so try to embrace the idea that if we have a global community -- if we have a global economy, we need a global community. we need some sort of leadership direction in this community. and the g-20 is what we have for now which is trying to fulfill that function. host: we want to let our viewers and listeners know that at the conclusion of this summit that the president will

be having a press conference at 6:05 p.m. on sunday. that will also be with canadian prime minister. you will be able to see that live on c-span. they will also be talking live today at 1278 also on -- 12:00 p.m.. this will be at the close of the g-8 summit. and later this weekend at the close of the g-20 summit the president will have another news conference on sunday. the details of that you can find on our website, c-span.org. next up, michigan on our line for independence. -- democrats. go ahead, edie. caller: good morning. i have a question for the gentleman about the whole currency issue. obviously, the united states has the dollar as the reserve

currency of the wofrled and i would imagine that other nations are quite jealous of that. guest: right. caller: how do you think that ultimately this whole thing is going to play itself out? i know about special drawing rights at the imf and, you know, that there are probably talks going on. to me, it seems like a very important issue. host: thanks for the call. go ahead. guest: goo question. i think you can expect nicholas sarjoseie to bring this up. he said already that he has an interest in it. and he mentioned that when the euro was stronger against the dollar than it is today. you are right to understand that having your own currency be an international reserve currency is a huge luxury and it does enable you to print

money for one thing, which money for one thing, which other people are willing to hold which isn't always true for almost every other country in the world except maybe japan and europe. so there is this debate about whether as the dollar weakens and as the structural change in the world economy, whether or not there shouldn't be a deliberate effort to phase away from the dependence on the dollar. but if anything, recent events in europe and elsewhere have caused a flight to the dollar so the dollar is sort of back in play as compared to where ii was in a year and a half ago when it looked like the dollar was weakening and going out of sight, which it wasn't but it looked that way. so i think you can expect some debate, certainly next year when france chairs these summits. but you can also expect some substantive technical discussion in economic circles, which is already well under way about where this might go. but my basic answer is whatever happens here it is going to go

very slowly. s there not going to be a major shift overnight between the dollar and the euro or the euro and the yen or some fdr kind of global currency. host: our last call comes from dorothy out of flint township michigan. good morning. caller: how are you? a question and a comment. my question is the remarks that timothy gite anywhere made, i forget who was sitting down and being reported with but he did an interview saying that no longer can the rest of the world depend on us to be in the position that we always had been, which is a super power or most financial -- ones on top. we can't -- the rest of the world can't rely on us, which is a very scary statement from him. and also, seeing obama with czar coseie laughing and smiling and these group of leaders, the gaggle of global

people is a very big concern for a lot of people who stay stuned in and to all the other countries going around talking about one world government and all this. it is a big concern. but please answer my question to timothy gite anywhere's statement, please. guest: thank you. i'm not aware of that statement, actually. but there is a view around the world, i'm not sure that i've heard him say it, that the u.s. is in decline and therefore the rest of the world can't count on us. i don't think that's anything that an obama administration would say. baw because i think what you see from both the secretary and the president is a very frank the president is a very frank statement that the united states realizes that we cannot take care of ourselves alone. that we need to do what i would call light coordination in consultation and communication and so on with other countries

in order to have coherent policies so we're not bumping into and conflicting with each other. and this is, we do not have, let me assure you we do not have a global government system here. this is not an excessively rigid or formal or direct torl kind of setting. and i think the fact that you see these kind of pictures this morning of obama in the morning of obama in the pictures is a good thing. and when you see him tomorrow with the president of china and india and brazil i think are friends even though brazil beat out the u.s. for the side of the olympics, i think that this kind of personal friendship and personal interaction and sense of confidence and trust that is built up in these summits is

actually a real plus for the united states. and i think what obama and the secretary are both trying to convey to leaders is we are not keen on being the super power in the world. but we are still interested in maintaining american involve dwrmt and -- involvement and leadership as an effort goes forward in working out a sense of direction for the world in terms of the global economy, in terms of global energy problems, in terms of global climate change, in terms of global poverty and development, in terms of global health, in terms of the oceans and all the other global problems that we have that we certainly cannot deal with by ourselves. so thank you for your question. host: col in bradford, thank you for being here talking to us. host: in just a few minutes we

will be talking about general petraeus and strategy in afghanistan but first a look at the last week through the cartoonists.

host: kevin barren joins us here to talk to us about general david petraeus and his confirmation heargs set for next tuesday as well as getting a reaction to what happened here in washington during the week with the acceptance of general mcchrystalal's resignation by president obama and the jonl going u.s. strategy in afghanistan.

welcome to the program. guest: thanks for having me. host: this is not one of your articles, but this headline, obama managing expectations in afghanistan. how is the administration being perceived as managing the expectations in afghanistan by troops in the field and by afghans in afghanistan, the people that the troops have to deal with? guest: well, in the last week we have seen the pentagon roll out a new kind of talking point that even though things aren't going as well as advertised and from mcchrystal's worlds himself there's a lot of progress, and we have seee a lot of administration officials speaking to the press from secretary gates, from general petraeus, telling the troops, telling the afghans the story of the last year really since mcchrystal came son, here is how things have gotten better.

host: your article that was published on the 24th of june published on the 24th of june has the headline, d.o.d. leaders talking about the mcchrystal firing necessary to preserve integrity. there's a picture of secretary of defense robert gates and chairman of the joint chiefs of staff admiral mullen both of them were big supporters of general mcchrystalal when he first got this job. how difficult was it for them to go into the room with or to be in the situation with the president and have to let general mcchrystal go? guest: when the two came to the briefing, i think it was one of the most somber briefings we have had, to see them have to defend the man they hand-picked, someone admiral mullen served with and knew well. and then also to defend their and then also to defend their choice to let him go. i think it seemed to be moving for both of them, particularly

for admiral mullen. there was a report that secretary gates wanted mcchrystal to say but he fully supported the decision ultimate pli. where as admiral mullen said the minute he read the piece he felt that. host: we're talking about general petraeus, the ongoing u.s. strategy in afghanistan and how that may or may not change with the change in the command in our efforts in afghanistan. if you want to get involved in the conversation with kevin barren of stars and stripes, the numbers are on the bottom of your screen. we would particularly like to hear especially from active duty or retired military who have had some experience in afghanistan or iraq who have served with general petraeus or

who have served with general mcchrystal, we want to hear what it is that you have to say. kevin, how much change is there going to be moving forward regarding the u.s. effort in afghanistan with general petraeus tabing the reins now from general crystal? guest: there will be change of staff, you can expect that. the big question is change of strategy. the white house and the pentagon all said this is not a referendum on the counter insurgency strategy, the war plan and the campaign. that said, any new general has the right to go in and make the changes that he needs. and they made the case that nobody knew this stuff better than general petraeus. he signed off on all of mcchrystal's decisions. but just in the last 24 hours, i think the biggest concern from troops that we hear, especially out in the forward bases, are the rules of engagement. they feel like they're being restricted a little bit.

that because of the premium on preventing civilian casualties that too often they have to wait before they can engage. they think it's hurting them. they think it's causing guys to get hurt and killed. so in the last i guess second half of yesterday, we heard from petraeus that said that will be one of the things hell be looking at. -- he will be looking at. host: one of the articles talking about that very tpic rules of engagement is the is in the new york post talking about the different wars rule books as they have in quoteations.

guest: well, correct. mcchrystal has spoken to the troops. he has gone out to bases outside of kabul. he frequently went out into the field and really defended this. but we heard a lot of reports that the troops heard him, understood it was a policy but didn't seem to make it better. and what we heard when the news came down that mcchrystal maybe fire, they thought good that may be the end of his war. those were direct -- rules. not war. that's the question. i don't know. yes, it's one of the things that general petraeus will consider. that doesn't mean he is going to change it. host: our first call comes from tuscon, arizona on our line for republicans. peter, on the washington journal.

caller: i want to know what you think of the fact that general petraeus took a step backwards, not in rank but in position. and the fact that what happened with mcchrystal? the privets and pfcs aren't running him out. these are staff. i would like to hear your answer to that. guest: you're correct. he is still a four-star but he steps back into the field as the war commander and he was or stilllis the commander of central command, one of the combat commands. that will mean that somebody else will become the sent come commander, which means somebody else will become general petraeus' boss. i don't know if you would like to be or if anybody would, he is probably the most popular man in the military. there's talk of even that at least in the interim perhaps

one of the candidates could be his deputy, general john allen, who is well known and spoke of frequently. but again that would mean petraeus steps down, he becomes his boss. and there's another layer in the chain of command between petraeus and the white house. in reality, who knows how it will work. we will find out for sure on tuesday at the confirmation hearing. the second part of your question, i didn't catch the end of it. host: let's stick with the change of command with centcom. how weird would that be for the person who is number two at centcom to become number one because your boss has to go back out to the field? are there going to have to be some readjustments as far as the chain of command goes? or will general petraeus have to go through general allen in order to get messages back and forth from washington from the white house, from the pentagon, to the folks out into the

field? guest: i think it would be tough to think they're going to change in the entire chain of command for something like this to happen. it's so unique. and alsen just one of the names mentioned. another name is marine general mad dusm who is leaving his pocks in position at norfolk. that general was one of the names on the short list for the new marine corps commandant that was just announced a week or two ago and he was passed over, which means he is on his way towards retirement. he already has a fourth star, he worked at nato, he has some of those diplomat skills. it's one of the most intriguing questions. everybody wants to know who is going to be his boss. host: talking about the future for general petraeus as well as u.s. strategy in afghanistan. next up, ben on our line for

democrats out of tennessee. good morning. caller: good morning. i have two questions. the first was is general petraeus conscious of the overbearing cost not only the war in afghanistan but also the war in iraq? i understand that the war in iraq has cost almost $3 trillion or the projected is cost is almost around that figure. i was wondering if your reporter had an estimate on afghanistan. and also, the center for traumatic brain injury opened in washington this week. and there was only -- i have a family member that has traumatic brain injury and there are only two delegates, i think two congressmen that showed up even though it opened

in washington, d.c. why has the military paid so little attention to the hallmark injury of both wars? and it would seem to me probably the hallmark injury of wars going forward, certainly one of them. guest: two good questions. i think for one i'm positive general petraeus is absolutely aware of the cost of war. and it's interesting, i recently traveled with admiral mullen and one of the frequent things he would say is one of the top national security threats right now is the national debt, is the budget, and the constraints that we have. not caused by the war particularly but because of the particularly but because of the wars, because of the economic situation, the financial solvesy of the country is on the mine at least the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and i'm sure general petraeus knows it as well. cost and numbers, i don't hear any general talking about how

are they going to drive down the cost of the war. their concern is winning the war and the military tends to get what it wants when it comes to anything of an expense while they're fighting the war to get the mission done. i think this first pentagon savings, you've got to look towards secretary gates that there is right now going on a push to reform acquisition, to reform the -- there's supposed to be an announcement on monday, to reform how things are bought, how they grow and shape their force to try to figure out how to save money, but not the mission, not how to fight the wars. on the tbi center, the new medical center that opened up, i think it's wrong to say that the military is ignoring the signature injury of the war, traumatic brain injury. both say they are doing as much as they can. of course there are always short comings to be found. this week, you are right, there was not as big of a delegation of dignitaries to that opening all because of the flap of mcchrystal what happened.

secretary gates was spezzed to attend. it was announced late the day before he would not go. before he would not go. instead the secretary went. i think john mccain went. i think i saw a note from his staff. i'm not sure who else. i didn't cover it. i was at the pentagon work ong this one. but i think it's an example of another expansion, another center dedicated to this injury. that said, this is a question that is going to go well into the future of how many people have not just traumatic brain injuries that people think of like blast wounds, but all the way down to a concussion. people say there's no such thing as a mild brain injury or a mild tbi. and with nearly 2 million troops who have been in the war zone to come back already, this is going to go on for years and years to come. host: kevin, our next question comes from flint, michigan. comes from flint, michigan. on our line for republicans. michael on the washington journal. caller: good morning.

i have got a couple of comments to make and a question. first one is the general that was just relieved there, seems to me as though he was fighting to me as though he was fighting a war more worrying about ideology in the region. i would like to know, i have a comment about that. and also, if the reporter has any knowledge as to maybe what the differences are between the two generals, general petraeus and the general that was kicked out. and also, i was wondering if he had any knowledge as to are they doing any kind kind of training for the troops and that in the region, say, comparatively?3 before they are being deployed out for the urban kind of warfare? host: go ahead. caller: i will start with the differences between the two generals. these guys, i think, petraeus said that they used to run

together 30 years ago. but mcchrystal was a guy who was hand-picked because he was a special operations commander who could do the kinds of things that they thought needed to be done in afghanistan. more operations of the small groups, covert, as well as big counter insurgency, which he helped command also in iraq. petraeus is a guy who literally wrote the book on counter insurgency, who wrote the field manual for it. manual for it. after heffs a commander in iraq and before he went back to become the overall commander of the wwr. i think mcchrystal is a guy wwo is a public face, a diplomat. he has been a centcom commander all over the middle east. his job was to hand shake the world leaders in the country and win support in the mission not just in afghanistan, but across the region, getting countries to allow more covert military operations, which lots of people think is kind of the

wave of the future in hunting and finding terrorists, more than a big counter insurgency war like we had in iraq, like we're having in afghanistan. training and deployment, training is always being modified. there are these huge mock, you see these huge centers out west and the east as well where troops go, to where it looks like you're right in the middle of the middle east right down to the last detail. i've been in some of them where they have even high definition video of your walking in and they have the steps leading into each room are a little cricketty like you would see in afghanistan. downtown to the last defail. the first question about is fighting an ideology, i'm not so sure where you're going with that. that. perhaps you meant the ideology debate about how people fight the war in afghanistan tends to be should we be fighting a counter insurgency or a counter

terrorism. host: let's put that on hold for a second. we'll come back do that. but let's go to sam on our line but let's go to sam on our line for independents out of delaware. welcome. caller: thank you. i have a question. i'm thinking about the whole rolling stone, and i'm thinking about mcchrystal and how he speaks well. and i'm thinking about the upcoming troop pullout out of afghanistan. i'm thinking, is this possibly a political setup by mcchrystal for possible run for the presidency? and no matter how afghanistan turns out, it can always be spun as a negative for obama. so i would like your opinion on that. caller: well, suggesting mcchrystal for presidency, that's the first i've heard of it. usually per tace is the one usually per tace is the one peek think is going to make a run. i think right now neither is in

the good position. if petraeus was, he is now going to fight a war. he is not going to be building a war chest, as they call political campaign bank accounts. he is going to do his job throughout at least a year, i would imagine. so that is not going to happen. and he said so flatly. he said so just yesterday, the latest with him, reuters had an exclusive. they were with him the morning he was announced and he said it again, he is not running for president. i take him for his word at that. i know a lots of politicians will say that. this guy seems to mean it though. as far as mcchrystal running for presidency or what he is going to do next, nobody knows. that's why it assumes when generals are releed and they have lost the trust or the sclfidance of the president. any job he has would have to be confirmed as well. despite how good of a commander he is, this is his military

job. job. is he going to become a politician next? i think people think we will see a book out of him. but he just got in trouble for a big media gaff and it was probably the third media gaff of the year. i don't know if he is going to be the one that is going to hit the talk show circuit and the the talk show circuit and the whittle stop tour. but you never know. these are men who have had lifetime of leadership and they like to lead men and usually they're good at it and have something to say. so who knows. host: you mention it had reuters exclusive with general petraeus the morning of the announcement. and in the "wall street journal" this morning, there's this headline. army's new fear, media's friendly fire mcchrystal's fall sends shutters through strategy though strategy dictates good relations with the press. as the pentagon reporter, are you concerned that this article in rolling stone is going to

cause the generals, cause the officers to draw back from contact with the media? that you're going to be cut off, it's going to be more difficult to cover aspects of the war before the rolling stone article? iveragetted certainly. as soon as this came out, we all said there goes our access for a while despite the pentagon credits secretary gates, he came out and said again, the media is not if enemy here. we need to engage them. and i read that article and it, the commanders in the field also will say that they know if they're not reaching out to the media and telling the story of the american military and the purpose of the war, then somebody else will. and in the field of afghanistan that means it would be the taliban, the people that they are fighting against. pakistan across the middle east. so of course there is that fear despite the fact that you've got even the top brass saying, that's not the problem, we need

to talk to the war. who knows, we will see. i think this has opened up again the question of the use of embeds, whether or not it works or doesn't work. whether or not there are enough reporters covering enough of the military. we went through this in iraq when things got as violent as they did, a lot of agencies pulled out. people said the story wasn't told as fully because so few people stayed behind. in afghanistan, there was a big the last few weeks, some from r the pentagon as well, because we were as advertised, that was where the push ws was going to be. so reporters went there and said the fighting wasn't going as well as advertised. and the commander said we're not getting the sturpt of the local population, which was the prerequisite for the offensive

in kandahar, and that's what prompted back here in washington the pushback from the pentagon to say there's always reports that the war is just that one thing. it is still better than it was before. there's three times as many troops, more afghan police, more trainers. so how they tell the war is becoming a story because of this incident. host: we're talking with kevin barn of stars and tripes. he also reports on national security and foreign policy issues. back to the phones. back to the phones. palm springs, california. on our line for republicans. go ahead. caller: good morning, gentlemen, thank you for taking my call. i would like to first make a observation and then a question. i served 20 years in the marine corps and i was a chief warrant officer and was a planor for communications systems and worked extensively in centcom. so i'm fairly familiar with the

architecture of the forces and what is needed. one of the things when i was in was we were required for professional reading development to read books about war and the different cultures and everything like that. and yoss that coming from any of the commentaries or anything of the commentaries or anything on the actual strength force and everything that is required for war. i know counter terrorism is a different type of warfare and it's changed a little bit. but i think the basics for war is still the same. my question would be is why my question would be is why don't we hear more of that from the generals and from articles on if you're going to fight a war, for every combat troop you need ten lojist 86 people. and if you're going to be occupying an area, that requires about ten times more. so i always look at these numbers and am quite amazed by the really actually the small numbers required actually to do

the job. i would just like to see that. my question would be why don't we hear those numbers? are they too scary? guest: well the numbers of support and commenlts for troops behind war fighters is what we're getting at. i remember talking about the troop levels in iraq a while ago, i read that how i think a third, only one third of the troops there were actually considered trigger pullers, to use that unfortunate phrase. everybody else are support somehow. like you said, it's the lojisttigses and people flying supplies back and forth and communications and isr, intel and surveillance, just so much that it takes to support those guys who are the guys kicking down doors. i don't know, i guess in afghanistan, the numbers as they ramp up, i've heard a little as well even insurgents, 30,000 troops, people think

30,000 trigger pullers, kicking down doors and out in the field. that's not the case also. there are brigades that are just staff. there are lots of that background support. i think that's also a good point to raise when talking about injuries. we mentioned the tbi. the guys on that front line, that's also the population that is going to be the most likely to be wounded and killed in battle as well. so perhaps this story line has fallen off a little bit. i think you will see it again though at the end of august. that's a big deloin in iraqq that's when america is supposed to have only 50,000 non-combat troops left. all combat troops are suppose ds to be pulled out of iraq. what's a combat troop? that's a big question as well. years ago, the pentagon and other press officers would get upset if reporters would call somebody in iraq a non-- anything other than a combat

troop. everybody faces combat, everybody faces a weapon and i've had friends and i've known soldiers, who they are far from would consider a front line, but in wars like these that are population cent rick, there is no front line. everybody is in the line of fire. now, they have made a designation to say some guys are combat troops and some aren't. they've changed the names of big grades to advise and assist brigades. same people, just changed the name, training and mission. so there will be 50,000 troops left in iraq. . .

james, are you still with us? are you still on active duty? c-span2 caller: yes, i am. i have not currently rotated over to afghanistan, no. host: are you in some sort of rotation? will you eventually go over there? caller: yes, probably within the next 12 to 18 months. host: thanks for your call. guest: the idea that this is some grand plan of mcchrystal, i do not buy it. i've heard that before. everybody tries to be behind the motives of everybody, that somehow things are too hot for him and he wanted to get out and this is the way to do it -- boy,

it is a heck of a way to do it. i, unfortunately, never met general mcchrystal. i traveled to kabul, and he was in washington. by all accounts, this is a guy who never in a million years would try something like that to save face. he just a couple of weeks ago met with pentagon employers to travel to a nato meeting in brussels and sat down with them a long time and gave full accounting. he was the first person to say that it might not have been progressing as they would like, but it is still progressing, and he was defending what he was doing to the last breath. judging by secretary gates and admiral mullen's comments this week, they also thought that he was doing a good job and that is, again, not why he was removed. general petraeus on the july, 2011 date, he was in the senate

armed services committee last week or before this week because this was the six-month point since president obama announced that date and came up with their strategy following last year's review. in that hearing, he was asked repeatedly if july 2011 was when it would pull the troops or start to pull out troops or transfer power -- what is it? i thought it was telling that the oversight committee in charge of this in the senate, the senators were still unclear about what that date meant. senator mccain likes to say that the white house spokesman said this was a date etched in stone and mccain is opposed to the date. he said so reppatedly. gerald petraeus said that and he agreed. this is a date attached in stone. the date they will start the withdrawal of troops and start transfer of power, and they like to say that they are not turning off a light switch and running for the exits. a lot of us have noted, you could pull out 50 troops, you

could pull out 5000 and still claim that that is a withdrawal, that the withdrawal has started. it does not mean that that is it, pack them up, and everybody goes home. everybody still has not gone home from germany or correa -- korea. i will give you an example. i recently spoke to the major general who is in charge of training the afghan air force. day in 2006, wrote a 10-year plan to get that job done, and he is executing what he considers to be a 10-year plan that is all the way to 2016. fallout troops all you want. it may start in july 2011 but one of the missions on the table right now is they will leave behind cable security forces to defend the country for themselves, and that includes the air force. at least in that case, it is a 10-year plan to train pilots and crewmen and mechanics, not to mention language training in afghanistan. literacy is such a problem.

they are training and then to read and then learn english because link -- english is the rough language of aviation around the world. it is a 10-year plan just from that point alone. caller: i had one question about the change of the generals in their -- there. my question was if it would create the same type of schism that was created in vietnam, were basically, you were sent a message from the white house that became bigger than the war itself. in your opinion, is there any possibility to that type of thing, or is this a totally separate animal -- is there plausibility to the type of thing? >> i met -- guest: i'm hesitant to compare this to previous wars. macarthur and truman came up again and again this week, and

it is usually followed by, but it is not the same thing. the message from the white house was the same message i heard over at the pentagon. admiral mullen especially has put on this, that this is a civilian-controlled government, a civilian-controlled military, and that was the big fall here that was made. not speaking out of turn necessarily, not even questioning the strategy -- that is supposedly will come within is supposedly will come within the chain of command -- but the fact that all those disparaging remarks were about the civilian national security team was a big concern. that's what i heard from admiral mullen. host: if the counterinsurgency had been working better in afghanistan, is there a possibility general mcchrystal could have saved his job? everything else being the same. if the war was going better in afghanistan, would he still be in his position? >> if the war was going better,

he would not have had as much dissension among the national security team that they were talking about and so perhaps in one sense, there would not have anything to claim about. everybody, again, by all accounts at the top, this is not a referendum about counterinsurgency. this is not a referendum about how things are going. they already have been pushing back to say that they thought there had been progress. they said all along this was going to be a long time. they said that they were going to have a year before they got all of the surge troops in and what have a new review in december. secretary gates says the surge troops still have not even arrived. i think a lot of people want that to be the case, especially in washington. a lot of people who have all long questioned whether this even is a counterinsurgency, the way it was broadcast or design, and should we be down this route? they are trying to jump on the chance to turn it into that

debate. perhaps, it could have swayed one way or the other. the only thing i could say is if things were going as perfectly as possible, there would not be any dissent for him to be speaking on in the first place. host: the door, your on the "washington journal." caller: thank you for having me. this is my first time calling you all. a lot to say you have a very distinct conversation this morning involving two individuals i'm pretty well familiar with. i spent 30 years in 10 days in the united states army and served in combat three times. i have no sympathy for general mcchrystal first of all, as a commanding general. with his experience, he realizes that the uniform code of military justice prohibits the action and conduct of those in his command and supervise as well as his own actions. at -- now, i am wondering to

myself -- where was his chief of staff, his command sergeant major and those people in there to assist him and that part, that the other part, as far as i keep hearing this thing about the date july, when we are going to start withdrawing troops. i wish people would get it in their head that yes, you want to set a date at some point to where you are going to make a transition from the actions that you are taking now, and you cannot wait until that date comes and that it can summon. sure, the enemy is going to prepare. that is his job. you are going to walk, but you have to realize that at the same time, in order to get these people up to date, you have to set a task, addition and standard to which he wanted to meet in order you can transition government from the united states military to the afghan

government itself. host: the door, we will leave it there. thanks for your call. guest: thanks for the comments. the question of staff is still to be resolved. it is unclear exactly who was with general mcchrystal in the bar in paris. that was described in the "rolling stone" article that got him in trouble. but it is expected that the staff would be removed, either because general petraeus will come in and, as happens, bring his own staff, or some of them also may resign in solidarity with general mcchrystal, though that has not happened. the only fallout we have seen so far is this article on the front page of the "washington post" today of staffers who refused to let themselves be named, pushing back at the interview, saying that the interview broke the rules, that that stuff off the record and never should have

been reported. they did not deny what was reported. they just said, as far as i remember from reading the article, that some rules were broken. so what happens to the rest of the staff? a lot of people are asking that now. will there also be any kind of punishment or reprimand? we will see. i think it is still a little early. on the july date, your position as well heard and i think well debated on capitol hill. i refer you, if you can, go to the senate hearing from last year, last week with general petraeus. i think john mccain is the leading voice on the other side to say, as we have heard for years, that these deadlines are artificial. they are false. you can put it out there, but the administration admits or says themselves they will look at things again in december and looked again before july. that is all conditions-based, and if it is all conditioned-

based, what does it mean? it has caused a lot of consternation. you can hear it in the voices of the senators. one after another, they are asking for explanations. they keep saying yes, we supported. host: a member of mcchrystal's team who was president for celebration of mcchrystal's 33rd wedding anniversary said, "it was clearly off the record." aides made it very clear to michael that it was private time. back to the phones. savannah, georgia. sam on our line for republicans, you are on the "washington journal," and we are always on the record. caller: do you think we are in a police action or in a war and there is no sympathy for mcchrystal when these comments come out and he had shown poor judgment all along, but if we are not over there to win, then

we need would -- need to withdraw. and what is winning in your opinion? >> winning is a word that you do not hear around the pentagon any more. the word is "success." success for the mission. as i mentioned, there are no front lines. this is not a massive army on one side and another on the other and off they go here it is it a police action or a war? police action refers to something before my time. i will not try to define it, but before iraq started, people wondered if it was going to be nation-building. were we going in to turn a developing country into something more than it is, to set up a government do all these things, and that had become what counterinsurgency is. it is not looking for the enemy and fighting them or hunting and down or capturing them.

it is protecting the population and winning them over, and the way you win them over is by bringing in flour and building schools, all in the counterinsurgency menem -- manuel that general petraeus co- authored. there are other fears or debate about whether this is hybrid war, small war or big work. all in all, i think you ask any soldier and marine or sailor, they will tell you they are fighting a war. they think it is a war. there is no doubt about it. as for no sympathy for the general, i will add your comments to the pile. it seems to be a lot of that coming out. host: next up, gold hill, oregon, on our line for democrats. melinda, go ahead. caller: i have a question, although you just sort of answer did a bit when you said that that was before your time.

i'm just curious -- who funds stars and stripes? how do you survive economically? -- guest: we tried, like every other newspaper right now. "stars and stripes" is a product of the defense department, editorially independent, mandated by an act in congress, by law, which means some of our money comes from defense department stipend, which i'm told helps pay for things like the high cost of delivering papers to for an operating basis in far off lands like afghanistan and kyrgistan and even into haiti. there's an air base in think we have 500 copies a day to go to that base. but we also have passed subscribers and ad sales, like any other newspapers. employees like myself are considered not appropriated fund employees, which is a fancy way of saying that taxpayer money in a way. it is a little above my pay

grade how all the money works. that is my understanding of it. host: let's go to the heart of the matter -- are you an employee of the government? guest: i am. i am a dod civilian. in flesh that independent mandate from congress wholeheartedly. i work for other media agencies and newspapers, and it is no different. i am encouraged to do my job and report as effectively and honestly and doggedly as i can, and that is what i tried to do every day. host: 7 baron of "stars and stripes," thank you so much for being here. we're going to take a short break, and when we come back, a discussion on global attitudes towards united states and the obama administration with richard white. we will be right back. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> this weekend on c-span2 "book tv," de 1995 death penalty trial of willie mcgee. afterwards, jerry van dyke and his guides been 44 days in a dark cell after being captured by taliban fighters. he writes about it in "captain." veteran wall street reporter sarah ellison with an inside account of rupert murdoch's purchase of the "wall street journal." funny entire weekend schedule at booktv.org. join us at twitter. more than 30,000 u.s. already have. >> starting monday, what's the conservation here -- confirmation hearing for supreme

court nominee elena kagan. to learn more about the nation's highest court, read c-span's latest book -- "the supreme court: candid conversation with all of the justices active and retired, providing a unique insight about the court. available in hhrdcover 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 america's cable companies. "washington journal" continues. host: richard white is a sissy director of the few global attitudes project, which has just completed the research project -- assistant director. welcome to the program. tell us a little bit about this study. how was it done? who did you talk to?

how many countries were involved? >> -- guest: we interviewed people in 22 countries around the world, and we interviewed more than 22,000 people for this survey. in each country, we work with global researchers who speak the right languages, really know how to conduct this research in each of these countries. host: what is the purpose of a project like this? project like this? this information is obviously going to go everywhere, but who benefit the most from having this and -- information out there? guest: we are nonprofit organization, our charge is to do research and put it out in the public domain. we hope that policy makers, journalists, academics, and just interested citizens will all pay attention to this information and make use of it. host: throughout the morning, we will be looking at a couple of different charts and graphs that come from the particular study. we want to let viewers know that if they want to go and see the report in its entirety, that they can find it on the website

at pewglobal.org/database. once the information is assembled, how do you go about calling it and putting it together in a way that people can read and understand it? >> that is a big part of what we do. we collect a lot of data, and we have to sort through it all and see what the story is. what we do is we look at the information across all these countries and right up reports that we hope our easy for people to understand. we do not use a lot of jargon. these are not academic studies, but hopefully, people in the media, interested citizens can all make use of it as well as policy makers. it is a bit of a struggle at times to make sense of all of this data, but hopefully, we do it pretty good job. host: the first chart we want to look at, the question was do you have a favorable or unfavorable view of the american people. as you can see, our viewers can

see, ranking at the top, kenya, 91% favorable. united states, 86% favorable. working its way all the way down to turkey that only had a 16% favorable rating of the american people. people. tell us a little bit about that in particular. how can you can have a 5% better reading of the american people and people that you talk to in the united states. guest: across the board, across all these questions we asked, kenyans have a very positive attitude toward the u.s.. part of that is due to president obama's personal connection. kenyans are very aware of the fact that his father was canyon. he is very popular there. that helps america's overall image. -palthough in truth, the u.s. gt pretty good ratings during the bush years as well as well as in sub-saharan africa. it was the one region of the world where america's image did not decline all that much during

the bush years. he was relatively popular there, and america's image did not really suffer there in the way it did in many other regions. >> i want to show if we can do a side-by-side comparison. this on the left with the numbers we talked about a originally, and on the right, you have another question -- do you have a favorable or unfavorable view of the u.s.? what is the difference between a view of the u.s. and in view of the american people? >> those questions tend to be correlated with each other at a pretty high degree. people who say they have a positive image of the country tend to have a positive image of the american people, but there are some exceptions, particular during the bush years. what you saw in western europe, for example was that western europeans continue to have a generally positive view of the american people, but their views of the country were pretty -. i think that was in large part reaction to opposition to american foreign policy in that

era. foreign policy was very unpopular in western europe. that brought down ratings for the country but did not really damage how people felt about the american people. american people. even today, you will see some gaps in a few country like in the arab world where the american people often get more positive ratings than the nation as a whole. host: when you ask the question as to the have a favorable unfavorable iew of the u.s., is this talking about the government particularly or something larger? something larger? >> it is a question that simply asks about the united states. we do not make a particular to the government. obviously, how people feel about the government may influence how we answer the question, but we make it very straight forward. host: we are talking with which it wike of the -- with richard wike of the pew global attitudes project.

as we said before, you can also send us an e-mail or twitter message. our first call comes from claremont, florida, on our line for republicans. donald, you are on the "washington journal." go ahead. caller: i feel that the world can trust the american people, but i do not feel they can trust the american president. until we get him straighten out and go the american way, we're going to continue have more problems. thank you. guest: in terms of how people around the world feel about the current american president, in general, president obama gets pretty good reviews around much of the world, particularly if you look at western europe. his numbers are just incredibly high. last year, for example, 93% of germans said they had confidence in president obama to do the right thing in world affairs. i think we expected that number to drop substantially this year

just because it is so high, but in fact, in this year's survey, 90% still say they have confidence in president obama in germany, and that is true in much of europe as well. overall, you get very good reviews in much of the world, but there are places where he faces challenges, too, in terms of perceptions of him and his leadership. you see this especially in predominantly in muslim countries where views of the u.s. our overall - and views of president obama and his leadership remain negative, too, and i think what we see there is a bad year after the president's cairo address, the u.s. faces continuing image challenges. host: next up, lincoln city, oklahoma, on our line for democrats. oregon, i'm sorry about that. caller: i was just wondering -- i did not know if the question is what they think of americans

or obama exactly, but what are we doing to perpetuate the view of americans across the world? what kind of -- do they just see american tv? i their programs that bring americans into other -- you know, countries that give them a better view of us? a lot of times, i do not have a good view of americans, right? i see us as nationalistic, like we do not understand other countries. we put ourselves first, and it seems a lot of other countries -- they live in close quarters with each other, like in europe, and they seem a lot more open to other cultures than we do. i do not know what the question is, but can you just address any of that? \ guest: the u.s. government

engages in strategic deployment efforts in order to enhance america's image abroad. things like exchange programs for students or professors. when we have seen in the past is the more people interact with american people who have visited or who have family connections to the united states, those people do tend to have a more positive view of the united states. that would be some evidence that maybe there is some logic in doing these types of efforts. you also mentioned american tv. one of the things we looked at in the past is how people around the world view american popular culture, american television, movies, american music, and it actually tends to be a strong suit of america's image in many countries. people even in western europe, for example, say they like american popular culture, even though, i think, over time a lot of european intellectuals have said they are not very fond of

american popular culture. in many parts of the world, those types of elements of america's image of something that is a strong suit. host: another question posed in this study -- "does the u.s. consider your country's interests?" at the top, india. 83% saying a great deal or paramount of them believe that the u.s. considers their interests. a great deal or fair amount. china, 76%. united states, 76%. then it works its way down all the way to turkey, 9%, just below egypt, 15%, and argentina, 16%. toledo, ohio, on our line for independents. welcome. caller: i notice that that can be with the late 1960's.

i was living in germany for about three years, and some of the things that were going on in the united states -- the french, the germans, and the u.k. residents seem to have a greater knowledge of what was happening in our country than our own military. i know that today, that has changed with all of the new media that we have, but do you find that perhaps some of the negativity that comes from our own political infighting has any type of influence on how people around the world think about our country? in particular, i'm thinking about things like what congressman joe wilson said to the president during his state of the union address and things like that. host: richard wike of the pew

global attitudes project. >> that is not something we're necessarily look at in our survey, divisive politics in the u.s. and how that might affect our image. it is interesting how much people around the world to know about the u.s. and its policies. for example, for the most part around the world, people have very little problem offering an opinion of president obama. people are familiar with him. they know what they think of him. we ask about other world leaders, chancellor merkel of germany, french president so cozy -- sarkozy, we did very high numbers of people do not know enough about them. but when we get to u.s. leadership, this is something people follow very closely and have strong opinions one way on the other about it. caller: you sort of glossed over

who your partners were, gathering the information for this study that you did, so i'm curious about how you were able to find these people, who they were, if you can say, and how you are able to keep the information objective, especially in muslim countries that are hot spots. how were you able to gather this, and how did you deflect people that got your information for you. guest: sure, sure. we work hard to try to identify the best research organizations in these countries that have a lot of experience doing this kind of work. there has been increasing survey research down all around the world. there are very few countries now where there's not a well- developed survey research industry. a lot of this comes out of the need for market research around the world, and there is also -- there are a number of studies that look at social views, political views, economics, etc., so there is a pretty well

as seven research industry in many parts of the world, and what we do is look for the most professional firm in each of these countries that really does know how to approach people, talk to people, full and a free sample in each of these places and make sure that we get accurate data. that is something we look at very carefully and work hand in hand with those organizations to make sure we get good data. host: philadelphia, on our line for republicans, wayne, your next. caller: nice to speak to you. it really dovetails my question with the previous caller. i was just wondering about your sampling methods and how you keep that evenhanded. is it more towards the intellectuals in these various countries or the common foe -- folk, poor, wealthy, educated, uneducated, and how that sampling goes on. >> guest: that is a very good

question. we work hard to get nationally represented samples. we're interviewing the general public, and essentially, the demographic characteristics of our sample should look like the demographic characteristics of the country. in almost all cases, they do. there are a few places in this year's survey, for example -- china, india, pakistan, where there are parts of the country that for logistical or other reasons we just cannot get to. in the places, the samples are disproportionately urban. pakistan, for example. there are security concerns in many parts of pakistan and parts of the country we can get to, although in truth, we cover 80% of pakistan, even with the security concerns. we work very hard to get a broad sample of the population that looks like it should in terms of its demographics, etc. host: again, if you would like to see an interactive global map database of the nation's attitudes toward the u.s., you can go to their website,

pewglobal.org/database. tell us about how this works. if you actually click on the countries, different information comes up about the research coming from that country. >> that is right. if you are interested in one particular country, you can go to our website and pull up a range of questions just for that country, or if you want to compare countries across a given question, you can do that as well. we have maps, charts, so we tried to make it easy for people to access the data in a way that is friendly and where they want to do it. host: back to the phones, seattle, washington, attorney on our line for independence. -- ernie. h caller: my question is around how the survey got started. what prompted the need for this type of information?

how is it used? in other words, among -- one of the lower rating countries i noted with turkey. does that mean you go out and do a popularity campaign or do something to try to raise those percentages? who uses this information? guest: we are funded largely by the pew charitable trusts. the project was started back in -- about a decade ago. originally, the idea was to look at globalization, but after 9/11, a host of other issues on the agenda as well, so we have done a lot every time on america's image of perceptions of extremism in predominantly muslim countries, on the globalization, and lots of other topics. in terms of how the information is used, we do not use the information to make policy recommendations. we do not go around saying that "based on our data, the government should do xyz to improve its image," but we hope

the information is helpful to those in government or elsewhere who are interested in these topics. they can look at our data from turkey or elsewhere and say, "here is where our image is at, here is one of our strong points, here's where we face similar challenges," and they can take it from there, and hopefully, it is useful to them. host: you can read more about the survey in this current edition of "national journal." the survey shows that the american president is still popular among the world, even if some of his policies are not, and china is increasingly seen as the economic superpower. back to the phones, chicago on our line for republicans. moses, go ahead. caller: i think there is maybe two different views from two different kinds of people. the global list would like the united states, but the people of

the country that they represent i think would have a different opinion, only because 120 different countries around the world, like we went into iraq, there was evidence that they knew that there was no weapons of mass destruction. the incarcerated people, take them into places like guantanamo bay without any kind of court or any kind of justice, so i think that from one side, people that are global list, that like the idea of the countries coming together and the united states being somebody that actually is having policies that are creating that global is the kind of ideas, they would like the united states, the actual

citizens of this country's treat us as a big threat, the united states, so i would like to see what your opinion would be. host: i think the caller mentioned in number of things, certainly challenges for america's image of the last few years, things like guantanamo, iraq. those were issues that brought down ratings for the u.s. throughout much of the world, including in europe, brought down ratings for the u.s. in predominantly muslim countries as well, and what we have seen is that since president obama took office, america's image as recounted in many ways and in many parts of the world. there has been more positive ratings for american foreign policy in many countries, but there has not been as much change in muslim countries were concerned about american foreign policy remain, the war in afghanistan, u.s. anti-terrorism efforts, things like that largely unpopular, and there continue to be some real continue to be some real concerns about american power.

for example, in this phenomena muslim countries that the survey, majorities tend to tell us that they think the u.s. could be a military threat to their country some day. even in a place like turkey, which is a longtime ally of the united states, there are real concerns about american power in some of these muslim nations. host: the numbers for this particular question, should the u.s. and nato keep troops in afghanistan or remove them -- again, 57% positive rating from kenya, supporting keeping those troops in afghanistan, but then, as you said, down to the bottom of the survey, egypt, 15%, jordan, 13%, turkey, 11%, and right next door to afghanistan, 7%. pennsylvania, sam, our line for republicans. go ahead.

caller: good morning. i was born in syria. i came here in 1975. i was 18 years old, and he spent 15 years traveling around the world through my job. i find the biggest issue that they faced when i met people all around the world, especially in the middle east and the far east -- their perception of the united states is affected heavily by misinformation. many people do not understand our way of life. the generosity of the system that we have here, and the system as a whole. the biggest effect on their perception -- for example "sex and the city close " was the most popular show in the middle east and the far east, and that is what they perceive the american way of living is. they love america because it is the land of plenty, but they

perceive it as negatively because primarily, due to, really, and incorrect politics or oppression and lack of proper politics on their country's. our perception is, especially our politics, it carries very loudly when our internal government and policies are against our government or president. so it is during the bush time, the bush war, and people going against the government so heavily have tremendously affected the perception in the world by thanking internal people calling our government as biased or untruthful. host: we're going to leave it there. guest: you mentioned the role of

misinformation. certainly, that is something the public diplomacy efforts try to deal with. they recognize that there is misinformation out there and try to counter it. one other point i would make about that when we talk about the muslim world is that, of course, it is not monolithic. there are parts of the muslim world where the u.s. get free positive reviews. if you look at the sunni muslim community in lebanon, for example, 74% have a positive view of the u.s.. 70% haven't positive opinion. the u.s. gets good marks in indonesia as well. part of that is present in obama's appeal in -- appeal. innovations are aware that he live there as a child, and he is popular there. a decade ago, america was

actually a relatively popular in indonesia as well, before the iraq war brought down ratings there. i think it is an important caveat to note that yes, it is true that america does face some real challenges in terms of perceptions in predominantly muslim countries, but there are some exceptions to that as well. host: joan on our line for democrats out of tennessee. go ahead. caller: i would like to say one thing first, okay? on the people that do not like the united states, tell them to put their hand in their pocket and quit asking for money to take care of the things that they could have done themselves. another thing, when karzai gets up off of his bottom and starts taking care of his own people, then the war will be over because god says, we take care of our own and we pray for our leaders, with people seem to forget, and i do not care about the money as much as i do about what is doing to generations

coming up. the thing about it is we have always done for ourselves. i'm in my 80's, close to my 90's, and i watched politics, the biggest part of my life, and i have never found any person that gets up there and says okay, we will do this and do that. they cannot do everything that they promised to do because the other party will not work with them. even my group of people, common people, they do not like their president or any of their leaders. i vote democrat and republican vote, which ever i think is the smallest lyre of the bunch, and i have not found one yet. host: moving on to our international line with a call from fiji. alex, go ahead. caller: actions speak louder than words. my concern is that -- this is a

question also to richard. when you see the survey, people do not hate americans or america here they hate the actions by the politicians. the recent the decisions that cause wars, but my question to richard -- those surveys done by people in this country's, those people are paid by your group or some groups, and i guarantee you that they will not come back and say negative things. so the truth is really lost here. those countries you point out, 50%, 60%, it is closer to zero. it is just unbelievable. this is putting a band-aid on the issue. maybe sometimes propaganda because you have to really tell the truth so the world can go on and resolve this issue. it is disappointing that to hear

the media throwing all these numbers around. host: we leave it there. alex, calling from fiji. guest: if i understood the color correctly, suggesting that people might be unwilling to give us negative feedback, i think when you look at our survey over the years, that is hardly the case. we have plenty of negative results in terms of use of the u.s. and some views of other things. one point the caller did make about the role of action, i do think that is important when you are talking about what are talking about what influences how people around the world perceive the united states. there are a lot of debates that go on when people talk a lot about things like anti- americanism. when people do not like us for who they are -- we are and what we do. it is probably some of both. what we have seen in our research effort is that it has a lot to do with what we do, actions we take on the world stage, our policy. host: "does the u.s. consider your country's interests" is the chart will looking at now.

unfortunately, no numbers for fiji, but we will keep looking at those numbers as we take this next call encinas, california on our line from democrats. i'm sorry, the line for independents. caller: i just wanted to speak with the guest. i have worked overseas for many years in 12 different countries, and one of the things i noticed working with the people of the different countries, the people of the countries, when we work side-by-side, their view of america and everybody who worked with, is amazing and is very, very tolerant, to say the least. in fact, they feel that we have probably one of the best abilities to work together in an open environment with other countries, but what they seem to always tell me is that the way

we are perceived to media, whether it be their own or our own really shows america in the light that they do not think can really be true. i wonder what your foundation things of those types of aspects and what we can do about that. guest: you raise a very good point in certainly help people or the media that people can some can -- consumed can influence their views. in truth, but it is something we have not looked at a lot, we have not looked at where people get information, from what channels, things like that to see how that influences how they feel about the u.s., but i think that is an area where it would make a lot of sense for us to look into in the future because it is certainly a good hypothesis. host: how many questions in the survey? guest: it varies from country to country. country. all total, close to 100 questions depending on where you are. in most countries, we do face-

to-face interviews. in the u.s., japan, we did telephone service, and you cannot ask as many questions because people hang up the phone on you. when you do the in-person interviews, you have more time and can ask more things. caller: yes, sir, i'm calling because i was wondering if the information was affected by personal or economic factors. for example, in asia, we have a significant impact on their economics, of a country like china. a lot of trade is going on, whereas other countries that we are not economically tied, did that affect your data? guest: obviously, the u.s. does have deep economic connections to many of the countries we

survey. one thing we ask in this year's poll that was interesting was we ask people who thought their country's economy was in bad shape and who they blame for this -- their governments, blank -- banks and financial institutions, the u.s., and what we see is that for the most part, people tend to blame their own governments for their core economic circumstances. after that, they tend to blame banks and financial institutions. in only a small minority in most cases plan the u.s.. i think it is interesting that even in countries where the u.s. is very unpopular, when you ask people about their economic troubles, they do not blame the u.s. for that. instead, they tend to hold their own governments accountable. caller: in the survey with a question was do you have a favorable or unfavorable view of the american people, mexico came in a 49%, near the lower third of the survey, and republic

first bites this twitter message and asked a question, "why does mexico dislike us? mexico dislike us? what they like us more if we secured for this, deported alleles and just shoot drug cartel people?" guest: mexico's an interesting country in this survey. we found that overall attitudes toward the u.s. were a little bit more - this year than last year, and that is due at least in part to a backlash against the arizona immigration law. we did some surveys before the law was enacted and some after it was enacted, and what we found is that before the law, 62% of mexicans had a favorable view of the u.s.. after the passage, 44% had a positive view, so that is a pretty steep decline in a very short period of time, so it is clear that some of the increased negativity we see is aimed at the u.s. and mexico as reaction to that law. host: next up, wisconsin on our line for democrats.

caller: thanks for taking my call. i just wanted to make a statement. you mentioned that in africa our president brought a lot of positive action from other people in africa because of some things about his inheritance, things about his inheritance, about his being from there, his father, but you forgot to mention that president bush -- i'm sure that hast you over, but president bush was also very popular in africa. he did a lot for that country and also for the entire continent, and he is still very popular there. i think that should be no, but i did want to note that president bush did a lot of work. guest: i think you are right. i thought i mentioned that earlier, but i may have not. it is true.

as you say, president bush was fairly popular in much of africa. the u.s. remained fairly popular in much of africa throughout his presidency. was one place in a world where america's image really did not decline significantly throughout the bush years. president obama is even more popular in some places, but you are absolutely right that president bush got some good marks while he was in africa, too. caller: good morning. i believe that a lot of the responses to polls' questions are determined by what questions are raised and how they are worried. worried. for example, i think when you are questioning people about their attitude towards the united states, you should ask two questions -- one, if you could not stay in your own country, where would you like to go? and two, a subdivision of all

people you ask, ask people who have relatives or friends who have lived in the united states. their response to that question. thank you. guest: the caller is right that responses to survey questions are sensitive to the wording of those questions. that is why we try to be transparent about what we do. we put all of the question wording in our reports say you can look and see if you think we did a good job of asking the questions. we have in the past actually ask people something like, if you were talking to a young person, making a recommendation to them about where they should go and live a good life, where we tell them to go, and it is surprising that maybe the u.s. does not get quite as high numbers on that question as we would think it would. this is a few years ago, and maybe we need to update the

trend, but we found a lot of people were telling us that they would tell the young person to go to australia or canada and some saying the u.s., but many other countries were actually ranked above the u.s. in that question. to the caller was the other point, that is something we have done. connections to the u.s., whether they have relatives in the u.s., having traveled to the u.s. those folks that do have those kinds of connections to the country do tend to give the u.s. more positive reviews. host: next up is hawaii. go ahead. caller: good morning. actually, i live here in hawaii, but i'm from micronesia. i do not know if you have heard of it. we are called the federated

states of micronesia. we are protected under the united states flag, and me, as a person, we send allies to the united states. as i watched the news every day from msnbc, and i watched the division that the u.s. has. it is divided. we do not know how to react or how to -- we go about believing which to believe. we're talking about the burgers, talking about tea parties, talking about all those other organizations that make america what it is, so which one is which? because after world war ii, the marshall islands, you know, we

were used as a place to place the atomic bomb -- host: we are going to leave it there. thanks very much for your call. in the survey, is there information that talks about or ask questions of the people you are surveying, their opinions on particular political groups or political organizations, parties inside the united states, or is it just the united states as a whole that you are asking them about? host: we have not typically asked about parties or groups within the u.s.. we typically ask about american foreign policy, the u.s. as a whole, those types of things. we have talked about popular culture. we also find that things like american science and technology -- that is very popular. american-style business

practices are popular in many parts of the world, including parts of the middle east where the u.s. does not get very positive ratings overall. we look at different elements of america's image, but we do not typically look at how they feel about the tea party movement or some sort of political group within the united states. our last call from this segment comes from california on our line for independents. caller: good morning to you. i want to take this a little different direction. i appreciate the survey, and i'm going to go online and look at it and get a little more informed on it because i think the truth should be out there. i generally more have a comment to say that we need to be a leader, basically, in this country, and that is what the whole world is looking for when you go to these countries and you give them service. they all want whole. they all want a better way of life. life.