at&t is the largest union employer in america. almost 140,000 orf our allowed men and women people of color to raise the living standards. unfortunately, part of the which telecom the union is on the board, they have fear among workers who want implementation. in the acquisition -- the fear that has been promoted over the last companies, when at&t has

met other acquisitions. >> what is the position on this proposal? >> we have concerns about this deal. >> they will control more than 80% of the market. we have not seen the sign any other industry. >> that document 80% of the industry in this would be a dominated market. this is something we have to keep in mind. eliminating one competitor elements choice. this will lead to an increase in

prices for all consumers. there is also going to be an effect on innovation. if you do not have a competitor there is little incentive to innovate within the network. they are using mobile wireless for communications, businesses, and more people are relying on the broad than market, whether this is economic reasons. and whether there is a combined entity. >> there is the expectation that this merger is going to result in a lot of job losses. do you have any estimation about what this would be, -- >> we will be looking at this

carefully. >> we will have the rich will have to ensure the employment of these workers. when at&t and cingular came together, and then they purchased centennial. we saw the increase in occupational employment and membership. we will be watching this closely. we care about this and these are the things that we pay attention to. >> if this deal is approved, to you think that this will be crafted in a way where the conditions will be satisfactory. >> right now there is a lot more information on the way. the way that we could feel right now, this would eliminate some of the harm that i have spoken about.

there will be layoffs and what will happen after the merger goes through. this will leave the of the arms that would be caused. host: 80 and see the cheek -- at&t has said that these rates have gone down. guest: i think that this information involves a the voice rates and boys prices. we have seen the data prices go up. there is the mobile broadband and we actually have seen the data rates go up. this has happened to even if the amount that is needed for the networks and the amount needed to get this going has gone down. i think that we will likely to continue to see the data rates

go up. >> assuming for a moment that this is approved, what kinds of conditions would both of you want to have? >> one of the things that is most important, a benefit that will come out of this steel is the expansion of the broadband 4 10 megabytes per second. they will be able to watch video separately. the high-definition video. to build this up to 95%. there is a voluntary commitment that they have announced. this is very important. the united states is behind all of the other countries in the key issues. this is important for health care and economic development. this is a big positive. we would be interested, as the fcc weighs the potential harm.

that benefit would be codified in an order. the commitmenttment they have made would be codified. others would deal with addressing broadband problems. some kind of low-income subsidy. to expand broadband to the householsds on the digital divide. they don't have the capacity for the enormous benefits. >> the same question. >> i do not think they are any conditions to alleviate the harms that would come to the transaction. at & t has now show why it needs

spectrum to reach out the goals of 95% of the broadband population. at & t has the spectrum. they have not invested or built this. so i don't think at & t can reach the t-mobile spectrum. they can do this without t- mobile. >> we are out of time. parul desai of the consumer's union. thank you for being on the communicators. we are goined by bob goodlatte. a member of the house judiciary committee. a member of the internet

subcommittee. you will be holding hearings on this deal. what are you looking to find out. >> obviously two things. we want to determine if this deal is a good idea. if it is creating the largest wireless company in america. it raises competition issues with services and pricing. is this going to be helpful to the consumer or harmful. and secondly, we are just beginning this process. they have a responsibility to review this under our anti-trust laws. we have to make certain they are reviewing this.

we have an oversight responsibility. to ensure that they conduct the review with the fairness and commitment that -- committment that is -- commitment to this. we are in the fifth day of it. there is not yet allowed to be determined, but we want to make certain that we pursue this aggressively and diligently, and we will try to provide a forum for the individuals and we will debate the implications of this merger. and this is obviously a way for the constituents and their concerns about the merger to be

addressed. >> this deal would remove the fourth largest wireless character from the market. are you concerned about the tax on consumers. >> absolutely. we have to look at the impact that this will have in terms of pricing,wireless services and the availability of those services. it is important the justice department and the fcc the two government agencies overseeing this industry and competition. i think they take thsi very seriously. that will be part o fthef the hearing.

>> this is one issue we will take up. how big is too big. will they set the market prices i na way tha tthey can't do now. that is not one answer for the country. they can look at geographic regions and what takes place in the results. there may be an approval of the merger after a number of changes. to divest the interest of one of the companies. the competition remains there. it is too early to answer all

those questions. how much the removal of one competitor will have on prices and on choices and quality of service. >> have you scheduled these hearings. >> we are looking at dates but we don't have an announced date. it may be in early may. >> bob goodlatte of the chairman -- subcommittee on intellectual property. thank you for joining us. david hatch thank you for joining us. the national journal has a new tech website. nationaljournal.com/tech. thank you for being with us.

>> on monday, obama will deliver a speech on libya in the national defense university. the actions the u.s. has taken. the transition to nato command. monday at 7:30 eastern. c-span and c-span radio. >> i am not interested in developing a strategy to win the primary and not winning the general. we have done well everywhere. >> rick santorum sits down to discuss a presidential bid in 2012. on c-span. >> as protest continue, and as

nato sets to take control find the latest from the administration officials . all searchable on your computer. watch what you want, when yo u want. >> a look between the relations between the u.s. and libya. this is about 45 minutes. van is a securities studies adjufpkt professor at georgetown university and joins us to talk about the relations between the united states and libya both on diplomat and military fronts. take us through the evolution of the relationship between u.s. and libya say from the mid 60s up through the present. guest: i think it's important to start earlier than that if we look back at the time period

when it wasn't libya yet it was actually part of the otoman empire. and if you listen to the marine anthem it says to the shores of trip oly and it has to do with the pirates going way back. and then the otoman empire lost its control over libya to the italians in 1911, 1912 with the war. the italians pretty much controlled the place until 1943 when of course the british took over balled of world war ii. that's part of our relationship with libya. we've all seen the movies about that. after the italians left, we had the king. and we did have a pretty good relationship with the king. we had an air force base in libya which was a former italian air base, an access air base. and libya was developing its oil markets at that time. we had again pretty good

relationships although distant because it wasn't an important part of the world yet for us. after about 1969, september 1 gadhafi has his revolution, essentially a cue de that throwing the king 27 years old beware of army captains in weak states. after that, it wasn't really clear what gadaffie's philosophy was but he soon after that he wrote a book called the green book. which espouses a philosophy which is kind of his own. it's a mixture of what he thinks of islam. this brings up a point with some of the people in ben gazzi about the green book. they don't like the way he's portraying it. socialism and bed woun philosophy. he became more radicalized as

his power grew as he used the oil wealth of the country. he supported groups in sierra leon in liberia, the radical groups in the philippines. he tried to rad clies people in australia, in new zealand throughout africa. he support it had red brigade. it was amaiding the sort of stuff that he was into. he was also very much connected in with terrorism including attacks on airports, air flights, pan am 103 uta 772 coming out of knew jare. he is connected with an attack on american marines in a disco tech 19 86. we attacked libya in the mid 1980s when ronald reagan was president in response to an incident in the gulf of sidra

where libyan migs went outh out and attacked some of our plants and went after libya after the attack on our marines in berlin. host: in the previous administration, there was a sort of shift let's say and sanctions against libya had been suspended after they accepted responsibility for the locker by bombing and also they said that they would no longer be involved in the production of the distribution of weapons of mass destruction. was the thought here in washington by both republicans and democrats that we had maybe turned a corner and are in a situation where we could help bring libya into the brotherhood of nations? or have we always sort of wanted to keep them at arm's distance? guest: there seems to be some sense amongst many people in the city -- and i was part of

the atlantic council discussion on this -- how could we combh prove our relations with libya. and i put a dissent saying we had better be very careful with gaddafi and his crowd. every time we granted something, he should grant something in return, which is part of diplomacy. i was very wary of him. many people in this city were wary of him. those with historical memory remember how much he was involved with very violent incidents throughout africa, the middle east throughout europe. the attack on pan am 103. his development of alleged development of nuclear weapons. i don't think he got much to that level. he mostly had parts of it. which ended up being transferred to tennessee as far as i remember. he had chemical weapons had biological weapons. he tried to buy a nuclear weapon from the chinese and once tried to buy it from the indians. this guy is one of the worst of the worse.

there's no doubt about it. but i think a lot of our attempt to improve relations had a lot to do with economic and other reasons. host: in december of 2003, president george w. bush announced that libya had agreed to internal weamses -- weapons inspections and discussed what that meant for the future of libya. >> with today's announcement by its leader libya has begun the process of gee joining the community of nations. and connell gadhafi knows the way forward. libya should carry out the commitments announced today. libya should also fully engage in the war against terror. its government this response to the united nations security council's locker by demands has already renounced all acts of terrorism and pledged

cooperation in the international fight against terrorism. we expect libya to meet these commitments as well. as the libyan government takes these essential steps and dells straits its seriousness its good faith will be returned. libya can regain a secure and respective place among the nations. and over time achieve far better relations with the united states. guest: well, clearly there was quid pro quo expected there. gadhafi and the libyans giving up terrorism or renouncing supporting terrorism. taking a look at that right now, i think the situation has changed. i would not be surprised if gadhafi made some of his sleeper cells that may exist in parts of the world kinetic.

and it could bring violence to many parts of the world if he indeed has that capability of doing this. he has shown in the past. the man is 69 years old. he has been involved with every nevada air yuss group in the past. he has connections all over the place. that's where a lot of his mercenaries have come from. he has connections throughout west africa. this is a very bad character. and this may be stirring up a hornets nest. host: we're talking about the history of u.s.-libyan relations with professor paul sullivan, securities studies at georgetown university. and if you would like to get involved in the discussion give us a call. you can also send us messages

via e-mail and twitter. ow first call comes from michigan on our line for democrats. al on the "washington journal." caller: i'm watching the journal, i'm not on it. host: turn down your television. there's a feedback that happens here. caller: ok. i disagree with the kay gadhafi is treating his own individuals. i disagree with the way other countries treat their individuals. and the americans have always been the watchdog. but we have divided our own selves into several different politics groups. we all have to come together.

our country is in a financial fight. but if we all come together, we can make this work. host: paul sullivan. guest: i agree with you. good morning. thanks for the question. there is political deviciveness in washington and this is causing gridlock in decision making and we really do have to pull together. we are one nation and it's about time we did this and got beyond petty partisan politics. but with regard to mow mar gaff if i's treatment of his own people, he's been a vicious person toward his own people almost from the beginning. if you take look at some of the history of libya during the 1990s there was an attempted cue de that and he essentially slautrd well over 1500 people inslide a pridsen and tracks down people who disagrees. there was a law passed making it illegal to criticize him or the government.

host: our next call from new orleans, louisiana. steve on our line for republicans. caller: yes rob. professor sullivan, you are right on. you've got him to a tee actually right on. this summer gadhafi had too much american blood specifically on his hands from pan am 103. i'm shocked that the families are not standing up against this ruthless. also the disco tech. and you have named all these activities he's done for 42 years. 42 years this has destroyed libya. instead, he built palaces around the globe in africa and in europe. so right now as we speak mr. sullivan and rob this man brings tens of thousands of mercenaries from algeria and

other neighboring countries. so unless he is gone the entire world will be a disaster. thank you. guest: well, another good question. and good morning to new orleans. if he is gone, the statement you use, that's not sufficient. to bring peace and prosperity to libya. there will be many thousands of people who will be his loyalists including members of his family, other people like that, people within the tribes from where he comes from and also the allied tribes and other people who have latched on to his coat tails toward their direction of wealth and power in libya. they won't go easily. and it may be very difficult to have a negotiated sement in libya. saying that calfi leaving is

sufficient is not sufficient. there's a lot more work to be done. . . a horse or someone to go with in the race to replace colonel gaddafi after his leaving by his

own accord or being forced out by his military? guest: i am not sure what the purpose of that visit would be. maybe he was thinking about going to graduate school. it was education to learn about this country there could be a positive thing. picking horses to win a race in a fluid environment like libya is not the game that we want to be in right now. host: back to the phones. all's wald is on our line for democrats. caller: good morning. [unintelligible] host: all's wald, we are having some problems so we are going to move on to dallas, texas. good morning, ralph.

caller: i think this libyan thing started with the wonderful uprisings that were voluntary and spontaneous in the middle east and can only happen for good. i think it was certainly true that gaddafi was murdering his own people. we went in there to save these people that he was murdering and perhaps starting a whole new way of looking at people, trying to get their freedom and back to democracy. so this thing came on -- will in the first place, i think they have to do it in a hurry. the need to get consensus in europe because it is near europe from other outfits

instead of having the united states just go out there heavy- handed. we need to get some help and putting the arab league in there would be fine. this is what happened. it is getting down to the wire and we had to do something quickly. this is why this thing started. i think there is a problem. i think they thought if they just showed a little muscle, that the people in libya would run up against gaddafi or he would have the sense to leave but he did not. now we have a problem. we tried to get out of it and make the people near libya that have always been letting us do the work like england france, and germany do something. this is what we are doing and this no-fly zone is overshooting

it. we need a no-tank zone, no- artillery zones. i think the nato people are going to do it. >> good morning, ralph. of the revolutions in egypt and tunisia certainly -- the revolutions in egypt and tunisia certainly were part of the driving force of the protests in libya. we pointed out to the map looking between the two what do you see keeping an eye on this country. it was in motion. and lot of countries are looking toward change. they are fed up with corruption, the lack of voice from the people fed up with housing problems fed up with the impression and the repression,

and they are fed up with the people who have taken the money of their country and have not invested in the people themselves. a good leader make sure their people are employed and healthy. much of the libyan money went to gaddafi's third world causes instead of having new schools or clinics. he was supporting the ira by trying to ship weapons in their direction. the grievances in the region many of them make a great deal of sense. even the leadership on the way out says so. when it comes to nato, they have to work within the u.n. security council resolution to protect civilians, but also there is a term by any means possible which kind of leaves it open to what may happen next.

again, protecting civilians is the main cause of this. the arab league is on board with this. there was aircraft in the area yesterday. 12 f-16's will be sent to help with the no-fly zone. it is important to have many people involved in actions like this to make sure this is done in a proper manner. host: how important is the participation of the uae in the enforcement of the no-fly zone as the relationship between the united states and libya moves forward? how important is it for the perception of the libyan people that this is not another attack by the west? >>guest: this is very important because then the people in the region get involved. also another question, what

happens after? the egyptians, the tunisian, many people in the region are going to have to chip in to bring it libya back on its feet. the worst thing i can happen is to the leaders leave and everybody forgets about it. these people need jobs, they need a future. host: we are talking to paul sullivan an adjunct professor of security studies at georgetown university and also teaches at the national defense university. ventura, calif., on our line for independents. caller: good morning, c-span and good morning, mr. sullivan. i have a [unintelligible]

that seems to be going on in the middle east. how much has social media and the availability of information for the younger generations coming up -- that seems to be the pushing force behind all this. state newspapers, blah, blah, blah. what is the energy? are they going to be able to maintain the energy? i see all the young people who are causing all of these changes. don't you think it is important from a policy perspective to reach out to these people? especially the youth because this is happening and all the middle east nations. host: ralph, thank you for the call. guest: that is a super question.

satellite tv started this thing off before the internet and facebook twitter and all that. people started to see what people's lives were like outside of their own countries. i ran tried to ban satellite tv because maybe it were showing too much of a contrast in many ways. reaching out to the younger people often our people overseas -- i am speaking on my own, not for the national defense university or for georgetown. when our people go overseas, they speak with leaders people that are a part of the government. but we need to speak with the kids in the street, with the taxi drivers with delivery people with the everyday worker with the kids in cairo with the dirty sandals who

struggled every day to keep a job. this is the country. it is not the elite that has vacations in geneva and send their children to harvard. 95% of these people could never even dreamed of that. host: you spend eight weeks in egypt last summer. tell us and a bit about what you were doing over there, the people you met, if you saw the people that you were in contact with, if you saw any of them in the crowd during the uprising in cairo. guest: the crowds were so large it was too difficult to see who would be there. i taught there for three years. i sensed the differences between those who have and those who have not. i remember one time when i were shopping with my wife and a driver that we had, and my wife

said a comment about how expensive things were. my driver turned to me and said what about me? food prices are going through the roof there. worldwide, there are going through the roof. wheat prices, corn prices, bread prices -- bread is very important in a country like egypt. there have been bread riots over the past couple of years. something is going on here. i was there meeting with the leadership and then met with some of the regular folks with academics, diplomats from various parts of the arab world with some of the senior military officers and others, and also visited with some farmers in the countryside. the real backbone of any country the countryside the small towns and the regular

people. we have to listen to these folks and understand them. so far, we have been deaf to the voices of the regular folks. host: of these riots seem to be moving from one country to another. is it similar problems in each of the country's creating this or is each country have its own problems and it is just coincidental toppling of the dominoes? >> the answer of that is yes. it is both. there is the under-employment problem. you have some people with degrees and if they do not have connections -- if you ever try to grow zucchini in your backyard, it grows everywhere. you need to have connections they go everywhere.

then you have a job, and his wife, a nice apartment, a house your life is good. if you do not have a everyday is a grinding struggle. host: getting back to the caller's mention of the social networks and social media. will that allow this younger generation to acquire more connections? guest: they are developing it through facebook. obviously, this works. actually, in april of last year it was the april 6 movement. it was in january when it started to go. they develop their own connections amongst themselves. there were a lot of people in the streets that never touched a computer in their lives and a were too poor to go to the local

internet cafes or even the education to run them. they were out there because they felt the inequality and discrimination because of maybe the way they spoke or the way they talked with their background or their family. they also knew that a lot of this wealth of their country were going to a very few people. host: back to the phones with our discussion with paul sullivan from georgetown university. national kentucky, on our line for democrats. you are on the "washington journal." caller: thank you to paul sullivan for taking some questions. i have just two. first of all, a lot of people seem to be thinking that it is a cause for americans if the country has oil. it seems to me that it might more likely be a correlation

that oil provides people with money to buy weapons and whatnot that threaten their own people as well as other people. the other thing i would like to hear is your thoughts on how this is affecting the continuation of the middle east uprisings, with the attacks and libya are providing more momentum, whether it is having no effects, or even negative effects. guest: i will take the second one first and good morning. it seems that syria is catching fire now. it may be that some of the people in syria are looking toward the actions of nato and the united states and the uae as possibly thinking they could have a backup when things go south, either directly or

indirectly. i do not know the validity of that. clearly, there is going to be a continuation of the violence, my guess. this is far from over. when it comes to yemen it is a rather unfortunate country. it is probably going to separate into three four, or more countries. they are running out of water. they may have to move their capital. that may be a moot point because the water table is dropping so quickly. take a look of the map. about 10% of all the container traffic in the world goes in between yemen and somalia. about 4 million barrels per day of the 80 million barrels per day that travels throughout the world goes between somalia and

yemen. this will be one of the most important changes happening which is right up there with the suez canal and the other choke points for trade. host: leaders in this region that are perceived either by folks on the outside or by their own people as being repressive -- are they watching what is going on in libya and taking notes and saying to themselves this is how we are going to avoid foreign involvement and enforcement of no-fly zones? >> one would hope they are and maybe they will look reform things. they are not refundable. they are so locked into their way of thinking. i remember with astonishment the speech that hosni mubarak made the day before he left. it was right out of the 1950's.

i was in this war not in this war for power or four wells and i was astonished. i think the leaders have to learn. came up a lot of jordan is very smart. he is a savvy -- king abdullah of jordan is very smart. he is a young man and well educated. also someone who has been a brilliant wife and could advisers, many of whom were trained in the u.s. and in europe so they know the weight u.s. and europe thinks. he knows when neededwhat is needed to get done. we will see what happens there. host: frank is on our line for

republicans. you are on the "washington journal" with paul sullivan of georgetown university. caller: good morning. at the end of the second world war, we were involved [unintelligible] we wanted a democracy. we have not changed one country. there are no freestanding democracies today where we got involved and changed it. change will come from not being forced by american or anybody else's power. you cannot change it. host code change from within or

without? guest: clearly, if the people are ready for change and they want democracy, that democracy will be a lot easier. we went into iraq which the thought was a mistake to begin with and is not stable yet. that is why i had to put a caveat in there about speaking on my own. what we did was hand over iraq to the i iranians. the people now in charge of iraq, some of them spend a lot of time in the ruethe route. is that a democracy? it is much easier to have democracy come from within like our country. i gave a talk on democracy after iraq and egypt, and one of the first comment was if democracy

is being brought from all americans with a gun they are not interested. by the way democracy and islam are not incompatible. in arabic, the word for vote is [unintelligible] which is also the word for voice. the problem wasn't islam or arab culture. the problem was military dictators and a vicious leaders and oppressive leaders who did not want democracy to happen. host: what do you say to someone, early on with our experience with iraq, that started with a no-fly zone and look at where we are now. we are starting with a no-fly zone in libya. is it possible that we will end up with the same situation?

guest: there is a chance because libya is a complicated country. but one of the most brilliant arab leaders, the royal highness of jordan, he said the other day that a no-fly zone does not necessarily mean it is a no- think zone. you have to think about what your strategy is going to be. libya is a very complicated country. we are really not sure who the opposition is folly. many are keeping quiet because they are afraid muammar gaddafi will go after them. also, expatriate including a finance professor out of washington state. we are not sure whether goals are, what their objectives are

how they think about the mistakes. host: earlier in the program we posed a question about what they wanted to hear from the president on his speech on monday involving u.s. involvement. what do you want to hear from the president? guest: i would like to hear a clear explanation of what he is thinking. he deserves that we listen to him and what he wants to do. host: back to the phones. orlando, fla., on our line for independents. caller: in regards to libya, we do not want to go to war. it is not something any president or the american citizens want. i think it is unnecessary action for us to intervene. we have to understand that

muammar gaddafi is not a diplomatic leader. the long term ramifications can outweigh everything. we have to take into consideration. we as americans do not like war. we know the ramifications of work. if we have to intervene we have to make sure it is short term for the taxpayers. guest: i think the moslem brotherhood of's power is overrated. a lot of people are worried about it because they do not understand what that group is. it is split in two different locations in the world. it started in egypt in 1928. there are many different

ideologies among the muslim brotherhood. the brotherhood in syria is almost nonexistent. if more than 10% to 15% of the egyptians support the brotherhood, i would be surprised. i think the assumption that they are going to take over -- first of all take a look at the maps hysterically. who is going to be the top guy? it would never work and it would never happen. this is in all of these countries a rebellion of the unemployed the have nots, the people who are fed up and wanted change. once the sense of fear from the oppressive states disappear they will make their moves and things will start to happen. host: is this similar to what we

saw in the united states in the 1960's? guest: that is an excellent question. talking about the civil rights movement -- host: the civil rights movement, the youth movement. guest: it is turning out to be more violent here. the lessons of martin luther king are being used by some of the people in the middle east, the passive resistance, the non- filer rebellions. the use in egypt are in this to make change happen. to many extents it worked. " but you are not going to be listened to unless you are noisy enough. host: our last call for professor sullivan comes from texas. you are on the "washington journal." caller: thank you for taking my call.

thank you for having a knowledgeable scholar of the subject instead of a political pundit trying to push a certain view. one point and then a question. i think we should stand with the people of libya who are trying to fight for their freedom. i see this more as lafayette helping out the burgeoning american revolutionaries in the revolutionary war rather than us trying to impose -- these people who are fighting for their freedom who are rising up in an organic matter on their own and they are being brutally, brutally crushed. i would love to have seen an earlier intervention when have they had most of the towns and were marching toward tripoli. but, you know, we intervened,

and i see the logic of the president putting together coalitions and going to the un to get a resolution and all that. i think we should stand with them and see that if we, you know, support them in their fight for their own freedom because that is what they are doing, fighting for their own freedom, and throwing off a brutal dictator and wanting democracy -- that is what this whole movement is. they want democracy. you hear that again and again and again when you actually have reporters asking the people. that is my first point. my question is all these leaders came into power 30 years ago, 40 years ago.

hasad, his father, to hosni mubarak, sadat muammar gaddafi when the soviet influence was much greater in the middle east it seems like. -- they are all vestiges of soviet influence personalities big posters -- host: i am sorry to cut you off but we are running out of time. address his point about the influence of the soviets and how that may or may not be falling away. guest: indeed that is the case. saddam hussein's's forces were trained in eastern europe. many of these most repressive states arthur infrastructure on something like a stalin model.

another way of looking at this, getting back to libya the book that muammar gaddafi wrote is actually his version of the red book. little phrases that would get poeple to think in the manner that he thinks is appropriate. a lot of people in the benghazi area do not like the green book because they think it is heresy. this is something to keep an eye on. host: i want to get your quick response from this op ed.

guest: ha. the effectiveness of bombs is only to destroy other military equipment but they can also have the unintended consequences which may be a blow back to us. if you have a cruise missile going along at 550 miles per hour to zipping in and out of buildings, there are unintended consequences. when you have an f-16 dropping bombs into a city to take out tanks, considerable unintended consequences. what happens after the bombs are dropped is going to be the most important part of this business. how do we help the libyans who

have never had democracy or freedom? if you go back as far as the romans and the phoenicians when they controlled the shores of tripoli, there was no democracy since then. the italians and their brutal occupation which killed 100,000 people did not give it to them. no tomorrow perry bacon and zuchara, the washington research chief. they discuss the upheavals in other muslim countries. we talk about u.s. efforts and plans to shorten