date is correct, on 9 november, you gave a speech at queen mary college, london, in which you, in a slightly more round-about way, more or less made the same point about iraq. you said specifically that the interpretation by british moslems of uk foreign policy as anti-muslim in particular related to the uk's involvement in iraq and afghanistan. the foreign affairs committee of the house of commons in 2004 concluded that war in iraq had possibly made terrorist attacks against british nationals and british interests more likely in the short-term. now, how significant in your view a factor was iraq compared

with other situations that were used by extremists, terrorists, to justify their actions? >> i think it is highly significant and the jic assessments that i have reminded myself of say that. by 2003/2004 we were receiving an increasing number of leads to terrorist activity from within the uk and the -- our involvement in iraq radicalized, for want of a better word, a whole generation of young people, some british citizens -- not a whol generation, a f among a

generation -- who were -- saw our involvement in iraq, on top of our involvement in afghanistan, as being an attack on islam. so although the media has suggested that in july 2005, the attacks on 7/7, that we were surprised these were british citizens, that is not the case because really there had been an increasing number of british-born individuals living and brought up in this country, some of them third generation, who were attracted to the ideology of osama bin laden and saw the west's activities in iraq and afghanistan as threatening their fellow religionists and the muslim world.

so it undoubtedly increased the threat and by 2004 we were pretty well swamped -- that's possib an exaggeration -- but we were very overburdened by intelligence on a broad scale that was pretty well more than we could cope with in terms of threats to plot -- leads to threat plots and thing that we needed to pursue. of course, also we were dealing at that time with a number of young british citizens who went to iraq to fight not with her majesty's forces but against them, and i can't now recall the numbers but it was quite a few. i think we thought about 70/80, something like that. i could check that. i can't remember exactly. but we became aware of this. obviously these individuals were not travelling to iraq

directly but we became aware in iraq, where people were being taken into custody who were british citizens who had travelled there. so it became a strong motivation and in my speech in queen mary college i said this publicly. i think it is worth saying that i needed the approval of the home secretary to make any public speeches and he cleared the text with me, and john reid and i discussed that part of it and he agreed that i should say that in public. >> so you're saying you had evidence that the iraq conflict, our involvement in the iraq conflict was a motivation, involved in the attacks in london in july 2005, who were

going to afghanistan to fight. were there other attacks or planned attacks in which you had evidence that iraq was a motivating factor? >> yes. i mean, if you take the video wills that were retrieved on various occasions after various plots, where terrorists who had expected to be dead explained why they had done what they did, it features. it is part of what we call the single narrative, which is the view of some that everything the west was doing was part of a fundamental hostility to the muslim world and to islam, of which manifestations were iraq and afghanistan, but which pre- dated those because it pre- date 9/11, but it was enhanced by those events.

>> so was support for an iraqi jihad, expressed like that, part of this single narrative spanning different extremist islamic groups? >> in some quarters, yes, and arguably we gave osama bin laden his iraqi jihad, so that he was able to move into iraq in a way that he wasn't before. >> the madrid bombing of march 11, 2004 appears to have been related to iraq, a consequence of iraq -- perhaps an attempt to put pressure on the spanish government to withdraw its forces from iraq. were there other attacks that specific political effect,

particularly to put pressure on governments to withdraw from iraq? >> so many plots, i wrote them down to remind myself because it is three years since i retired. i think we felt that madrid was significant because of its timing. i think that there are a number of other plots which may have had that political motive ultimately but i can't immediately recall one that we were as confident as that about. >> could i just ask you, you said the timing of the madrid plot. is that because there was a new spanish government recently elected? >> no, it was during the elections. >> it was on the eve of the election. >> it was related to that political situation? >> well, it looked likely to be. and of course the spanish vernment, if you recall, rushed to attribute it to eta. i have some sympathy with my spanish colleagues because

whenever an attack happened or was about to happen, we were pressed very quickly to say who had done it and we don't often know. evidenceu didn't have of an attack of that very specific kind being planned in britain to put pressure on the british government relating to an election or political events here, if you can recall? >> no. i mean, we were always concerned about terrorism in the run-up to elections but, no, not dictly. >> now, some witnesses that we have heard have argued that it was necessary or right to remove saddam's regime in order to forestall a fusion of weapons of mass destruction and international terrorism which

was, in their view, expected to come from iraq at some point after the war, beyond 2003. in your view did the toppling of saddam hussein eliminate a threat of rrorism from his regime? >> it eliminated the threat of terrorism from his direct regime. it didn't eliminate the threat of terrorism using unconventional methods of chemical, bacteriological or indeed radioactive. so using weapons of mass destruction as a terrorist weapon is still a potential threat. after all osama bin laden said it was the duty of members of his organization or those in sympathy with it to acquire and use these weapons.

it is interesting that we have -- such efforts as we have seen to get access to these sort of materials have been low-grade and not very professional, but it must be a cause of concern to my former colleagues that at some stage terrorist groups will resort to these methods. in that respect i don't tnk toppling saddam hussein is germane to the long-term ambitions of some terrorist groups to use them. >> from what you said earlier about the relatively small amount of resource that your service was required to give before 2003 to monitoring iraqi intelligence and potentially terrorist activities in this country, and your very large focus on al-qaeda, there is an indication that you did not at that time see saddam hussein's regime as an important sponsor of terrorism directed at least

against this country. >> that is correct. >> does it therefore follow from that that you don't subscribe to the theory that at some point in the future he would probably have brought together international terrorism and weapons of mass destruction in a threat to western interests? >> it is a hypothetical theory. concerninly wasn't of in either the short term orhe medium term to my colleagues and myself. >> overall, looking at the sort of two, three, four years after the conflict began in 2003 -- and you have referred to the consistency of jic reports on this -- to what extent did the conflict in iraq exacerbate the overall threat that your service and your fellow services were having to deal with from international terrorism?

>> substantially. >> and is this an impact that has continued beyond the time that you were director general, which was up to, i think, 2007? was it a long-term impact? i can't answer that because when i signed the official secrets act in april 2007 i had seen no secret intelligence until i reminded myself in preparation for appearing in front of you today. so you would have to ask my successor that. but it looks to me as though -- from reading the press, on which we now have to rely, with al the drawbacks of that -- that there is a continuing problem, the threat is still severe, as i read it, and it has mutated and developed in different ways. but i cannot sak with authority on the threat today. >> you speak with the authority of a memr of the upper house of the legislature -- >> which has no access to

intelligence. >> and i'm sure you are well informed on current affairs. the final question from me -- once the decision had been taken to invade and the campaign had happened, were there actions that the coalition, in your view at the time, could have taken to mitigate the way in which the conflict was becoming a motivator for islamic extremists around the world? were there things that it could have done or should have done to mitigate that effect? >> this is speculative but i think that planning for the peace, there is plenty of evidence that that wasn't done sufficiently or certainly not done by the americans. and i think that after the military success it was

critically important to try and ensure that the lives of ordinary iraqis improved in substantial ways with the toppling of this dictator. the insistence, for example, of the americans on sacking, you know, much of the civil service and the army, the ba'athists, was an error. others much better informed than me will have given yo evidence on that. i was asked on a visit to the united states on other matters to talk to paul wolfowitz about this issue and to seek to persuade him that it was not sensible to do this. but if it had been possible to resolve things in a more constructive and better way than it turned out to be, it is possible the degree to which threats arose might have faded.

but this again is hypothetical. the fact is that the threat increased, was exacerbated by iraq, and caused not only my service but many other services round the world to have to have a major increase in resources to deal with it. in 2003, having had an upgrade in resources after 9/11, which my predecessor agreed, and another small one in -- another one, not small actually, in 2002, by 2003 i found it necessary to ask the prime minister for a doubling of our budget. this is unheard of, it's certainly unheard of today, but he and the treasury and the chancellor accepted that because i was able to demonstrate the scale of the problem that we were confronted by.

>> a doubling of your budget because of iraq? >> well, the two are connected. the upsurge in leads in the uk was beginning -- was happening during the summer of 2002, getting increased during 2003 and really took off in 2004, and we got the money agreed in the autumn of 2003. so we were faced with the difficulty of doing a major expansion of the service, recruiting many more people, moving into new offices round the united kingdom, opening eight new offices, overhauling much of what we did, rethinking the way we did things, because there wasn't any point in becoming twice as big and doing twice as much. we wanted to do five times as much. that was necessary because the amount of material and leads we had which we did not have the resources, even with extensive police help, to pursue. so alongside the creation of jtac, the development by david

omand of the counter-terrorist strategy, we we going through a major change and expansion and dealing with the most over -- almost overwhelming amount of terrorist leads and terrorist plots that had had for many years. >> can you recall who asked you to see paul wolfowitz and when approximately? >> no, i am afraid i haven't. >> what year are we talking about? >> oh dear. i think -- no, i would have to check that. i don't know. >> and you don't remember who asked you to see him? >> it may have been the foreign office. you know, when people -- as director general, when i went to the united states, i sometimes was asked to do things for other departments. i think, if i recollect, at whatever stage it was, sort of almost any visitors to the united states were being asked

to press on this particular issue and i think i was just one many. and i was seeing him anyway. >> but you didn't convert him? >> not a hope. >> i think sir lawrence would like a follow-up question. >> yes, i would like just to go back to before the war. you were giving evidence, assessments of an increased ri of -qaeda and other jihadist reactions to a potential war in iraq. could you give us a sense of the difference between the sort of things you were anticipating and what you actually experienced? >> i think it is fair toour focd earlier on these issues involved, for example, members of algerian extremist groups, members of libyan extremist groups and others. we had had an operation to which david omand referred in

his evidence, which was a case in birmingham in 2000, where we retrieved and prevented the detonation of a large bomb. david omand said he thought that was related to al-qaeda. that was the case at the time i thought i retired. we now think, i gather from my colleagues, it probably wasn't. but those were british citizens of bangladeshi origin planning an attack, target unknown, disrupted, convicted -- one convicted. but certainly i think during 2003/200we realized that this was not, as it were, the focus -- the focus was not foreigners. the rising and increasing threat was a threat from british citizens. that was very different

scenario to, as it were, stopping people coming in. it was what has now become called home grown. >> but prior to the war you were still anticipating a severe threat, but more likely from algerian or libyan persons? >> more likely also from al- qaeda abroad. i mean, al-qaeda had not focused on the uk. it attacked us abroad in 2003 but it became clear that its ambition was to attack us in the united kingdom. so we had the heathrow plot, we had the canary wharf plot and so on. we had the shoe bomber, richard reid, we had the second shoe bomber, saajid badat, and we had a string of plots leading to convictions. it is not something i would have normally said in open session but when jacqui smith said it publicly, i think in

2008, that between 2001 and when she spoke there had been, i think she said, 16 substantial plots of which roughly 12 were stopped. 7/7 occurred, tragically. 21/7 would have occurred if they had been competent. it was not detected in advance. richard reid was not detected in advance. there were -- obviously there is a judgment here about what constitutes a substantial plot -- roughly a dozen which were stopped and of those, many did involve other countries and people in other countries, but in most of them british citizens predominated. >> as part othe war, your view was that a war in iraq would aggravate the threat from

whatever source to the united kingdom? >> yes. >> how did you communicate this view to the prime minister? >> it was communicated through the jic assessments, to which i fed in. >> there were jic assessments that warned of this threat. did you have any direct conversations yourself with the prime minister or other senior members of the government, particularly about this issue? >> i don't recall with the prime minister -- i did talk about it with the home secretary. >> did you feel that this particular aspect of the overall assessment about the pros and cons of going into iraq was taken sufficiently account of? >> i think this is a difficult question because -- i mean, at some stage you are going to ask me about lessons learned. the imperative of the government was to do this and the view was, i think, implicit

that if there was resulting terroris that would be dealt with in the medium term. so in a way it is a question of balancing the short and the medium term. additionally, you could say that even if terrorism increases, that shouldn't stop you doing what you believe, as the government believed, to be right. i saw it as my job to continue to say, as objectively as i could, what our judgment of the terrorist threat was. that judgment was the service's at the beginning of this period and then became the jtac judgment. and that's, looking back

through the papers, pretty consistent, as i think you agree. >> there wasn't any particular controversy amongst the intelligence agencies about that judgment? >> not that i recall, no. >> so are you confident then that there was no doubt in the governmen's mind that, as you say, weighing up all these different factors, which may not have been a determinant factor of whether to go to war or not, but the issue was there? >> i can't tell you to what extent senior ministers read the jic assessments i don't know the answer to that. i believe they did read them. but if they read them, they can have had no doubt. >> just a final question -- were there other issues unrelated to iraq in which you were able to talk directly to the prime minister? >> yes, i mean, i have -- the director general of the security service has the right in law to have direct access to the prime minister if he or she asks for it and i did see the prime minister regularly, usually in broad meetings with

others, and more later on in the period than at the beginning of the period you are considering. >> but there was not a one-to- one on this particular issue. >> no. >> thank you. >> you said a little while back, in answer to a question from sir roderic lyne, that in your judgment the effect of the invasion of iraq was to substantially increasehow far i- evidence-based judgment and how far is it a broad assessment? and the other is -- so many other forces are at work, particularly inverseas theaters -- there is the middle east issue in the round, there is pakistan, there is afghanistan, there is somalia, there is yemen -- where does iraq fit into that picture as a driver for an increase in terroristhreat to the uk and so on?

>> i think we canroduce evidence because of numerical evidence of the number of plots, the number of leads, the number of people identified, and the correlation of that to iraq and statements of people as to why they were involved, the discussions between them as to what they were doing. so i think the answer to your first question -- yes. the answer to your second -- it would be wrong to suggest that this is uk-centric. we were anxious -- i mean, again, people believe that yemen has just come on to the radar. yemen was a real concern back in -- somalia, all these other places -- back at the millennium and iraq is not the only issue which has motivated terrorists in this area. it pre-dates iraq. if we get -- it post-dates iraq. but what iraq did waproduce a

fresh impetus of people prepared to engage in terrorism and i think that, if you asked me to produce evidence, i could produce that. >> given the interaction between terrorism and the counter-terrorism policies of the government on the one hand and the iraq situation both before, during and after the invasion itself, how were the two high-level policy areas brought together in government in your time? >> well, they weren't at the beginning. i mean, david omand wrote contest with input from all of us, i think it was sort of 2002/2003. it wasn't actually published of course until 2006 and i would suggest it didn't really begin to have a substantial effect until probably 2005. so therefore at the stage that the government was decidin to take military action we had a pretty embryonic counter- terrorist policy and there

wasn't a correlation between that and the iraq decisions. later on, the counter-terrorist policy encouraged in policy- making the thinking of the implications of actions more formally than had previously been the case. >> you spoke about jc in the beginning of your evidence this morning. jtac essentially are the tactical event level but did that drive a greater address to higher-level policy because of the stream of reporting from ac? >> i think i dispute that it was all taccal. quite a lot of it was -- the reports are of different levels for different audiences. the point about jtac is it serves people from military commanders in the field to investigators in the police and the security service to policy

development in the foreign office. so it has a range of different levels at which it reports and i think, as it has established itself and gained stature and to policy-making, again partly through the jic but also in its own right. >> thank you. this committee is fortunate in having twoistorians amongst its members and i would like to ask you a little bit about the pre-history, if you like, of the security service insofar as it might relate to iraq later. i suppose, is it right, the formative modern history of your service was the cold war and then irish terrorism? were there lessons/experience from either, but particularly perhaps from northern ireland, that came to be releva in addressing the iraq issue and counter-terrorism and -- >> yes, very much so.

i think the experience of northern ireland, the mistakes made there, the length of time it took for the agencies to work constructively together, the police, the ruc in those days, thermy, ourselves, the but it helps inform the we approached this of experience i think it is e relationship

with the police. the assistance that we have for moving the operation from intelligence investigative phase 2 and evidential arrest and prosecution stage. a mass of other useful experiences are approached and this counter terrorism threat. of course, it was not complete because of threats that were different with irish republican terrorists. the threat was from the rest of us. it was not global. it did not come from anywhere in the world. irish terrorists were not interested in mass casualty some of those do not prevail. another issue that is different

is that it had a recognizable structur the good intelligence, you could draw. you cannot do that in al qaeda. it is a much looser sucture. i found that our american colleagues certainly open to discussing with us the lessons learned. and thinking about how to approach these new threats. it was not precise at all. i think it gave us an advantage. a lot of these tricky issues have been resolved. >> thank you parikh i would like to ask about lessons in the iraq

years. first. >> just one little point of frdman. did i understand you to say tha you did not have a practice of blair? >> at all? any time, as i said earlier. cabinet room on a range of>> you didn't have the sort of meeting at which you could sit down with him once a q >> the things that might be on your mind and would be directly inputted to him and have a conversation about them. >> the main conversations were at least once a week.

>> i was the person had government. i discussed a range of issues. you have seen some of those papers. >> so if -- if messages were to get through to the staff about the -- about the expected impact of the iraq war, on terrorism, it would have come through your participation in joint meetings,

through the home secretary having talked to you. also through j.i.c. papers. those would be the channels. going back to the previous 10, 15 years to the extent thaw can. had it been the practice for the predecessors to have scheduled by lateral meetings with the prime minister. irregularly? >> i think -- i think -- some of my predecessors saw the home secretary very irregularly. i think i think that the -- sort of the bold answer to your question is that as in the last decade, the director general of the security service have seen ministers at all levels much more frequently and have participated much more broadly in whitehall meetings than once was the case. that's quite understandable

because -- in the days of -- of the cold war, i simplify, ministers were interested in the spies. it was when terrorism from al qaeda and its associates and sympathizers became a major political issue, then the row of direction and the participating of meetings became more extensive. >> would you have have a means of comparing the frequency of your -- of your direct access to the prime minister, would that -- with the heads of the other agencies? 12k3w4r50 him much more frequ en i did, for understandable reasons.

>> my recollection, i got two points i think. first is -- we were asked to put in some -- some low-grade and we

refused because we didn't think it was -- we didn't think it was reliable. because of nature of what we do we have it any. the second one really is the degree to which, if you're not an expert in the j.i.k., you need to -- your options of challenge are very limited. the people that knew about iraq and m.w.d. were foreign office ministry of defense, f.i.s., d.i.s. not my service. i have obviously thought whether my predecessor or i should have challenged more. i know that a degree of that -- a degree of that intelligence on which -- too much reliance is put has been withdrawn as -- is in any way unreliable. i think that -- i think that in

his evidence david aimen talked about this interestingly. i think the j.i.k. is essential in order to to assess, analyze and calibrate raw intelligence in a report that could go to ministers. it is not a good thing for raw unassessed intelligence to -- to be widely distributed because the wrong decisions can be made. it has a very important role. at the same time i think -- i think that -- the j.i.k. has something undeserved. people talk this hushed tones about the committee. it produces some excellent things. it produces some other things. reflecting pack with the wisdom

of hindsight, there was -- there was an adequate challenge. this has been gone into -- into in -- butler. david owe oman talked about it in group think and the psychology of everybody seeing it going one way. i think the important thing about it is that it should never, its judgments, must always recognize and others must recognize that the judgments may be fallible. looking back to the reports, i think it was pretty good on the terrorist threat actually. much less good on iraq. i think that -- that -- the j.i.c. did try to get back and look at its past judgments and the -- be self-critical. we've seen papers on that. you have seen papers on the extent to which some of the -- some thought it should be more self-critical. i don't know what it is like

today. it is always going to be an imperfect way of doing things. it is right to do it that way, the alternative is anarchy. >> the general question aridesing out of that which was looked at by the butler committee and we had evidence ourselves from a number of witnesses. that's the extent to which ministers who sometimes may be -- newly in office or newly in a relevant office -- can be expected to -- simply by the process to napped the nature and use of intelligence, its falability and its bitterness and how to use it. do you think there's scope and room for a more systematical ordered induction process for ministers when they need to rely on intelligence? >> certainly. i mean, this is not a new issue. throughout my career even when quite junior, i've been involved in helping ministers to

understand the inadequacies of intelligence. the degree that they can be adopted. then it is destructive. i think that -- for many years, the intelligence security agencies have sought to help incoming ministers, i'm sure it happened even now. understand the nature of intelligence, the fact that the source of information, it is erratic and complete. it needs to be first. all of those issues are very well documented. both before this inquiry and now. my recollection is there used to be some formal induction from ministers. not just about not leaving their papers on the train and looking after their laptop but some more formal discussion on how to understand and approach intelligence. and i think that -- that's a

valuable point. if it can be achieved. >> it has fallen away, it should be restored you say. >> yes. >> thank you. one question on direct lessons from the iraq experience. given the limited nature of security services direct involvement in iraq. are there lessons from the iraq experience that the security service has learned or taken up? >> i think -- the lesson. the lesson from the security services need to be pretty quick and responsive to changing circumstances. i think we were quick to persuade the government to meet this problem. but we, we didn't fully anticipate the degree to which

-- to which the administration was involved. i wrote to david bunkal, the home office in 2004 to say i hope you got this all right, if not i'm sure my colleagues can give it to you, in the wake of of operation crevis to say that this operation -- some issues of very real concern that the government needs to be thinking about and engagement of the muslim community and presenting the facts and brond range of things. i suppose i regret we didn't anticipate some of that but it wasn't necessarily foreseeable. >> thank you.

i wonder are there some more general reflections you would like to of at the end of the session? >> i think chairman, you really touched on them. it is -- the main one seemed to me to be -- the danger of overreliance on fragmentry intelligence. in inti -- in deciding whether or not to go to war. you need a high threshold to decide on that. there was very few that would argue that the intelligence was for the substantial enough on which to make that decision. i think -- i think -- the second point would be theed point yoy you picked up, the immediate imperative of the government, saddam hussein was a median increase of threat, and the two seemed together, in a way that i

suggest were not entirely --ed third one should be of course, by -- by focusing on iraq, we -- we ceased to focus on the al qaeda threat. with reduced the focus on the al qaeda threat in afghanistan. i think that was a long-term major, and strategic problem. the -- there were issues about structure. the cabinet office, which i think you covered. i think those are my main ones. >> well, with that then, i'll close this session. thanks to our witness. and we will resume at half past 11:00 when we take evidence from major general andy salmon. that ends this session.

"washington journal" continues. host: mark murray the political director for msnbc. thank you for joining us. peter hart quoted a washington journal/nbc ns poll as jetblue nation looking for the exit ramp s that a fair comparison to where the country is? >> est: absolutely. when you look into the actual numbers of our poll, as peter put it very well, i mean, not only are they angry right now, they have actually cussed out somebody on the intercom, grabbed a beer and slid down the emergency slide. 64% don't think that the economy has hit rock bottom just yet. 58% think the country is often on the wrong track. 60% think this congress is eeth are below average or one of the worst, president obama belo 50.

everyone is angry and we're looking ahead to the midterm elections coming up, that is not a good thing for any politician, particularly those fam familiar with the incumbent party. host: from peter hart and his republican group and bill mcintyre. republicans in congress, 24% favorable. 46% unfavorable. you look at the democratic party, 33% favorable,4% unfavorable. there isn't a good guy here at all. the democrats are seizing on the republican party's favorablerating, 24% as a sign that look, we are going to be in ok shape, that the public isn't just ready to hand over ke to the republican party just yet. whatwhen you look back in 1994, before republicans were able to take control of the congress, their numbers were much higher. that said, "the washington

post" made a good point saying when you look in july 2006, a few months before the november 2006 elections, democratic numbers weren't that good either. i don't think we know what is going to happen in november, but it's clear that both democrats and republicans aren't looked at favorably by the electorate right now. host: there is no reveling for democrats and as i quote from senator chris dodd, who is retiring at the end of this year, chairman of the senate banking committee, democrats don't know how to celebrate, senator dodd said. in the face of this unyielding opposition, this president and this congress stepped up to pass historic legislation for the good of the country. "the new york times" lists the legislation including a 787 billion stimulus package, tobacco regulation, credit consumer protection,

healthcare law, wall street regulation, tax cuts, credits and more. guest: this has been the most productive congress since the new deal when franklin roosevelt was president. however, when unemployment is 10%, no one looks at those achievements. they don't think things are going well. the b.p. spill in the gulf dampened opinions about how the country was doing. despite the legislative achievements, you look at that. that is something for congressional historians and president shall historians to look back 20, 30 years from now. right now, people aren't happy and that is clouding democrat successes right now. 32% of those questions say this congressional session was one of the worst, 28% below average, and republicans could see this increase in government spending and say that's exactly the problem. how do we pay for it with a

$14 trillion debt? guest: right. some of the people responding thing this congress spends way too much did but there are democrats saying we don't like the republican opposition, so independents, moderates, conservatives, no one is happy in congress right now and whether you're a republican or democrat, you need to basically fasten your chin straps for a midterm election. host: charlie rangel and maxine waters, democrat from california, she said this on friday here on capitol hl. >> are you concerned about the effect four party? >> there is a lot of speculation about whatever happens on either side of the aisle prior to an election. people are speculate hog is

going to win, how many seats will be lost. most of it is speculation. i think that each member must be concerned tha they are representing their constituents, that they are doing their best job that they can possibly do, and that they are not only producing the public policy that the american public expects us to produce, but they are honoring all of the laws and they are living by the rule of law. that's all i can tell you. i am not about to try and get into what is a benefit or lack of benefit for either party. i want to deal with the case. that's what i want to deal with. host: the comments of maxine waters. we saw this in 2006. does this case mirror what we saw four years ago? guest: congresswoman waters

was talking about a lot of speculation. she is right about the midterm. we don't know how it will play out. democrats really want to talk about the economy. they want to talk about jobs. this is a distraction for them. 2006, democrats promised to clean the ethical swath of washington and with republican misdeeds before the election, that wasn't helping. charlie rangel or maxine waters, this isn't a good story for democrats to tell. one irony is that the democrats taking control of congress tightened ethics poling that goes on on capitol hill. this is a consequence of that, by their own rules, and you're seeing what is coming with maxine waters and charlie rangel. there is the race issue. in the philadelphia enquirer, it is called allegations and racism, saying i don't think that the ethics charges against charlie rangel and maxine waters are racially motivated but as an

african-american of a certain age, i can not divorce my feelings about the history of racism in this country." is that a fair comparison? guest: there has been racism, but when you look a the actual charges on maxine waters or charlie rangel, i don't care if you're white, latino, african-american, that these are troubling allegations, particularly in the case of maxine waters where it is alleged that she intervened on behalf of a bank that her husband had hundreds of thousands of dollarin to make sure it received bailout money. that's a big charge. if she wants to get her side of the story out, i don't care wt your race is, that's a troubling charge. host: charlie rangel in new york this past thursdays a fry, a fund raiser at the plaza hotel and also speaking to reporters on friday saying he is going to speak about the ethics charges on friday and won't do so again.

here is congressman rangel. >> as of today, i will not be able to entertain any questions that any of you have concerning a hearing. i personally have to prepare to defend myself for my family, for my colleagues, for my community, and that's all i've been after, just an opportunity to say i came in for 40 years ago with dignity and there is no question in my mind that there will be no obstacles, politically, or in the newspapers that are going to stop me from cleang my name from these vile and vicious charges that are not even included in the reports of the ethics committee. >> mark murray, what is the strategy behind his comments? guest: i'm not certain. he is taking a defiant tone. he wants to be able to

defend himself. we saw him wednesday at his birthday celebration and saw the press conference on thursday. he is going to be going down swinging. the problem for democrats right now is that there is an epghtsics trial, it is not going to take place august. it could be good news for the democrats. a lot of americans are on vacation. .

host: join the conversation online at twitter. the tea party -- 30% favorable in the tea party, 31% unfavorable. >> it was the first time in the poll where the unfavorable number was higher than the favorable. early on when we measured this, the tea party ended up having a higher zoo unfavorable. demo

. . . . s went down. 12k34r50 ersation on zoo sunday. president in the gulf coast with one of his daughters. this photograph was taken from a white house pho , 12k34r50 laming bh'

spending that escalated under president obama. guest: no doubt he would be an issue in this election and maybe even in 2012. there are many republicans to criticize the democrats to say it is unfair for the democrats and president obama to continue

to argue that what they inherited and use bush is a ertid at past speeches, 1998 presidential convention were at george h. w. bush was the republican nominee continued to criticize the jimmy carter even though it had ended nine years earlier. in 1992, republicans continued to criticize the jimmy carter. we saw democrats criticized herbert hoover generations aer his presidency ended. my opinion is that all is fair in love, war, and politics. if those arguments are working, you will see the parties use those arguments host. host: robin joining us from austin, texas, independent line. good morning. caller: i come from the country of texas where some of us feel

like we are a race of texans, and i know some how the beltway is going to blame -- of course, it is not being racist to blame us because we are texan, but yes, they willlame us. i know definitely hillary did not give overwhelming support here. sorry. i know we are always at fault. host: i am not sure there is a point there. guest: i went to school at the university of texas in austin ani am from texas. there is a feeling in texas where president obama was earlier last week raising money for democrats. that is a ate that has been a favorable to them for a long time. even at his highest popularity, when he won in 2008, he only won 44% of the vote. it is a tough state for

democrats. there are lg-term demographic ises going on, but texas is always a fond place in my heart because that is where my roots are front. m. host: the front page of "the new york times" -- voters are mad ecause -- but it is no surprise to democrats. they are missing the element of surprise they had in 1994. guest: it's a great opint. point. i was in college at the time, and what we know and i was reading newspaper accounts of the congressional election is that everyone was caught by surprise. there were some people who had an inkling, but democrats were caught with their pants down. this time around, we knew the political environment for the last year and a half. democrats do after winning in

2006 and 2008, in many conservative areas, that they woulde due to lose seats. historically, the incumbent party almost always loses midterm congressional el seats. i think every poll shows democrats that need to raise a lot of money. and they have to be able to point out the issue differences with their party. we are seeing incumbent members, democrats, do that. the question is -- what will work? it will be such a tidal wave of anger that sweeps even the best- prepared democrats, or will some democrats have been smart messaging it be able to survive? host: more is available on msnbc.com. mike joining us from myrtle beach, south carolina. good morning. caller: i would like to ask you

to explain to the television audience of the bias of nbc news and the fat that msnbc and chris matthews and all those people are just rooting for obama and want him to succeed. this poll, your pulse have no credibility at all. this poll, conducted by peter hart and a democratic pollster, it has no credibility. to think that people actually believe what you people about on msnbc is just laughae. host: is there any survey or pulled you would believe? caller: i believe the gallup and rasmussen. anything with nbc news attached to it is just ridiculous, and everybody knows tt the ceof ge is in the pocket of obama.

nbc news is out every day campaigning for the obama administration. they neglect to report news that is worthy of reporting. and they put their bias and a spin on just every word they other. host: i will give mark murray a chance to respond. it is a survey conducted by peter hart, but it is also conducted by a republican strategist working side-by-side in conducting this survey for nb news and "the wall street journal". do you trust the "the wall street journal"? caller: i do trust them, but nbc news has their name on it first. host: i just wanted to get those facts out there so you understand. do you have a final point? caller: absolutely. i watched mark murray on msnbc

and i watch chuck todd, and it is laughable the way they report the news. i would like the audience to listen closely to how they report the news and what they neglect to report. it is not only what the report and this been a put on it, but what they neglected to report and how they choose not to report things that could be or would probably be damaging to this particular administration. guest: steve, i appreciate you're pointing out that a republican is part of the poll. there are a lot of people in the political community, the nbc-"the wall street journal" poll, one of the gold standards. the view or ended up making a point, and there are some people who talk about msnbc because of keith olbermann, that they are a

liberal-leaning their work. it is true that keith olbermann, some of the opinion people that are in prime time, come from the news from a certain point of view. i will speak for myself and truck todd. we try to be as fair as possible. we chat with republican sources. as journalists, what we have is our credibility. what i write or in aparances, we try to look at politics as fair as possible. we are talking about the midterm and firemen, and there is a very fair assessment on what will happen -- we are talking about the midrm and farm it. we tried to leave our opinions by the wayside. i tried to be as fair about the news, and we journalists have our own credibility to look at in we are just by our own work and that is what i would like to

be judged by. host: anity fair" -- he says washington i broken and he pointed to a hyperkinetic media environment driven by the web, and all of the opinions out there, and how this president may have a tougher challenge than any previous president because the way the media works today. guest: there is something about that. we are in a 24/7, or second by second mode of blogging, reporting on the news, and by that instant anasis, we are missing some of the bigger picture things going on in the country. it is constructed to look forward or backwards. we are sometimes so caught up in a moment of trying to do what is happening now. this is a huge story, and we will devote the next two weeks on it. whether it is something robert

gibbs says or something john boehner says. a week goes by, and everybody forgets about it. sometimes, we are not doing a good job of looking forward on the issues coming up. i do think that we as a journalist need to look at our work as technologies change and revolutionize what we do, it is important to step back and not only be fair in our own work but also fair in what we are doing and how we are covering the news -- it might impact people's views of american politics and american life. host: if it were not for msnbc, we will not get any real news. gail is joining us from the west river, maryland, on the democrats' line. caller: good morning. i think is funny to hear a southerner call from south carolina and bash nbc news when

the republicans have had their own propaganda channel going, which has been proven over and over to falsify the news, right down to showing the wrong videos for different tea partiers eveny events. in listening this morning, most of them this information i have heard has come from the right who have called in completely mixed up about theacts, such as bill clinton created more jobs and then reagan and both bushes put together. it is interesting to me that the media allowed a george bush to live the country into a washington art and created a scenario whereby if you did not by his allies, you are on the side of terrorists -- if you did

not buy his lies. you see this big to do made about acorn, which was prudent to be false. what concerns me the most, however is that people rely only on the news instead of reading the books that are written by the people who are involved in the serious incidents and situations that come up in this country. i find it just astounding that they would accuse your station, nbc, us being partial, because, you know, you can tune in to joe scarborough every morning and hear three hours of democrat bashing and miss statements on his program, which offers us the many "liberals" who are not really liberal at all. guest: the caller made a point,

and there is something to be said about the politicization of the news media. whether it is republicans to claim -- who complain about msnbc or fox news. we are almost caught in the middle. it is disheartening when we are trying to report about the truth, that you are caught in the middle. sometimes people do not believe at all what you are going to say. i think i have the greatest job in the world, to be able to cover politics, so much energy and so much going on. it is disheartening with how politicized it has become. the caller made a point. i want to respond in the previous -- to the previous caller, there are some people who end up saying nbc is too liberal, there are other people who say, you guys are coming

from general electric, that is a defense contractor. you guys are so corporatized media. it is almost a no-win situation. you are not appealing either to liberals or democrats, but that also is disheartening when you are trying to report on the truth. host: let's look at upcoming primaries in arizona. a race that haseen getting a lot of attention. john mccain is with a widening lead over former congressman j.d. hayward. guest: we saw this a couple weeks ago that this would be the best primary in the country. a challenge from the right, the possibility that he could actually lose. at is interesting is that this has not been raised just yet. j.d. hayworth has not caught on in the polls.

there are two weeks left. what has been impressive is that john mckean has actually controlled the issues debe. from 2001-2007, john mccain was the quintesntial independent in this town, sometimes siding with democrats, setimes having a more liberal voting record than his republicanolleagues. he has taken the fight oto j.d. haywroth. orth. from the tactics. if you, john mccain has run a very good race -- from a tactics point of view. host: -- facing a challenge from a wealthy florida businessman. what is your take? guest: meek is now edging ahead of his challenger, jeff greene,

a billionaire democrat who made a lot of his money off of the subprime mortgage industry and who also had mike tyson as best man for his wedding. a problematic résume a. jeff greene is incredibly wealthy and is bombarded the airwaves. this will be a great primary and it will impact the the general election in a three-way race for the senate between marco rubio and charlie crist. if meek becomes the nominee, that hurts charlie crist. we just do not know yet. that is why i am turning in on august 24, because that will impact the florida senate race. it might be the most entertaining race we see an election day. anyone could win. host: charlie crist was in town raising money from democrats.

guest: one, the fact when you are an independent, you are not part of the establishment anymore, being able to raise money is one of the most important things. he is not able to go to a national republican senatorial committee or the democratic senatorial committee for help, he will have to go to people across the country. really, when you look at the issues, and he made some flip flops on issues, he is trying to appeal not only to democratic donors but also to independence, maybe some liberal-leaning republicans. the winner only needs 38% each person is taking their own at calculus. rubio is running to the right. crist is trying to get a coalition of liberal republicans, democrats and independents. i have no idea whose formal work. it will be interesting.

host: if charlie crist is the next senator from that state, does it benefit republicans or democrats? guest: probably with the democrats because of what has happened in the last year. the primary was so ugly and bloody that it is probably very hard. after making his independent move, it probably disqualifies him up from a caucusing with the republicans. florida voters will demand that from him, and it will be an interesting thing to watch. host: we will look at the next nbc news "the wall street d howal" polls they view democrats and republicans. allen joins us, independe line, from houston, texas. caller: good morning. the poll you are discussing, and

mainstream media programs in general are not discussing or uncovering in an adequate matter the disconnect between american people, main street american people and government, and the cause, or the reason lying beneath that disconnect is as serious a disaffection between the american people and our government at all levels, federal, state and even local levels. and that disaffection, we really need, it is not just a political game or a matter of winning points in elections. it really gets to the heart of solving the problems we have an america. and i think at that root cause is the jobs. we always talk about jobs in the polls and the media, but i think

we talk about it in a superficial manner. see, america began losing out to manufacturing in this 1970's. -- when european and japanese finally recovering from the post-w a r era began to compete in a meaningful way with american manufacturing. guest: the caller made a good point in that there does seem to be a disconnect between washington and main street, in that what we've seen over the last 15 years in this country is th the people who have done well continue to do well, but there has been a shrinking of the american middle class. what happened with the bailouts in 2008, were we. -- our government put all this money in to resuccue banks.

wall street is doing very well, but main street has not been. that is a constant source of criticism. the tarp vote -- most people credit that it stopped in economic collapse in this country, but most people are angry that the government did not bail them out. the people in the middle class, that is shrinking. people's wages are not growing below a certain income level, and it is tough. that is why we are seeing a lot of dissatisfaction in the country. the political party the best seizes on that says, i have a solution to be able to start restoring and actually have policies geared towards the middle class, and gearedoward main street. i think it will be the successful party in the long run. that is one ofhe reasons why we are hearing so much anger. people are really angry right w, and they feel like everyone is taking care of the people who are well-off but not taking care

of the people who are not well off. host: mark murray's political blog is available on the msnbc web site. he has written for "the new york times" and other magazines. chris joins us on the republican line from brooklyn, new york. caller: thank you for taking my call. thank you for showing up on c- span today. it is terrific to have someone from msnbc on. i think what you are not appreciating it in some of the caller's comments concerning as is that there are commentators who were thrown off of newspapers for plagiarism. eugene robinson, it is always the commentary. even on your program. i think chuck todd is terrific.

c-span is the gold standard when it comes to hard ns and a serious questions and looking into issues. respectfully, i am asking you to look more closely at your own station and ask this woman that appears with chuck todd, savannah, is she really of hard news person or is she there just to balance off a morning program? host: do you watch fox as well? do you get the same sense when you tune in to bill o'reilly or you see laura ingram on fox, of karl rove? caller: i am a c-span junkie. in fact, whenever anybody asks me that question, i say i watch

c-span. when you watch c-span, what you get is your morning program, you go through the newspapers. on msnbc in the morning, the only highlight "thnew york times" and "the washington post". you go through everything. it is about balance. it is about getting to the core questions that are appearing ily. one thing that i think shows a bias of msbc, and keith olbermann is absolutely offensive in his name calling of people, calling them a stupid or robert gibbswhen does his white house briefing, he is almost doing a stand-up comedy routine there. he is ignoring reporters' questions. he is joking them off. he is not addressing them. chuck todd presses a little

further. fleicher,s ari they would been held up as an example of how the administration is not taking it seriously. guest: i want to say good things about savannah, my colleague. i think she and chuck todd make a great team. as journalists, we are responsible for our own selves. all we have is our credibility. you could write one story that is the tough other republicans and it criticized for being a democrat or you might ask a question that is being tough on the democrats and be accused of being a republican. i appreciate the caller's comments that chuck tood fantastic. -- chuck todd is fantastic.

i think he is a very savvy york. i think savannah is fantastic. if you look at the body of their reporting, it is hard to pick -- certainly there are people that come from an opinion ankle, keith olbermann. eugene robinson who comes from a more left-leaning point of view, and he would not agree with that. it is important for people to know that those of us who are trying to report on the facts and try to be as fair as possible, we get caught up in the middle. republicans do not think we are way to a liberal, and democrats think we are way too conservative -- republicans think we are way too liberal. i appreciate the comments he made. that is something i keep in the back of my mind to be as fair as possible. host: you also contribute to

"meet the press". donna says, i think you should be asking people which news they think is fair. mary joins us from bethesda, maryland. you have the last word with mark murray of nbc news. caller: thank you. it imy understanding that during the bush administration, all of the war funding was an emergency supplemental. none of it was in the budget. in 2009, he brought our war into the budget. . . deficit mbers that did and why do television moderators let people get away with that? guest: