grass roots progressive groups in this year's elections. former u.s. ambassador to pakistan, ryan crocker. this is "washington journal." [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] host: in about 45 minutes on "washington journal" we will be joined by lawyers on the side of that snyder versus westboro baptist church supreme court case. this of course is the case about protesting at military funerals. it involves issues of free speech and privacy. members of the kansas church show up at funerals of members of the military who have been

killed in iraq and afghanistan, holding anti-gay signs such as "got hates fags" and "thank god for dead soldiers." you know about the case. you know about it. you have seen the protest. now we want to hear your views on this case. 202 is the area code -- you can also send us a tweet at twitter.com/c-spanwj. here is a take on it from "usa today" this morning. court struggles with the supreme -- free-speech question.

that is "usa today." "the new york times" lead editorial.

margie phelps will be a guest on this program in 45 minutes as well as timothy nieman who filed and amicus brief on behalf of the vfw.

"the wall street journal" yesterday opined on this case and they agree with "the new york times" essentially. this is their conclusion in their editorial from yesterday.

your turn. we want to hear your opinions. josh from gainesville, florida, independent line. caller: i noticed in that newspaper article they mentioned the skopie case in 1979 but i read the oral argument transcript from yesterday and they did even mentioned that case and ms. phelps did not mention that. i thought it was an incredibly strong president and i'm wondering if maybe you or ms. phelps at some point would comment on whether it would -- why it was not mentioned by her or the justice. host: veronica. california. democrat. caller: good morning. this is what i find the bigges

problem with the united states of america but we were founde on christian values. so, viewing the tea party as saying we want to take our country back in the constitution and what not, i think first and foremost being founded on christian values we should look at what the bible states an when we look at this minister, the bible also stays for us that theres going to be false profits and false ministers but we are to go and listen to what people are saying and what is coming out of their mouths. althou they disagree with gays and whatever, the bible also states thou shalt not judge of this minister should be teaching these people. one of the biggest sinces. host: lancaster, pennsylvania. what do you think was in my caller: i think you have to go with free-speech.

what about the argument on the other side cop -- host: what about the argument on the other side raised by the snyder family that this is emotional distress, the case of a private funeral and related to the protests, in their view, that the phelps were enacted? caller: that is a tough one because i guess that is why we have a supreme court. my question is, we have people are arrested and we have free speech zones at the rnc and dnc conventions, g-20 meetings. they just lock these people up. and i don't understand it. it is a complete hypocrisy on both counts. host: nebraska. bob, democrat. caller: good morning. these people, they are a very small group and how they possibly get any kind of

coverage is just absolutely beyond me. i believe wholeheartedly in free-speech. they have the right to say what they want. i don't agree with it in any way, shape, or form. but in the same case, these people are disparaging those that have passed on. i am a veteran. and a lot of those are members of my unit that are sitting under -- i don't like these people at all. host: that said. legally, do you think they have a right to do what they are doing. caller: yes, i do. legally i do think they have a right to do it. but i also -- well, i don't want to get into too far what i could

think this happened. host: marshall tweets in -- joan -- from "usa today" lists the key cases. first, she list the new york times vs. sullivan. she also lists gertz v. robert welch. this is what will -- one of the issues that came up yesterday, whether or not this was a private or public event, a private or public person. hustler magazine v. falwell in

1988. finally she lists milkovich v. lorrain journal. so, that could also come into play in this decision. , on washington, d.c., on the independent line. caller: first of all -- what i take exception with the previous caller. the country was founded on questions on the value of allowing others to practice their religion as well. and because of that i think you have to realize that if you restricted speech other than

where public safety that fire in the theater is involved, if you restrict this you throw out the baby in the bath water and by letting the people speak freely we find out just how ugly they really are. host: breeze on the republican line in louisville, ky. -- bruce. go ahead with your comment. it caller: my comment is that your freedom of speech is protected, yes, but this is more of a hate crime and not a freedom of speech issue for the court to rule on. i don't know anywhere where you could go and hold up a sign and says god hates you and that would be perfectly fine. if you are targeting a certain group of people, the funerals you are targeting, and holding up signs where i just saw, that is a hate crime. and using the word hate in their signs. host: in fact, that is one of

the issues of some of the justices raised, was the sign, they god hates you sign because it uses the word you. hmaryland. i agree but the caller mentioned that it should be a hate crime. -- i agree with but jamar. i and a former marine myself. the father showed all kinds of great restraint. basic christian humility, he did not strength of the people themselves. i don't think i would have had the same level of restraint. what is legal is not always expedient. i think a lot of these pastors need to keep it in mind. people pick and choose what they are going to preach on or believe. host: are you saying that they do not have the legal right to do what they are doing at military funerals? caller: i do not know of the currently do but i think they

should not. it is not right. host: indiana. john. independent line. caller: thank you, cable, for c- span and thank you c-span for being c-span. i have seen these people and evansville, it is seems the families right to peacefully assemble is being violated. host: this tweet -- caller comes from a longview, texas. charlie on the republican line. go ahead with your comment. caller: these people are burning the flag and sang god hates you and god hates america, are not americans. i lived through this when vietnam was the 11. they done the same dam thing.

whatey'd don't do it like merrill haggard's song says, get the hell out of our country. if they don't love it, go to where the sign says. that is all i have to say. host: tweet -- today is the ninth anniversary of the start of the afghanistan war. here is the lead story in "the wall street journal" this morning.

we will discuss this later but former ambassador to pakistan, former ambassador to iraq and former state department official for near east affairs, ryan crocker. the next call is from topeka, kansas. jan on our democrats' line. jan? you know what? i punched up the wrong number and i apologize. hang on, jan. caller: yes, hi. i know this family very well and they are a continuing

embarrassment to topeka. i wanted everyone to know that this is a very small group of people. it consists of one family -- fred phelps i think has 13 or 14 children and many, many grandchildren and now great- grandchildren. and that is about whole group. nothing more than that one group of people and they thrive on being more outrageous and doing more outrageous things than the next. topeka has been very tolerant because we don't ow what else do. but they are certainly not reesentative of topeka. and i am just so embarrassed by every time they mention our city. host: you say you know them well. through their activities or do you see them out and about? caller tir children went to

school with my children. and now their grandchildren are going to school with my grandchildren and they are just perfectly lovely children when you get them away from them. they actually live in a compound within e city limits of to be got -- topeka. their activities are just completely around the family. they don't allow the children to participate in any kind of extra curricular activities. host: they don't call school? they sent in to public schools? caller: public schools. for all accounts, they are very good students and when they grow up and they are very good workers, very well educated, very polite. if the same laws that apply to today was applied back in the

days when fred phelps's children were younger, were tiny, he would have been brought up on a child abuse charges. he beat the children severely. host: is that opinion or fact? caller: it is a fact. it is a well-known fact. in fact, selling candy and a store -- i mean, he would take them to a shopping center and put them out of a car and told them not to come home until they sold a certain amount of candy. host: has that been reported? caller: yes. in fact, he was sued by the candy company because he refused to pay the bill. we all have lived through this. for years and years. i know people who are on the police department who have dealt with this.

and we are just sick of it. we are tired of it. host: that said. do they have a right, in your view, to do what they do at military funerals? caller: absolutely not. they are provocative. they get in your face and they know just how far to go up to the line and not cross it because several of them are attorneys. host: thank you for your input this morning. here is a picture in "the washington post" of former representative karen mccarthy, she was a democrat in missouri. years in congress and on troubled note. -- ended on troubled note. she was an early those of -- voice of dissent against the invasion of iraq but whose career crumbled and it's an ethics breach and a struggle with alcoholism died october 5

at an alzheimer's care center in kansas. in addition to all time disease, she had bipolar disorder that had gone undiagnosed for more than a decade, her family announced last year. she was crowned one of the lucky 13 democrats who won a house seat in 1994, the year of the gop landslide. beside her to thousand to vote against the war in iraq, are that is the record in the house was undistinguished, she pen -- spent much of recovery in the minority and admitted she had not sponsored a lot of bills. she was regarded as a centrist democrat who saw consensus on such major issues as the 1996 welfare reform law and efforts to balance the budget. the kansas city star reported that the turnover in her personal office is so great that an informal karen mccarthy staff alumni association has formed an new inductees are taken out for drinks when they depart because of some of the turmoil in her office. her career unraveled quickly. in late march 2003 she fell

headfirst down an escalator in the rayburn house office building after leaving a late- night house session. soon afterward, she issued a statement announcing her decision to seek treatment for alcoholism. jay, republican, frederick, maryland. good morning. caller: i don't see this as a free-speech case at all. it really is more of a responsibility for your speech. if you want to make a political statement, that's fine. but this was at a very private time. it had a no affect on the people who heard it and it is a question of can you go win -- in and have no responsibility for people who you know you are going to hurt. host: california. ellen on the independent line. caller: what the gentleman just said.

recently in this country we are all aghast at the bullying that goes on in high school that causes people distress to the point they would commit suicide. this is nothing but adults doing the bullying and setting a very bad example and perhaps we should have an amendment regarding ethics. host: phelps speech -- from concord, north carolina, in mailing in -- branch, louisiana. john, republican line. talking about protesting at the military funerals case heard

yesterday at the supreme court. tell us your opinion. caller: these people are engaging in acts of extreme provocation. i really, truly believe there is no way in the world that they are doing anything other than that. it is a shame that they can't be kept at a great distance from these people, especially when people have lost loved ones defending this country. it is just a terrible shame. host: let's add this little fact. mr. snyder did not say the protesters during the funeral. he saw a news report about a during the week afterwards. does it change your opinion? they were kept away. they followed the laws in this city, in maryland, where the funeral was held. caller: i was not aware of that. the thing is, though, these people are, again, engaging in extreme provocation. there are people who did see them who could be provoked, who

could -- and i am not advocating this -- but they could attack them and at some point in time i would not be surprised if violence want to be the end result of some of their foolishness. host: georgia. hi, joan. caller: i am a believer of do unto others. somebody in their family will have a funeral, stand outside their church and protest. because it is freedom of speech, that is the only way to do these children die for them to have that right, it is so disrespectful. maybe, if they don't believe in it, they should be taken away from them. host: the next call is from tennessee, kim on beat republican line. please, go ahead?

caller: i have a couple of issues with it. for one, it could incite a riot, which i cannot entertain in that either. and it seems like a personal attack -- i was not aware that at the funeral they were not able to be seen. however, my question is, one, dead at a family -- did the family see them coming in or out of the cemetery? host: thank you. just a reminder, turn down the volume on the tv. you get feedback and you will not able to hear yourself. you can hear everything for that would clearly through the telephone. from "the wall street journal" this morning --

taking your calls on the protest in the military funerals. this tweet -- jim on our democrats' line. what is your view? caller: i would just like to say, i wonder why these people are protesting at a funeral. george bush is the one who sent the troops over there. it they are so against that, why weren't they at george bush's house protesting and where were

they when george bush illegally sent our troops in an immoral illegal war? host: do you think they have the right to protest at a funeral? caller:no, they do not have the right. it is not their funeral. i tend to think if they incited a riot and every single one of the family members were killed, don't put me on the jury because i will give the guy temporary insanity. host: robert, philadelphia, mississippi. independent line. what is your view? caller: my view is that, i would like to make a comment. i think the freedom of speech has been taken too far. people talk about the freedom of speech is that this country was founded on christian values and all of that. i think all of that is just plain not true.

i don't think the founders was christians. and i would like for somebody -- if they think this country was founded on christian values i would like for somebody to call sqawd tell me what's valley means. host: if you want to continue this conversation you can do it on twitter which is going on right now we are trying to read some of these. as well, you can continue this conversation on our facebook page. go to facebook.com/c-span. -- no-in c san francisco. good morning to you. caller: imagine muslims praising

the deaths of u.s. troops i think the response of the u.s. would be much different than what it is now. basically my question is, my comment is, is there any correlation between christian putting down the steps or a muslim putting down the debts. when muslims -- if muslims were to do this, where there be punishment did to anti-terrorism laws? host: independent line. sean? caller: i would love to said, i love your tie. host: we want to move on to corpus christi, texas. arthur, republican michael caller: -- arthur, a republican

line. caller: i think the church is okay -- if you want to call it a church -- as far as first amendment rights are concerned. with all of this business is going on, the first amendment right must be the primary thing to be considered here. host: what about the right to privacy? caller: as far as the actions of the church, look of their sides. one of them said thank god for breast cancer. anybody with any sense has got to realize this is some kind of a fringe group. i think it would be stretching the imagination to call it a church. christian doctrine says we will all be judged and apparently they are forgetting that they

are in the group, too. as far as privacy is concerned, one of your previous callers said local ordinances can be made to deal with things like this. i think if somebody wants some privacy at their funeral there ought to be an ordinance available to provide that. other than that, i think the church group is so ridiculous. i think we have all devoted enough time to the subject and should go on wearing about more important things, you know? host: this is not free speech, it is free speech of use. -- abused.

this is to cool, they should be jailed. -- too cruel, they should be jailed. caller: i see several problems. i know they are claiming free- speech but i don't think the founding fathers thought that something like this would be allowed. you do have the freedom of speech, in my opinion, unless your speech infringes on other freedoms and rights. it looks basically like harassment because they are targeting a specific group and person which, i don't know about you, but they kind of fit the description of a hate crime in my eyes. if you went and did some of this stuff to an individual, like sit in front of somebody's house

with signs claiming some of the things they are saying, i think that is pretty much harassment. most people can go downtown in most cities and file for a restraining order for conduct like this. host: again, one of the issues that the justices raised yesterday and that margie phelps responded to, was the issue of stalking. 34hunter tweets in -- the next caller comes from rockville, maryland. independent line. what you think about this protesting at military funerals case? caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. probably my first time calling for almost seven years. host: welcome back. caller: before i make my comments, i do want to make a

critical comments of c-span. mainly towards you, peter. i critical comments in respect -- my critical comment is respect is i like when you tell people to turn down their radio, however, i had a situation and the reason i did not call for a long time is because when i called to make my comment, which i felt was very important, i was cut off without even getting 10 words and. and i felt that my comment was very important, especially when i waited on the line so long, like many people do. and i think that when someone tells me that you got to move on, you know the rules about turning the radio down, i don't think everybody does because i turn my radio down but i know that not everybody does that. i listened to c-span on the radio exclusively. host: thank you for that comment. what is your opinion on that

case? caller: my comment is, those protesters, i think they are doing this out of disrespect and ift i don't think that' -- they want to protest, there should be a better time. they got a better time to do that and they should give respect to grieving families. host: do you think they are stepping over what you think should be the law? caller: in this case, i think so. it has to be out of respect. people have to have respect. and i think today that has been -- we miss that today. so many things -- anything goes. and there has to be respect. when someone -- a family is

grieving over their lost loved one, i think that should be respected. host: ernest, thank you. please, don't wait seven years to call back in. john e-mails in. matthew, a democrat in the germantown, maryland. caller: thank you for taking my call and thank you for c-span. i think i agree with the last tweet or e-mail, this is basically a fundamental question of the right to free speech and whether or not the right to privacy plays a part in it or not is strongly dependent on whether the supreme court things people have a right to privacy in a cemetery. i think it is pretty clear club

in terms of a lot unless congress decides to write a new law regarding free speech at cemeteries. host: in 2006, president bush signed a law dealing with national cemeteries, for 60 minutes prior and 60 minutes after a funeral and a national cemetery there would be a peace zone basically. illinois. caller: how are you this morning? i am confused as to what they are even protesting, what they are for or against. i see no question, no good out of it. i see militias and they are directing their -- this to the wrong people. the reason we are in the war is because of the bad people, because of the terrorists. why don't they focused anchor at terrorists, the people who fund the terrorists? the soldiers are defending their right to free speech.

totally displeasing their anger. host: that said, you think they have a legal right to do what they are doing? caller: no, i don't think they have a legal right to be there upon someone morning or grieving. i think they need to take a someplace else and i was able put it on the right people and not the wrong people. host: from ohio. bruce on our independent line. in about 10 minutes or so we will be joined by lawyers on both sides of the issue, margie phelps, who represented her father and her father's church, westboro baptist church, and timothy nieman, who filed an amicus brief on behalf of the snyder family for the vfw. we will be joined by those two and we will continue this conversation in about 10 minutes or so. but, bruce, what is your opinion? caller: thank you for taking my call. my point i would like to make is that the people will fight our wars, laid down their lives for this country, whether they are

homosexual or heterosexual, they are laying their lives down for our rights to have our freedom of speech, to have our freedom of worship. what it tears my heart out is this takes away not only the right of privacy but when someone loses a loved one, that is their time of mourning, that is their time of healing, that is their time of spiritual -- the zone they need and the last thing they need is for some people to come and tear down what they are trying to do as far as to heal. i lost my wife to breast cancer a year and a half ago and to see these people holding a sign up that says, thank god for breast cancer, is, i can't describe it. why in this nation to wheat -- that we have so much to be thankful for, why can't people

stop and realize that when people are in a time of mourning and healing, it is not the right time to throw the slander, to throw whenever their feelings are at the time. host: thank you for calling in. melissa tweets in -- from "the washington post," u.s. officials urged american firms to invest in iraq.

host: liana in el paso, texas. the democrats' line. what do you think of the protesting the military funerals kansas? caller: i think it is ridiculous. my husband served his country. he just got back a year ago my father, my grandfather, his grandfather all retired. i think it is ridiculous. i grew of a christian woman. i did not learn of this stuff in church. it is ridiculous. these people should be banned. it is not healthy. if you -- lose a loved one, you said grieve and not have the ridiculous people holding signs.

host: for you, do you draw the line at free-speech? do you draw it for privacy? where do you draw the line? caller: it is a private thing. free-speech in this case is out the window. people are mourning. host: uc privacy as taking president? caller: yes. host: richard, arkansas, republican line. caller: good morning, sir. i think people are the one about this all wrong. we need to be protesting these protesters. we need to find out where they work, the businesses they work for, and they can post their name on the internet's. i think we heard them financial. i believe they have a right to do what they are doing but for anybody to carry a sign that says thank god for breast cancer, has been pretty much be an idiot. anyway, that is all i have to say. thank you.

host: kathy, albuquerque, new mexico. caller: am i on the air? i have to agree with the two previous callers. it has to do with privacy and respect and these military people coming home, they deserve respect. are these people going to show up at the hospitals and start protesting? that is all i have to say. host: mary ann asheville, north carolina, independent line. you are on c-span talking about the supreme court case. caller: you know, what these people are doing is hate speech. they would no way allow people in white robes at a black funeral with these kinds of signs and yelling the kinds of things that they do. it is hate speech. pure and simple. host: you see it as something that is hate speech, and thus should not be allowed? caller: exactly. it is. i mean, can klu klux klan go to

black funerals and yell the kinds of things that they would yell? host: 10 mile, tennessee. walt, republican line. caller: this thing about back this up there -- i want to say this, i believe the bible is the word of god and ina baptist, and those people those peoplebaptist. anybody can call themselves anything they want to in this country, and that is all right, and that is freedom of speech, and i am not against that of those people are not scriptural. god would not do a thing like that, to be at a funeral where people are hurting. what kind of got is that? host:walt, do you in your view think they have a right to do what they are doing? caller: i guess they do have a right to do what they are doing but it is so on godly, it is

pathetic, and they are lying about their faith because to say what a baptist truly is is simply a bible believer, and that is not structural just to hurt people who are already hurting. host: south carolina. what is your thought? caller: i think these protests are wrong and i also think this so-called church has crossed the line into being a political organization and i think they should have their tactics and status as a church taken away. if you want to be a christian church, then behave like a christian church and not like a group of nazis. thank you. host: again, let's go to the legal argument. do they have a first amendment right in your view as the fourth district court of appeals said to do what they are doing? caller: they might have a right to do what they are doing but

they don't have a right to do what they're doing as a tax exempt church. host: thank you for your input. joining us an amendment -- minute is margie phelps and timothy nieman, lawyers on each side of the issue. the supreme court case heard yesterday. trouble put the numbers on the screen. -- there is not much we can add to a. we will allow the two guests to brief listing their argument and then go to calls to allow your input with the two lawyers. >> this weekend, c-span 3,

american history tv, takes a trip to richmond, virginia, for a civil war and antiques show in search of missing historical documents. from the national archives, songs that uplifted soldiers' spirits during the time of lincoln. how harry truman potts a containment policy resulted in decades of tension between the u.s. and the soviet union. american history tv, all weekend, every weekend, one c- span 3. >> most generals judge greatness on what they do on the battlefield. ultimately washington's greatness is as much what he did between battles. it simply holding the continental army together. >> part two of an interview with author ron chernow on his biography of "george washington." on c-span's "q&a." >> this weekend and through december, listen to a landmark

supreme court cases on c-span radio. >> what we are arguing is that you may not publicly desecrate the flag regardless of the motivation for your action. >> flag-burning and freedom of speech, taxes v. johnson, saturday at 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span radio -- texas v. johnson. host: for several years you had seen news reports about these protesters from the westboro baptist church protesting at military funerals, holding up anti-gay signs such as "god hates fags" and "thank god for dead soldiers." it was a supreme court yesterday and now we are joined by lawyers on both sides of the snyder v.

westboro baptist church case. margie phelps, lead lawyer for the westboro baptist church and for her father, fred phelps, and from harrisburg, pennsylvania, timothy neeman, who filed and amicus brief on behalf of the veterans for foreign wars on behalf of the snyder family. misses phelps, would you briefly state the argument that you made to the supreme court yesterday on behalf of the westboro baptist church? >> sure, the 7 westboro baptist church pickers were over 1,000 feet from the church, between them and a funeral were over 100 other people engaged in activity. no one going into the funeral saw or heard the westboro baptist pictures. and when it was time for the funeral to start, they left. so, by any definition or

rationale, there was no invasion of privacy. as to the disagreement with viewpoints -- because that is what the case is all about -- they don't like the viewpoint, they don't like the core message that your soldiers are dying for your sins. the court has been clear for too many years that using subjective turns -- terms like out rates and zero friends and only claiming an emotional and an adverse emotes regional impact of words is not a sufficient interest to override the first amendment right to engage in a robust public debate. all the nation is talking about these dying soldiers. the majority view, like 310 million of you, to 60 of us, the majority view is he is a hero and god is blessing america. our dissenting view is that he put on the uniform of a nation

that is fast chasing same-sex marriage and has made prowled sin of every kind its policies. that god is not less in america. so, the dissenting view is protected by the first amendment. you don't need the first amendment for the popular view. host: one of the arguments you stated earlier was that there was no invasion of privacy. do you think the case would be different if perhaps you had been seen during the funeral, if the snyder family had seen you protesting? >> not if we had been seen. taking the line of cases about abortion. as the court has been clear, merely seeing words you don't like as not create liability. you can avert your eyes. if, for example, we had walked into the church with our picket signs then liability may be

appropriate. of course, everybody knows that is not how we do business. host: thank you. timothy nieman, briefly, if you would, state the argument made by the snyder side of this case. >> thank you, peter. this case really isn't about just being able to avert your eyes. i think the argument made yesterday by mr. summers on behalf of mr. snyder, the question was best summed up by justice ginsberg who asked, this is really the case of exploiting a private families grieve and the question is why should the first amendment tolerate exploiting this marine's family at his vulnerable time when they wanted to have a private funeral ceremony for their son. the snyder family did not ask for the westboro church to come to the funeral. mr. snyder was not a public figure, despite what the westboro chart schweitzer about that. he was merely trying to put his son to rest and had the

unfortunate situation that the only time he would have the opportunity to do that -- you cannot read you a fan will ceremony, redo a burial -- that sacred time of mourning was turned into a circus by the presence of the westboro baptist church folks being there. this isn't a case about the content of the message. it is really a case, as justice ginsberg i thought so eloquently put it yesterday, about exploiting a private families grieve and in this case it happens to be the private family of a fallen american soldier. that is what -- why the vfw and whatever got involved in this case. mrs phelps? >> exploiting some aggrieved does not help into any legal principle. mr. snyder exploited his own grief when, within two days of

his son's death, he began holding forth in multiple media interviews complaining about the war, complaining about the dying soldiers, asking it on the public airwaves how many more parents were going to have to suffer as he and his ex-wife were suffering over this senseless war. you don't get to start a public discussion in that fashion without letting other people cancer. and if you don't want that discussion to play -- to take place on the occasion of your son's death or funeral, don't start the discussion on that occasion. they turned these funerals of these soldiers into patriotic pep rallies. expressive activity going on outside. long after we were gone. the whole 15-mile route to the cemetery. we don't go to cemeteries. we don't follow the procession. others do engage in expressive

activity. you can't open up a public dialogue and tell one viewpoint to shut up. if you think that is exploitive, stop doing it. when soldiers funerals are private, we don't go. but when you invite the media, but patriot writers, when you invite all the public, including putting your obituary in "the baltimore sun," that big newspaper when you have no connection to baltimore and you don't live in baltimore. they did all that on purpose and having a big, giant splashy public display because they wanted this nation to come to bowed down to those dead soldiers. host: timothy nieman, final word before we go to calls. >> putting an obituary in the newspaper, if that is the standard for the, a public figure, every single american citizen who as a family member

who dies, whether a military member or just the common everyday guy opens himself to this sort of protest. it was put in "the baltimore sun" because of the funeral was held in a town that was in proximity to baltimore. it is not that the arbitrary was put in newspapers all across the united states. this is another point that i thought the justices did an excellent job with yesterday. you can turn any single item into a matter of public concern. for example, i know on your show you have the republican line, democratic line, and an independent line for people to voice their opinions. if a democrat guys and they put into the jury and the newspaper, you can open it up to disruptive protest just because they happen to be a restered democrat or a registered republican or what ever it may be. there is no end to where this could go if we allow the phelps''s position to go forward in this situation.

host: timothy nieman is in harrisburg, pennsylvania, attorney for the vfw who filed a brief on behalf of the snyder family. margie phelps, kansas city, missouri, attorney for fred phelps, senior, westboro baptist church and a graduate of washburn univ. school of law. call for arete -- for our two guests. independent line. caller: i think this is just so wrong what this woman and that baptist group is trying to do. a funeral is a private event. i don't understand how the law can see it any other way. there must be a way to make the case that this is a private event. host: mr. timothy nieman, is

there a way to make a case that this is a private event? >> that is a prime been -- an approach we took. the supreme court carved out exemption of free-speech issue got a captive audience doctrine. what it says is if you are in a place where you are a captive audience, if you are in a home, and the court has applied in hospital settings, but if you are in a situation where you really cannot leave. for example, the lab -- the house is described as the last form of refuge, the court says you can put restrictions on that, limit picketing in front of hospitals. and the vfw believes and other people who filed briefs argued that attendees at a funeral are a captive audience. you only have one opportunity to lay your loved one, friend, husband, wife, son, daughter, to rest. you have to be there. you have to be at that church or

location in order to do that. you don't get to do it twice. i believe the captive audience doctrine is a way to accomplish that, for the court to reach the right decision in a constitutional way that has already been articulated by the court in similar cases in the past. host: margie phelps, the captive audience argument. >> we are very familiar with that doctrine and we discussed at length yesterday and the court has been an explicit. in order for the captive audience doctrine to apply, the picketer has got to be right out front, up in your grill, confronting you physically and make it impractical for you to get from your card to inside without running a gauntlet of pickers. at 1,000 feet away, out of sight, out of sound, what an irresponsible misrepresentation to suggest that the captive audience doctrine would apply to that situation.

they didn't even see the seven pictures so how could they have been captive to them? -- 7 picketers. that funeral went off without a hitch. every detail was without disruption. the priest who did this ceremony testified he did not even know there were picketers there. a the got in their cars and went 15 miles to the cemetery with our picketers long gone. .

i may not agree with her position but i thought she did a good job before the court. it was a great experience, and i agree the justices seemed extremely interested in the case. they seemed extremely knowledgeable and they really honed in on the issues that are at task here. i think they probably could have continued the argument much longer than they did if there had been time for it. host: tom in leesburg, virginia. you're on with margie and tim nieman. caller: yes, good morning. thank you for giving me an opportunity. i am a veteran of the u.s. navy, and i just wanted to point out that in this case and all these cases that the church would go to somebody's funeral that gave their life for this country, they gave up everything. they gave up all their rights. that individual gave up

everything that they can give. and i do not think the right of freedom of speech should be used to make the point they're trying to make. they just want the public forum and the attention to put their message out. host: john, now you say you don't think they should be able to -- should use it but you think they should have the right to use it? caller: i don't think so. host: and where do you draw the line? caller: military people who gave their lives for this country. host: well, margie phelps, what, 48 states have passed laws essentially laws against what the westboro baptist church does. george w. bush in 2006 signed the national cemeteries act essentially in response to what your group has been doing. is -- are those, in your view, constitutional laws? guest: well, incidentally, i picketted president bush within 10 minutes of him signing that

law, by the way. i read all those laws and 80% of them are grossly unconstitutional, but almost none of them put us as far away as we put ourselves. so we can comfortably continue to function and therefore we let the law stand. we challenged a few of them when they've been just simply misapplied. but look at this inconsistency. so you got these soldiers allegedly going over to afghanistan and iraq, which is a war that has nothing to do with our constitutional democracy, but even if you assume for the sake of argument that they're dying for their right to speak and then you get one of these military folks and we get this on the streets all the time saying, i died for your right to speak only don't say words i don't like. how un-american could that possibly be? you know what, if they died for our right to speak, shut the hell up and let us speak.

host: next call, rockville, maryland, stone on the democratic line. good morning. caller: thank you, peter. and good morning, attorney phelps, and good morning, attorney nieman. is that right? host: yes, sir. caller: let me ask you a very brief question and comment. attorney phelps, i think you are an extremely brilliant person. i am a middle-aged black man. i am not a pedophile, or sex offender. i saw you yesterday. i was stricken by how much courage you have despite the controversy of what you're doing. however, when you -- many of us are going to hell. i may be one of those persons. however, i do believe that the court will -- i wanted to ask

you, would you consider extending your campaign or protest to come to some of the black inner cities in america to protest the fanatical, hellish black-on-black crime? a week ago a gruche thugs -- overwhelm the protesters and shot and killed one of the funeral members. host: all right, margie phelps, what's your response to that caller? guest: yeah, i read about that case. it's a symptom. so we don't as a rule focus our publishings on the symptoms in that measure. it's a symptom of the proud policies of sin in this nation that the young people are dropping like flies. and so, no, i don't think it would be likely that we'd show up at a funeral.

we're trying to go to tell people the military in this nation are putting on uniforms that represent same-sex marriage. connect the dot. one of god's favorite weapons of his armory is to get your young men and women on the battlefield and kill them. if this nation wasn't bible illiterate we'd know there. justice ginsburg say, why go there? because we recognize at the funeral. it should not have happened. but these symptoms, it's too late. host: mr. nieman? guest: yes, i'd just like to follow-up on what justice ginsburg did say yesterday. when she asked about exploiting a marine's funeral, she asked

the question, there are so many other places where you can express these opinions. this case isn't about the content of their speech as ms. phelps says. what right do this church has to interview -- interfere in the right to bury their son or daughter whether their son or daughter was killed in military action, whether they died from some other issue? it's not the content. as justice ginsburg said, they can go say this somewhere else, but can they say this in this particular place? host: tim nieman is a graduate of the university of virginia where he got his j.d. chicago, michael, independent. hi. caller: hello. host: hi, you're on the air, michael. caller: i know these protesters got a sign saying something

like fag, breast cancer. what does it have to do with the soldiers? two, i've never seen any of these protesters like this woman who protests against these soldiers. i'd like to see them come to the west side our south side of chicago to do the same thing. see what happens. host: all right. and margie phelps, what's your response to that? i think that caller was saying, go into a different type of neighborhood, go into -- go to a gay pride parade and protest there, do you do that or is it just military funerals? guest: we have protested at more gay pride parades in washington, d.c., and we've picketed numerous times in the south side of chicago. we've hit your streets for 20 years. we've crisscrossed this nation. we've done over 44,000 picks, less than 1% of them -- pickets, less than 1% of them

have been at soldiers' funerals. don't pretend this isn't about viewpoint. we spent 20 minutes yesterday in that argument debating on what the word you means in the god hates you sign. remember, while seven little westboro picketers stood 1,000 feet away disrupting nothing, interfering with nothing over 100 other people stood right outside the front doors of the church with a different message and everybody applauded them. don't pretend this is not about viewpoint. this nation does not want to hear about its since, but the servants of god are duty-bound to tell you about your since and we're going to do it. host: margie phelps, the word you, very briefly, explain the legal arguments for and against using that word or what you heard from the justices? guest: the essential question is, when we say god hates you and you're going to hell,

foolishly it has been suggested that applied to the dead kid. the dead kid's gone wherever he's gone. he wasn't there to see the sign. all of the westboro picketers testified that they had those signs in play for years and it applies to anyone and everyone who will listen, which is what prompted justice ginsburg to say, well, they use their same signs at annapolis and at the maryland state house earlier in the day. i think it just means, and she's right, the whole society is rotten. amen. host: mr. nieman, what about the questions the justices asked about the word you? guest: well, i think you in the context of outside of a funeral where the person being buried is the marine and when you have signs that say things like " semper fi fashion," as a marine that can only apply to one person in that case.

ms. phelps said earlier that context is so important in this case. well, in this case there's on only one context and one idea it can be and these signs were directed at the snyder family, at matthew snyder and they passed out brochures before the funeral to let everyone know they would be there to protest at the st. john's -- i think it was called catholic dog kennel which, again, is just more speech directed toward the individuals that were going to be involved with this protest. if they had said these things in some distance away, perhaps, if they had done the protest in baltimore or somewhere else, it might be a different issue. but they were specifically targeting this funeral. they were specifically targeting this family. there's no other conclusion that can be drawn. and even the appealate court which overturned the decision below on that specific issue came to the conclusion that it was directed toward the snyder

family. host: ms. phelps. guest: our message is for the living. it included mr. and mrs. snyder but it included the rest of the nation. there is nothing wrong under the law with taking a message to a target audience. the requirement is that you do it within proper bounds. and he just said perhaps if we had done it in baltimore. half of the case was about an epic written posted on a passive church website. that was written in topeka, kansas, halfway across the country. what the trial court said is no time, no place, no manner can you say something that the family of the dead soldier takes offense at. that's too broad. look where that would lead -- leave every publisher in the land. some person called in saying they saw our "thank god for breast cancer sign" and his

wife died of breast cancer. a year and a half ago. does he get a cause of action because we say one of the ways god in his righteous judgments wanted -- one of his righteous earth judgments is that he's afflicted this nation with huge rates of breast cancer. that's good, bible doctrine. does that man get a cause of action? it's ridiculous. where would it end? host: christopher in brooklyn, new york, republican line. you're on with margie phelps and tim nieman. please go ahead. caller: hi. thank you for c-span and thank you for taking my call. ms. phelps, i really don't think that you are a very good attorney. one of your earlier comments was that the supreme court is the highest court in the world. it is not the highest court in the world. its jurisdiction is only for the united states. not the highest court in the world, despite your happiness there. and moreover, your comments concerning the father becoming a public figure would be fine if you were protesting the

father's funeral. this marine was his funeral. he is not a public figure. the people pretended -- attended the funeral are not public figures. it was not their funeral. host: ms. phelps. guest: as to the court, do you deny that you're the superpower? do you really deny that you're the most powerful court in the world if you're the highest court of the superpower? whether i'm a good lawyer or not, i don't know and i don't care. my wisdom comes from god. i don't give myself any credit. and as to whether the father is a private figure. he's the plaintiff, sir. the question always in a speech case is whether the plaintiff is a private figure. a full public figure. host: tim nieman, we have this email from leon, a korean war

veteran in oklahoma city. this funeral protest definitely was a hate protest that is against our existing federal laws. many of our callers in our earlier segment, mr. nieman, talked about hate crimes and hate speech. did you use that argument in your argument yesterday? guest: well, just so we're clear, i did not make the argument yesterday. on our side, yes. in our brief we did talk about obviously how this speech was hateful and it was insulting and it was just, you know, went beyond bounds of decency in this situation. but this was not a case about the state enforcing hate crime laws or anything along those lines. this was a lawsuit brought by the family of matthew snyder for infelix of emotional distress and intention infelix of emotional distress. what he was basically looking for was a remedy, a civil

remedy because of the suffering he went through as a result of what was done and what was taken away from him by these defendants, the westboro baptist church in connection with his son's funeral. while there may be an element of hate speech to this that was not inase, tugh the justices did spend a good amount of time of figing words which is another constitutional doctrine where speech can be limited, where speech is so bad that it could lead to violence or to fighting. host: brooklyn, new york, john, democratic line this time. caller: first, when is the supreme court going to come to a decision in this case? second, if the muslims are able to build a mosque at ground zero, that's also emotionally distressing. does ms. phelps have any concern that through of them

are jewish and they might have some kind of bias? thank you. host: three of them are -- guest: three of them are jewish and three of them are catholic. some of our signs say that popes are bad. you need to set aside your personal viewpoint and you follow the law. no, i don't have any concerns about that. host: pork orange, florida, steve, independent line. caller: yes, good morning. i would like to express my agreement with ms. phelps. i think the issue here is strictly freedom of speech. the constitution must be supreme. there should not be any exemptions to free speech on the basis of emotional trauma.

i also like to make the point that a lot of these military people are sacrificing their lives for their country. i think they're going in, they're taking a risk for the benefits. in a bad economy they have very little choice. host: all right. thank you for that comment. this email from frank, retired u.s. army, 30 years from gordonville, texas. the founders of the u.s.a. when they wrote the first amendment did not mean all speech was allowed. read history. the first amendment came out so people would be talking against the government. under the king of england they could be punished. mrs. phelps, what about that argument? guest: well, the way the first amendment came about is a man named john leeland in virginia found himself in his mid 30's having fled religious persecution, having fled a

situation where him being the descenting religious viewpoint. he was imperiled by speaking according to his conchuss and by the providence of god he was able to deliver to madison the votes needed out of virginia to get that constitution passed. and there is a garden in orange, virginia, with a little memorial that memorializes this event right here. john madison and john leeland sat down and mr. leeland, who was probably one of god's elect, said i'm not going to deliver those votes unless you get us a bill of rights that starts with the first amendment so that people can speak according to their conscience even if the rest of the world disagrees with them. that is what the first amendment is about. in the closing argument at trial, the attorney for this faithless father stood there and said to that jury, it's 300

million of us against seven of them. well, it's really 310 million. and that's true and that's when the first amendment had better kick in. the bill said the fly in the ointment, the worm in the apple of this democracy that you're putting in play is that people will think mob rule is in charge. that is what our constitution prohibits. you swear allegiance to that flag every day. the republic for which it stands says mob rule doesn't get to silence the descenting voice. you either mean that or you don't. and this is the case that's going to find out. host: several members of your church -- is it fair to say that several members of your church have left, including some members of your family, because of the tactics of the church? guest: they left because they don't want to serve god, they

don't believe the things they -- that we believe and want to live in the world. you have to make a decision. will you serve god or will you not? their decision was they would not. host: mr. nieman, several callers earlier, and you can comment on anything that margie phelps said, but several callers throughout this morning and a couple of tweeters have said that trying to pars out the first amendment in this case would turn the first amendment into a pretzel. if we started trying to write out exceptions, etc., etc., do you agree with that? guest: yeah. and let me answer that in a second. i've been a little disappointed that ms. phelps continues to run down mr. snyder by referring to him as a faithless father and what i was hoping was going to be a fairly civil debate here this morning. but beyond that, you know, the supreme court has never said that there is an absolute right to free speech.

in the type of lines drawn or maybe as your listeners have sides making it in a pretzel is commonplace. we know you can't yell fire in a crowd theater just to see what happens. that's illegal. there's thing that pornography is illegal. there are sexually harassing speech that's illegal. there have been restrictions put on when and how those -- even public speech on public issues can be stated. the court has consistently drawn lines. it's an evolving and not an easy area, but the court has done it all the time. the lower courts consistently do it in cases of defamation to try to figure out whether someone is a private figure or public figure, whether the speech is opinion or fact and whether the speech is true or false. so there's all sorts of lines. there's all sorts of analysis and balancing that goes in this situation. and i think the court is fully

able to do that here. and even to go back to one other caller who had talked about the composition of the court and ms. phelps point out that i think it's three jewish and six catholic, based upon the arguments yesterday and based upon the professionalism of every one of those justices, those facts will have absolutely no baring whatsoever on which way the court comes out in this case. host: east point, michigan, santo, democrat. caller: well, i think this is another perfect example of how organized religion and some folks interpret the bible. it's people like the phelps' church that continue to spread their hate and continue to keep the country from going forward. these are just 80 people. they probably sleep with their children anyway, ms. phelps. we know what you guys are about. i think the f.b.i. should investigate you guys. host: do they have a right --

santo, santo, hello, santo, you know what, i am going to put you on hold. we are going to try to stick to the legal arguments here that were made in the supreme court. so, santo, do you think that they have a right -- do you think that the westboro baptist church have a right to do what they do at military funerals? we'll never know. next call goes to randy in river falls, wisconsin. hi, republican. caller: good morning. i have a question -- host: good morning. caller: you do have a right to the first amendment. take your protest, get a permit to take your protest to the government that wrote the constitution back in the day. and what you're doing is you are invasion -- that's an invasion of a private party. every time there's a funeral, go to the capital, have your protest, make your statement and have a little common sense, please.

thank you. host: margie phelps. guest: well, of course, that gentleman believes that's the proper way for him to make fun i willcations from his heart and his conscience. that's how he ought to do it. meanwhile, the constitution gives every citizen of this nation the right to take their message to the nation. and any lawful, peace -- in any lawful, peaceful manner. what the case says, it's a 1919 case, and it's s-c- hmbingeds e-n-k. what it says is you can't falsely cry fire in a theater. with the only purpose of causing a stampede. if you are standing there watching the theater on fire and see people about to die in that fire, what kind of a cruel, monster are you to stand by selfishly silent? this nation is on fire.

host: mr. nieman. guest: yes. i mean, i use the theater case as an example of how the court has drawn lines. that's true, if a theater is on fire then you should yell fire. but the bottom line point here is that the court consistently has drawn lines in terms of what is right and what is wrong with respect to speech. you can't just say anything anywhere. and the way that the phelps are trying to expand the doctrine of free speech really opens up every single private individual's funeral, their home, their business, whatever it may be to public picketing, to protest because every single person, no matter who you are, has some sort of view on an issue or some sort of a view on things and the way that they look -- the phelps look at the world, every single one of us

is a sinner and that's why we have public problems and public policy issues are made in this nation that are problematic, it really opens every single american citizen up to this sort of unfortunate and what i feel is an illegal type of protest. host: please ask margie phelps if the court decides against you, will you stop demonstrations at soldiers' funerals? guest: no, no and no. we'll finish our testimony to this nation and while i enjoy hypothetical questions, we spent some time laboring in that vineyard yesterday. the court is going to rule 9-0 that this is protected speech. this is a nation of law. a nation not of mob rule. this church follows the law of the land. we follow god's law and we follow man's law. we're not trying to carve out anything. we're trying to carve out an

exception of, you hurt my feelings, my conscience is hurting. shut up. host: if the court does rule against you and you wouldn't stop, why bother going through this exercise with the court if it doesn't matter what their opinion is? guest: well, they sued us and we used whatever forum we have to use to sustain this ministry. we answered their charges. host: what kind of law do you practice in topeka? guest: well, i actually do law part time. i do another professional endeavor full time but my practice is predominantly first amendment. host: and mr. nieman, what kind of law do you practice? guest: commercial law, commercial litigation. i also do apellate work here in pennsylvania. host: blacksburg, virginia, debbie, democratic line. hi, you're on with tim nieman and margie phelps. caller: you all came here to

blacksburg this year. very close to the anniversary of april 16, the massacre at virginia tech, and i certainly was out there with my own sign. but i don't understand. did god tell you to come to virginia tech, the site of this horrific mass murder, why were you here? host: mrs. phelps. guest: yes, i'll tell you again, the wrath of god is pouring out on this nation. it is the duty of the church of the lord jesus christ to articulate to this nation, you brought that wrath by your sin. we've got to do that in ways that you hear so we do parodies in song and video. we do signs, we do multiple webpages, we are going to use every lawful means for your eyes, ears and hearts are drawn by the lord your god to get these words in front of you. that is 100% lawful.

it is the essence of the constitutional democracy we say we have. ma'am, you did the right thing. you got a placard and put words on this. host: what's the best website for people to go to your website, what's the best way to do that? guest: www.godhatesfags.com. host: mr. nieman, what do you want to say? guest: she talked how the church acts lawfully and protests lawfully and protests the united states. the supreme court rules against the church they will protest the way they've been protesting. this is a case, i think, as justice ginsburg said, as exploitation. not only exploitation of this family but exploitation of a lot of people that surd grief

for tragedy in this country. it's really a shame. and i hope the supreme court brings an end to it. host: few more minutes left with our guests, margie phelps and tim nieman. evanston, illinois, randy, illinois. please go ahead, randy. caller: yes. good morning. i really want to say that i really respect ms. phelps and i have the utmost respect for you now that i've heard you describe. the media has you standing outside the pearly gates shouting and that's untrue. if the court comes back and rules against you, they have -- that will be a huge chunk snatched out of the freedom of speech. same way they did with the -- when they came in favor of the citizens united and allow corporations to do what they do now, give this money to all this -- so i encourage you that you stay the course, do not give up this fight.

you've given up -- you stayed in this fight to keep the freedom of speech. thank you. host: mrs. phelps, who filed briefs on behalf of the westboro baptist church? guest: well, it was a group of first amendment scholars, a group of 2407b some media organizations, the thomas jefferson center, the rutsford institute. i may be leaving some out. those are the ones i remember. host: did most of them in their apple cuss briefs use when referring to your tactics or to what you do refer to them as reprehensible, repugnant, offensive? guest: every kind of colorful word you could imagine which by the way is why even though people raised a question about it i did the work before the court because i appreciate that's their viewpoint but this little church is not going to

apologize for its worsdz and i was concerned that offerings take a lead on the case that they would not resist the temptation to give into the enormous pressure for political correctness in this nation. they would not have resisted the temptation to apologize for our work. and let me clarify something. whatever the court rules, it may give some more guidelines when a state or congress passes a law that puts some restrictions on win, where and how we can speak. we either challenge them or we follow them. if the court gives us some guidelines, we'll follow them. you are not shutting up this church. host: mr. nieman, besides the v.f.w., who filed amicus briefs

on behalf of the snyder family? guest: there were 40 senators. it was one time when mitch mcconnell and senator harry reid were able to get together on something. 40 senators filed an amicus briefs. there were states attorney generals that filed an amicus in favor of mr. snyder. the veterans of foreign war, the american legion, there also were a couple of law school professors that filed briefs as well. it was about the same number of amicus briefs on both sides. host: republican line, go ahead. caller: i'm christine. did he die for the lawyers as yourself or for the sinners? and i want to say that you are

in violation of the law, the law that says you should love thy neighbor as thyself. host: margie phelps. guest: i hope you understand the word seminole, it means first. one of the two commandments on which the lord jesus christ said all other commandments hang and it is love thy neighbor as thyself. you don't get to make up what that means just like you don't get to make up what terms out of the cases mean. the seminole verse says that you do it by three ways. you obey the commandments of god yourself so don't covet your neighbor's property and don't sleep with your neighbor's wife. the second way is you urge your neighbor himself to obey the commandments of god less he bring the wrath of god down on his head. and third when he doesn't, you're rebuking so that passage says if you don't rebuke your

neighbor for his sin you hate him in your heart. i don't know anybody in the world outside of westboro baptist church fulfilling that royal law. and are the other question, who did christ die for? you know what, if you crack a bible and just read the words that are read, those are christ's words, you would have your answer. he died for the mournful, obedient sinner, not the proud homosexual walking in the gay pride parade. that lie told by the two million false prophets of this land is why we're in this mess. host: why is it the gay issue, margie phelps, that gets your blood boiling? guest: doesn't get my blood boiling. it gets me talking. and the reason it gets me talking is it's because what you all are talking about. we did not make that the front burner boiler issue of this

nation. it's not me who puts in every headline in every publication forum in this nation a burn quest for same-sex marriage. once you bring it up, however, we will comment on god's view just like once mr. snyder brought it up we answered him. and earlier when mr. nieman said, well, everybody could be their target. yes, you enter the public discussion and we will answer you. you don't enter the public discussion, we won't even know about you. host: sue of whiting, new jersey, writes protest any military funeral is not good. host: donovan, democrat.

you're on the air. caller: hi. i'd just like to say these protesters are not actually whistleblowers. they're actually assuming the role of characters in the bible, characters such as job that know the will of god. they're not actually making claims about -- expressing their first amendment right. they're just trying to know the will of grod, which they can do. -- god, which they can do. host: gary in lancaster, massachusetts. we're talking about protesting at military funerals heard yesterday in the supreme court. only a couple minutes left. margie phelps and tim nieman are our guests. go ahead, gary. caller: yes. i just want to ask ms. phelps. she seems to know so much about the bible, the bible is

essential to her mission of going on protesting at funerals and places like that. you know, i became familiar with the bible when i was in the navy. there's many passages in the bible that talks about god loving the world. ok. and since she's familiar with the bible, she ought to know what john 3:16 that verse, what that says and it's principle to the christian belief. that is a central verse, scripture verse for those who believe in the christian religion. does she know what that verse says? host: mrs. phelps. guest: also central to the christian belief is john 3:18. you need to keep reading, sir. he died for the believers. he did not die for the unbelievers. it should be the burning

question on the hearts and minds of all 310 million americans. how do you get into the category of believer or unbeliever? and by the way, now that we keep bringing the bible up, it is the revealed will of god. what nonsense to say you cannot determine the will of god? can you read? host: mr. nieman, this email from south carolina. this is a situation where free speech and freedom of religion collide. a funeral is religious activity and protected by the constitution. guest: that did not come up in the argument yesterday. to respond to what ms. phelps said. it's ok to rebuke her neighbor but the question in this case, and i'm not an expert on biblical interpretation, but the question is whether she can rebuke her neighbor in a

private funeral or whether she can use some other forum to do that and that's really the heart of this case. where and how can they say the things that they want to say? host: last call for our two guests. east green bush, new york, addy on our independent line. you have the last word. go ahead. caller: good morning. this is an extremely troubling situation. mr. nieman, our society is beginning to recognize the destruction of language and there are many hate crime statutes throughout the country. why was this not used as a basis for the case? was that the not possible when it was originally brought? guest: the reason being is this was a private lawsuit by mr. snyder against the church as opposed to the state of maryland trying to enforce the hate crimes statute. so it really wasn't part of the case, per se. hate speech and voting words

and things like that were brought up and discussed. but in terms of the actual enforcement of a state statute by the state, that was not what occurred in this case. host: and we are out of time. tim nieman, amicus brief for the snyder family on behalf of the v.f.w. margie phelps, lawyer for the westboro baptist church, and her father, fred phelps. thank you for being on "washington journal" to discuss this case. guest: thank you. host: about an hour and 15 minutes left in our program this morning. coming up next is ilyse hogue from moveon.org. we'll talk about progressives and election 2010. after that, ryan crocker will join us. it's the ninth anniversary of the start of the afghanistan war. but first, this news update from c-span radio. >> it's 8:42 a.m. eastern time. two former presidents and a former governor are making appearances on the same day in the state of alabama. george w. bush will speak thursday evening at the university of mobile's annual leadership banquet. on the same day, jimmy carter

and his wife are being honored by habitat for humidity in birmingham. and sarah palin visits montgomery for faulkner university. and that former governor and former vice-presidential candidate is also planning a trip to delaware to campaign for republican senate candidate christine o'donnell. she tells fox news that she's excited about it. a survey shows christine o'donnell trailing her democratic opponent, chris coons, by 17 points. abc reports that for the first time pennsylvania candidate arlen specter will campaign for joe sestak, the candidate who ended his hopes for a sixth term in the senate by winning in the primary election. senator specter will appear with mr. sestak in philadelphia monday. he'll also be appearing with senator bob casey of pennsylvania and new york senator democrat chuck schumer. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio.

>> despite the uprising and state crackdown that followed last year's iranian elections, many influential still believe in an islamic republic. this year on "after words," the complexity of eye rance. find the complete schedule at booktv.org. >> hey, middle and high school students, enter c-span's student cam's video documentary competition. make a five to eight-minute video on this year's theme, washington, d.c., through my lens. tell us about an issue, events or topics that helped you better understand the role of the federal government in your life or community. be sure to include more than one point of view along with c-span programming. download your video to c-span by january 20, 2011 and you'll have a chance to wind the grand prize of $5,000. there's $50,000 in total prizes. c-span student cam video documentary competition is open to all students grades six

through 12. for complete details go online to studentcam.org. >> most generals, their greatness is what they do on the battlefield. washington's greatness was what he did between battles. simply holding the contental -- continental army together. >> ron chernow, the first large-scale single biography about our first president on c-span's "q&a." >> "washington journal" continues. home we're now joined by ilyse hogue of moveon.org. she's the political advocacy and communications director. ms. hoeing -- ms. ho combmbings ue, where is moveon targeting specific races? guest: well, what we've seen our members real focused on is trying to turn this political

climate that do senators and that do representatives who have been there fighting their good fight to pass legislation are not the ones that suffer so we've got a short list of what we call our progressive heroes which are the folks that if everything else goes wrong we want to make sure we have their back because they've been there for us. but broadly we are very focus on the ground game. we know that that's the way that progressives and democrats can win in 2010 and making sure that we retain speakership in the house and majority in the senate. host: so who are your heroes in the senate that you are working for? senator feingold? guest: senator feingold and senator boxer, the ones our members voted on. host: i believe that it was "the hill" that senator feingold has refused outside money. has he refused your $5,000? guest: no, those are direct small donor funds for him.

he has not refused it nor should he because these are american voters giving at rates at $25 and $30. my understanding is historically senator feingold has refused outside ad spending as he -- well he should. host: moveon.org was all over the news in 2008 and 2006. we haven't heard that much about you this year. is it because in your view the tea parties have sucked a lot of the media oxygen away from the moveons or has your fundraising and enthusiasm been down? guest: no, actually we're seeing exactly the same kind of rates of our members willing to get engaged and give money as we did in 2006, our presidential election years are always a bit higher.

i think what we've seen is the rise of noisy minority who has certainly, you know, been screaming pretty loud in opposition to everything that's happening in washington. our members have been working in the past two years to help pass progressive legislation, to help get the health care bill passed and the financial regulations bill. host: one in "the wall street journal" in his column is the headline "obama pulls down his party" and he goes through a couple specific races. russ feingold down by eight or nine points in most polling. michael bennett, senator benett down in colorado. are you facing the same types with your other progressive heroes? guest: well, i think what we're seeing right now is certainly our members and other members of the progressive base actually reckoning with the

fact that now that we've seen what it looks like to have control of both chambers of congress to have control of the white house, there's some problems that run deeper than others. i know "the washington post" had a huge issue this morning about lobbying. core americans are very put off, alienated by the idea that lobbyists run washington. and that's a problem that predates obama but it hasn't gone away. what we're seeing is around the country progressives willing to engage in races where those elected representatives fought that fight and are fighting to stand up to corporate interests, are fighting to reform government. so it actually works for middle-class america again. host: did the citizens united case help or hurt moveon.org as an outside group? guest: well, i mean, i think it hurts our democracy. quite honestly. question are an independent pack. we cannot take donations over $5,000 from any single

individual. we only have a handful of those. and we disclose with the s.e.c. any donor over $5,000. what we've seen with citizens united is our dollars don't go as far because we have people like the coke brothers able to come in and pour billions -- well, millions into an election when the outside, right-wing outside front groups are intending on spending $400 million, the couple million that we plan to spend doesn't go as far in the air war. i think it's a huge mistake to measure enthusiasm based on who can buy more ads because that's like saying democracy's for sale to the highest bidder. host: ilyse hogue is our guest. she's with moveon.org. she's the political advocacy director, communications director. 202 is the area code. talking about progressives and 2010. 202-737-0001 for republicans. 202-737-0002 for democrats. and 202-628-0205 for all

others. sorry about that. allow 30 days between your calls. you can send a tweet, twitter.com/cspanwj. sarah in tucson, arizona, on our democrats' line. you are first up with ilyse hogue. caller: hi. i'm actually a moveon member. i have been a moveon member for a few years. i really appreciate moveon, what it does. you really care about equality. you deserve equal rights. i just really appreciate that. my question for you actually ties into the last segment because i'm so disgusted by people that use religion to hate. i just want to know what you think about margie phelps and people who use religion and use politics and use the laws to hate orse. host: ilyse.

guest: i want to thank you for hearing from you guys. i couldn't agree more. i mean, i think that one of the things that makes our country great is that all speech is protected and at the same time there is a necessary -- in order to live in a civil society we have to have the ability to actually respond to our communities around this one. they're saying what you're doing no matter how legal it is is destructive to the fabric of our community and we really don't want to have it. host: you have an ad playing up in new hampshire where there's a senate race going on. we want to show that ad and tell us why this ad is being put out. >> you can judge a person by the company they keep. well, senate candidate kelly is getting $1 million worth of help from the chamber of congress, a group recently accused of tax fraud for diverting money meant for charity toward their partisan

agenda. tax breaks for the wealthy, denying americans better health care and cutting jobs for tichers and first responders all to benefit their millionaires friends on wall street. if kelly is on their side, do you think she'd be on yours? >> not responsible for the content of this advertisement. >> we actually ran that ad a couple weeks ago but we had no idea at the time how impressionate it may be. a report has come out in the last two days that shows that not only has the chamber lobbied for corporate tax breaks to ship jobs overseas but in fact now it appears they've been taking money from foreign corporations and foreign governments and potentially funding their $75 million of attack adess against people like russ feingold and in fact not only is that not un-american and the kind of activity we're seeing in the wake of citizens united that's so disruptive to our democracy but in fact it may be illegal. so the purpose of this ad was and will continue to be that if

candidates like kelly ayotte or ron johnson or any of the other beneficiaries of the largess of the chamber are willing to accept that help to win the election, who are these folks going to owe their votes to? we see more corporate tax breaks and more jobs overseas and to benefit the economies of the foreign corporations giving money to the chamber. it is not good for our democracy. it's not good for the american middle class. host: well, another ad by representative joe wilson, republican of south carolina, who's running for re-election, that discusses moveon.org. here's his ad. >> i'm joe wilson and i approve this message. >> i'm major general joe livingston, when i hear what moveon.org said about general petraeus, my blood is going. as a felw marine, i hope that

rob miller will do the right thing and return that money. that is what courage and honor are all about. guest: yeah. it's fascinating to me. i know there has been lots of disagreement about that headline historically, but the idea that somebody wants to bring up a three-year-old ad when we're facing unprecedented unemployment in our generation, when people are worried about how they're going to pay their electricity bill at the end of the month, i just don't think it's ever been -- it's never been a winning strategy. and certainly not now when most americans really want to hear how their lives are going to get better. host: was there a debate within moveon.org about using that headline in your ad? guest: i think -- of course, retroactively, i think there is debates everywhere. but, you know, we do think while reasonable people can certainly disagree with the headline, the point was, still an incredibly important one to

make and it opened up what we were doing in iraq. host: and next call from north carolina. republican line. caller: good morning. i'd just like to say that i don't think everybody out here is enthusiastic about the progressives and i think we can see what the progressives being in charge have done for this country. and i believe that she said the noisy majority. i believe the noisy minority will become the noisy majority at election time this year. i have looked on moveon.org's fage and i believe that any involvement with moveon.org has contributed to the downfall in our educational system. they do not stand for what this country was founded on. and if i see anybody that's associated with moveon.org i

certainly wouldn't vote for them. thank you. host: ms. hogue. guest: we do not have any association with the n.e.a. or than being allies in the progressive movement. i don't disagree with the caller that voters are angry. i think what's incumbent upon voters right now is to recognize that what we are facing is actually the culmination of 20 years of corporate influence in washington. bush-cheney had an open-door policy for the oil companies. that is what resulted in the b.p. spill is their ability to cut corners and cut safety regulations. that the wall street implotion did not happen overnight. it was the result of a dismantling of safety regulations for consumers that we got to reinstate. you know, i understand that's not happening as fast as some people want but we did actually pass some comprehensive regulatory reform bill that

we've seen in decades and so we have more to do. certainly there are some democrats in congress that are culpable of being too close to lobbyists and we need to call them out. that's what moveon did against our primaries against lance lincoln and against steven lynch up in boston. but what we do know is that republican rule is part of what got us into this problem. and that we will see the sort of complete merger of the republican party and the corporate interests that have penned $400 million that got them elected which will not be good for the middle class. host: well, you brought up the arkansas situation. blanche lincoln is down 10 to 15 points to congressman boozeman. is that your goal? i mean, it looks in that case that a republican's going to get elected. guest: certainly looked that way even before the primary was mounted. it did not appear that senator lincoln had a chance to win

and, in fact, americans for job security, which is exactly one of these post-citizens united agreed. for the first time ever they ran an ad in a democratic primary against bill holtzer because they saw the writing on the hall, they know if he won he would have a better chance of taking that race and keeping that seat for democrats than lincoln had. it's unfortunate but that's what progressives were trying to avoid by helping holter win the nomination. host: university farc, illinois. democrat. guest: good morning, ms. -- caller: good morning, ms. hogue. guest: good morning. caller: i want to make a statement. the right-ring fanatics want to bring up religion, i wish a statement can be made that, how can anyone tell a grown person, whether they are religious or not, who he or she cannot

marry? how can they have a right to tell a grown person who he or she cannot marry? and not only use religion -- why don't they adhere to those things, not simply the ones that talk about homosexuality? host: what about the issue of same-sex marriage, is that an issue important to your membership? guest: yeah, it stands firmly behind the idea that civil rights are fundamentally american and should be extended to every single american. .

host: the next call comes from virginia, on the republican line. caller: the the morning, and thank god for free-speech. it has been a great morning. and a quick question -- what is it like to work for george soros? can you give us some reflection on his character? we get a lot of biased reporting, but you know better than most. if you could let some of us know what type of man he is? guest: i never met him, but he did support move on for a short time in the to doesn't solar -- since 2004, of their records show that we did not receive support from him since that

time. host: it has been reported that george soros has really cut down on his contributions to progressive groups of this era. guest: the big story was that he was staying out of the election. that he is continuing to fund work along the lines of what he is focused on, which i think is clean energy. and some of that type of stuff. host: but concerning the enthusiasm level on the progressive side? guest: i have had the case may. i think the article not only decided it -- traditionally a large donor -- i think hoping to sit this one now. i think that falls into the same trap of measuring enthusiasm dollar per dollar, which we think is not only bad analysis,

but not really the democratic way to measure it. when we have 5 million members getting involved, when we have people even in times of economic struggle still giving $20 or $25 because that is what they can afford, that is significant. it is significant enthusiasm. a shows that the middle class in america, not necessarily those who can afford to give millions at a time, but the middle class know exactly what is at stake. they are giving $25 when they can scarcely afford it. because they recognize in order to provide jobs for the middle- class and to stabilize the economy, we need to maintain democratic majority and a congress. the republicans will only work for their corporate millionaire friends. host: the next phone call comes from des moines. caller: your conversation about george soros got me thinking

about another question. could c-span do a little homework and report back to us about how much money you think he has donated to the liberal, progressive, and democratic candidates and causes since the beginning of say 2000? host: there several groups out there who have that information. the center for responsive politics. you can go to their website, and also the son might foundation. the fcc records. guest: there is a blog post -- from zero beensecrets.com just outlined what george soros has given. caller: hello, i wanted to tell you that i live in a small town in arkansas. as far as many of us are

concerned, moveon.org lost all credibility when they went against john kerry and what about all those negative ads about how his medals and service to the u.s. was no good because of one medal. they took a bonafide euro and turned him into nothing. host: juanita, hold on. guest: that was a right wing hate group. it was ed gillespie who is now defending some groups we see doing attack ads now. no, we were very supportive of john kerry and members bet lots of time tried to help him get elected. host: does that help?

caller: it does in some way, but moveon.org did support that. host: i have to call you out on that one -- is 100% inaccurate. they were not on the side. what is your next point? caller: ifanche lincoln does not become, does not get reelected, it will be because of her vote that she made on the obama health care. host: who did you support in the primary? caller: which primary? host: in your democratic senatorial primary. caller: i supported blanche lincoln. guest: we believe part of the problem with blanche lincoln was she spent so much time fighting the good fight for the health insurance companies and watering

down the health insurance legislation that people saw her as a leader of making the bill in effect. lots of news has come out showing that americans who are healthcare voters, 3-1, support the democrats. host: there is a report that the tea party movement has energized democrats? guest: it is probably true. first of all, we're just getting closer to the election. and when they look around, it they see some pretty seriously stark options. there is an enormous fight in the republican party about the tea party that advocates extreme views on social issues for most americans want to maintain control of their own lives. then you have republican

leadership that is in lockstep with corporate america, with the chamber of commerce, with americans for prosperity which are the oil and gas billionaires'. as the choices come into focus and become more stark, it is not just progressive, but all of the voters who are saying that they need to start paying attention and be sad. when they look around, it is scary. they think they ought to get involved and do their part. host: the next call comes from ohio. caller: i find it fascinating that she was willing to give barack obama and his -- in these 20 months, and moveon.org just obliterated in the first few days -- they were very angry at

george bush on a regular basis. i believe there were not willing to give him a chance because i think they believed he was driving us into a ditch. ideology tends not only to drive the tea party the net but also liberal groups such as moveon.org but i honestly believe that moveon.org as more of a do-gooder group that tends to want to do good but nothing but bad tends to come from it. host: ilyse hogue? guest: i think it is not done true that we were very concerned when george bush got elected that he would take the country in the wrong direction. and i think that many americans would agree that our deficit, and our involvement in two wars -- now think that joe stiglitz has said have cost as $6

trillion while the economy at home suffers. that was the wrong choice for our country. we stand with members in saying that it was. the last 20 months have been interesting. there have been times where we have disagreed with this administration and have not shied away from telling them. but overall we have made progress on that our members' core concerns with healthcare, and reining in wall street, and making sure the middle class america has a fair chance. host: coming up in five minutes, ambassador ryan crocker --the ninth anniversary of the afghanistan war. caller: good morning. i need to make two points. first of all, i am flabbergasted at america. you know what?

if people think those nominating the two party candidates -- there's no way they're going to washington. their genders will be pushed. all those representatives and senators who have been there a long time -- it does not work like that. because you have an agenda -- you all are really being fooled if you think that they're going up there with the idea that they would change washington. president obama, he went. and i know that he thought lots of things would change. got in saw that when he di there, things he could not accomplish right away. guest: i think that the caller is correct -- change takes a long time.

especially when people are right to a culture in washington that has developed over decades that says that lobbies deal every day and deals are cut in the back rooms. it is that dynamic that alienates many voters. we need more people wanting to come and change things. we need more people wanted to stand up to corporate interests , and work for their constituents to rebuild the middle class. that may not happen in the next two years, but if we don't keep bringing them to washington, we will never restore the credibility and confidence. host: what is your biggest fear about the election 2010? guest: that it will turn more voters off. democracy is a marathon, not a sprint. my hope is that we see some people who have been calling out the culture of corruption in the washington, d.c. get

rewarded and be elected to congress. host: tennessee, judy, a republican. caller: how about the million dollars that bp which is british petroleum gave to obama and oprah, and warren buffett, and george soros, and all the unions? now it is time they take credit for the money that they gave when they're talking about other people being able to done it. we all ought to have equal rights to the no, not just rich democrats. an article said that obama is tied to western. he is getting money from everywhere. this commission on debt -- he is tied to wall street, and this article. he said that the president only zero points commissions, when he is too cowardly to make decisions. doesn't he have 17 commissions going on now?

guest: she is correct that the culture of corruption extends across both parties. we have seen president obama limit lobbyist contributions more than any president. but we still have a long way to go. host: the last call comes from virginia, tim. caller: thanks. i wanted to make a comment on what i think is driving some of these more vocal movements, such as the tea party. and how that mindset can be given to reactions against the more extremist-type movements. think there is a certain amount of emotional response. the people who are speaking in

appealing to the people are able to tap into. sometimes that emotional response is devoid of rational thinking. on the other side, the rational people who are hearing what your guest is saying really need to listen to her. and tap into the rational side, and moved to action. host: we are out of time and will have to leave it there. guest: i think he just gave me a nice compliment. but what we want is for everyone to get involved in the elections. democracy works best when all americans are involved. take it back from the highest bidder -- the corporations. go to moveon.org and get involved in your local race. host: ilyse hogue is the political advocacy director at moveon.org. 45 minutes left.

coming up next, former pakistan and iraq embassador, ryan crocker. it is the ninth in a retreat of the afghanistan war. first an update. >> it is just after 9:00 a.m. -- jobless numbers are just in the gut the labor department reports applications for unemployment benefits dropped for the first time in five weeks. it is the lowest level in three months. the weekly applications have really fallen below 450,000 this year, and never for long the than two weeks. the economists say that a sustained drop below 425,000 would signal that employers are stepping up the hiring. the retailers are expecting sales gains -- reporting them for september backed up by a back-to-school shopping. the results give some hope for a positive shopping season. turning to the upcoming midterm elections -- and a story says the number of voters to cast

early ballots increased by 50% over 2006 midterms. nearly 6 million people took part in the early butting in 13 states argued including california, florida, and texas. the trend is reshaping political campaigns. politico reports that the gift to the governors' associations with the result of rupert murdoch's present project with the former fox news has and present ohio gubernatorial hopeful. he says it does not reflect on fox news, and added that it had nothing to do with fox news. he said the gift was actually a result of his friendship with john casig. >> this is been a worse provide coverage of politics, non- fishing, and american history. it is all available on tv, radio come on line, and on

social media networking sites. we take c-span on the road with our digital box. it is washington your way, the c-span networks. available in more than 100 million homes. >> most generals, their greatness is what they do on the battlefield. arguably washington's grimness was as much what he did in between the battles -- his greatness. >> on sunday, this author on his just-published biography on george washington. >> this weekend and through december, listen to the landmark supreme court cases on c-span radio. >> we are arguing that you may not publicly desecrate the flag,

regardless of the motivation for your action. >> flag-burning and freedom of speech, 6:00 p.m. eastern on c- span radio. "washington journal" continues. host: it is the ninth anniversary of the start of the afghanistan war. it joining us from kabul is mr. julius cavendish who is on the ground in kabul. many of the papers talked about the talks between the afghanistan government and the taliban. can you give us an update? guest: hello.

can you hear me? [unintelligible] the talks surrounding them remain murky. there is skepticism because most of the information comes from the afghan officials -- [unintelligible] [static] [echo] ditch that stipulation

and agreed to a ceasefire -- as i said, all information is here say. there needs to be some caution. the messaging is an important part of that. if there are serious talks taking place --[unintelligible]

host: i apologize, that was a really bad connection out of kabul, so we will have to let mr. julius cavendish go, and will try to get him on at a future date. and now joining us from college station, texas is the former ambassador to pakistan and iraq, former state department official. he served in italy eastern affairs during the bush administration, and is now current dean of the school of government at texas a&m. i want to begin with "the wall street journal" -- pakistan urges on the taliban, the front page story.

could we get your response to that? guest: you know, i have seen those kind of allegations and assertions during the years that i was in pakistan from 2004 until 2007. the picture is clouded. the security forces have lost hundreds, even thousands of soldiers in the fight against terror. many of those against taliban and affiliated groups. at the same time, there are clear indications that some elements of the pakistani establishment are hedging their bets. i take this latest store with a measure of caution and prudence. i do not see it as the reflection of a strategic shift in the pakistani policy.

what we may have is a deliberately planted story on the part of the pakistanis reflecting their deep unhappiness over the nato air strikes in the pakistani territory, that killed several pakistani soldiers. we all need to calm down on both sides, reassess, and reflect on the importance of a strategic partnership. and get on with the fight. host: do you agree with peace talks? do you think it is an effective strategy, after they were kicked out? guest: i believe is good to talk to just about everybody. that is the strategy that we followed in iraq as we've worked to deconstructs that particular insurgency. i think it is important in afghanistan as well. but timing and sequence is

important. the best prospect for headway with the taliban or talibans, because it is not a monolithic organization, is after the surge has had an effect. we are still in the early stages. the taliban must feel they are no longer winning before these kinds of talks are truly effective. i'm not sure we are there yet. host: bob woodward who will be a guest tomorrow on this program, this was his take -- he is quoting the director of the dni. "the best way out of afghanistan would be for president obama to broker some kind of peace between india and pakistan, the director of national intelligence had said in november 2008."

guest: that is a nice vision, but the indo-pak problem has been out there since the creation of two states, 62 years ago. i don't think you will see resolution of the tensions anytime soon. we must be realistic for pakistan. india is the ultimate strategic threat. not afghanistan. we have to take that into account and manage the tensions. it is not realistic to think we could broker a comprehensive solution that has included the world for the past six decades. host: do you support the strategy of general david petraeus, and the use of drones? guest: i do. it is the extension of an

existing strategy. there is a lot of continuity between the bush and obama administration is on the issues of these countries. this is one of them. the drums were used during my time in pakistan. -- the drone used, and with some excellent effects. that program has been ramped up. it is only part of our strategy and must be carefully modulated and coordinated. it is a significant tool. host: how would you assess the current pakistan-u.s. civilian government? is a strong enough to withstand pressure from military or intelligence? guest: governance has been a johns almost from the creation of the state, particularly between civilians and military. i was there when miss sharp was

also the president. those tensions were submitted -- when mushareff was president. the government faces challenges. there have been the terrific floods.. their ability to govern effectively is very much in question. i have seen fairly encouraging indications that tensions between the civilian government and the uniformed military and intelligence services have been fairly well managed so far. but the tension is always there. host: today is the beginning of the 10th year of the war in afghanistan. where do we stand? are we successful? guest: i think we're making progress. i have been encouraged by the reports i have seen of the surge beginning to gain traction. i have seen comments but admiral

the spoke here at the university just last week. as well as by general david petraeus. we are beginning to gain traction. it is a long war. this is the beginning of the 10th year. it will go on for a good bit longer. we in america must adjust to that. general david petraeus and i talked about the difference between the washington club and the baghdad clock when testifying before congress two years ago. it is even different when you look at the washington clock and that of kabul, much less the trouble areas where there are no clocks. i have often felt that as rich as we are as a nation, and as

strong as we are, we lacked certain things. one of them is strategic patience. the ability to simply settle in and fight a long war when we need to. that absence of patience is something that our allies have come to fear and adversaries to count on. as we move into the 10th year, that is what we will need as much as anything else. >> when the war began you were at the state department, assistant secretary of state for near eastern affairs. did you have the patience? are you surprised? are you surprised it has lasted this long? guest: actually, nine years ago today i was in geneva. i was talking with the iranian diplomats as to how we might approach for the overthrow of

the taliban, and more significantly on what might come next. a few months later at the beginning of january 2002, i was in kabul to reopen our embassy. i was there at the beginning. i remember one important event in those early phases. something called operation anaconda, in march to a dozen to -- a concentrated u.s. action -- in 2002 --the fight against remnants. it turned out to be a much harder fight than expected. we had to bring in northern alliance armor to eventually prevail. we saw for the first time afghans moving toward the fight,

trying to get through our lines to join with militants inside. that told me that this is likely going to be a protracted affair. could i have predicted we would be here nine years later? certainly not. but again, fights and not part of the world tend to follow their own progression. our adversaries sometimes do not even really organize for the fight until some point long after we believe we have already won it. host: the bush school of government at texas a&m university. dean ryan crocker. here are the phone numbers for the allianlines. caller: hi. ryan, i think you are one of the finest ambassadors the u.s. has

ever produced. was there even anything in afghanistan when you got there? you have a lot of questions i want to talk about. but this transportation question, it looks like russia might be sending all of our oil and fuel through russia, and pakistan might be losing these contracts because they cannot secure their lines. what is the future of the relationship? what can we do [unintelligible] to purge of certain officers. guest: it has been a long war and we have had an uncertain relationship with pakistan. what we need to establish on all

levels is that we are reliable partner, and it for the long haul. when that happens, some of the hedging we have seen in intelligence will dissipate. but there is no quick or easy fix. it takes patience. it takes commitment. and a willingness to commit for the long haul. host: on the republican line, las vegas. caller: thank you. i know that the war is very unpopular with most all americans, and is growing even more so all the time. if americans could understand that we do have a rational reason to be at war, and the reason is religious. it any religion that has as its

basis the desire to rule the world, or anyone who does not believe, should be killed. that religion should not be allowed to exist. it is a threat not only to the u.s., but to the world. even in this country it seems like the islamics and muslims -- they say they don't believe that, all that -- but they need to either be a muslim or not. any religion. even those in the stick, the jew that feels there is -- a zionistic, the jew that feels there's is the only true belief at the expense of others. taking someone's life -- that is the important part. host: the role of religion in

this fight? guest: our enemies, especially al qaeda, would love to have us turn this into a religious war. christianity versus islam would really make their day, and make their strategy. but that is not what it is. we are fighting against a political enemy who has misuse it is on. look at who our allies are? they are all muslims. in the rocks, the government, security forces, the afghan government and its security forces -- in iraq --these are all muslims who are fighting and dying for their country against internal, or regionally-backed enemies. it is extremely important we see this conflict and its own terms

as a political fight in which religion has been abused and misused, but not make the mistake of doing what al qaeda is trying to -- and make this a war of religions or civilizations. host: baltimore. caller: 4 the previous caller -- i am so sick of hearing these people who are so ignorant. they don't even know about islam. these people to talk about this religion says everyone not their religion should be killed -- that is a falsehood. i wish that people would lead to a muslim at a gas station or what have you. what ever your ignorance will allow you to think. need someone actually in the religion.

have a diatribe after that. what point is that we are killing innocent people. yesterday i saw on cnn a small blurb that said nine were killed in canada are yesterday. -- in kandahar. people cannot say what they feel like -- they are mad because they hate our way of life. well, they're not here to take over america. it is ludicrous. host: bobby, do you think that the u.s. should pull out completely from afghanistan? caller: define what victory is. i feel like it is americans putting our values somewhere is not wanted or respected. we have mutual appreciation for liberty, justice, and equality. of course.

guest: i understand his frustration, and on the part of americans generally as we move into the 10th year here. but we do have to keep focus on why we're there. in afghanistan you can see that clearly. this is about america's national security. we were heavily engaged in afghanistan and pakistan not that long ago in the 1980's as we worked to resist the soviet occupation, the whole anti- soviet jihad. it was basically staged from northwestern pakistan. and it worked. the soviets withdrew in 1989. then why did we do? we also withdrew. we did not have the conventional forces engaged, but we put an end to programs, imposed sanctions on pakistan, both economic and security

assistance terminated. we said goodbye, and good luck, even though we knew that a vicious afghan civil war was going to ensue -- which it did. the taliban emerged dominant. they invited al qaeda to relocate from east africa in the 9/11990's, and the road to and rolled in front of us. we are fighting the same adversaries in the same place. the taliban wants to regain its hold over afghanistan. they still have an alliance with al qaeda. if we decide that we are tired and done, it does not take a tremendous amount of imagination to see what will come next. the taliban will take back the country. al qaeda will have operational space again. in my view, america's national security will be in jeopardy. so, the costs are great in blood

and treasure. it is a long war. but you fight wars for a reason. i think the reasons are very compelling. this is about american national security. host: do you know ambassador patterson, the current ambassador to pakistan? and what you think about the apology yesterday? guest: i do know her. she is one of the finest foreign service officers we have ever produced. before she was our ambassador to the country of colombia. she knows all about hard places. the nato raid, helicopter raid across the border into pakistan was exactly that kind of thing that i resisted strenuously during my tenure there from 2004 until 2007.

the death of pakistani soldiers made it that much worse. the entire image of nato aircraft coming across the border to engage targets on the pakistani side gets at pakistan's deepest sensitivities and concerns. we spoke earlier about the pakistani-indian problem. if you are sitting in islamabad, and looking at allied forces coming across sure eastern border and killing your soldiers, it does not take much imagination to think what if the indians think that is a good idea for the western border? i understand the frustrations

that and tell these type of actions, but as we have seen, these are hugely counterproductive to our effort to build a strategic relationship with pakistan. i believe that ambassador patterson and general david petraeus did the exact right thing. host: this headline says frustration with pakistan is going in the u.s. partly because "we are living in this era." -- from this article, not a headline. guest: that is right. the times square incident could have been hugely damaging. not only in its own terms, but traced back to pakistan could have had very dire consequences. we made that clear to the

pakistanis. but at the same time we need to think smart. not let our emotions and frustrations drive the policy. that means a very serious set of discussions with the pakistanis. there are things they will have to do, but there are also things we will have to do to sustain our relationship of long-term confidence. we need to take a deep breath, go sit under a tree, and think about our long-term interests, and not carry out short-term actions that can work against the interests. host: tampa, thanks for holding. caller: yes, ambassador, when the war first began in pakistan, we had the largest coalition ever built, even larger than the coalition against not to germany.

-- nazi germany. we were able to knock out the strongest army the world had known at that point with the coalition. we would certainly have been able to do that in afghanistan, had we been allowed to stay and finish the job here. but george bush subverted troops into them and to iraq and change the entire focus of the conflict. -- changed the entire focus of the conflict thi. guest: i was there in those early phases. the military operation in early 2001 in afghanistan was called an economy of force operation. it was largely done with special forces, with para-military elements, and some the marine

contingents. but when i got there in january 2002 we did not even have a general officer in the country in combat command. interfirst division commander did not arrive until february 2002. we had a very, very small force on the ground. it was only a us and the british because that was all that it took to do the job. we have built a strong coalition, and it has been imported. this was a fight that developed a very slowly over time. a few years ago when i was in pakistan we probably had less than 20,000 troops on the ground. it is only as the fight exhilarated that we have put in those additional forces -- as the fight accelerated.

this had a very small footprint at the beginning. host: the next call for ambassador ryan crocker is from leavenworth, kan. caller: i was a nippit in baghdad in 2007 and we shared helicopter rides when i was going on mid-tour leave. host: what is a nippit? caller: national transition team police relief. it took a great fortitude to be in charge back in 2007. it was tough times. my question is both a quick statement -- our objective in the pakistan is to fight the taliban to estimates of that of

these some are more willing to make a deal with the karzai government. do we have a corps of experts with pakistan? people who speak urdu, who have lived there, who as the ruling class no the trouble areas? if you are ignorant about the country, you're doomed to fail. i do not see many old hands in there. guest: he makes a great point. to fight effectively need a country of people out there who understand the environment. the truth is, we don't have enough people in the u.s. government who speak these languages and have an in-depth familiarity.

that is where your foreign service comes in. it is what we do and why we recall that. all of us are professionally fluent and at least one language, and they're working very hard to train people who speak dari, pushtu, urdu --the principal languages of pakistan and afghanistan. but it takes time and resources. i hope very much that congress continues to provide the resources to build up a foreign service that can provide exactly these kinds of perspectives and influence that paul notes. host: he served as embassador to iraq and pakistan, has worked for the provisional authority in iraq. he was ambassador to syria, kuwait, lebanon -- among many other middle eastern countries, and was assigned to the embassy

of beirut during its bombing. what is the toughest assignment that you ever had? guest: as you go through the litany, there were a number of tough ones. but without question, my last assignment in iraq, coming in with general david petraeus, trying to make something good happen -- that was the greatest challenge. host: are you satisfied with the result in iraq? guest: is along war, whether it iraq.afghanistafghanistan or there is progress between 2007 and 2008, but it is still the beginning of the story of the new country. we have seen the politics they have gone through to try to form a new government. but our continued assistance will be important.

major contingencies like iraq or else just do not get to have become a stable place in a few years. stablet get to a happy, place and a few years. we have a plan that defines how we can cooperate in all fields in the years ahead. the obama administration has committed to the implementation of the agreement. we have a framework going ahead. but if we think that we can just turn the page on iraq, that we are finished there, i think things could spiral right back down again. host: did you speak to bob woodward about his book? guest: i did not, i am happy to say. host: and bob woodward will be our guest tomorrow.

>> i really think that the people of afghanistan and pakistan over there are not doing enough to help their own country there, and they don't want to get in there -- there are some fighting in the army, but you think it is the majority of people who want to change the country -- that they would do more themselves. stay't see how we can there for eternity and spend the money just to prop them up. when as soon as we leave there will be taken back over. they need to fight themselves. guest: there are two different cases. in pakistan we do not have deployed forces. it is all the pakistanis. while clearly they can and should, and i think will do more, they are fighting and dying and the trouble areas for their country, and doing so in alliance with us.

in afghanistan there has been some encouraging news of further increases in size and capability of afghan security forces. but as paul from kansas who worked as a national police trainer in iraq can tell you, this does not happen overnight. trying to build the and you said of security forces at the same time they are engaged in hostilities is pretty darn difficult. again, i think afghan security forces like the iraqi ones can rise to the johns, but it is not realistic to think they can overnight, or without substantial support from us. host: the next call, about five minutes left with our guest.

it is from seattle, and a republican. caller: president bush, president obama, and all the media said that islam is a peaceful religion. as you know, there are palestinian, syrian, lebanese christians. christiansthe arab commit suicide? guest: i don't think that a person can say at a tenant of any of the great religions of the world is one of violence. certainly, adherents of all the great faiths have practiced violence. jews, christians, and muslims. the notion or tactic of a

suicide bomber, i think, is inherently political. muslims starthi'a this in lebanon, and they have backed away from it. now is among the sunnis. arab christians have played an important role in the development of a rich society and culture in the region, and the they will continue to, but at a different phase in history, you might remember, the palestinian terrorist organizations had a disproportionate representation by palestinian christians. two of the most lethal palestinian terrorist organizations back in the day were headed by arab christians, yet no one at that time thought

it was an expression of the essence of christian faith anymore than i think that we should believe the use of violence by some muslims is an expression of islam. it is simply not true. host: is it important to capture laden?cked-- ben guest: he is only a simple, and has not been operationally effective going back to six years ago when i was in pakistan. we have not been able to get him because he is holed up in a compound somewhere in the afghan/pakistan border region. he does not move or communicate, does not even send emissaries. that is why he is so hard to find. it also means he is not the effective leader of al qaeda, and has not been for years. he does not play an operational role, but is an important symbol. he is important to us, to them.

the hunt for him goes on. we have to get lucky ones. that day will come. we have to get lucky once. i'm confident that we'll get the lead we need, he will make the mistake he should not have, and that we will kill or capture this important symbol for all americans. host: what was the significance of benazir bhutto's assassination? guest: was back in the states when it happened. i had been involved when i was still ambassador to pakistan in early efforts to develop an understanding between her and mushareff to allow her to return. it did play out, but is a reminder that terror can make an important difference. her assassination was a major

setback to pakistan in its efforts to build a stable civilian governments. yet they went ahead with their elections. they did produce a government. the country did not descend into chaos. for all of its challenges, including the tremendous loss of benazir bhutto, i think that pakistan has shown a remarkable resilience inability to keep moving ahead. host: chicago area, a democrat. caller: i do not agree with the investor that the patience of american people has anything to do with it. we are members of western civilization, and as such our forebears' are people like socrates who was a spear- carrying member of the military unit. when he went forth he would expect to