it sounds like he has a good communications component to what he is doing. >> the way he talked about what he intends to do and what did not happen in the past two years, what happened in congress was not communicated well. republicans said that you're not listening to the american people. you are not hearing them. they will now go to lessons learned and once lessons are learned, you do new tactics. >> you argue that he can connect to voters better than some of these other leaders of his party. what do you make of that? >> i thought it was very interesting. there are very focused on communication. when he mentioned nancy pelosi's strengths, he talked about fund- raising and just about everything but communications. when asked, he said that she is the spokeswoman for the party. obviously, there is a belief that she was not effectively making a case. he took blame as well.

he said the president's is looking for active communicators. he immediately grab onto something that senator mcconnell had said about making sure that obama was a one-term president. he said that that is not what you should be focused on, but focus on getting people back to work. you have republicans talking about inside the beltway minutia and democrats are talking about jobs. there is a fascinating and immediate reversal of roles going on. >> let's talk policy. you asked about tax cuts. what did you hear? >> the president is continuing in his preferences of sticking to this $250,000 threshold. when pressed, he said the senate may be something else.

the democrats have not resolved within themselves what to do and how to proceed. that is foreign to be their first big test. in the pre 2012 para, can the democrats put together a principal, definable message on this tax issue and still the answer is modeled. >> he said that it is not essential that they get this done before the end of the year, and if they do not get done before the end of the year, it will be a deficit reduction package. i am not sure that most people making under to under $50,000 -- certainly there is a portion of that. >> at the white house, the

democratic leadership and the house democratic leadership, maybe there are things to be learned. >> it was certainly not the opening line of the president's weekly radio address this week. >> jonathan allen, major garrett, thank you for being a part of "newsmakers." >> thank you. >> like all men of great gifts, when they give up power, even though they may give it up for principle reasons, they tend to hanker for it the moment that they give it up. >> in the final volume of his award winning trilogy on theodore roosevelt, edmund morris examines the final years of roosevelt's life. tonight at 8:00 p.m. on c-span's "to end an." >> this week on prime minister's questions,. harman is standing in and says that prime minister david cameron broke a promise that

could affect budget cuts. they also talk about the progress in trimming afghan forces. the prime minister's questions, tonight at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> now, a conversation with former house speaker newt gingrich. he was a guest on today's " washington journal." this is 45 minutes. "washington journal" continues. >> we want to welcome back newt >>. thank you. host: we saw the leadership votes in the house and senate. nothing has changed guest: nothing much. the republicans have a winning team with new faces added. the democrats have a losing team and decided to keep the losing

time. a very interesting phenomena. host: what do you think nancy pelosi decided to stay? guest: it's her right to stay. obously the democratic caus agrees. i think part of the difference is that she believes, this is my only guess, that she believes obama will get re-elected by a g marg. the rayburn martin model doesn't work. the second time martin lost in 1954, he bounced back and fourth and the large democratic cause

us stand. matthew dowd, it's not 1994. barack obama may not be so lucky. his political future as well as his party hinges on whether the economy rises. guest: i think that's partly true. the center has moved to the right. you have country which is more anti-spending and anti-washington and determid to go back to a constitutional approach. at the same time, the economy is ch worse. the problems are much more profound. as a danger. if the federal reserve continues to print money, there's a real danger, you will end up in the

late 1970's, they have to raise interest rates to get money back to avoid massive inflation. there's one other huge difference. bill clinton inherited the victory over the soviet union. we were the most power military in the world. obama is operating, and i think in a dramatically more dangerous world. this is 50-100 rocketed surrounding israel. the north koreans continue to build nuclear weapons. you have the worst national security and worst economy and the bigger gap between the president and the country than bill clinton had. that's why i think -- the

president can recover. nobody should underestimate him. as a partner and an institution of enormous party. he has a harder job tha president clinton. host: as a way to kind of show case its tecology or a ploy to try to put in negotiating issue on the table? guest: the north korean dictatorship is a strange regime. their nuclear weapons and rockets. it's a terrible disaster at the human level and economically. it's a pathetically weak country. except for the nuclear weapons. i think they would like to get more money out ofwest. that's their way of saying, you better pay attention to us. host: karl rove said it's been a

rocky month. republicans should sober up. always difficult to beat a president. guest: when ipoke to t senators. we have to move to complacent conservative. in 1980's, with carter, 1994 with mondale. and in the election of 2010. rejection doesn't solve in the long run. the left gets stronger in the universities, news media, bureaucracy and we need to think of a much more fundamental approach to go to the left.

i would say something that chris christi is doing a remarkable job in new jersey how to solve problems. host: valley forge. you said no episode is more difficult. thousands of the 12,000 men died. they all plagued the army and threatened to dissolve it. guest: the british occupied our biggest city, philadelphia and the continental congress fled. washington had been promised the continental congress would send food, supplies and money. they sent none. for the 12 or 14,000 people.

there was two axis. they had rampant disease which was the real killer that winter. it's a very difficult time. you have in washington somebody who has such huge integrity, enormous self discipline to solve the problems. by the spring of 1778, created an army to defeat the british. it's his beingeplaced by certainly gates. guest: part of the lesson of

valley forge. there's nothing new. here's washington who was clearly the dominant figure in the conies, the manhom around the revolutn as evolved. you have a continental congress, a large part is frightened of wash. cromwell became a dictator. you have with washington, the requirements to run the army. sustain the morale out maneuver a faction of the continental congress. they wanted him to fail to replace him. all of this is going on simultaneously. george washington is one of the

most remarkable men in history. host: you keep briing back how hard it is today. the problems we have today pail in comparison. host: to true men's souls about acrossing the delaware on christmas day to surprise the germans d valley forge. we would people to realize. being an american is a strenuous difficult thing. we give certificated who haven't done homework. we think we're going to be able to be slop and he have an entitlementment society and compete wi china and germany. the world i real, challenging

and have complexity. free pple have to be more energetic than slaves. free people have to be able to take on their own shoulders, helping to save their own country. the lesson of the american revolution. we were fortunate that we have americans and foreignens. we have two important foreigners with whom we might not have won the revolution. host: our role in afghanistan. here's what the president said yesterday in lisbon. >> the whole point of ramping up our troop presence was not because we wanted to maintain a large presence in afghanistan. but to immediately blunt the

momentum we were seeing from the taliban and create the space for training of afghan security forces. both those fronts, we have made progre. you have fewer areas of afghanistan under taliban control. you have the taliban on the defense in number of areas that were their strongholds. we have met or exceeded our targets in recruitment of security forces. the performance has improved significantly. so, thanks to the hard work of people like dave petraeus and others, and obviously, the incredible sacrifices of the

troops on the ground, we are in a better place now than a year ago. i am confident we are going to bea -- able to begin our transformance. guest: i don't understand what his message is. we're going to be there after 2014. but we're going to starteaving next year. what does that mean? i mean, they are all wrapped up in these political gains. we are still iraq. we will be there for a long time. i can guarantee you democracy in iraq and afghanistan, the president is in a balancing act.

heants our allies to come in. here's a very difficult balancing act. i find myself confused by performanc by that. what's the real message? is the draw down substantial ground forces there? we're leaving? from everything i have heard, we're going to have substantial ground forces. host: last weeks news week. the president is doing the balancing act. why the modern presidency maybe too much for one person. guest: i broken down laughing with this. we did a movie with six minutes of jimmy carter in there. the question s, can anyone get the presidency to work?

the fact was, eight years ladder. it would have been an absurdity. ronald reagan got it to work. here's the key. reagan only had three goals. they remember enormous. but only three. beat the soviet empire, cut taxes and rebuild the spirit of american civic culture so people were proud to be americans. they were 6000 things we doesn't worry about. he wasn't the god of all people. he address worth reading, from the oval office in january of 1989. people said i made good speeches. reagan fell that and understood

that. if obama i suggest he take six months to rest. if we could slow down. to come back to asia and lisbon. leadership isn't proving that you can run a marathon 365 days a year. but proving what really matters and focus on getting done what reallymatters. host: ann marie joining from maryland. caller: yes, good morning and thank you, c-span. mr. gingrich. i have had the benefit to visit the library of congress and the virginia historical society, the thing i came away with which i hope you'll bring in regards to

your book is how george washington complained about the articles of confederation and how strong he was on correcting some of the probls that we had during our revolution, which then of course, was replaced with the united states constitution. were referring to how much trouble he had a valley forge. guest: thank you. that actually a very wise call. since you're on the line, i hope you have visitedt. vernon it has a new education it facility. if you can spare an extra day, it will teach you more about

george and martha washington. it's a remarkable facility. but your point is right. one of the places i got a comp placement reser placement. it doesn't replace it. there are two stages. the first is at valley forge where washington creates the modern american army capable of replacing british power with american power. the second is the constitutional convention where a group of very wise people reach a conclusion they have to write a new constitution because of articles of confederation are hopeless. they really define modern america. it's a comment. here we are some 223 years later with the constitution still the

governing document of the us. host: dianne joining us from arkansas. caller: hi newt. i think that you are one of the highest -- have one of the highest intellecting of any politicia politicians. i would love to take one of our history classes. please don't consider running for the presidency. the dems are not going to ease up. you got too much baggage and they don't like intellect. they will probably doou like they did mccain. ey-- during the primary, the

dems crossed over. i don't know who i want to run. please don't. all right. guest: that's a very wise observation on your part. i think you noted whoever we nominate. we should be aware the left will assault them. nobody had rather get in the race who's not prepared to have left being remarkable hostile. i think our nominee is going to be the next president. host: you have talked about your personal life. where should the media draw the line in what's their game? guest: the media won't draw lines. there are hundreds of outlets. you have to assume your life is an open book and people have to render judgment. when i said clearly.

there are parts of my life that i am not proud of. if you look at the totality of my life and my relationship wh my two grandchildren, with my two daughters and son-in-law, if yo look at the life calista have, is getting this country on the right track. a person that has been around a lot or do you want to it try somebody else? only people have to have a summary judgment. i think he can help us or on balance, he can't. i don't particularly want the media to decide. but i'm happy for the american people to render judgment.

host: they begin in 12 years, he has been carefully plotting his return for power and goes through your entire life, political and personal. guest: harry true man said. if you can't handle theheat, get out of e kitchen. they were attacking martha washington for having high tea. it wasn't appropriate for the president's wi to have high tea. washington was so angry he told jefferson and hamilton he was going to serve one term and give up. they both believed the cntry needed four more years of washington for stability. they went jointly to him and said. we know you're happy. but we're begging you to serve

your country for four more years. this is a long american history. people who read "valley forge", actively undermining him in our war of independence. the polical system has always had this. if you want to lead the most power military and economy in the world, you have to be willing to go through this and have people decide who are you? i'm 67 years old. i have done a lot of thing if my life. i think people have to render in the end a summary of judgment who i am. host: one more, will the 2012

race be about religion or the big issueses in the country? host: i think anyone who ends up as a candidate will have moments that are uncomfortable. you didn't see it fm their angle. i will give you an example. when i first became speaker. i accepted a $4 million agreement to write a book, then i turn today down. i saw ms. clinton get a bigger contract after leaving washington and becoming a senator. if a conservative did it, you have to worry what is the deal? if you're going to it stay in in process of public fe, you have

to develop a sense of humor and lax. host: >> good morning. steve and mr. speaker. steve, if you could forebear. i have a 2-part question. st: okay. caller: i would like to compare and contrast the people of valley forge and the american people today. the idea of self sacrifice and liberty in those days is without question. i wonder if we have the fortitude today. one recent poll created 72% of american people and 62% of tea partiers support social security and medicare and like those problems. the other antidote, alaska, the

home of the most independent and tough people, you know, re-elected murkowski, a republican back to the senate in order to maintain hopefully their need for additional federal government. i just don't see how, you know, today you can compare the two. i don't think we're prepared to make sacrifices today to fight the british. that's our burgeoning debt.to.

we are free. guest: first of all, i get this occasionally. there are two parts. one is not romanticizing the past or being cynical of the president. washington crossed the delaware had 2500 troops. t of that 25001 third didn't have boots and marched in burlap bags. there weren't many of them. washington has a fairly small army at valley forge. a lot of people in philadelphia were collaborating with the british. americans were 1 third are freedom, 1 third for the british

and 1 third to keep out of it. they were heroic individuals. today, e young men and women on point in afghanistan or somalia. if you look around the world, the number of young americans, i was just in iowa talking to people from the iowa national guard. there's 2800 people in afghanistan. many for the second and third tours. we have many courageous americans. you need a leadership which looks you in the eye and tells you the truth. i will give you an example. it's going to be a real national base. the average asian student studies three hours a day. the average american student

studies less than one hour. the idea that we're more brilliant that in less than an hour a day we can match someone studying 14 hours a week is crazy. do we want to keep up with our competito competitors? host: our next call. caller: thank you very much. c-span is probably the clost to any tv station can you get. i'm a graduate from 1980. machine technology. and i give you a little of my history. i'm running a 1951 american energy for a world leading valve

control process. bp. but, is there any hope that we can bring back some real trade? i'm not real sure about my fact. 65% of our country is banking. 16% is healthcare. is there any hope for us skilled tradesmiths? thank you. guest: that's a great question and something i feel deeply about. i was just talking to the head of national manufacturers. german has the lowest unemployment rate in 18 years. germany has worked very hard at manufacturing successfully and exporting around the world. the highest share of the total economy of any country in the world. the german government gets up every day to think about how to create german jobs.

i think we ought to have 100 % write off for any new equipment so american companies with invest and make sure their workers have the best, most modern equipment in the world. if can you write that off every year, you would have an increase in new technology a expand the american machineool and the american technology industry in order to supply that. i am told 5 to $700 billion that would come home. that would create more jobs in the united states. there are whole series of steps we should take it. as a conscious national goal to be the leading manufacturer in the world. is that the base of our nation security? we can't maintain the strongest national security if we don't

have the strongest economy. what you asked was a terrific question. host: how many people follow y on twitter? >> like a million host: john said. god bless you newt. anybody that drives democratic accurates nuts is a great american. caller: good morning. mr. speaker, i am an american of cuban ancestry. i have been always interested in history in cuba and the united states. i understand the contribution of the ladies of havana were very important at the end of the american revolution. i have been proud of that. it's something that is not commonly studied.

can you touch upon that in your book? guest: we're goi to go yorktown to talk aut the final collapse of the british. i suspect it will be there. let me say, by the way, if you're from miami, we have a conference called the amcano, a center right, hispanic-american website to talk about policies. on our conference on december 2nd and third, the miami symphony is coming up. we are honoring the congress man from your city and prime minister from spain coming. honoring the president of columbia. we have a lot from miami. plus my older daughters lives in

biscane. host: we will go to john on o independent line. >> good morning. how are yo can you describe the star of the beast? what it entails? guest: that goes back to reagan's theory. if you quit paying for the bureaucracy, it will eventually go away. i'm not sure by itself that's good. i have come out with something very diffent. i believe we have to replace the liberal welfare state. we have to replace the radical centralizi centralizi

centralizi centralizing bureaucracies. one of the pposals i made it is -- we spent $134 billion on unemployment composition. paying people to do nothing. weurn that into a training program. it's $134 billion without increasing the deficit. tie i into training to be table to go to work. i have talked with major employers and gallup how to do an entire online assessment capability so people could get the skills. you're not waiting for 99 weeks. but improving your ability to compete in the world market. that would be the scale change we need to think about. we need to go through the whole system and think about those improvements to give us a more

rapidly expanding country. host: host our conference is with newt, and valley forge. heather is joining us from tennessee. >> good morning. hi mr. newt gingrich. i would like so say, in the 1990's, my grand mother was a huge fan. hover, i'm a democrat. i haven't heard y express anything about the war in iraq. there was no weapons in mass destruction found. i have never heard you comment about matter before. i was wondering what yourake is on this? host: vice president biden has a

piece on that in the "new york times". guest: first of all. when you joint forces came into iraq after the war, they thought they should weapon of mass destruction. he said. we were right on the edge. the scientists didn't want to get killed. he wanted the iranians to be fearful of them. it was a very strange situation that history will unravel. obviously, the weapons were not there. when they interviewed the iraqis they were surprised. they had all been told they have weapons of mass destruction. the biggest mistake we made was not turning the country over as

rapidly as possible to the iraqs. i wrote the paper," operation switch". we want to hire the iraqi army. not the security police. not the enforcers but the regular iraqi army. we wanted to back out as far as we could. we made a decision that cost us years. we became close to a catastrophic defeat until general petraeus turned it around. there's a lot to learn from the iraq campaign and a significant number of mistaked made. host: twitter saying, this is bary gold water.

guest: i'm not sure what they mean. the first big step forward defining the modern movement. it's reagan's speech. you can you get by going to the reagan library online. in many ways, 25 years later, when we gives his farewell address. can you watch the original speech and his farewell address. reagan hasn't changed much. in that sense, i probably send on both goldwater and reagan's shoulders. i i am trying to replace the left. most governors are in the same

position host: john is joining us from san diego caller: good morning. i wanted to make an observation. the think the government, specically our federal government. they try to be everything for everybody. it basically ends up being worthless to anyone. i think what we're missing here is in the form of our leadership, senior statesmanship and less political activity. i think the president, unfortunately, as used the office of presidency to forward the agenda. i wanted to get your comments on the statesmanship part and also the jgling act of the

president on his focus, and that should have been jobs, reuniting dc and making it work for the people. establishing a firm foreign policy. host: thank you. john. guest: there's a lot to that. when we want to the inaugural. i saw speeches in virginia before the election as the winner on election night at grant park, which i think is truly a great speech. and it was a very solid speech. i said on the way out from the capitol. if we will governor from the center like eisenhower. he would split the republican party. force a substantial number of

republicanto cooperate with him and be a very formidable president. i think he had that potential. within two weeks, he decided to allow speaker pelosi to write an entire left-winning budget. with no republican in the room. with the members of congress n thinking what was in the bill. i agree with you. i think second, there's no question in my mind that jobs and paychecks are the key. what we have gotten out the democrats is bureaucracy and food stamps. we are going to send a certificate, what am i doing today to create jobs and

paycheck america only works with americans are working. that will be the number one step we ought to take. number one approach to the public welfare isn't giving you unemployment or food stamps. finding a way for you to find a job so you can be a contributing citizen and not a taker. host: let me conclude. please stopsking newt if we will run for president. i will ask you, i just want to ask you, what you're thinking of as a time line? guest: i think we have a tentative target to run. if we decide. we will announce in april. i agree with mit romney who said, let's not rush into debates before september.

let's not get all involved in tangled up in campaigning for campaigning sake. we have a lot to do as americans and lots of time between now and iowa caus when really starts the dance in 2012. :

there's no possibility that i would ever go to a debate and have chris matthews asking questions. i watched the debate and it was an embarrassment bause they were so hostile and so left wing that every question they asked of the republicans was designed to embarrass and divide, and every question they asked the democra was designed to look good. host: would you do it with a moderator? guest: with a time keeper. lincoln and douglas debated seven times for three hours and they had a time keeper. that's all they had. and i would feel very comfortable, i'm not saying if -- if we got to that point. people like mitch daniels, sara palin, mike huckabee, governor romney, i would feel very comfortable having an agreement

to behave like adults and observe the time, and just figure out what the topics ought to be and aually have a dialogue not a debe. how are we going to solve our country's problems? and i would be glad to do it at the reagan libebri but without the kind of micky mouse questions asked by hostile news media. >> host: if you're a candidate would you partipate? guest: i would see what the terms were. but i would not participate i right now conversation with was the car,, allied commander and presidential candidate. this is just over 35 minutes. joining us from los angeles is retired general

wesley clark. thank you for being with us on c-span. guest: thank-you host:. one had line is that the u.s. and nato forces will be in afghanistan well beyond 2014. what is your reaction? guest: i think that is inevitable and that is common sense and i was glad to see the summit confirm the host: that. the president responded to criticism from general -- from president carter's i of afghanistan -- a k presidentarzai who said that the u.s. and nato need to hold back on a nighttime bombing spurted the present address that issue over the weekend with president hamid karzai. guest: i think that hamid karzai has its own domestic opinion. he has the people around him. they expect him to stand up and represent afghanistan. our side does not have much choice. you can succeed in this conflict

unless you take actions against the leadership and that is what the nato forces are doing with some success host: how to use to define success in afghanistan? guest: in the largest sense of the word, success is a stabilization of the situation and the submergence of the taliban resistance. these people fade back in and continue their normal lives and network of illegal activities and the assassinations and bombings and so forth will stop. the organization will basically dissolve. that would be success. host: the secretary-general of nato says that the role of nato short and long term as the lisbon summit wrapped up. here is a portion of what the former danish prime minister had to said. >> over the past few years, there have been many

international meetings on afghanistan. all of them have been important and valuable but this one is different because here in lisbon, we have launched a process by which the afghan people will once again become masters of their own house. host: it is a nato effort but if you look at the% of the of u.s. troops in afghanistan, 100,000 u.s. troops and it goes down significant with our allies including great britain, what will the makeup look like in 2014 and beyond? guest: it is likely to be still very heavily reliant on american forces, maybe even more so that was the way the decision came out. i think it reflects the prevailing public opinion on countries -- in countries on both sides of the atlantic. this is what nato does. nato is a consensus building

machine in which different nations and political concerns and strategic concerns and financial capabilities are blended together and alliance result emerges. in this case, i think it is a productive results. nato adopt the new strategic conference and included in that was the responsibility of nato to deal with situations like a. afghanistan nato intends to do it and i think it is a productive outcome of the summit. host: the front page of ""the new york times" - a new plan for nuclear use. let me read you what they are saying. north koreans are showing a visiting nuclear scientist last week a vast new facility that they are rapidly building to enrich uranium and whether a calculated idea of negotiating or whether they will accelerate

their weapons program for it poses a new problem to president obama. host: i think it is both. it certainly was calculated to guest: it poses a new challenge. it is typical of the way north koreans negotiate. we have been negotiating with them since 1951 when armistice negotiations began. nothing has really changed during that time in terms of their negotiating style. they are tough. they are sneaky. they come in from left field with a new problems and they continue to generate the grist that keeps the problem growing. you think you are making progress and they produce another problem for you to resolve. this is the white north korea handles itself. it is a very tough situation but on the other hand, thus far, we have managed to avoid war on the korean peninsula. i think it is an increasingly severe situation when the

president has other administrations have said that one of their top goals is nuclear nonproliferation to counter north korean preparation of nuclear technology. we know the north koreans are part of the corporation network d they are causing mischief. >>you will see a further toughening of u.s. attitudes after this revelation. host: let me ask you about iraq. vice president joe biden rose about iraq and he is taking a lead for the administration. he makes a couple of points. he says the new political order in baghdad is not yet ready to stand alone. the day will come while iraq's vast wealth will find security, it is not there yet. when will iraq get there? guest: i think it will take a long time to do that. we have seen more than six months of negotiations since the election. they have hammered out the shape

of a new government. i think there is progress being made. these are expo's of forces that were released when we invaded in the wake of -- in 2003 to overthrow saddam hussein. in the wake of that invasion, iran entered to create greater mischief of our efforts through funding and political advice and weapons provision. we are dealing with a difficult situation. i think there has been political progress there. i think that iraq's great natural wealth will make a difference in ultimately providing stability perry h. host: we are joined by retired general wesley clark we will talk about military issues and defense spending in a few minutes. your phone numbers are on the bottom of your screen. you cannot joinedtw as atitter.

william is joining us from wilmington, north carolina. good morning. caller: i have a question about north korea appeared my father was a part of that conflict. he was sent to europe during that time. what were we doing in north korea and is it true that we were really just they're motivated by one particular substance that we had found and were going to use for our weapons? host: what is the threat by north guest: korea guest: there is the threat of inadvertence conflict. north korea has a million men are made and it is an isolated regime and they are very insecure. it is potentially a trigger happy bridging quick to respond to any perceived provocation and war could begin on the north --

on the korean peninsula by miscalculation or by accident. that has been a concern of the united states for a long time. that is why we continue to have forces stationed there. the second threat is the threat of nuclear proliferation. north koreans are isolated economically and they have very little to offer the international community except for weapons technology for people opposed to the united states. they have built quite an arsenal of long-range ballistic missiles and nuclear warheads. we believe they probably have poison gas and probably some biological weapons. we have never seen the evidence for the biological weapons but we have to assume they are working on a program like that. you're dealing with a regime that is actively working with the america's adversaries elsewhere in the world to proliferate technology that is destabilizing around the world.

host: general clark is a graduate of west point and served in vietnam and is a former european allied commander and spent how many years in the u.s. arm guest:? i was 34 years when i retired in the summer of 2000. it was a great experience and i love the united states army. the people who served there are great and i served in vietnam with great soldiers. and officers and i am proud of the work i did with the allies in europe in the late 1990's. host: vietnam is one of our leading trading partners when it comes to textile products. have you been back in recent years to guest:? i have not i go to china very often. i have business in eastern europe and in the middle east. i am sure i will make it to vietnam. like most americans, i am cheered to see the economic progress they have made host: if you go back, is there an area of the country that you want to

visit? guest: i am sure i will end up back around saigon i will probably end up near the town of long phong which is near where i was shot in 1970. , i remember had♪ a great climate. i would like to see the whole country, especially the coastline. it is a very beautiful place. from we're joined cantwell, pennsylvania. good morning on republic and caller: line. caller: the general has had 15 years to give his side of the star and now it is my turn. i would like to take him back to the war in the balkans a s againserbs. the

without approval of the u.s. congress, nato bombed a country that did not have weapons of mass destruction. there were never a threat to west for the war was a based onpro-bosnian/xhosa though media. in 1995, we bombed a bosnian serbs in a marketplace massacre. the bonds or used were designed by hezbollah. they were intended to shock the west, particularly gullible washington to fight on the side of the bosnian muslims. guest: well, there has been a

consistent line of thought like this. i was in the u.s. government and army and serving on the step of the joint chiefs of staff when the marketplace bombing occurred. i heard the theory at the time. that barry has never been established for it was typical -- that theory has never been established. it is typical. i spent countless hours with the serbian president. i met all the bosnian-serb leaders including the generals and there is no dispute about what happened on the ground in bosnia. that included the massacre in which some 7000 bosnian men were murdered after they had surrendered from a u.n.- protected enclave. that was a war crime of

monumental proportions. there was connivance by that all the way up into the serb government. i filed a long-term program of ethnic cleansing. and for stopping a war and providing regional stability for preventing further work crimes for humanitarian reasons, yes, nato took action and i am proud of that. host: this is the headline from ""the washington post." an agreement reached between nato and russia, russia's insistence for some of these missile defenses that will be installed throughout europe, in particular to keep an eye on iran or resignations like north korea. what is your reaction? guest: we have been angling for this for a long time. that this goes back to the 1990's when we first looked at the idea of nato enlargement. we always hoped that there would be a place for russia. we created in 1997, the nato-

russia council. it has had its ups and downs but it is still in place. it has been changed once but it still works. president medvedev of russia was at the summit meeting. that was very positive. it was a constructive meeting with president obama. from the time we began looking and missile defense and you're back in the 1990's, we always hoped there would be a role for russia to participate it seems with the phased approach with the department of defense, our european allies, nato has agreed to consider this at the summit. russia has agreed to consider participating. i think those are all signs of progress britain host: gerald is joining us from north carolina with general wesley clark, got caller: had been good morning, general, cspan, how are you this wonderful morning? guest: good. caller: you serve at fort bragg

and i've lived in a bedroom community right outside. we are some of the most patriotic people in the country and we are mostly democrats. most of the republicans call as unpatriotic which ivacant allies if they want to. i am made vietnam-era veteran also i don't require or even request an appreciation for my service because i did it because i love our country. if i was physically able, i would be in there again now. one of the lessons we learned in vietnam was that if you do not win the hearts and minds of the people, the bodies will not follow. i believe there are two things that cannot be delivered from the barrel of -- from the point of a barrel of a gun and that his marriage and democracy. both of those require work. could you comment on that? keep up the great work and it is a pleasure to speak to you, sir.

have a great day in guest: thank you very much i will not comment on maris. as far as democracy is concerned, yes, that is a matter of culture and tolerance and education. it has been a challenge for 2000 years of human cells -- history. people have sought democracy and we got them and then we lost a man when we try to put in place, sometimes it works better and it evolves into its own form. it is challenging. with respect to vietnam, we always said you had to win the hearts and minds. when we were succeeding in vietnam before the funding was cut off and before the troops were pulled out, we actually succeeded by military means. we had a program called the phoenix program which did very much with general petraeus is doing in afghanistan today. we took out a high level leaders of the viet cong infrastructure. we did not win their hearts and minds perry we confronted them in the middle of the night and

gave them the choice to surrender and fight and some of them surrendered and some of them were put out of action are . that is the way it was done in vietnam. through military action in cambodia and per bombings against the north, we used military force. in vietnam, most of the people wanted to be left alone. it was unfortunate. we came out when we did. that was the will of the american people. if you went to afghanistan, you would find people are pretty much the same. they're caught up in massive forces of history. we are they're trying to protect their security. winning the hearts and minds is a phrase to use an hour truce because you have to respect the population you're working with. on the other hand, we just don't want to have trouble and they are looking for the least -- the path of least resistance to get out of bed. i hope we can find that in

afghanistan. i am encouraged by the strategy of general press -- general petraeus and his predecessors have pursued. and just like in vietnam, i think we have to work the neighborhood. one of our principal figures in vietnam as we did not appreciate the full significance of going after north vietnamese support for the south. we did not appreciate it in public. i am concerned there is tremendous support coming into afghanistan from the taliban, from pakistan, and we have to work against of that support as president obama is doing with the drawn attacks and many other things that we don't see in public. host: you have the convergence of what the u.s. and nato troops are trying to do in afghanistan and the concerns being put forth by president hamid karzai that said stop the nighttime

bombings and don't move into the neighborhoods. had you deal with these issues? guest: it is a continuing problem. our trips are fully briefed and take every possible precaution to avoid hurting innocent people and avoid disrupting innocent families, to reduce the footprint of noise and fear and a shock on neighborhood and villages. they have to do what they have to do because if we don't go after the taliban leadership, we cannot win the hearts and minds of the people in afghanistan. they are being intimidated and threatened. there are countless vignettes that come out of every conflict. people will cooperate but they will come in at night and kill you and that is how insurgency works. the only way to stop that is to go after the leadership. host: our conversation is with retired general wesley clark.

he has received many metals and is joining us from los angeles. one of our viewers says nato agrees on the missile defense system for europe and the u.s. he calls it insanity. who is paying for it? guest: it will come out of the defense budget. we have lived for a long time with the idea of deterrence. you will not strike us because if you did, we would strike you. we also had technical problems because ballistic missiles move very fast and very high and come down at hypersonic speeds. it is difficult to intercept them so we did not really have a defense. we made a virtue out of necessity with a doctrine that some called a mutually assured destruction. when we deal with rogue nations like iran which are unpredictable and whose capabilities threaten the united states and especially our. allies

through those threats, they could impact our ability to take the kind of diplomatic measures that are needed to prevent conflict. we have to take another look at missile defense. that is what we have done of the last decade. we built the technology. we have or to the diplomacy of these deployments. i think we are seeing further steps for it is expensive? certainly, but not nearly as expensive as allowing a conflict to emerge and suffering the consequences of bombardment by nuclear armed missiles host: indian head, maryland, good morning. independent loss caller: good morning. i am thankful to cspan for the news that you provide us. i have a couple of questions that i want to share with you. the first one is about our mission in afghanistan.

how is it that almost 10 years after the beginning of the war, we have not yet captured osama bin laden. ? we have captured many of leaders but i don't think anyone can overstate the importance that obama been laid in represents for the movement and capturing him as one of the missions that we have to achieve there. the second question is -- the defense department budget is so overwhelming. his photographs earlier showing how much contribution to the united states -- you showed a graph earlier showing how much of a contribution to the budget we have. [inaudible] if terrorism is as much a threat for great britain as us, how is it that the united states is leading by 10 times the amount

of other nations? in 1960, general dwight eisenhower gave a speech when he spoke about the military industrial complex in this nation. in 2010, it is legal for defense contractors to lobby congress and get legislation that allows them contracts. we have grown our military to a size that is simply not sustainable host: those are three issues on the table. back first too osama bin laden? . i agree with the viewer. he is critical. i think he should have been taken out in the first set of u.s. actions in 2001. apparently, there was no plan to do so. the was some confusion about

what the requirements were. was he actually there? i think the cold hard facts are that he was there but we did not have a plan. we put the resources in and did not get him. the previous administration and the military leadership at that time have to answer for that. there is a dilemma in going after a single individual in any conflict. it is hard to get a single individual. osama bin laden is a tremendous symbolic leader. how much actual day-to-day control he has people dispute that. i would like to see him taking down. for the government to not put too much pressure on him elevates his status and makes it more difficult to get a. m. perry and. him. . .

we assisted our european allies in the balkans. they cut back on defense spending, but they have different responsibilities worldwide. we have maintained our forces and as you look into the future we will continue to do so. but i would say this. i see the same figures about how large our spending is and i'm sure these figures are accurate as far as the u.s. is concerned and our allies in germany and britain and elsewhere. but when you look at other countries, china, russia, others, it is not clear that you are seeing the sum total of

their defense expenditures. just as we protect the size of our intelligence budget through secrecy, and you cannot actually know where the money is going to publicly, and you cannot know the actual size, they also no doubt project -- protect the expenditures of their defense. lopsided. russia has a major armament problem. people around the world have a high expectation around the united states. of course, it's not just about wanting to meet their expectations. we want to do things in the interest of americans. it's in our interest to live in a world of stable democracies, open and friendly to us. where we can have trade with these countries. that's the structure -- that's the nature of the structure we would like to maintain and

evolve. >> china the topic. posing problem for washington in an era of tight budgets. part of debate we're see suggest how to reduce the deficit. defense secretary gates put in a billion dollars in spending. you can't balance the budget on the backs of the pentagon. where does this debate go on military spending? guest: i think the pentagon will have to make cuts. it's not quite as easy to say whack the defense budget. the defense department is a high technology organization. its technology efforts have had

beneficial impacts into the american economy. a lot of progress we made in the later half of the 20 century was defense research investments that had commercial benefits. there's ancillary benefits. i don't think the defense department is going to be a major part of cutting until the war on terror changes. we have to at least keep up. we maybe ahead right now. there has to be a balance and mutual respect. i think if you have the balance of forces and the kind of respect between the armed forces, you have situations in which diplomatic problems don't escalate. it's to provide the foundation

on which diplomacy and problem solves can take place host general wesley, john joining us from >> caller: good morning. general, how are you i served in vietnam as well. i wonder what our response will be if they move down the peninsula? i would like to know what we can do other than tactical nukes or something they really move down the peninsula. host: let's take that point and then we'll follow up. general. guest: we fought this for many years. 57 years ago, we had an

agreement with them. their armed force have become increasingly strong. they are very fit, capable. the simple answer is what happened if they tried to move south, we would have a major war in the region. certainly china doesn't want that. and the united states doesn't want it. and so there are a lot of eyes and a lot of pressures focused on north korea to retard any spirit they have of had desperation, there's nothing to do. host: john, we will follow up with you. caller: i would say the same for iran. people didn't think they would nuke centers in europe. i have no idea why they would do it in the first place. one more question about iraq we

did not sure the ramps. either we are not very smart or there's something else afoot, which i'm not sure of. one more quick one, please. i believe the day of 9/11. the game was over. it was like what john mccain said. we are chasing our tail. i don't mean to sound defeatist. thanks very much. >> thank you. you want me to answer the question on the ammo dumps? you bring up the point, you were a vietnam vet. we had 550,000 troops at the height. we had a million south vietnamese trained in the

regional and popular forces. we had a huge military commitment in south vietnam. much greater than what we put in iraq or afghanistan. >> some of us at the time expressed concerned and we paid a price host: kigha is joining us. good morning. caller: yes. general. general clark, i would like to say wonderful listening to you about south vietnam. this was a grave mistake. we keep dumping money into this military. it's getting us nothing. host: general clark, do you want to respond? guest: i would like to respond.

to go back to vietnam, the decision was made to try to oppose the expansion of communism. we could have done a better job with the military leadership. we could have struck harder and sooner. maybe south vietnam would have come up like south korea and the entire region would be different. i don't know. as far as afghanistan is concerned, what we need is great diplomacy. we have to tackle the issues between india and pakistan and if we want to take the steam out of conflict in afghanistan, because in a very real sense. u.s. forces are caught in a grip

of a proxy war struggling for the vital strategic rear as afghanistan is called by the pakistanis. it's not just a military operation. but a diplomatic one. i testified before congress last year. i was looking for a way to get out. it's hard to get out unless you take down osama bin laden and have success in dismantling al-qaeda. to revitalize nation terrorist networks around the worst and create a greater threat for the united states. i know that sounds like rhetoric. i can only say that a lot of us have looked at it from the inside. the outside and it's the way that the machinery works. so i don't like being there.

i don't like seeing our young men and women die there. it's a terrible situation. i would like to see those resources used at home in the united states. but it's the situation we're faced with. until someone has a better way of going after the terrorists, we're stuck with what we have right now. host: like the commander in chief. general clark is a road scholar studying at oxford guest: >> actually, i left oxford the su suck -- summer he aarrived. caller: i said rich people don't live in caves. lennon wrote america would fall

like an over-ripe fruit from the tree. wasn't he perfect on >> our companies have morphed into the military. the people have no say. we elected all these people, the tea bags got out. we were putting the people in wall street in jail. now the election is over, what is it doing? we want to [inaudible] and we want to get rid of all the money. host: thanks for the call, david. guest: there's a lot of anger in the country. i hope we get back to the path of job creation. the easiest way to do is mean it when we say we're going after

energy independence. we import foreign oil. it's a real threat to our national security and america's economic future. the technology is there to fix it. all we need is the political will to move out and do it. i think a lot of anger in america could go away. i would like to see us fix our mortgage mess and those responsible held accountable host: general clark. one more. "don't ask, don't tell," how will this be resolved? guest: i do believe congress will vote to end "don't ask, don't tell". the survey of the armed forces show the vast majority of our men and women in uniform don't have a problem with it. there are a few people that do, obviously. this is like a political football up on the hit right

now. going to be used for partisan purposes. we think we should take the partisanship out of this. get the issue off the table and move on, our men and women deserve the respect of all americans. if you choose to serve, that you ought to be able to do so. the americans have moved away from the >> next, q&a with proper david morris and brent -- british prime minister david cameron. after that, and look at new the elected governors. >> tomorrow on "washington journal" author richard wolf talks about his book "survival,"

on the inner workings of the obama administration. gary schmidt from the american enterprise institute discusses of 2% of gdp.et and michael huerta discusses how new javaid technology is -- new faa technology is increasing delays. >> the c-span networks, we provide coverage of politics, public affairs, nonfiction books and american history. it is all available to you on television, radio come on line and social networking sites. final content any time through c-span's video library. and we take c-span on the road with the bus and local content vehicles. it is washington your way