>> wiki leaks has released some 400,000 docks representing the largest security breeches from their kind and drawn a sharp rebook from the pent he gone. we begin this morning talking about the release of secret

files. what it means and how the department of defense is responding to it getting involved in the conference. to send us an electronic message this morning, send it to journal at c-span wj.

welcome to the program. tell us about the reporting over the next year as american forces withdraw from iraq. those are tensions and how those will be resolved.

>> when you say tactical level, what does that mean? field level reports on the ground kind of low level units and divisions they don't give away secrets of how troops operate. of the almost 400,000 reports,

we identified 20 we wanted to post on the web we redacted them and took out anything that could take away tactics we brought these to the pentagon. they said, we don't like the fact that these are going to be published after you showed them, did they ask you to redact anymore information from what

they had tried show you in the report what about a reaction from iraq? any response from iraq or from men and women on the street? jo no. it is too soon for that. these raise an important question what happens? who watches over this? who pushes back over the influence thank you for joining

us on the phone this morning. >> thank you. in iraq. they write that the archive is the second cache dush

we move on. on our line for republicans. welcome to washington journal. caller: thank you. my thoughts are i guess we heard the spin from the "new york times." over 400,000 pages of reports, they could only find 20 that were possible about national security threats from a military background, i've read these reports. there's no security threat

whatsoever. >> what kind of background do you have? i served in the marines and served in iraq and afghanistan. >> anything you find surprising or shocking? >> it's everything i experienced these are incident reports i agree with the last caller. i did not go to iraq. i would not go. there's no reason to go. on 9/12/2001, we were ghoing to war. i knew that by working there. it all started on 9/11.

i know how this works. george bush, the rest of those oil greedy bastards wanted to go to war with iraq. >> saying last night, beg released on behalf of the iraq war lords. are you aware the outline you gave this morning wasn't careful

enough? >> no, i'm worried that the president chooses to release credible reports like that from the pentagon. we have a strong confidence. it's not referring to our material they try to release some deceptive statement to fool

the world press >> we are talking the wiki leaks release the next call from danville, virginia. go ahead. >> good morning. the weekly release is a bunch of propaganda to make america look bad. in order for them to have an enemy. -- good morning. >> if you turn your television down, you won't get that feedback. >> we are going to another line for democrats in kentucky, go

ahead. what can you do about wiki leak trying to stop this stuff from going on the computer >> stopping them from releasing information. >> larry, do you think it is possible for them to stop that? the numbers, if you want to call us

>> make sure you turn your television down. >> tim from maryland, good morning. i think it's a crime to have so much top secret information. they are calling this a war. this is not a war. they are lying to you they are

masking them as war. these are illegal invasions. everybody calling these wars are lying >> more from the "new york times" article saying, more about the article in a few minutes. from new york on the line. host: interesting, i wasn't going to comment. you said more contractors there than soldiers. the two wars there is going to cost us already $1 trillion republicans want to cut back

already in so many ways certain military secrets should remain not publy sized i think democrats should have the guts to speak out. ed from the ed show is the only guy on the network. cnn is like light news. fox is a political organization. >> what about the comments from

michael jurored on of the "new york times" saying most of the information is just basic information about troop activity on the ground the government still has to operate. not necessarily being in the public view >> you can read about these on our website as well as war logs daunt wiki leaks.org.

back to the phones, hollywood, california on the republican line. caller: i think we should have more information it's really a scarey thing to have access to information if something bad happened because of the information being let out.

>> at some point, some things should stay in-house and be private

>> keith on washington journal. you have to realize war is hell. you don't really know who you are fighting against.

united states had too much interest over there on our line. good morning. >> with these leaks, we are so concerned about our security. >> let me get your response out

of this writing u.s. officials embracing for the defense of the documents when it comes to the security of men and women who fight through

a country and your national security why were there closed door meetings. pulling up on what the government said happened making decisions of all the facts i'm

looking forward to knowing what these are. host: will this affect how you vote in november? caller: no. i'm a huge supporter of mr. fein goeld. he's been against the war from the beginning and giving us full disclosure from the beginning re0 veeling serial detain yoe abuse that which is done is in

general for the hearing, you said, yes. people did. i repeat that is really important. showing the involvement. walter on our lines for

republicans. go ahead. the military is dangerous. can't do anything against them. i believe he could be taken out and arrested. host: mairld on the line. caller: the united states is presently in war releasing information is completely inappropriate.

the attorney general stopped it for the first time. it is not acceptable. >> we sit back and do nothing. this government is incapable of doing anything. we can no longer claim the moral

high ground >> one concern is how much government resource goes into a battle like this. >> go to white house gov. there's a lot of really good clear information

>> i find this interesting they

were estimated to be very, very high our involvement is helpable. it's not appropriate to say it is wiki leak. it shows the damage the u.s. is sdog in iraq.

host: 400,000 records are offering a chilling review american contractors came play host: san antonio, texas on the phone. caller: home of the great air force base now closed. we can interrogatory ate people to get information like that. what are we supposed to do, buy them a coke? no, you boat the f -- out of

them. host: to the phone. caller: where was the outrage we found out we were outraged this government and lying to us to begin with. following the president on the campaign trail. riding on a california fixture running some of the comments on

c-span. polls suggest boxer has a slight sleed she has yesterday to break the margin. the match before boxer in spending. it would increase the chance of the senate this contest wok would be viewed on november 23. this ground as friendly as clear clear

host: on the line. caller: if we keep covering things up. what happens when our government is doing things we don't like, objecting to the exposure of this. would we not want that uncovere uncovered? ness how tyrants ruled nations. host: huntington beach, california go ahead. caller: i don't know with the whole release and everything. it's not the actual release that will hurt troops or americans.

it's the actual acts that are being described. i think it's a good thing that they are being released to show what is going on. the fact is, the act that's took place in our forces and their forces are the thing that caused the real threat. >> i'd like to comment to -- in general about the information, that comes out regarding our military troops. i know someone in the military.

a lot in a comes out, he tells me we want believe everything we read. how about all the torture and abuse that never gets recorded. we are fighting much of what has been released comes from the government itself. these are documents they are releasing. >> how do you know for sure? >> how do you know they are not? >> how do you know they are? our military is an intelligent

system. they are not going to a lo that to be released. i a think lot of physicals information gets out to stir people up. host: from wire reports, they write --. host: back to the phones. georgia, greg is on the line for independents. caller: thank you for having me.

i think people need to get over sense abilities. war involves death and other things. if you are for it, it should not be hidden. make the hard choice. they can't make those informed choices without all the information to make those choices. people need all the information possible. it is not pretty. host: more from the campaign trail out of the wall street journal this morning. the gop appears likely to win every state elected office as well as take or strengthen control over legislatures. republican sweep could give the party control over redrawing of districts after the census white

conservative voters in the south. flush >> first of all, if our government allows for an organization to apply this information out in our society, don't you believe we should have some sort of control over that

i don't believe the government is doing something foolish to allow this program to exit. i believe they are doing something tactical. >> the g 20 split

>> back to the phones regarding the release of secret iraq files. go ahead. caller: i wanted to comment on the woman and people in a think there weren't any wmds. when saddam use it had on the kerds in the north.

those things probably went to syria. i don't know if we should have went in there and done anything. we started building up these people. they turn around and use them on us and their allies. host: we have a program know for you on news makers this week. due to deliver a report by december to congress and the president on the causes of the nation's financial crisis is our guest. during the interview, he talks about what the commission is reporting companies knew about the mortgages they were packaging. >> the major investment makes

employed firms to look at quality they were looking at. we have known for quite some time that the quality hawaii had become toxic. we knew the major banks had some general information. they were being bought by firms. they didn't even meet the underwriting standards. that is something that law enforcement would have to make determination of

host: have you referred it to the fcc? guest: we have to respecial the process. we take that charge seriously and will full if i am that obligation. host: you can see the entire interview and it is vablth on back to our phones and the discussion of wiki leaks all those guys on the plane were from saudi arabia.

when bombs go off from the air we took out cities and stuff like that. we have killed babies and grandparents. that's part of war. host: coming from the los angeles times.

host: the last call regarding this release on the line for republicans. go ahead. caller: yes. i'm actually a democrat. this proves it is important for all countries to participate in the international criminal court. it is not fair to have war criminals and crimes. it is imperative. it affects the people directly meaning the soldiers and family of the soldiers. host: when we come back, we'll talk about what is the middle class. you are watching washington

journal today on saturday the 23rd. we'll be right back. >> this weekend. whether american media with goals and need to entertain is good for democracy. after wards, believing that

president obama proves a threat to the u.s. look for the tv schedule on line at book tv.org. >> saturday's landmark supreme court cases >> supreme court radio. >> in 1965, they decided they would ware small black arm bands expressing different views nationwide on xm channel 132 and

on line at c-span radio.org. >> this week on "q&a," compare and contrast the house of representatives and house of congress. the rules that run parliament and congress on "q&a." >> washington journal continues. host: christian dorsey is here to talk to us about the middle class and how government policies impact those americans. what is the middle class? guest: it means so many different things. let me give you some rough pair meters.

generally, you excuse the top 20% and bottom 20% and what you have in the middle 60% is the middle class you are talking mem making $25,000 to $30,000 a year to $100,000. it depends in what part of the country you live and what that income buys you. host: the definition is an income between $51,000 and $123,000 for a two-parent,

income. guest: people also try to identify what is the middle. that's about $50,000 for a house hold. that's kind of what you are seeing. host: 53% of americans define themselves as middle class with a house hold income between $40,000 to $250,000. how has middle class changed over the years? guest: it used to be in the 1950's, 1960's and 1970s, you scombekted a middle class income would afford you to purchase a home and car and have hobbies. when we have seen is that the

middle class has been able to perform different things. in the last decades, their income has slid back. families are more vulnerability >> throughout the morning, we'll refer to an article entitled "riding it out." we'll get to that in a few seconds. how are middle class families riding out this current situation?

credit cards were tools for many people to fund their lifestyles were restricted to a great degree. families really had to do without. middle class has been the engine and key to spending. there's really no demand for goods and services. >> to get involved in the information, 202-737-0001, democrats, 202-737-0002.

outside the u.s., 202-628-0184 or send us messages on twitter and email. what is it that the middle class can expect from congress and the white house to try to get them back on something that more resem bells the middle class?

it is really going to take a massive stimulus to stimulate jobs it means there's a dwee hand for labor. there is pressure to be labor. providing more securities. with that value still uncertain, that reallyfoot puts the future to great risk.

with that security being largely eaten away with stock market rises. that pus families affair to spend dollars today. host: our first call comes from harlem, new york. caller: gentlemen, it's nice to be talking to you. i live in new york city, harlem. i am very concerned about the middle class. there's also an under class. what about the poor white folks, poor black folks? asians, latinos and asians.

people always call in about 911. don't call in if you don't know what you are talking about. the city mayor here is destroying the under class, middle class and everything. this is why people can't survive. being in the bed with obama, boom berg, we are dying in this city. we'll leave it there. guest: there's a lot to talk about there. we had the biggest year over year increase in poverty. the percentage of people living in poverty is an aparting.

one of the reason policy members have focussed on middle class is it doesn't cure workers to fall fie for fr programs and assistance. for the middle class, a lot of those safety net programs don't really exist. the great american middle is largely on their own. >> on the line for democrats. caller: thaufrjt i study history at the university of pitt. it escapes me how the

republicans seem to under ride the wall street crash. now obama has released credit protection he's inherit the our jo jobs, oil. republicans on a whole love wall street and the corporations. the tea party really seems like the me party their well being is left in the airy share the

caller's concern of how we assign blame. you would never blame a doctor for losing a patient in the advanced phases of disease who ended up dying. that's sort of like obama inheriting a situation so sdafts rows could not fix. . .

host: at which president obama has said the tax cuts should expire. $200,000 a year for an individual as long as the republicans allow congress to extend the tax cut before they expire in january. your thoughts? guest: the obama administration has been criticized, in many ways, fairly to try to persuade folks that the middle class includes people with incomes to

$200,000 for an individual and $250,000 for a family. people in that range, that is about 97% of the population. clearly, statistically and by all reasonable standards, that is not the middle class. there is some criticism that can go towards the administration there. is it proper to make a deal just to ensure that folks below that income continue to enjoy the tax rate they are enjoying? i am not really sure. at some point, we have to get real in this country and let people know that you don't deserve to have low rates of taxation when you reaped most of the benefits in society. people who are making $200,000 a year as individuals are much more fortunate than most other

americans and perhaps should share a greater sense of the burden. if i had to make the decision to not have tax cuts for lower middle-class working americans, to have that stand on principle, i am not sure what i would do. host: we are talking about what is the middle-class and government policies that impact those americans in the middle class with christian dorsey of the economic policy institute. our next call is on the line for republicans from alabama. caller: good morning, folks. i am retired. "98% of income earners are going to receive an income tax break." now, i have an income of other -- of under $30,000. in 2009, my federal income tax

liability was almost $300 above my 2008 tax liability. now, i am supposedly a middle- class income earner. understand howt my income tax increase that much now, here is a big point. i am retired military. my total income is social security and military retirement. i cannot call 5 -- i cannot qualify for any of these so- called free programs because my income is too high. so, and i in middle-class earners or not? guest: thank you. your situation really hits at the heart of the issue of knowing what is middle class and

what does not. yours $30,000 in income would be a lot higher if translated into the dollars in washington or new york city, but really that does not matter. those are statistics. you know you're a circumstance and how you feel about your circumstance largely determines whether you are middle-class or not. we spoke about vice-president biden before. i think he did better than most politicians in describing what middle-class means. he described it as people who would be in severe hardship if they missed more than two paychecks. i think it puts the story around what the middle class feels like. as to why you paid more taxes, i don't know, arthur, because you should have received lower taxes because there was a variety of things done it as a result of

the recession and through the recovery act which should have reduced your tax liability. host: wilmington, delaware, co- head. caller: i feel $200,000 per individual is not middle-class. i would be greatly disturbed if the democrats, who now control most of everything, don't get this tax bill passed before the election. there are playing games with us. the tax should be restored on the upper class. no taxes should come back to the middle-class or lower class. as far as budget cuts, you hardly hear anything about cutting the military budget in this country. we spend more on the military in this country than all the nations of the world combined.

c-span discussed for months the house bill. it was only $1 trillion over 10 years. the military budget is $1 trillion for one year. host: tell me how spending of the military budget affects you as a member of the middle-class. caller: i just got out of prison a while ago. i am a disabled grandmother butchered from head to toe. we now have a gulag society because our judicial system is broken and it is an assembly line justice. guest: roslyn, you have hit on a couple of things. defense spending. one of the reasons why it is important, it really crowds out the ability to invest in other areas. it leads to people saying, we

need to cut programs usually when it comes to domestic spending which tends to benefit working americans and middle- class. absolutely, defense spending should always be on the table when it comes to fiscal responsibility. i hate to disappoint you, but there is not going to be anything done in regards to tax cuts before the election. congress is out of session. there is not going to be any legislative activity on taxes before the election. host: phyllis is on our line for democrats. caller: my husband makes more than $80,000. we consider ourselves middle- class, but we are afraid to go out and spend money. my husband wants a new car now,

and he cannot afford one. we are afraid to go out and get a new car because we don't know what tomorrow might bring we are putting back money just in case my husband loses his job. i lost my job about four years ago and it was due to an accident. now we are in a position. i have a son that goes to college. our government tells us to go out and spend and jump-start the economy, but i don't see how we can do that when we are called the middle-class. middle-class people, i used to go out and spend, by close -- buy clothes.

we kept the economy rolling, my husband and i. but now we are free to go out and buy anything big, like a car. we bought a home to about four years ago but had we known that the economy would have been in this bad of shape, we would have stayed in the home that we were in it. guest: it is not just about the people that have lost their jobs in this recession. they are going through incredible troubles. your situation is an exact case study in what is going on. people are putting the income that they do have a way, not spending money, not creating jobs in the a economy because they are really uncertain about the future. when the labor market is tight, you have low unemployment. people really do nothing about the future.

if something ever happened with my job, there are other jobs in the economy that are easy to find it. now people look at the news and say i have to hold on to what i have because if i lose it i am in trouble. that has to do with car purchases, people who frequent restaurants, people who go to dry cleaners. not to say that these are all bad things for people to do, but when you have that happening all threw out an economy or a society, it really means you have a situation that we are in today. host: how does this cycle end itself? she once went out and bought clothes, and now she is not buying clothes. the people that are manufacturing clothes now do not have a job so they are not

buying things. how do you end that cycle? guest: it takes a few things but it starts with a couple of important steps. you start with employment, getting people back to work. if you take the unemployment rate, 9.7%, if we are able to draw that down to more acceptable rates, like 6% or so, that is going to create some pressure in the labour market for wages to go up. your husband is going to be bringing home more and you are going to be looking at your situation and saying i can spend more. they are going to start to go to restaurants, so restaurants are going to hire more servers and more coax. new entrepreneurial opportunities are going to start because customers will be out there to spend. it will be a snowball effect.

all it takes is a concerted effort to create jobs. we can get into this later, but there are lots of areas where we could create useful jobs for the country, not just wasteful jobs. there is some pent-up demand that we are not meeting. host: it would seem that these jobs would have to have an immediate effect. for example, if i am a car manufacturer, i am not going to hire you to build new cars on the faith that once i have this new inventory people are going to want to come in and buy new cars. i am going to have to see the demand first. guest: that is right. car dealers are going to have to hear about the demand first. that spurs the automaker to build more. caller: this is very important

to me. i am a 42-year-old male. you touched on topics like retirement. i am very concerned about my future. the stock market has basically been flat for my entire working career when i look at my friends that are in the military, after 20 years, they can retire and have almost 100% of their salary for the rest of their lives. in addition, mortgages -- what we offer all americans 82% flat mortgage so everybody -- why don't we offer all americans a flat 2% mortgage?] if a company is based here and they have manufacturing facilities in other countries, tariffs would create an incentive for american jobs to

be created. it to me, that is how you and the cycle of it. guest: thank you. just to touch on retirement -- we spend billions of dollars in this country subsidizing retirement contributions through the 401k system because those reductions for 401k's are progressive in terms of people who make more and save more get more subsidy. it is a skewed way of subsidizing the savings of wealthy people. it is completely unconscionable. if you were able to take those tax expenditures and invest them for working class americans, he would do a lot to solve some of the concerns that you have. as we have seen, homes are not a

jackpot, a lottery, a slot machine. this is something that should not be the way you feel you will get rich in the future, which is what caused the house and bubble that we have. -- caused the housing bubble that we have. i completely agree with you, that we need to penalize companies with offshore work that could be performed by americans. it is a penalty that american workers should not bear the burden of. host: christian dorsey is the external and government affairs director at the economic policy institute. previously, christian dorsey was

a chief executive officer for nonprofit organizations promoting children's literacy and affordable housing. foreign degree f in service. our line for democrats, jason, go ahead. caller: i wondered if you could touch on a couple of issues regarding middle-class. we could touch on the fact of capitalism in our society that actually kind of the separates us from differ classism. could you identify the class is between -- i mean, the low, middle class, and above middle class as it relates to capitalism? the second thing i would like for you to do is a correlation between the japanese economy and how their system is structured

as far as class and relate that to the american economy. guest: i will do my best. thank you for the question it. in many ways, america has an aristocratic country, where many people call it a plutocracy. most of the income, decisions, and power derived from the super wealthy. that is people in the top 1%, or in the top one-tenth of 1%. most of the income that has grown over the last 30 years has been concentrated. for all the income growth that we have had over the last quarter-century or so, 65 cents of every dollar has accrued to the top one-tenth of 1% income earners. all the power and wealth has gone to the mega, mega rich.

when it comes to class, capitalism -- understand, we have had a situation where the bottom 95% is largely treading water, but the situation gets worse the lower you get on the income scale. among the very, very wealthy, we have seen the numbers explode, which has led to a situation, i think, that is very tenuous for our system, because at some point people are going to get outraged by this. the whole way we do business economically will change. you mention japan. i could mention some comp -- some countries in europe or scandinavia. when it comes to the social safety net, the very, very wealthy pay more to ensure that there are basic living standards

for everybody. they don't have this belief that it is your good luck and hard work that has allowed you to be that rich. they determined that, congratulations to you, you now have a greater responsibility to take -- to take care of those that play by the rules but have not been able to attain reasonable living standards. host: we were sent this e-mail. guest: a well-thought out

policy. i agree with you, number one. no. 2, that is the way we used to do business. 20% down was the standard that you had for buying a home. then we moved to second mortgages, home equity lines of credit, other ways to allow people to put as little cash as possible into homes, not because we felt that folks deserved it, but because housing had become so expensive. it was a necessary tool to get people into home buying. when it comes tumbling down, it has severe repercussions. your very common-sense proposals which i completely agree with is something that once the economy is on firmer footing, i think we will see our moving back to.

host: in a christian science article talks about the middle class: what do they aspire to? the president of epi is part of the president's middle-class tax force. tell us why it was set up and what is their purpose? guest: this is really the signature economic initiative that the obama administration

came into office are ready to move forward with, and the vice president was tasked with leading that task force. the executive director of it is a former colleague of mine, jared bernstein. my boss does a lot with it, and we participated a lot with the task forces' activities. it has looked at a variety of issues, where middle-class circumstances could be improved. it looked eccrine jobs, manufacturing, areas with the federal government by doing things at a little differently could benefit the lives of middle-class americans. it would then produce a series of proposals for addressing the middle-class that would be a part of its work. but we will see a lot more of it in the new year. host: if you would like to see more work that the economic

policy institute, you can go to their website. eric is on a line for republicans. a caller: i live in illinois, and in illinois, one of the most corrupt state in the union, we spend $4 billion a year to medicate and educate illegal aliens. my scare is that most of our tax dollars go to social security and medicare. there is a huge amount of fraud in that. another point, the military -- we spend so much on the military because we secured the world. it is my belief that we should have more of them on our own borders. there is no predatory lending. i have not seen anybody hold a gun to someone to buy a house.

guest: i cannot speak to illinois specifically, but if we look at what we spend money on nationally, social security is generated through social security taxes from working people. it is a program that has very low bureaucratic overhead and is one of the great success stories in managing a program. with all due respect, including social security in your screen against government spending, i think, is misplaced the key issues with inefficiencies in medicare and medicaid is the rapidly growing rates of health care spending overall. there has been an attempt politically to deal with health care spending, which will slow the growth of medicare and medicaid. certainly, as we improve the economy, that will improve the

circumstances of medicaid spending. as to the other points about defense, we will probably have to agree to disagree there, but i appreciate your comments. host: on the cover of the current addition of a magazine, the attack on the middle-class -- what do you see it as being the key issues that the middle-class is going to want resolved when they go to the polls and elect a congress that is going to come back in the session in november and in january? guest: i would have thought it would be the issue of taxes. but in many ways, i have seen political discourse not really focus so much on that. i like many democrats -- many democrats believe extending tax

cuts for everybody, while not insuring that they be made permanent for the middle-class, would be an election issue, but apparently it has not been in many districts. outside of that, americans really want a plan. there is so much distrust because people are seeing a lot of rhetoric but not about of action. you hear president speak about jobs being the most important issue. it all sounds convincing, but where is the meat on that bone? people want to seek a plan for doing this and they want to see something concrete. i think their thoughts on election day will be, who do i trust to do something for me? there is not a whole lot of

trust going around. host: our last call, mike on our line for republicans. caller: since 2010, the median income as a whole in the state has dropped by it all thousand dollars. at the same time, the median income of public employees has risen by $15,000. i think we are well on our way to the europe social model and if anybody thinks the government is going to take care of them and make them equal is a fool. guest: mike, thank you for that. a very thoughtful. i would like to address a couple of points. what is going on with non private sector employees has, in

many ways, has been used to create a wage where there is people are seeing their incomes grow. what is happening with the public sector is what should be happening with everybody. people should be employed in their income should be rising. it is a failure of our economy and a failure of our policy makers that the private sector has not been able to do that for its workers. i would hope that you would not believe that the issues that the private sector is experiencing is because what is going on in the public sector. that is a model of how people's lives should be improving. what we need to address is why the private sector is not doing the same host: we have been talking to christian dorsey about what is the middle-class. thank you for being on

"washington journal." we will be talking to on next guest about the just released documents from wiki leaks, but first a look at this week's cartoons.

>> c-span, bringing you politics and public affairs at every morning. on weekdays, watched live coverage of the house of representatives. every weekend, look for our

signature interview programs. also, the popular prime ministers questions from the british house of commons. through november, see coverage of campaign 2010. our program is available any time at c-span.org. c-span, created by cable, provided as a public service. "washington journal" continues. host: u.s. ambassador of iraq from 2005 to 2007, we wanted to get your thoughts regarding the release of the wiki leaks documents about the war in iraq. guest: i have seen the reports that indicate the losses that

the iraqis have suffered. this is true. there was a lot of suffering of all iraqis in the hands of other iraqis and in the hands of militias that were leading the country to war. some of those militias received assistance from other countries. during the period which i was there, but level of violence was quite high and we were particularly concerned with iraqi security institutions playing the role in terms of -- playing a role in terms of torturing detainees. we did an investigation with the

police forces, for example. ided.tion centers were ra documents were presented to the government and persisted publicly that since we were involved in training and american money was going in, these institutions -- that was one of the key points at the end of the 2005 election. the minister of interior and defense had to be non secretary and people broadly accepted.

host: in the guardian this morning, they had this headline. with the release of these documents, do you see or do you anticipate any sort of hiccup in the adjustment of the government in iraq? will there be any blow back regarding how the war was prosecuted by the u.s. based on these documents? guest: going to the first part which you read it, the u.s. in difference to the abuses -- that is incorrect. i talked about the amount of effort that general casey and myself being publicly active on

this, saying we could not support the investment we were making. this was not changed. and then bringing about the investigations, raising allied institutions to collect evidence. that part at the highest level is incorrect. i do not know the details of a particular incident because there were large localities in these countries. it is not going to be a positive impact, clearly. how much of a negative impact it will have -- one has to go

through it and see how much is exposed in iraq and who pays attention to its and what you still want to make of it. i don't think it will be without the fact. host: there was a news conference earlier today with the release of these documents. we want to play it what she had to say and then get your response. >> these two countries do not stand in isolation. these are both modern, western wars. the lessons of iraq, which are ongoing -- remember, this material covers significant abuses occurring during the

obama administration, can be applied to afghanistan and can be applied to other places. host: your thoughts on his statement? guest: war is not a picnic. it is it difficult circumstances. therefore, people do get killed. civilians do suffer in a war. but i have to say that, based not only on my experience in iraq, but also the work that i did in afghanistan, our military people, the leadership of our

military, tried extremely hard to avoid civilian casualties and protect civilians and sometimes put themselves at risk in order to protect civilians. or, unfortunately, is not a perfect science. sometimes, intelligence can be wrong. sometimes, weapons can go off target. sometimes, mistakes can be made. but what we do is investigate and to admit to it. i think the american way of war is one that tries to be as precise as possible in terms of targeting to win over the

population and avoid multilateral damage as much as possible. but it is war. it is not a perfect science. host: our guest will be talking to us more about the release of the secret -- of the secret documents from iraq. we will also be talking about u.s. relations with pakistan and get more of his concerns about pakistan's role in the war in afghanistan. the numbers for republicans, democrats, and independents are on the screen. you can also send us messages

via e-mail and twitter. our first call comes from taxes on our line for independents. caller: i was curious about the relationship between iraq and saudi arabia. one of the earlier callers said that all the people that did 9/11 were saudi. i don't think iraq was as much of a threat as saudi arabia. could you please comment? guest: they are both arab countries. iraq is a transition country, a country that belongs to the arab world but borders the persian world, iran, turkey, and it is also in an area where the world of islam meet the shiite world.

the majority of iraqis are estimated to be shiite. it is [unintelligible] in terms of the rivalries competition for the region, and therefore, the saudis and the iranians have been competing for influence in iraq. the saudis were not able to overthrow the regime of saddam hussein. they have been concerned about the increased influence that iran has had in iraq.

the shiites have had relations with iran and iraq, and they have had a particularly difficult relationship with the current prime minister of iraq. host: next up is alan on our line for republicans. good morning. caller: good morning. i have a quick question on this whole wiki leaks thing. i have done two tors and iraq and it tore in afghanistan. i was there for the invasion of iraq, and that was a gun pilot, and apache pilot. we were not going out there and killing civilians. we did everything we could to limit that. i think all soldiers are out

there doing that in good faith, but it is war. i think we all have to understand that. i think the fatalities, as far as civilians, came greatly down since world war i, world war ii, korea, vietnam, or even the gulf war. my question is on the wiki leaks. the one thing i don't are we not goings thi out and bringing this guy and? this is pretty common sense. this guy is releasing documents that will hurt not only the u.s., which i am sure his intent is, but it actually hurts the iraqis and the afghanistan people who support us in this war. i don't understand why we are not taking this guy, rolling them up, and putting him in

prison. he is a collaborator of the taliban or a collaborator of al- qaeda. guest: first of all, i want to thank you for your service. second, i agree with you that wiki leaks do damage to the iraqis and afghans and particularly those who operated with the united states. you are right that our military goes out of its way to avoid civilian casualties. as far as action against the gentleman involved in this, i think given the damage that has been done, the potential of violence that can result from this, we need to look at all

options within the law to deal with him. this is an issue that ought to be raised with the administration. host: sean is on our line for democrats. caller: the way i look at it, the war in iraq was put together to make war and to take over and control the oil markets. we had no plans of how to go into iraq and bring peace to the country. if our country is going to make war, we should have some idea of

how to creat peace. basically, it is just that simple. there is no need for overthrowing saddam hussein if you have no plan of how to make the country better. guest: if our purpose for going to iraq was about oil, if i understand you correctly, then the results point in a different direction. you have seen in the last couple of years many major concessions have been given by the iraq is. those concessions have gone by far to others, not the united states firms. if you look at the economic activities in iraq, the level of

u.s. companies' involvement versus others, the u.s. part is relatively small . we could have given concessions to american companies to control of iraqi oil. on the second part of your question, i think you have a legitimate issue, that once you overthrow a government, putting a new system in place has proven to be very difficult. we certainly have made some mistakes. these are complex societies, both internally and regionally. and of course, you could always

say things could have been done better. politics could have been a categorized better. in terms of destroying a target. but you have economic institutions, political institutions, they have had more challenges and difficulties in making these societies that they're so different a complicated to function to give locals to come together on the power sharing. you can see, even now, how hard the iraqis find it after a good election to come to an agreement. host: we also wanted to talk today about the meetings that were taking place this week between our secretary of state

hillary clinton and the pakistan the foreign minister. they had a news conference today and talked about their meetings and also announced that the united states would be seeking $2 billion in aid to pakistan's military. that is the headline in this morning's philadelphia enquirer. let's take a look at what the secretary of state had to say at yesterday's news conference >> the united states has no stronger partner that pakistan in fighting the mutual threat we face from extremism. the cooperation is very deep and very broad. but as my friend said, that does not mean we will agree on everything. a french ship is a two-way street. we both have to work hard -- friendship is a two-way street. we both have to work hard to maintain this friendship and it is something we are committed to

doing. it is a generational commitment. but we are two different countries and we have two different traditions, histories. that does not mean we are going to agree on everything. but it means that you do not jump to conclusions and presumed before you have actually had a chance to explain host: ambassador, your thoughts on that statement and how pakistan is going to play a role in our war in afghanistan? guest: the secretary was speaking in his presence, and she is a great hostas and gracious pack pack -- and she is gracious astess and decrease she was. you can see that in the private meetings that took place leading

to the president's decision on the new afghan strategy. if you read the woodward volume as to how complicated the situation in pakistan is, the reality is, pakistan is both a very important ally in the war against terror. it assists in the arresting of al-qaeda people. it allows our supplies to cross its territory to our forces in afghanistan. but at the same time -- this is the complexity that we need to understand and deal with. pakistan also helps those who are fighting us in afghanistan.

it assists the taliban of afghanistan who come across the border to kill americans and afghans. that allows a terrorist group network on its territory and it has an historic relationship with the pakistan military. i think the challenge that both the previous administration and this administration has faced, and we have not dealt with, and it has become more difficult and more urgent to deal with, is how to get the adversarial part of what pakistan does eliminated. we have tried to engage pakistan, provide assistance to pakistan to get pakistan to

change its approach with regard to helping the taliban and the terrorist network. we have tried to help the afghans fight the forces they are sending into afghanistan. that has not worked. why has it become more difficult? as pakistanis know, patience is running out here and in afghanistan. people want this war to end. we want to start leaving afghanistan next july, the president has said that. that has been a controversial part of the strategy. cooperationistani more urgently. we will see if that meeting that took place will change things.

we have to see proof on the ground. ont: let's take this call our line for republicans. you are on the "washington journal." caller: i wanted to go back to the subject of wiki leaks. i spent 20 years riding around on submarines in the ocean. who is this guy? where is he getting his information? why is he not in jail? we are treating this thing with a very cavalier attitude. he is interviewed like all of these things like he is some kind of celebrity. this guy ought to be in jail. guest: i think, before, there have been a lot of violations that of taken place, leaking classified information that

apply with regard to protection of classified information and the leaking of classified information. this leak will have effect in terms of affecting lives. we know you are not to [unintelligible] because innocent people could get killed. as a result of this, i think lives will be affected. we do not know the magnitude, how many lives and where. therefore, we need to look at within the law what our options are to deal with this. host: a spokesman says we strongly condemn the exposure of classified information.

back to the phones. caller: as an american, i find it fascinating that this ambassador would sit there and smile about the collateral damage. if you want to talk about putting people in prison, maybe we should be talking about putting your ambassador in prison and obama in prison as war criminals as a result of what is being seen in these wiki leaks. maybe that is why the ambassador does not want them to be made public. guest: i appreciate the gentleman said sentiment -- the gentlemen sentiment. i say this in all seriousness and honesty. i have worked very closely with

our military people in two war situations. our men and women and their leadership tried their very best to minimize civilian casualties. for example, and it can behar -- an armored vehicle was driving through the city and somebody threw a hand grenade inside the car. rather than throwing a hand grenade back into the street and killed afghans, one of these young soldiers put the grenade under his own seat. this i know from the 10th mountain division.

then i had the privilege of visiting them when they were recovering in new york. i have personal knowledge of instances in which soldiers put themselves at risk in order to protect afghan civilians. i am sure that on the other side sometimes civilians have been affected by our military operations but that has not been the goal. we have not gone intentionally to target civilians. this has happened. there are always some people who commit crimes. but then be investigated and put our own people in jail for having committed those. that is the reality and the complexity of a war situation. host: richard is on our line for

democrats. thank you for waiting. caller: if you want to put somebody in jail, i think he should start with himself. this is a mass murderer who was an operative of the bush administration who has killed more people -- 400,000 people are dead because of this man. caller: caller: two questions. can you explain for the invasion of iraq again? if i may, what were your own personal motivations as someone originally from afghanistan in executing the plan of the bush administration? i think you. -- thank you. guest: think you for your question. as explained by president bush

and other senior leaders at the time, you have to remember the decision in the context of the time in which it was made, but after 9/11, there was a strong belief of threats that have been percolating and attended to can grow and become much bigger. it was there for bigger -- better to be there before it became so large dealing with this that it would be much more expensive and costly. all the sudden -- all of a sudden, the believe that saddam hussein was getting weapons of mass destruction, bent on revenge, and that the containment strategy was falling apart, and therefore action needed to be taken because he was violating his commitment to u.n. resolutions.

of course, as to my own role in being the ambassador to iraq, i have been the ambassador to afghanistan after the overthrow of the taliban, the constitution, the first election, and the government programs. the president asked me to assist with iraq. i believe, myself, that as a public servant at that time that if i could do anything to assist our government to succeed in iraq that i should do my part. i saw soldiers reenlisting going from iraq to afghanistan and from afghanistan to a rock. -- afghanistan to iraq.

i tell the president it would be a great honor to serve. host: in "the wall street journal" an article about the u.s. seeking to why did the cia role. they're right that the u.s. is pushing to expand their secret cia efforts to help target militants in the haven's near the afghan border. according to senior officials, as the white house seeks new ways to prod his momma bought into more aggressive action against groups allied with al qaeda. if the u.s. cannot get more of a cia role on the border, more of a u.s. military role on the border between afghanistan and pakistan, will this create more tension or sour the relationship between the united states and pakistan going down the road? caller: -- guest: i think the

issue of the sanctuary of the afghan network is not dealt with by the pakistanis, as we get closer to the president's timeline, of we will face very difficult circumstances. do we extend the deadline of time and therefore fight a longer, but you -- bloodier war? or do we abandon afghanistan and change strategy? do we escalate the pressure on pakistan to change their policy? i think a change in the pakistan policy to get rid of the essential areas, to put serious constraints on the talibani

presence would help a great deal. my own prediction is unless there is progress on that front, things would get much more difficult than tense between us in the coming time. host: from huntington, west virginia, on our line for republicans. thank you for waiting. caller: how're you doing? you can look at this different ways, you know? the matter with the problem you have a, you have a recipe. either someone wants to get along where they do not. there are millions of people being killed, or what ever, and again this is just a recipe. you must have a leader. you must have people cooperating for not cooperating. no matter what, it is a recipe.

you have to want to do it. that is what it is all about. if someone is not wanting to do it, then there is someone not wanting to do it. they are not wanting to get along, they may want to bomb an area of, do something wrong. it is just something you have to deal with. that is what it is about. it is a recipe. you have to want to get along. if you do not want to, you know, you have situations where the leaders are against you until they decide they want to have the recipe of getting along. it will always be this way. host: ambassador? guest: of course. if you think the situation is important and you need to decide that to begin with, if you can get along, of course that is the best.

that is the idea. if a leader or a group poses challenges that easing are important that is where the issue of strategy comes in. make sure you have the appropriate mix of incentives and disincentives, pressure and rewards to come in and influence behavior. then there also is the issue of adapting. a bigger set of incentives them disincentives may not work so you need to change and adapt to achieve your goal. particularly if the goal is the security of the american people. the goal is to get cooperation in order to minimize the threat to the united states and to u.s. forces. in the case of pakistan, the complexity is that we have a

country in the receives billions of dollars of u.s. assistance on the one hand and does the opposite on the other hand. this is a big, complicated challenge. i feel the pain of the people in power now in washington because i have been there, so to speak, myself. it is not an easy thing to do. i do not want to appear overly critical. unless we resolve this issue, getting success in afghanistan in a timely matter, it will be extremely difficult. host: further complicating is the obama administration's relationship with the afghan president, karzai. and in "the financial times" they say the administration is lobbying the president to ensure

reforms for the private security industry that they do not endanger u.s. funded development contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars. to karzai's has a desire deprive american consultants of the protection they need. guest: the complexities i just described, of we need a relationship with afghanistan and president karzai. that is a great difficulty right now. from the piece that you just read, the issue of private security, this is an issue that is front and center right now in our conversations with president

karzai. we have an excellent relationship with president karzai in the initial time after the overthrow of the taliban. it is much more complicated now. again, success requires that we get that relationship sorted out because working around him will not achieve the results that we want because he has a great ability to frustrate us. therefore, a strategic decision has to be made with regards to how to sort out their relationship. host: our next call for ambassador khalilzad, from new york. caller: as a matter of law, the

united states insisted upon having the trials in nuremberg. they can this principle. the crime of aggression is the supreme international crime because it differs from other crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole. therefore, this ambassador proxy statement that people are killed "accidentally" and we did not and tend to kill them -- intended to kill them is no legal defense. it is a crime of aggression to begin with. we need 10,000 more [unintelligible] this is the only way we will ever stop war. host: ambassador? guest: of course we want all wars to end.

there should be a rule of law globally. there should be peace and brotherhood, mutual respect, development, cooperation. the fact of life, unfortunately, is that we've lived in the world that is limited to the rule of law and that countries and groups act against their own people. we have seen that in the genocide taking place. their responsibility as a member of the family of nations, as human beings, to take action. there are attacks made from one country against each other and there is aggression committed. for example, we were attacked on 9/11 via qaeda based in

afghanistan, supported by the taliban. we got u.n. authorization to go into afghanistan. that was an act of self-defense. i think for us to recognize the difference between what ought to be and what is, and what is is a world in which this exists and while working toward a world in which the director minimize is to defend ourselves. we have additional responsibilities as the most powerful country in the world, and therefore we have made huge sacrifices in order to have security for ourselves and

extend security to a lot of other people. host: earlier this week in "the new york times" you wrote an op- ed piece. you can pick it up in hard copy or you can find it on line at www.newyorktimes.com. our last call coming from our line for democrats. caller: first of all, i am a veteran. i know the rule of war. we all know that saddam could not [inaudible] to control iraq, you control the oil all over the world. this man the joined bush and dick cheney and now they are trying to put mr. obama in this. mr. obama had nothing to do with

this war. they should be in jail. thank you. host: is president obama and assets in the oval office, so moving forward but is his responsibility to that region, to iraq, to pakistan, to afghanistan? guest: for centuries, europe was the responsible region of the world. the problems, the disfunctionality was the issues of the world faced. two world wars were caused by the problems of europe. it cost america a huge amount of resources and the lives. now, the center of gravity in the problems, the shift to the middle east, to the islamic

world, and it behooves the president, and i think he understands that, to galvanize the international community is not the responsibility of america alone because what happens in this region, as what happened in europe, affects the rest of the world as well. to help moderate forces make progress over time, to make this region is functioning region for the people of the area and therefore to be a source of less threat to the world and ultimately, perhaps, be a contributor to security. a century and a half ago, we would have said that they should become a contributor to the security of the world. it would have sounded strange that france and germany would help each other.

the united kingdom was at war with other european powers. what mr. obama and former president bush have faced, this is what they have. therefore, in the first instance, you need to obviously fix the situation in afghanistan because our troops are there. the leaders have to do their part to reduce the threat that they have to deal with. that is where pakistan comes in. he needs to get involved in my view now. we need to get the iraqi parties to come to an agreement on a government. absence of a government is a thread. not any government, but the government that can move iraq for word in the right direction. i think that is the immediate challenge. the key is to get cooperation

with others to make the middle east a functioning region. host: former ambassador zalmay khalilzad, thank you. next, a discussion with the former transportation security administrator deputy administrator under the bush and ministration. we will have that discussion in a few minutes. we will be right back. >> the c-span network to provide coverage of politics, public affairs, non-fiction books, and american history available on television, on radio, on line, and on social media networking sites. finer content any time for our

video library. we think he's been on the road with our content of vehicles, bringing resources to your community. washington your way, the c-span networks now available in more than 100 million homes. created by cable and provided as a public service. >> every weekend on c-span3, experience american history tv starting saturday at 8:00 a.m. eastern. telling the american story coming here historic speeches, i would this accounts of events that shaped our nation. visit museums, historical sites, and college campuses has taught history professors and leading historians still been to america's past. american history tv all weekend, every weekend, on c-span3. >> time to get your camera rolling for this year's student documentary competition. make a five-eight minute video on this year's theme --

washington, d.c., through my lines. tell us about an issue, event, or topic to help you understand the role of the federal government in your life for community. include more than one point of view along with c-span programming. the deadline is january 20th. you can win the grand prize of $5,000. there's $50,000 in the total prices. c-span parties did camera documentary competition is open to middle and high school students grades 6-12. for complete details, log onto studentcam.org. >> washington journal continues. host: thomas like is the former acting deputy administrator for the trepidation security administration. we're going to speak about the tsx secure flight program. welcome to the program, sir. what is secure flight? guest: it is a behind-the- scenes name matching program

that will go fully live on november 1st of this year. since the tse was created and post-9/11, the idea that the government would take over the responsibility for matching passenger names to the no-fly and select see list has been given. since the time tsa was created, the agency, the airlines, and many groups have been working toward making this system fully operative. host: once this system is up and running, how would this get me through the airport faster? how does this get me through the security and on to my plane had gone to my destination faster? guest: let's think about history first.

from 9/11 in 2001, there were 16 names of the no-fly list. the responsibility for matching manifest against the no-fly list was the responsibility of the airlines. the airline to organize themselves to carry out their responsibility in many different ways. there were some people that have people actually doing matches where they were looking at the no-fly list, looking at the manifest, and doing the check. others may have been doing it from an information technology perspective. as our intelligence has gotten better, the list has grown to at least, publicly, 8500 names today. and maybe more, but public sources say is 8500. it becomes a much more challenging responsibility, and much more challenging task. during the interim time, the airlines have still been

conducting that. they have had to make significant investments in information technology. as we made a policy decision with the aviation and transportation security act in november 2001, aviation security was going to be a federal responsibility which is what created tsa. in this interim time, there was always an understanding that this responsibility for checking the names against the no-fly and select seats west, and making sure that it is accurate and have the least amount of false positive, we would take that away from the airlines and become a responsibility of the federal government through the tsa. why should it help you get through faster? it is an advanced information technology system that is fully automated. there will be consistency. one airline will not be doing it one way and another airline doing a different way.

you should see some consistency. the consistency should bring efficiency. host: there is a public security announcement that tsa is putting out to help explain this work to develop -- to introduce this to the american public. let's take a look. >> at the transportation to carry a day administration, your safety is our priority. we want to phase in our new secured flight program, a behind-the-scenes process that standardizes the way passengers are matched. under secure flight, airlines will ask passengers to book their travel with the name that appears on the government's id'd plan to use when traveling as well as their day of birth and gender. secure flight matches the affirmation for each passenger against government watch lists to identify non and suspected terrorists. providing this information improves the pre-flight security

process. it helps those with similar names avoid mass-identification. this will not affect the security screening. the name passengers provide when booking travel is used to perform watchlist matching before boarding passes are issued. these should not impact travel. the new secure quite measure is utilizing state of the art technology to ensure passenger information remains private. your cooperation helps us keep the traveling public save every day at every airport. for more information, go to tsa.gov. host: tom blank, how do people traveling to the system make it easier for the system to work and to avoid as many hurdles as possible? guest: it is important to

understand that on november 1st, all airlines will be required to give a full name, date of birth, and gender 72 hours in advance of the flight. there are many passengers out there who booked to travel reservations well in advance, as much as one year out. one year ago, the airlines were not collecting that kind of data. if that date is not transmitted 72 hours in advance, a passenger could have a problem when they arrive at the airport. the airlines have been doing a reasonable job of phasing this in, which is to say since early this year, most of them have been asking for the personal data at the time of the reservation. there could be some out there where the airlines have been in the process of trying to contact those people, and that it may

not have gone through 100%. if someone has a long standing reservation and have not been contacted by their airline, they should proactively go to the airline website. they will have instructions in making sure they do not have a problem or not being able to fly at all. host: what happens if you need to purchase a ticket within that 72 hours? guest: tsa is making provisions for that. we have 113 people according to the budget documents. they're setting up a 24/7 operation. what will happen is that individual will very likely have to go to the airport to the airline ticket counter and they will either have to have

transmitted or they will have to provide their data to the airline at that point. the idea here is that the airline cannot issue, as of november 1st, they cannot issue a boarding pass to a passenger until the have the authorization and clearance from tsa. without that personal data, the boarding pass authorization will not be forthcoming. an individual that needs to make travel reservations within the 72-hour window should talk that over with the airline. they should be prepared to have to go to the airline counter to get their boarding pass issued when they arrive at the airport rather than being able to print it at home or from a laptop computer. host: thomas blank is the former deputy minister at the transportation safety -- security authority.

if you'd like to give us a call and get involved in the conversation regarding the secure flight program, the numbers are on your screen. our first call comes from upstate new york. on our line for republicans, you are on the "washington journal." caller: thank god for c-span or else we would not get good, honest news at all. i believe you are probably still -- what are you doing now? guest: i'm a consultant. i console from associations to non-profit organizations to government organizations. caller: this is a farce.

is another government bureaucracy. it is a waste of taxpayer money. you have less worried about the bogeyman, okay? host: jim, do you have a specific statement? i watchi'm a taxpayer washington waste money on special-interest groups. this is outrageous. host: why you think the tsa is a waste of taxpayer money? caller: why? we do not need this much security. we are chasing the bogeyman. this is a figment of their imagination. host: we will leave it there. guest: aviation security has improved greatly since the 9/11. we also know that blowing up

their planes is something that is very much on the kind of terrorists. it is a disruptive thing to do. is iconic to western culture. it is key to our economic way of life. thee's no question that major policy challenge for the tsa is to find the balance between insuring our normal way of life, the freedom of transportation, our capability to move freely around the country, for commerce and personal reasons, and also insure that it is done with a high degree of security. in this particular case, something unusual happens when we are talking about secure flight. there were some programs initially undertaken that were judged to be too far. the computer assisted prescreening program was a program that really did not work. it was too ambitious and try to

the risk assessment on individual passengers. congress cut very deeply involved when that program was not working. to an unusual degree, they laid out statutory requirements for secure flight. that is an unusual thing for congress to do. there were 10 things put into law that the gao had to verify that tsa was in compliance with before we could go forward. it was a high degree of scrutiny. it was the kind of oversight that means this is a good program and it is very likely to work and benefit the traveling public. we want to find a balance between security and freedom of movement. host: gettysburg, pa., on our line for democrats. caller: good morning, gentlemen. mr. blank, you said the agency,

airlines, and various they call the groups have been working toward making the system fully operative. what they call their groups have been working to make this system fully operative. guest: the airlines are deregulated party, first and foremost. they are the organizations that have the responsibility and they are in the process of being relieved of it. secondly, other stakeholder groups would be the travel agency community. it would also be organizations such as orbitz that big trouble right -- and reservations. there are certain passenger rights organizations that have been involved. the privacy community has been heavily involved in making comments, providing input to the agencies about how to do this well -- while adequately protecting privacy rights and compliance with privacy laws. the final rules were published in fall 2008.

at that time, the agency received nearly but reader took the comments from the public about how to go about doing a secure flight program properly. i considered each one of those, enters, this 350 people, to be a stakeholder group. the come as representatives of the groups i have cited. host: san antonio, texas, on our line for independent voters. caller: i have a comment about the no-fly list as it relates to toator lautenberg's attempt fill of the terror gap about americans being able to purchase firearms if they are on the no- fly list. i just wanted your comments about the ability to challenge an american citizen who find themselves on the -- through no fault of their own of being on the no-fly list. guest: part of the secure flight

program is the traveler redress program. information is on the tsa web site. if someone believes they are being unfairly or wrongly prevented from travelling or moving 3 -- freely throughout the airport, they should initiate their redress progress -- process. ultimately, if they are eligible and are being confused with someone on the no-fly last -- list, they will be issued a number. when they make future flight reservations, they will give the redress number to the airlines and they will transmit that to tsa at the time they transmit other personal data. the redress process is something

that has been becoming more robust over the past six-eight years with the tsa. there are processes in place for people who may be victimized because their name is similar to someone on the no-fly list or for some other reason they have been confused with someone tsa deems a threat to security. host: you are on the phone with thomas blank, a former deputy secretary. caller: on and a pilot. i live where a couple of the terrorists were trained in flight training. the-earlier who said the government is out here making is afraid of the bogor met -- of the bogeyman creating oversight, we had 3000 people who died in new york 10 years ago.

we almost did not get the stock market back up. so the problems that need to be addressed right now is the fact that the ins computers are still not up to speed. i walked into the north county airport two weeks ago. i was able to walk out on the tarmac, no doors locked, no security of, and someone could have walked in and easily taken the plane over. you have literally thousands of airports all over this country that have literally no security. that is the scary part of this. when this happens again, they will go after easy targets. liquefied natural gas tankers that come on to -- come in to boston harbor. they literally have no security

and they will just look up the plane with c4. guest: i think we have to understand that there is really only one way to achieve 100% security in the aviation sector which is to put all the airplanes on the ground. a bad thing will never happen again. short of that, we cannot drive risk out of the system. we have about 450 commercial airports in the country. tsa has a presence and those airports operate under tsa- approved programs. then there are general aviation airports where there are no commercial operations. these are smaller aircraft, smaller charter operations, and some international general aviation programs. the gsa has it taken some steps over the years -- the tsa has

taken some steps over the years to improve the program. people who operate their have to comply with these measures. is that taking it to a zero risk situation? unfortunately it is not. that would be outside the balance between freedom of movement and security. we do not want to skew this too far one way or the other. host: this the secure flight program look at people who may be on a terrorist watch list as well as a no-fly list? i believe the was the christmas bomber in denver who was on one list and not the other and was still able to get on a plane. guest: that is not the original intent of secure flight for all airline passengers. if someone raises a flag or if tsa has some suspicion they want

to resolve, they will work with the terrorist screening center, an organization that houses all of the government watch lists whether they have to do with immigration status, law enforcement, and they will do some additional checking to resolve and assess what risk an individual might pose. for an everyday airline traveler, the initial attack that will go against the day of birth, gender, and fall ma'am -- full name is the no fly and select seat list. host: so theoretically you could be on a terrorist list and still go through the secure flight program? guest: tsa has moved forward to put levels of security out there. secure flight is not the only thing we are doing to prevent a

plane being blown up. the other things to help you find the individual that may have ill intent but secure flight did not capture them for whatever reason. host: new orleans, louisiana, you are on with, like. -- tom blank. caller: out would like to codify what the first caller said and said the pilot strayed, too. you bring up 9/11, the christmas day bomber, terrorists in general. for one, becoming a victim of a terrorist attack is a higher percentage than getting hit by lightning. i bring a case in point, a cause of why this is unnecessary. recently broken on fox news, a man who has been a number one on

the terrorist hit list, a man who was involved in 9/11, the fort hood shootings, on the christmas day bombings, even tied in with the bombings in london and madrid -- we are talking about one of the worst terrorists in the world. he was invited to the pentagon by top military and had lunch at the pentagon a couple of months after 9/11 attacks. if this is not proof that our government is the terrorist and are behind all of the attacks which would mean the wars we are fighting illegal and unnecessary. that would mean that your job, sir, and you are on necessary. it would mean you are nothing but a part of a creeping fascist state we are entering that was

set up by our government. host: we will leave it there. guest: think of it this way. tsa screens 2 million passengers per day. there are thousands of flights that occur safely and securely ever single day. that is a pretty good track record. it is kind of invisible that there are a lot of things that happen and happen correctly. unfortunately, the standard that has been set for not only homeland security but for national security is that the american people have the expectation that we get it right every single time. that is a responsibility that the people inside government take very seriously. the reality of the situation is that the government does not get it right every single time. the need or the steps that you would have to take in order to get a writer for time -- right every time, would be at the cost

of liberty and freedom. with regard to aviation security, terrorists have a longstanding interest in it. we have to think back to the late 1980's when pan am 103 was blown up over scotland. it was during that period of time that we began to see more and more regulation of the airline's, more and more security measures taking place. where we are today is an advanced state of trying to find the balance as evidenced by secure flight. host: our next call from texas on our line for republicans. caller: are recognized that tormenting this concern about security on flights, the fear of flying is how you make your living. i can understand some of the comments you are making.

i have zero confidence in the tsa to prevent bad guys from doing bad things on airplanes. i do not think you can cite one instance where the tsa has actually done anything. you talk about this as though tsa has done something positive. all incidents that have happened have been by the actions of passengers, flight crews, or foreigners, not the tsa. all you do is impede travel, make the lines along per, and they let things through anyway. guest: well, if you want evidence, that would be against the interest of homeland security and of tsa. i believe there have been incidents that have been

thwarted. they will not make those incidents public. that would be tipping off the bad guys as to how well the system is working. i personally believe that over the past number of years that the tsa has detected no flight and have identified people that are a threat to commercial aviation while they are in flight and have detained them at the time that they have landed. there is a visibility of tsa and an understanding that thousands of flights fly securely and safely every day. the screen 2 million people every day, most of them do not complain and go along with the system since 9/11.

at the same time, as the agency that has the highest profile since 9/11 with the american public, there is frustration with the process which is also understandable. i think it is something that the agent to take seriously. host: lake charles, louisiana, on our line for democrats. caller: all of your guests this morning related to one thing. it is about economics, economics, economics. that is the flow of money. that is the problem. with the lack of a flow of money, this is causing what we have with the war's and a lack of access to capital. a handful of people control of the capital and they control the world. it is not being shared across the border. that is the biggest problem. as far as homeland security,

that is unnecessary anyway as far as i'm concerned. as president, i would have gotten rid of that right off the bat by executive order. is on necessary. as for some of your other callers, when they talk about government, let's get this straight. host: let me ask you this. if it were not for the tsa, how will we protect airplane travelers from attacks on the airplanes or from a repeat of what happened on 9/11? caller: it is quite simple. we get all the security agencies from the cia, the fbi, the secret service, and all of the armed forces have their own security. they have security already. why add this on? guest: in the immediate

aftermath of 9/11 on into the year 2010, we almost lost the entire airline industry in his country which is really not an exaggeration. people stayed off of airplanes. revenues plummeted. we had a set jubilation where the access to air travel, the easy access, reasonable prices, the multitude of choices and schedules, most of it was almost taken from us as a result of the 9/11 attacks. that would be a win for the terrorists. a big part of what the tsa is doing is understanding the terrorists will not be allowed to do that to less. it will support our economic development and activity. they will not prevent us from visiting families or traveling

freely around the country and around the world. tsa is sending a response to the terrorists. the idea that the terrorists but on their home in some fashion -- that the terrorists could on their own take on security is no longer realistic. that is a policy determination and reality faced by the congress, administration, the airlines, and really the american public. host: tom blank is the former acting deputy administrator for the tsa. he was named the chief support systems operator in charge of economic development, nationwide deployment, and reforming the acquisition function. next up, fla., peter, on our line for republicans. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. i know this is a catch-22

because this concerns national security and personal freedom. i am more concerned with this administration's lack of the respect for the constitution. i would rather see laws letting private industry to do this, guidelines from the cia, the military and have that type of structure. bringing forward this national security card tends to bring me closer to the constitutional problems we have with president obama's administration with the first place. i know it started with the bush administration, but it just seems that private industry has always seemed to be better at running things than the government. if they could actually make their laws that would allow it -- would be allowed to be enforced. guest: secure flight may be a model that could be used to

address the concerns you just expressed. note that i said originally the department of homeland security, converse, and the tsa said they wanted to do something more ambitious. they wanted to assign a risk assessment to ever single traveler. that proved to be difficult from a privacy perspective. it proved to be difficult from an accuracy and information technology perspective. working with congress and the stakeholder groups, we arrive at secure flight which is an excellent platform to began -- to begin to have security. it is also something dragging it back. the answer to your question is oversight and transparency. that is how whether we note the government is intruding too far or not. in this particular case, we have privacy officers at the tsa, the

department of a homeland security, and there are dozens of committees on capitol hill was had oversight responsibility over dhs. we have a redress program. we have some 50 pages of rules that laid down how secure flight will be done. it has been widely discussed in the news media, written about, and debated. in this particular case, all of the issues have been raised and the right balance between assuring privacy, making sure people are treated with the american tradition, and providing the security of the law provides, secure flight has the promise to achieve that. host: how much does secure flight cost? guest: this year they will spend $84 million. whether that will go up as the workload increases or the information technology efficiency, it could mean the actual costs could come down. and in this particular fiscal

year, the budget had $84 million. host: if i had gone through an airport security system and had been flagged as being on a no- fly list, is there a way to get my name off of it? guest: yes. if you believe you are wrongly on the no-fly list and you are not a threat to civil aviation, what you would need to do is to contact the tsa and go through the redress program. attempt to find out why you are on the no-fly list. the most likely reason is that your name may be very similar to someone who is actually on the no-fly list. a result of that for the redress program is that he would be issued a number that you would use every time you make an airline reservation. the airline would transmit that number to the tsa and they would automatically now you have been

cleared. host: san antonio, texas, on our line for democrats. caller: good morning. why am looking at this guy and he is what you call "big government." for people do not fly. very few middle-class people fly. this is a system to secure the rich people to fly. to me, it is surprising that 20 people can cause the united states to spend billions of dollars. guest: 2 million people fly in the commercial aviation system every day. i doubt all of them are rich people. that number goes up considerably when you think about international travel, people traveling in down the dow down to the united states. -- inbound and outbound to

the u.s. there are a large number of people availing themselves of the commercial aviation system. host: you are on the "washington journal. caller: the caller earlier mentioned the tsa and a couple of entities, like the cia. the previous caller mentioned how private entities could address the issue seemingly better than the government. we have the institutions of the patriot act following 9/11. that limited personal freedoms severely. that was a sacrifice on the part of the american people. we have had other things, that

have proven that private industry really does not have the overall health and welfare of the citizenry of the united states in mind. another question i would like to ask is, where do you get your information in order to best determine where the threat really is and how can you say that we are more secure now? i know you are dealing just with the airlines, but there are so many ways to have another catastrophic events happen. host: how would your name get on a no-fly list? what would you have to do? be convicted of a major felony, be involved in some kind of splinter group? guest: it is a judgment made by the intelligence community.

they would have to make the determination that an individual poses a threat to civil aviation. precisely how they go about doing, that is classified. they would have to make a determination if a particular crime was committed. does that -- does that mean a person is a threat to civil aviation? i do not know if that means they stole a watch or stoic purse is a threat to civil aviation. the no-fly list is populated by various industries inside the u.s. intelligence community. host: our last call comes from moore, oklahoma. caller: thank you for taking my call. i would like to know how much scrutiny the cargo that is in

the hall of the passenger planes goes through and how safe those packages are? guest: the tsa has made great strides in insuring cargoes security. the requirement is that 100% of all cargo that is in the hall of the passenger aircraft must be screened before is allowed to be carried. what that means is that the cargo is screened by trace it detection equipment. it is done under a program that is mandated, regulated, and overseen by the tsa. those people have all been subjected to criminal history record tax which are of routinely updated