defense spending. about a half-hour, house members members react to the reduction of troop levels in afghanistan. we will talk to representative scott rigell and marcy >> as a result, starting next month, we will be able to remove 10,000 troops from afghanistan by the end of the year. we will bring home a total of 33,000 troops by next summer, fully recovering the surge i announced at west point. after this initial reduction, our troops will continue coming home at a steady pace. afghan security forces will move into the lead. our mission will change from combat to support. by 2014, this process of transition will be complete and the afghan people will be

responsible for their own security. ♪ ♪ host: for the next three hours on the "washington journal" we want to get your reaction to president obama's plan to end combat missions in afghanistan. we will be talking with four members of congress this morning and getting your reaction. the numbers are on the screen. president obama announcing that combat missions end by 2014. 10,000 troops out by the end of the year. the numbers here on the "washington journal" -- and we have set aside our fourth line this morning for

afghanistan war vets. we want to get your perspective on this. please allow 30 days between your phone calls. you can also send us a tweet or an e-mail. the headlines from this morning's newspapers regarding president obama's speech last night from the white house. this is "the washington post." "the new york times" says, " obama will speed military pullout from afghan war." and "usa today" used a quote from president obama. "the guardian" has this

headline. "the miami herald" and then we have "the denver post." a couple more to show you before we get to your phone calls. "the orange county register" and finally, "the washington times." we have this article from "the new york times" -- two articles from "the new york times" looking at this issue. "2012 pullout worries military experts."

host: that is just a little bit from "the new york times" this morning. now to your reaction on president obama's speech last night. we will begin with a democrat, al, in redding, california. are you with us? all right. we will go to pennsylvania and bill on our republican line. looks like we're having trouble with our phones this morning. we will read a little bit more from some of the articles we have here and then we will try to get the phone calls working right away. this is back to "the new york times." "senior officers said their

military campaign planned for 2012 -- campaign plan for 2012 envisioned building on security gains earned by troops who had already flowed into afghanistan's south and southwest."

"10,000 troops out by december is more than the military wanted and quicker than the military wanted, but it is doable without any major impact on the ground plan this year, according to general david barno." here is a little bit more of president obama's in his 13- minute address last night. >> the goal that we seek is achievable and can be expressed simply. no safe haven from which al- qaeda or its affiliates can launch attacks against our homeland or our allies. we will not try to make afghanistan a perfect place. we will not police its streets or patrol its mountains indefinitely.

that's the responsibility of the afghan government, which must step up its ability to protect its people and move from an economy shaped by war to one that can sustain a lasting peace. what we can do and will do is build a partnership with the afghan people that endures -- that ensures that we will continue targeting terrorists. host: a reminder that we have opened our fourth phone line this morning for afghan afghanistan -- for afghan war vets. roy in north carolina on the line for independents. what did you think of the president's speech last night? caller: i thought it was great. i thought it was very lincoln- like. i am hoping this might be the end of what dwight david

eisenhower called the military industrial complex, who can make hundreds of billions of dollars disappear every year, not to do anything good, but especially in the case of george bush, to destroy stable, sovereign nations. it viciously murdered a million americans in iraq. this is historic. this might have been going on since the american civil war. somehow, we've involves a military sub-class or something. host: thank you for calling in. our next call is from a democrat in maryland. please go ahead. caller: thank you. host: what did you think of the president's speech? caller: it's a very great

speech. that's why i called. i really support the idea to come out of this little mess and concentrate on unemployment and the debt ceiling. we are trying to get out of it. it's a good country. we want us to come out and build our self -- and get out of the hole. i am really happy. that's what i called. i support the removal of our troops. host: sir, do you worry about afghanistan being able to take care of itself? little i am worried a bit, but what can we do?

we have helped them so much. we're worried about them, but we're worried about ourselves more. we have to think and say, ok, you know what? we have helped so much. host: bill in pennsylvania on the line for republicans. what are your views? are you with us? caller: i am saw him come out, lock up to the microphone -- out, walk up to the microphone, and i heard him say that he would bring back the troops that he sent there. he added 30,000 troops and now he's talking about pulling back 10,000 troops. really, pretty much just pulling back the surge.

to me, that looks like no progress in any direction. it's two steps forward and two steps back towards. host: what do you think about and in combat operations in 2013? caller: has afghanistan ever been able to take care of itself? probably not. they grow poppies. they do not have a civil society. we tried to build a nation and we have to keep in mind that every dollar we spend over there, 42 cents is borrowed from the chinese, the japanese, opec, and everyone else willing to throw money in our treasury box. host: back to the article in "the new york times." "2012 worries military experts"

is the headline, but here's the rest of it. host: john is a democrat in venice, florida. your reaction to the president's withdrawal plan in afghanistan. caller: i thought it was very good. i'm a member of the venice area democratic club and i lived in

madison, wisconsin during the vietnam war. i met president obama twice and joe biden once. i thought it was a very good, like i said. you have to stop terrorists from striking the u.s. i think this is one of the ways we can do it. can i give you my e-mail address? venice@internet speech.com. host: thank you for calling in. a little bit more from president obama and his 13-minute address last night on afghanistan. >> all that we do, we must remember that what sets america

apart is not only our power. it's the principles on which our union was founded. we are a nation that brings our enemies to justice while adhering to the rule of law and respecting the rights of all our citizens. we protect our own freedom and prosperity by extending it to others. we stand not for empire, but for self-determination. that's why we have a stake in the democratic aspirations that are now washing across the arab world. we will support those revolutions with fidelity to our ideals, with the power, and with an unwavering belief that all human beings deserve to live with freedom and dignity. host: connie in toledo on the line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning. i was watching the local news and they had buckeye brigades

now being deported to iraq and afghanistan. we are sending 10,000 a guy brigades -- 10,000 buckeye brigades. host: what is that? caller: that is the name of them. host: you think they are replacements? caller: they have to be. home 6000nly bringing four hundred -- now he is only bringing home 6400. this is just from ohio. i wonder how many other states are getting their men called up. some of these rich kids can go out there and risk their lives. thank you. host: al is a democrat in

redding, california. al, you are on the "washington journal." caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i am past supporter of president obama. i think he is playing politics. veterans are running about 30% unemployment. i do not think he wants them to come home, because it will affect our unemployment figures, to be honest with you. 75 percent of the country want our kids out of there. i think it is a sham. i agree with your last couple of callers. i do not buy it. host: cape coral florida. chris is an afghan war veteran. when did you serve? caller: 2010. host: tell us about your experience and tell us what president obama's you president

speech last night? caller: i was at fort drum. he is saying that he is going to pull all these troops away from overseas. at the same time, he keeps sending more and more. he is saying we are going over there to support them. in a way, i do agree with supporting the troops, but at the same time, why keep sending us over constantly? roughly every six months, i know they deploy people from fort drum. it is just not needed. we keep sending more and more troops. host: can you help us understand that? is it rotation? caller: it is rotation. for drum is one of the highest

deployed units in the u.s. currently. you come up on orders and they tell you if you are going. it does not matter if you are supporting it or not. it is your duty. i mean, he keeps saying we are going to pull them out and then he sends more and more over. host: thank you for calling in this morning, chris. the president is on his way to fort drum today to meet with the troops from the mountain division, the 10th mountain division. from "the new york times" --

host: bill is in independent in pennsylvania. good morning, bill. caller: good morning. yes, i think it is a big mistake to pull troops out of afghanistan. i think we need to put more troops in there, like they are in so many other countries.

the good thing about taking out 10,000 troops from afghanistan is that we can put them on the ground in libya. that's where we need to fight next. bye. host: from "usa today" -- just a little bit from this article written by richard wolf.

host: another veteran calling in from montgomery, alabama. matt, tell us about your service and what you thought about what's the president had to say about the afghanistan plan last night? caller: as far as throwing down 30,000 troops by the end of next year, i do not think that's a good idea. host: why? caller: it makes all the troops more vulnerable. if half of my team this appears. host: where did you serve in afghanistan and in what capacity? caller: kandaher with the 10th mountain division. host: just under 12 months. caller: --

host: did you feel your mission was successful? caller: yes, our mission was successful. it is hard to explain, sir. the mission over there's never going to end as long as we are there. host: what do you think will happen if the u.s. combat mission pulls out in 2014? caller: i think the only reason they are maintaining order now is because we are there. same in iraq. i have friends over there that are still getting her and hit by everything else. this is never going to stop. host: thank you for calling in this morning. from new york city, morris on the line for democrats. you are on the air good morning. caller: i'm so happy the

president has stuck to his words. he said he was going to withdraw troops from iraq and afghanistan by july and he has done exactly as he said. this is what american people want to hear from their president. american people do not want american soldiers to be in other countries fighting wars. we should understand that withdrawing troops is the greatest idea this leader has ever had. we need to be withdrawn from countries every day because the war in our country is damaging the image of the united states of america. withdrawing the troops is the best idea. you can teach a man how to fish, rather than giving a man a fish for his entire life. if you can teach an afghan soldier how to defend their own country -- it's the most

important idea. the government needs to focus on american people. host do you worry about terrorism coming from afghanistan? caller: is the mission in afghanistan was to get osama bin laden and osama bin laden has been taken down, that's the very reason the united states went in. if he is taken down, the soldiers need to come home. they need to come back home. the government is well aware of the strategy. this is the right idea. i think we're on the right track. host: here is some reaction to

the president's speech from capitol hill. we begin with speaker john boehner. host: nancy pelosi. "we are now beginning the process of bringing our troops home and ending the war in afghanistan."

host: senator cornyn, republican of texas. back to your calls. josh is a republican in sweetwater, texas. what did you think of the president's speech last night? caller: it was interesting.

host: what does that mean? caller: i do believe we need to draw back our troops as soon as possible. yes, i do. i do not believe that we should be spending all the money that the united states spends to help them rebuild their country. germany and other countries we went to war with in the past -- has made them proud for themselves. if we continue to support -- they will never get any better. host: "we should not adhere to a timetable" -- this is met ronnie -- this is mitt romney.

in fact, hillary clinton will testify at the senate foreign relations committee today beginning at 10:00 a.m.. you can see that on c-span3. she will be talking about the president's withdrawal plan. this is issa. he takes a little bit of a different tact.

host: shady side, maryland, sarah on the line for independents. all right. let's try oklahoma. james is a republican in oklahoma. what did you think of the president's speech last night? we're having a little bit of trouble with the phones. i hope i'm not unplugged. i think we're ok. harry reid's statement.

host: that is harry reid's statement following the president's speech last night. wisconsin, john on the line for democrats. are you with us? caller: yes. thank you for c-span. i support our commander-in- chief. this should be a sobering thought for every american thank you thank, america, for free speech. that's all i have to say. host: this morning on we'll beon journal,"

talking with four members of congress. we will begin with a freshman member of congress from virginia, republican representative scott rigell. he's a member of the armed services committee. he is up next. >> the goal that we seek is achievable and can be expressed simply. no safe haven from which al- qaeda or its affiliates can launch attacks against our homeland or our allies. we will not try to make afghanistan a perfect place. we will not police its streets or patrol its mountains indefinitely. that's the responsibility of the afghan government, which must set up its ability to protect its people and move from an economy shaped by war from one that can sustain a lasting peace. what we can do and will do is build a partnership with the afghan people that endures, one that ensures that we will be able to continue targeting terrorists, and supporting a sovereign afghan government.

>> gettysburg college professor thompson discusses prostitution and the civil war. edward cox talks about his father-in-law, president richard nixon. get the complete weekend schedule at c-span.org/history. >> christian broadcasting network news analyst erick stakelbeck and nobel prize winner michael spence. author matthew algeo on

president grover cleveland's secret surgery. >> "washington journal" continues. host: as we continue our conversation about the president's speech on afghanistan last night, we are joined by representative scott rigell, republican of virginia, first term member of congress, and he serves on the armed services and homeland security committees. congressman rigell, if you would, give us your assessment of what the president had to say last night. guest: thank you for having me on the show. it was appropriate the president addressed the american people last night. i think the killing of osama bin laden was a pivotal moment. let me state first where i agree with the president. i agree and have long held the view that we cannot permit al- qaeda to plan and execute terrorist attacks from afghanistan.

i have also long held the view that i think it's unwise and unnecessary for a commander-in- chief to announce far in advance changes in troop levels, especially troop levels that are being reduced. host: as far as you're concerned, announcing 23,000 troops on top of 10,000 troops -- it sends a signal? guest: i think so. if you look back at american history, it is only recently that we started to announce troop levels. i think it sends information to the enemy that we do not need to send. host: do you agree the u.s. should end combat operations in afghanistan? guest: i believe this is a defining moment for us in afghanistan. there are two alternatives

before us. it includes nation-building. they are doing a wonderful job. if you look at our mission, there's been a great expansion of the original mission. the original mission was to bring those who attacked us on 9/11 to justice. i believe that has largely been accomplished. they are either dead or in guantanamo. we have morphed into a nation- building in denver. -- nation-building endeavor. corruption is throughout the society. you have these tribal loyalties.

it is a profoundly challenging place to try to change the hearts and minds and the beliefs of the afghan people. for that reason, the shortest time we can reasonably and wisely do so c-span.org -- wisely do so and go into a different method to disrupt and dismantle al-qaeda -- not only in afghanistan, because they are mobile and they are in yemen and other countries. in some ways, i think these are shades of gray. good and reasonable people can disagree on how we accomplish this. my colleagues, some republican colleagues and some democrats

-- i think going to what can be referred to as a middle approach, our objective is simply this. to focus on al-qaeda, to use are advantages that we have in droned technology, to have a presence -- it is a minimalist approach versus what i saw, which will be a noble endevour. on how tong classes train afghan leaders in morality.

it is quite a stretch for me. i'm not sure if it is required to protect the american people. the house armed services committee is holding a hearing today -- host: the house armed services committee is holding a hearing today. what's the purpose of that hearing? guest: the purpose is to assess where we go. there's a spirited and robust debate taking place, as there should be. i believe that rising amenity and full agreement -- the

willingness to allow al-qaeda to roll freely -- roam freely and reconstitute, but this larger efforts -- i do not think it is necessary. let me make this point and i think it is critical. the sacrifices made by so many, and i have the great privilege to represent the highest concentration of men and women in uniform of any district in america and their families -- that has not been in vain. we have been safe for most 10 years from a terrorist attack. we will not declare victory in the traditional sense. my father marched across the islands in the pacific. it was a different war. victory was defined differently. asymmetric warfare, what we are now engaged in -- victory is

described more as a continuous destruction of transnational terrorists. it is not taking over a country. in that sense and the death of bin laden, i truly believe we can declare victory in that sense, so long as we continuously disrupt them, not only in afghanistan, but across world. host: defense undersecretary forename will be testifying, as will joint chiefs chairman mike mullen. we will cover that on c-span. it is not live, because the house and senate is in session, but you will be able to see it later on this evening. now to the phone calls on the president's plan for afghanistan. james on the line for democrats. you are on with congressman scott rigell. good morning. caller: hello. it did not work in the 1980's

and it is not going to work now. guest: thank you, james. i believe your statement is in support of the comments i made earlier. if that is not the case, maybe you can call back in. i believe that this more limited mission -- defeating al-qaeda itself and not the broader mission -- keep in mind that the entire national budget of afghanistan is $1.5 billion. i would say that the country cannot even take the amount of investment. you cannot even logistically handle a $3 billion investment in one year on different projects across the country. i say that with the utmost respect for our civilians.

in some ways, in some sense, are at as much risk as our men and women in uniform often times. the bases are bombed. i respect what are good men and women are doing. i do not think -- host: mark is an independent in columbus, ohio. good morning. you are on "washington journal." caller: good morning. guest: good morning. caller: all the secretaries and politicians seem like they want to let president obama do his job. there are other things. we also have terrorists here that we need to take care of, because they did blow up the federal building in oklahoma. host: thank you, mark.

if i understood it correctly, there's a question as to whether or not it is appropriate for politicians to actively engage in this discussion about what the president is doing. i think, first, each and every american needs to be engaged in this discussion. certainly those of us that serve at the federal level need to be actively engaged. we have a role of oversight. it has been clearly defined in our constitution. host: lowest in florida -- lois in florida on the line for democrats. congressman scott rigell is our guest caller:. -- is our guest. caller: i have a degree in theology.

nebuchadnezzar was a king to 5 62 b.c. it took the jews from jerusalem as a safety net. he looked over to the valley and he said, "no, more tribes have reemerged." host: can you tie that into afghanistan very quickly? caller: god said to him, "it is over. this will go on forever." they went down into the valley. host: we will have to move on and let you tie this into afghanistan. caller: i am saying, in a spiritual sense, we need to take care of our home first.

guest: thank you very much. i do believe, to the extent i will touch on the spiritual side, i do believe that evil exists. i think those who attack innocent civilians, to those on 9/11, to those who elevate that, i believe that appear evil -- that is pure evil. sadly, those schools across the world where young men are truly brainwashed and taught to value death more than life -- and there are more than 50 in islamabad alone. they are across pakistan and some in afghanistan, as well. there are degrees of extremism. there are enough to where they are literally generating a generation of young men who do

not share our values. in fact, it's the antithesis of our values. they end up in the tribal areas of pakistan. that's essentially the wellspring from which a new taliban fighters are generated. they go across the border and they engage american troops. host: our guest is scott rigell. serve in the marine corps -- 1978-from 1978 steel1984 1984. new york city? caller: thank you for c-span. once we pull out and then the taliban to become stronger and run the country, they are of no threat to the united states. al-qaeda will not research in

afghanistan. your guest said we are showing our hand to the enemy by talking about the troops withdrawing, but we have no enemy in afghanistan. we are in the middle of a civil war. i was here in new york city on 9/11 and i know what it felt like. we were attacked by a few sophisticated al-qaeda bounties on 9/11. the fact that those buildings came down like they did, they were lucky osama bin laden -- never in his wildest dreams did he think that those powers would pancake the way they did. this government and george bush overreacted. it was a tragedy and i know people who died that day. bin laden is smiling on the bottom of the ocean and we go bankrupt fighting these wars. your guest is misguided. thank you for c-span. guest: thank you. thank you for the call.

we night -- might not be as far apart as you think. i have said to my colleagues, what if we woke up tomorrow to learn that american city experienced an attack that was planned and executed by al- qaeda in yemen? would that mean we should invade the country of yemen and try to patrol every linear foot of its borders? i believe the answer to that is no. we would seek out and bring justice to those who planned and executed the attack. i believe that president bush was correct and it was morally right. it did nothing other than bring to justice those who planned and executed the attacks of 9/11. i'm sorry for the loss of your friends and what you experienced. host: the next call for congressman scott rigell comes

from an afghan war veteran in kansas city, missouri. where did you surf in afghanistan? when? go ahead and make your point. bobby? we just lost him. we will move on to jim on the line for democrats. we are talking about the president's plan for afghanistan. please go ahead. caller: good morning. guest: good morning. caller: i'm glad to hear we have 30,000 troops coming out of there and i think that is a plus. my concern is that we know from history and among wherever we go overseas, we never really leave -- from history that wherever we go overseas, we never leave. i was in the first gulf war. we still have a presence in saudi arabia. when we drawdown in

afghanistan, we are not going to totally take out our troops. we are an entire and that's where we go to we have troops all around the world. congressman, i want to ask you a question. do you think we will ever fully have our troops out of afghanistan? i mean our entire presence, not just combat troops. i mean 2020, 2025, and i would like to hear your answer. guest: thank you. we will have some presence and we will have a presence there, i believe, for some time to come. i am sorry i did not get to hear the previous caller's question, but bobby, thank you for your service. jim, i think you make a good point. as i mentioned, the entire

national budget of afghanistan is around $1.5 billion. the army we're training and the police force we are training, with some degree of success because of the extraordinary effort and capability of our men and women in uniform, is -- the annual budget for that is about $8 billion. any government estimate i've seen on expenses is always too low. you could easily ground that up to $10 billion. what are we creating? afghanistan, under the current model, will be permanently tethered to the united states. what is happening there is that other countries are coming in, including china, and they are going to exploit -- maybe not exploit, but they are going to reap the benefits from the work that we have done. much of that is because of all the restrictions, trade

restrictions, our inability to be as competitive as we need to on the jobs front, but that's a different topic. maybe peter will have a back on to talk about jobs one day. host: i want to redo part of john mccain's statement -- i want to read you part of john mccain's statement. guest: i cannot comment on something that senator mccain said in the context of foreign policy and a war without first sharing my profound respect for the senator and his service for

the country. i do hold a different view than the senator. i have made my position clear on that. i will go back again to what we do agree on, that afghanistan cannot be a place where al- qaeda can plan and train for and execute a terrorist attack. we are faced with an enemy that is highly mobile. in some sense, it's almost as easy for them to trade in yemen as it is in libya. -- as it is in afghanistan. bin laden, where he was killed, afghanistan and pakistan. we need a lighter footprint in afghanistan, as soon as we can reasonably do so, with a bias toward a smaller footprint, and

continuously disrupt al-qaeda and other transnational terrorists. they're not the only group that wants to attack us. host: for washington, maryland. wendy, you are on with representative scott rigell. caller: good morning. i just want to make in a comment -- i just want to make a comment that i agree with president obama's withdrawal plan. he is doing exactly what he said he would do last year. to bring that home, i would like to ask the congressman when we will see a jobs bill, out of congress, especially the house, because that is what a lot of them were elected to do not -- tax cuts, but a job creation bill? guest: thank you so much. i appreciate the segue to jobs. every week i have served in

congress under the republican leadership of john boehner and kanter and others, we have introduced bills to create jobs. the first business in my life i started was a cleaning business when i was 23 years old. we were the janitors. this has been my life. i truly believe that reducing federal spending is in it and of itself an act of job creation. we want to do this in a responsible way, environmentally responsible to we want to parnis the natural resources we have in america. $500 billion is flowing outside our country to other countries who often times do not share our values. some of that $500 billion goes to saudi arabia. some of that money goes to pakistan.

that is indisputable. i think that energy independence, and i think the president has given us rhetoric with no action. there's a host of bills sitting in the senate. i think senator harry reid is the biggest impediment to job creation of any person in america. he sits over there and he does not respond to all of these bills -- with kind of a righteous indignation. i know that these bills would move america forward. i hope, for the sake of the american people, i hope he moves. host: you started off in the cleaning business, but you ended up with an auto dealership. guest: that is correct. i moved to virginia beach in 1986. everything we owned was in a little u-haul trailer. i did not have enough money to get through graduate school. i started working for a local automobile dealer. we just hit it off. a dear friend and mentor to this

day. a deep recession of 1990- 1991, the first call for. -- the first gulf war. a ford store became available. ford motor credit step up and gave us a tremendous amount of financing. has been a wonderful journey. to be able to look at someone and say, "you are hired" has been a great joy in my life. i know all we need to do to get our economy moving again and, quite frankly, the direction of this is not the direction we need to go. host: back to your calls on president obama's afghanistan plan. a republican in philadelphia, you are on the air. good morning. caller: good morning.

we had a discussion about this at a town hall meeting in my town the other night. i have been saying that we should have been withdrawing for a couple of years now. when i said that, everybody just gave me the stare. host: we will move onto ronald in cincinnati on the line for independents. ronald, are you there? caller: yes. mr. representative, you seem to forget that the war was started before obama. he had to clean it up. you do not like the way he does it. you filibuster everything else. you can sit there and say -- you made the life the way it is. i'm a vietnam veteran. you are a veteran, but you seem to have lost your principles because war is your last resort, not your first resort. then you go around world and you

want to press these ideas on other people and you know they are going to rebel. what you did in iraq, nobody is going to love you. how could they? they lost families, their houses, their homes. in afghanistan, yeah, you went after osama bin laden. well, he is gone. you did not stay there. you did not devote your time there. you decided to go somewhere else and play games. playing games has consequences. as i understand it, the officer corps becomes politicized the higher it goes up in the chain. sometimes these generals can be influenced by politics. host: guest: you mentioned you were a vietnam veteran. those were painful and difficult years. thank you for serving.

listening to your question, i am not sure that we are in disagreement. i can give you another practical example. look at libya. i think you are biased toward engagement. i am not in isolation. but in our most recent military activity, libya -- from the very start, i objected to that. i do not believe we should have engaged in debt. it was unwise and unnecessary to open up a third front anin yet another moslem nation. the american homeland was not threatened. not one of the three criteria of the war powers act was met. there was no statutory authority.

america was not under an imminent threat and had not been attacked. shortly after the first tomahawk missiles were launched into tripoli, i introduced a bill that was very simple that states that none of these funds shall be used to fund operations. so, yeah, when you say that we should not have a bias toward military action, that americans should come to a deliberate decision and ideally together when we go to war -- that has not taken place with this libya.ent's in thank you for your call. host: will the house be voting tomorrow? guest: the actual control of the

floor and what comes to the floor principally is driven by the majority leader and it is my understanding that it will. it is always fluid up there. he put out a schedule and then things changed. -- you put out a schedule and then things change. the speaker can go right to the front of the line. i did not even notice. i entered into the congressional record this bill before anyone else. it was not my intent. i just felt very strongly about it. i wanted to put a flag in the ground, that i do not agree with this action. that bill is there. i intend to introduce as an amendment to the department of

defense appropriations the same bill in the form of an amendment. it is going to require a vote on the house floor. host: the last call comes from florida. caller: i want to tell you that i agree with your thoughts about afghanistan and iraq. we cannot go in and try to change their culture, their mindset, and who they are and try to make them like us. the two questions that i want to ask you. how did we get to that thinking that we could do that? number two, what do you see as our ability to do something better than what we are doing now to protect our borders especially in texas where we have such a big problem? guest: thank you for your call. well, i believe rick has a noble intent.

i do not mean that in a condescending way. when you go to afghanistan, i have had the privilege of being there and seen where we have given so much sacrifice of our young men and women and the price that they have paid. you see the poverty. as americans, we just believe that we can do things, and we can. i believe in american exceptional isand all that it represents. this idea that we can change the culture, a deeply entrenched culture -- i do not hold that view. i think history teaches us that that is profoundly difficult if not impossible. i think we just want the world to be a better place, and that is a good thing. the second point you mentioned about border security.

i had the privilege of serving on homeland security. we have had multiple hearings and will continue to do so to talk about our border to the south end of the north. our points of entry, airports as well -- you know, weapons now are highly lethal, portable, smaller. we are in an asymmetrical warfare. we need to know who is coming into the country, and we need to do a better job of securing all of our borders, not only in the south but in the north as well. host: our guest is scott rigell. we appreciate you coming on the "washington journal." keith ellison, steve king, two other members of congress are coming up, but up next, marcy

kaptur, a democrat, will be taking your calls. here is more from the president last night. >> this has been a difficult decade for our country. we have learned the proton cost of war, the cost that has been paid by the nearly 4500 americans that have given their lives in iraq and over 1500 in afghanistan. men and women who will not enjoy the freedom that date defend. thousands more have been wounded. others still battle the demons that have followed them home. yet, tonight we take comfort in knowing that the tide of war is receding. if you were of our sons and daughters are serving in harm's way. we have ended our combat mission in iraq. even as there will be dark days ahead in afghanistan, the light of the secure peace can be seen

in the distance. these along wars will come to a responsible and. -- these long wars will come to a responsible end. >> this weekend, "book tv" events. also, a tour of urban slavery sights. on "american history tva," travel to a savannah. in savannah, ga., this weekend on c-span2 and c-span3. >> i have the honor of representing the great people of

the state of florida. today, i speak for the first time on this floor on their behalf. >> all 13 freshmen senators have given their first speech on the senate floor. keep up-to-date at c- span.org/congress. >> "washington journal" continues. host: regular viewers know marcy kaptur, now in her 15th term. as we continue our discussion about the afghanistan plan presented by president obama last night, we want to get her point of view. when you were on this program in march, representative, you were looking for an orderly

drawdown of forces. in your view, is that an orderly drawdown of forces? guest: i think, yes, the president has made a judicious, moderate decision which i support. and we will still have over 80,000 troops in afghanistan. it is not a radical decision. but the president never mentioned contractors. we have more contractors there than soldiers. there are a lot of layers to this that the general public does not understand. my hunch is those bearing the brunt of this silently cheered. their parents, their spouses here at home. this gives us time to meet our obligations, but it was a very

strong signal that other parts of the world, other parts of society have to begin shouldering more of the load in afghanistan. host: i am going to go back to the contractor issue. will the withdrawal of troops lead to the withdrawal of contractors? guest: contractor's cost us a lot more than regular force in sourcing. so much of what is being done in our military operations globally. ultimately, contractors will come out, but perhaps not as fast as -- my guess would be that our troops would come out faster, and that contractor load would stay there. i was listening to the

congressman who was on before and some of the callers. afghanistan is largely a muslim country and a very troubled. when you think about where it is located, ask yourself the question where are the soldiers from the other countries? why are they not in there? why are they not helping? take saudi arabia. where are they in uniform? if you look at other countries in the region -- yes, turkey, a very close ally with nato, but at some point, the world has to reach the decision that we cannot be the police force in these and far-long places starting with the people inside afghanistan. when you talk to our soldiers coming home, the frustration level of trying to work for the population who is very

electorate, it is quite frustrating. we are talking about nation- building. america cannot be at the tip of the spirit in all of these places that are terribly difficult. where are all of the other countries? that is a diplomatic challenge. i had the confidence that the president has the ability to bring some of these other partners around the table. a withdrawal of 10,000 will provide the time it takes to bring the coalition together. host: do you think the coalition would happen? the guest: i think that is where we need to focus. we are asking our troops to be nation builders. we are not trained to be nation builders. i do not think they should be. i do not think anyone will try harder, but that is not their central mission.

we put their lives at risk when we asked them to do something different than what they are trained for. we have asked marines to help to train farmers to be farmers. we do not have a place where we train some element of our troops to go do the kind of work. i have talked to the top generals about this. we should be a small partner in a much broader coalition across the muslim world. and that is with a big vacuum exists. you cannot buy freedom. people have to want it and work for it. just like our country has worked for it every day. i think if you look at who is not on the ground and who is not bearing their fair share of lotus, that vacuum is eight important part of the equation. without that presence, how

will we transition to something that will actually work? let me just say that i voted to originally to go to war in afghanistan to get al-qaeda and osama bin laden, but i had hoped that we would of used special forces rather than deploy our entire armed forces into their region of the country. we have been there now for a decade. i think the future to defend the united states of america should involved much more diplomacy and our clandestine forces across that region to protect us here. but i think that we are reaching diminishing returns in terms of the full deployment of our armed forces. so i support the president's decision. host: does the carry over to libya? guest: well, when i think a libya, i think of oil.

so we are spending money, billions of dollars, un appropriated. we are not spending it in syria. what is the policy here in terms of the expenditure of u.s. dollars in very un-democratic places? libya has a lot of loyal. if one puts up a map of libya, all i say is a good exercise for teachers around the country is defined with the oil wells are and which countries interest have companies there, agreements with the government of libya. libya is another big oil well. where were the chinese? where are the canadians? where are the italians?

where are the americans? if you really look through the lens of oil, a whole different world opens to you. arthur a lot of bad leaders on the african continent? yes. are the hopes of democracy there? yes. look at egypt, but what do we have? do we have a democratic country? no. the future is far from certain. across the region, we have to be very judicious about our military involvement. i give the president a lot of credit for involving nato and other countries. it looks like a very western operation. if you look the general in charge, if you look at the engagement of the italians for which we are very grateful, but it is very western.

it is very much a western tinge. host: i want to play you want short piece of tape from a colleague of yours, republican of florida, last night responding to the president on afghanistan but then talking about the war powers act in libya. >> it is very specific. there is no ambiguity. i have to disagree with senator mccain. i do not think libya is an operation that we should be in. those people are receiving imminent danger pay. if you are having a bomb dropped on your head, that is a hostile action. the actions do not meet the criteria found in the war powers act. the president has had the 60 days to get authorization from the congress and he has not done that.

host: two libyan proposals on the house floor tomorrow. how are you voting? the guest: i want to read the final language of those, but i do not know how the congressman will vote. i had sent the president a letter right after -- a day or two after our first involvement in libya when one of our planes went down. and i asked what was the legal authority. the constitution matters to me. it is a war action. we have dropped over 200 tomahawk missiles. we have predators all over the country. we have american lives at risk offshore. it is a military operation. i will vote to reassume the powers of the house in the constitution in the role of congress and probably put some handcuffs on the administration.

host: marcy kaptur, 30 years in congress, a democrat from ohio, represents toledo, talking about the president's speech last night on afghanistan. jane from gettysburg, pa., you or first up with -- you are first up with marcy kaptur. caller: we must come out. i think the points that have been made regarding the speech last night are almost like cutting the baby in half, where you try to satisfy both sides of the argument. not possible. what our president has faced when he came into office suggests that both steps are needed. the major things i would like

representative to address for me is it appears that our allies in the middle east is part of the problem in terms of not coming to the table. i want to know what she thinks we can do to bring these two parties together which obviously continue to exacerbate this region. we need is real. we want them to succeed, but we also want them to come to the table. what can we do -- host: we got the point. guest: very good question. the whole question of israeli- palestinian peace hangs over the middle east like a big, dark cloud. i appreciate the caller's question. i was in israel in february and working with members of the jewish federation?

i think are doing backbreaking work in the southeastern part of israel adjacent to the border working with the the jordanians. i wish every community in america at that aggressive action to try to build peace, so i want to give them credit for what they are doing theire to help people regardless of where they live in that region. i said to mr. benjamin netanyahu a few weeks ago -- i looked him right in the eye and i said bring us peace. what more can i tell the leader of israel? bring us peace. his answer was, "it is on the way." i forgot to ask, "in what millennium?" i called the palestinian council here, members of the palestinian leadership, and i had the same

message. it seems so difficult when you travel in their region, the countries are so tiny compared to what we are used to in north america. you look at populations in israel, half the size of ohio, for example. when you get down to the local level and you really talk to people, they want a normal life. the governments cannot seem to get there. i would agree with the caller that until this is solved, the possibility for calm development across the broader middle east will be very, very difficult. i give the president -- he has had some courageous stance that he has taken. we have to work with elements in israel, the palestinian authority, and adjacent countries. i do not know what is going to happen in syria.

lebanon -- i could talk forever about lebanon. so, that is a whole separate program. i am glad she put a finger on putting a saddle on peace across the region. host: you are on with congresswoman marcy kaptur. caller: i appreciate your reasonable measured tone and analysis, but i am going to drop a bit of a bomb on the conversation. i have not heard a comment that -- i think the timing is wrong and a shameful. in the new york times this morning, the headline says 2012, troops pull back, worries military experts. a lot of us can agree on either side, yes, we need to officially get out of there, but to do it with this timing, to me, smacks

politics on the president's part, not courage. he is doing it for the 2012 election. if you were to follow his generals and many experts, he would allow for the next fighting season to occur before he quickly drew down troops. i think it is a very political thing. as you said in your comments earlier, there is not policy. so often, this president seems to be operating on politics, ideology, but not policy in the national interest. so, i understand that you tend to be a very thoughtful, considerate, almost encouraging, very intelligent mother the way you speak about the president, but i do not think he really shows courage or leadership.

host: we got the point. your response. guest: i appreciate the gentleman calling in. a presidential term it is three years and then running for office again. i suppose every decision is political. on osama bin laden, knowing where he was, he could have let him sit there for another nine months or 10 months and do it next year. but he chose to i think serve the national interest and taken out now. so, i do not know if i agree with the statement that everything he does is political. every decision we make is political. it is the nature of what we do. but i think the president was handed a very difficult foreign policy agenda when he entered office.

none of the choices are easy. with our troops extended in that part of the world, and trying to get these other countries to act like countries rather than bank accounts is a tall order for the president of the united states. i think he has done a commendable job. i think general petraeus -- oh my goodness, all those under their command, they are giving their lives to us and the best they can muster. i do not think the president makes these decisions alone. i am just so proud of them. i am proud of them all. host: your doctor from mit is and what? guest: i was working in my own field of city planning and development which is why i think i know a little bit about

development whether it is a domestic or international. i am nearly finished with -- i nearly finished with my coursework but then was asked to run for this position so i put it on hold. i wanted to get my doctorate in my own field. i was interested in development in capital-short regions. that is what they're really wanted to do with my life had i not run for office. when i am in office, i am able to move resources to those regions. teaching people how to use the power of the purse to better their lives and their communities. you would think it would be an easy concept, but it is not. no community in america is poor. you have to look at transfer payments, the resources that are there, whether it is a plant or building, and you have to ask

yourself how do you transform that create greater wealth? people are not capturing the wealth that is their for their own betterment. that is a whole other a lecture that i will not cave. that is what i was interested in. as a member of congress, it is very hard to move ideas in the congress. to give you one small example, if you look in the community in america that has food stamps because of the economy now, and you send those coupons in there and people get them. believe it or not, with modern technology, we can grow food in poor communities in america and we can create enterprise right there by individual selling that food to people in the region. detroit, michigan, does not

have a supermarket. we can create enterprise with modern technology, and we can change transfer payment into wealth creation. we can pull the dollars in the community and start to make small loans so people can fix their houses, by windows, so they are more energy efficient. make small loans so it woman in a beauty shop can add one more chair. we have this idea that communities are poor. not really. it is that we are not using the wealth that is there as investment capital. i've loved the sustainability movement in our country and that love people who are working in communities. in afghanistan, the very same concept it is a whole different equation. my point is there is a way to use the assets of the community to transform it from the inside

out and not wait for something to come from the outside. host: the next call comes from north carolina on our independenct line. caller: we need to get all of our troops out. bring them all home. we get our people back here in the united states and take care of the people in the united states. we are starving here. no jobs. they are crazy. they do not care. guest: thank you very much. it is that will of the american people that will help transform this operation. we have, in our country today, over 850,000 returning veterans who have no work. they are unemployed. i talked to the president about this when he came to toledo to

visit one of our facilities about a week ago. i said, "mr. president, we are spending over $800 billion a year on defense." there is waste in every department including defense. imagine if we could cut across each account 1% in the defense budget and move those dollars to a civil works program, just like george marshall did during the great depression in our country back in the last century, and we could welcome home our troops and we could use our under-utilized bases all across this country as staging grounds for local civil works projects. i could see his eyes. he was focusing on what i was saying. i said the new defense secretary mr. leon panetta is a budget expert. he could find the funds for our

soldiers to come home to new work if we could move a small amount of dollars in the first year, imagine in your own communities, if you're under-utilized bases could be sticking points for soldiers coming home. they could lead civil works projects for some of our unemployed. this could be done across our country if we had the will to do it. we could buy one less tomahawk missile. we could buy one less airplane or extend the procurement season for that. we could close a couple of our military bases around the world and repatriate those dollars here at home. we have defense cleanup that we have to do. we have trees that have to be planted. people could come home to work. host: tim pawlenty tweeted last

night that when america goes to war, america needs to win. guest: with the elimination of osama bin laden, america achieved a great win. host: is it enough? guest: is it enough? america will not win until we become energy independent here at home. our dependence on petroleum has created convoluted relationships in the united states all across the world where we have not regimes in place that are in charge of the oil in those countries. this is not a position that i believe the united states should be in good energy independence has to be at the top of our goals from a strategic standpoint. i think we are achieving some success there. if you go to the marine corps website and you look at their

projected energy independent goals by 2025, we have really been proud of the marine corps and navy. i thought the air force would have led this because of their vast consumption of oil. they are paying $400 per gallon of gasoline delivered to the front in afghanistan. it comes out of their budget. a $400 a gallon. imagine what it takes to supply our front. we have to first make sure that our troops are fully supplied, but now the military sees it in its self interest to adjust the energy independence equation. with their leadership, i believe they are going to help america find new solutions on the energy independence front.

host: the last call for the congresswoman is from kansas, a democrat. caller: good morning. i am a mother of a soldier come home from afghanistan, and i appreciate obama and his speech from last night. but we are still poor. i work every day. as my son returns home, he will be working on a middle-class income. this is not a word to be one. -- a war to be won. this is regular, middle-class, working people. they join the army to help their families. now, i do not understand what you are talking about. we work every day.

we put our children, our sons, our fathers, and everything -- we want to know, we want to see an end. when they come home with another mindset in another country that does not appreciate -- this is just what goes on every day here. host: thank you very much. guest: first of all, thank you. all the mothers, fathers, spouses, children who are supporting those who are fighting for us -- you are on spoken heroes for our nation. i know mrs. obama, joe biden, the full congress admirers you, supports you, and the members of your family in the armed forces. we hear you and we know when your son comes home, we want to return your son to work, to a job if he chooses to leave the

military. nobody is fighting harder for jobs for our veterans that the congresswoman who is speaking right now. make sure your son takes full advantage of his g.i. benefits. we have provided significant ones for our returning troops. i am hoping that we can do better as a congress. i have talked to the general in the veterans department, urging the department of defense and veterans affairs to work together to make sure that our returning veterans returned home to a job and not a single one of them should go unemployed. host: does it help to have the speaker of your house from your home state? guest: it certainly does. we in the midwest oftentimes feel neglected in the governance of the congress itself. so we are very happy to have a speaker from ohio and very

honored. we are also very thrilled to have a president from illinois. host: marcy kaptur has been our guest. coming up next, steve king, republican of iowa, followed by keith ellison from minnesota. here is a news update from seized and radio. >> more reaction this morning from president obama's announcement. senator john kerry in remarks today on that cbs is praising the president's plan, saying it will allow afghans to "make their own dresses about their own future." he went on to say that the plan "will change the political calculation of everybody on the ground." also, the general says president obama's announcement is in his words, "the natural result."

and that the drawdown is coming as the tide is turning in afghanistan. turning to the economy, stock futures are lower ahead of a report of the unemployment numbers. economists expect the numbers will rise slightly. the dow jones futures are down 52 points. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> blackberry users, you can access our programming any time with the c-span radio app. all commercial-free. you can also listen to our signature interview programs each week. download it for free. >> c-span has launched a new easy to navigate website for politics and the 2012 presidential race.

visit us at c- span.org/campaign2012. >> "washington journal" continues. host: now on your screen is representative steve king, republican from iowa, as we continue our discussion of what the president had to say last night. congressman king, do you believe that it is time to withdraw from afghanistan? philosophically, do you agree with that position? guest: i do not know if i can answer that in a philosophical context because i do not know what is going on tactically on the ground. i continued going to the classified briefings as we had under george bush, and it has shifted knowing that classified into to more political answers in the briefing. i am frustrated that i do not think i know what is going on in

the ground. i get back channeled information from people who are serving their. i do not have the full picture of what is going on on the ground. i am uneasy about what is going on with our tactical objectives. i believe our military will accomplish those missions that are set out for them. but it is the other side of this, the nation building component, the efforts from the state department and the other entities that are trying to stand up a government in a place where it has never existed. i would like to hear some input from the white house that gives me a higher level of confidence that we are ready for this move. host: i would like to know what you think about john kerry's statement last night.

guest: i would agree with that statement. i think the war weary overcomes the long distance you of our national destiny. once we engage in an operation, it is our obligation to succeed. that big decision of going in is a very tough one. in libya, i would not have ordered troops into libya. once we are there, it is a different equation. i think john kerry would agree with me that for the president to announce deployment of pulling troops out of afghanistan on a timetable, and that timetable is consistent with the one that announced during the search, it is a wrong tactic that we will fight a war on numbers that are predicted. it is the wrong thing to tell

them. this tells them go underground and wait it out. a couple of more years, there will not be opposition in afghanistan. we know what they did to afghanistan after the russians were gone. there was a power vacuum after the russians that was filled by the taliban laying the foundation for the al-qaeda. host: steve king is our guest, republican from ottawa. we have set aside a phone lines this morning for afghanistan war veterans. we want to hear from you definitely. there is that number. if you served in afghanistan, we want to hear from you. i want to play a little bit of president obama from last night and get your reaction. >> the goal that we seek is achievable and can be expressed simply -- no safe haven from

which al-qaeda can launch attacks against our homeland or our allies. we will not try to make afghanistan a perfect place. we will not police its streets or patrol its mountains indefinitely. that is the responsibility of the afghan government which must step up its ability to protect its people and move from an economy shaped by war to one that can sustain a lasting peace. what we can do and will do is build a partnership with the afghan people that endures, one that ensures that we will continue to target terrorists and the support a sovereign afghan government. guest: my reaction is those are nice words that the president has spoken, and they are inspiring. when i hear them, i question this. and little later on in his speech, he talked about how he they were going to build a partnership.

one of the partners in these negotiations is the taliban. we went in to take on and fight afghanistan -- fight in afghanistan to take on al-qaeda. what emerged was the taliban. the taliban has been our enemy from the beginning. the number alliance drove the taliban out of afghanistan. they were the ones who opened their doors to al-qaeda. six or seven months ago, some of us were critical of president karzai for having negotiations with the taliban. the word was the white house had people in that meeting and were involved in or observing negotiations. it sounds like the white house has opened the door for and perhaps has a tacit agreement that there will be a power- sharing agreement in afghanistan with the taliban. i do not want to be negotiating with our enemies. our objective was to remove

them. i think that should remain the objective in afghanistan, to move the taliban from power. all taliban are -- it is not true that all of them are taliban, but what we see is there is a tribal affinity for the taliban. host: steve king is our guest, and our first call for him comes from panama city beach. alan, go ahead with your question or comment for the congressmen. caller: good morning, congressman. i had three tours, two in iraq, one in afghanistan. i am retired. my question is -- a lot of people are misunderstanding about the search. we had 36,000 troops in there. the bush administration

increased it to 70,000. then we ended up with the obama surge which got us up to around the 100,000 mark. we really made a big difference fighting the taliban in the south, but we ignore the east area where we pulled out of the valley. i know that the tactics changed, but there was a lot of fighting up there that i am not sure that we will ever solve -- host: what did you think about what the president had to say last night? caller: i think it is about time to start pulling out of there because the country is just so huge. i do not think people understand how big it is. thank youstrst, alan, for your service to your country. 30 years is a lot more what we would ask of anybody.

what you told me about your view on afghanistan is historical spot-on. i have a sense that you have a lot more to say. i look at this because i do not know what is happening on the ground. my view is once we start an operation, we should be successful in that operation because, for one thing, osama bin laden was encouraged because he believed that america did not have the resolve to complete the engagements that we had begun. i was sitting in a hotel room over in the east ready to go into iraq the next day. as i watched on tv, i remember the date, june 11, 2004. that fellow with his militia and missing teeth said in arabic that thif we continue to attack

americans, they will leave iraq the same way they left vietnam, lebanon, and the same way they left mogadishu. that was a clear message that it was recruiting militia against the united states believing that we did not have the resolve. i want to make sure that when we leave afghanistan that we also leave the message that america has been resolved to complete those engagements that we begin and do so successfully. i believe that the u.s. has stepped forward and has saved a lot of american lives. host: carl from san antonio, texas, has a similar voice --

guest: that is a spot-on the comment that i never hear. it takes me back to a general in vietnam who was credited with a vietnamese victory -- they call it a victory. he wrote a little book about the victory. on page 8 of the book, it says he got his first inspiration on how to defeat the united states because we were willing to accept a negotiated settlement in korea. if you read dead and frame that with what i have said -- if you read that and framed that with what i have said, we have reestablished our resolute reputation in iraq. i do not want to lose it in afghanistan. host: brooklyn, chris on the

republican line. one more chance. caller: thank you for c-span and think you for taking my call. do you think we should still be in germany? do you think we should still be in japan, korea? we really should not be having the type of military imperialism that says we are going there and we are going to do it. i think we have bled enough. i do not believe in preemptive war, but i do believe in being strong. one last comment. the reason why we had a victory

in germany and in japan because we killed everybody and we were willing to -- we are not willing to do that in this day and age. thank you. guest: the two of the three countries you mentioned, we did not have a lot of choice. we did not have a choice for japan or germany. we were attacked. when we were attacked by the japanese, we admit -- they immediately declared war on the united states. that was something we had to do for survival. i am glad we had the resolve to complete that war with 100% defeat of our enemy. and roosevelt made a very clear that was the goal. we may have had a choice with korea. we are there now in those countries, and they are glad to

have us there. we need those tactical locations. ramstein in germany is one of those essential locations that we run out operations of. if we are going to be a global power, a global military force, we need spaces around the world to do that. these are legitimately-run bases. the other alternative would to the bring our forces back home and sit here for somebody to attack us. i think it is too dangerous a world to let that happen. host: how does that lead into libya and the resolutions tomorrow? guest: this is a question that i am not completely resolved on. first of all, knowing what i know now and knowing what i knew then, i would not have ordered this action into libya, but the president did order this action.

he is the commander in chief of the united states military. he must have the authority to order our military into action. we have to give the president the benefit of the doubt on that decision. over time, the operation transitions into the control of governance in the war powers act. i think the president is in violation of the war powers act. i would also question of the war powers act's constitutionality. there is a question about whether that is encroaches upon the authority of the commander in chief. the president has treated congress with a significant disrespect. he has more respect of the arab league then the house of representatives and the senate. i believe he has an obligation whether under the war powers act or the common understanding of how white three-branch

government functions, come to congress, and make a case for this military operation. he fails to do that, there are a lot of members of this congress that want to just pull the plug on funding for libya. constitutionally, we can do that. i do not agree with that because we have started an operation in libya. i am glad he pulled our military out of direct engagement with the military with the exception of the predators. we are refueling and supporting the embargo and we are using our intelligence to select targets for the nato operation going on. we have an agreement with nato. i do not want to see congress advocate a treaty with nato for the same reasons i describe about america's resolve. if we demonstrate we are not a reliable partner, there are a lot of real arrangements in the world that will take place.

now you pulled out of an agreement with nato in the middle of the operation with libya. america has to be a reliable partner. i think the united states congress ought to recognize that whether we agree with the president's actions or if we are in the same party. host: columbus, ohio, phil is on our afghanistan war veterans' line. caller: i would like to say all of the people who served in afghanistan or anywhere else are very proud people. my big point is this. there has been remarks made in the past of soldiers and airmen and everyone being the teeth of

the saw, so to speak, of the united states and its foreign policy. what happens is this. when you start to saw concrete, the people suffer dramatically. there is a disconnect between -- it oftens happens in corporate structures and also in government structures as a disconnect between people on the ground and the people who are devising these policies. let me make this very plain and very clear to you. when people are on the ground, people suffer and people suffer very badly. when you have a government that is disconnected from the people there is and, -- veterans' organization, a grass-

roots organization, that started off with people donating money with no help from the government for brain injuries for veterans from afghanistan -- host: are you suffering from a brain injury from combat? guest: no, but one of my best friends is. they came up with a medical building and built it from the ground and started to actually treat these people with no help from the government, no recognition from the government. it took $10 million of people who got their money to actually help these troops that were injured. within like, i woudl say, six weeks, throwing all this money to libya -- can you imagine this? host: we are going to have to leave it at that comment. i am sorry. guest: i appreciate hearing this and i am going to take a look at

this and find out where the location is of treating brain injuries. i think the military is starting to catch up with that. congressman tim murphy from pennsylvania -- he is a little bit younger than me but not much, he joined the navy. he is a professional psychiatrist to help the military as they come back from that part of the world. i appreciate him for that. i appreciate the private money effort that is there. thank you for serving our country. host: james from tennessee on our democrats' line, you are one with congressman steve king. caller: thank you. i believe that the fox network's and republican party are doing more dangerous to this country than any terrorists. host: can you give an example?

caller: yes. i think wikileaks are going to come out and explain how some of these people before 9/11 knew what was going to happen. i just think that we went there needlessly and we lost a lot of lives. host: thank and when you hear about wiki leaks, how do you respond? guest: i am absolutely convinced there was a conspiracy that was perpetrated by al-qaeda. anybody who was in a position to prevent this in the united states would have stepped up to prevent it. when you look at how government runs and haphazard as it turns out, it is hard for me to imagine there would be a conspiracy they could pull off and keep a secret.

i have trouble with those conspiracy theories. i have great sympathy for people who have taken from the attacks and those who have given their lives to fight al-qaeda back around the world. host: wikileaks? guest: i wish that had never happened. as far as significant damage, i do not quite see it. i think over time we will figure out the damage. it is almost an offensive act against the united states. i'm not sure where that goes from a legal standpoint, but i would support legal action against the people who support them. host: the iowa caucuses are six months from right now.

are you disappointed? how you feel about the fact that mitt romney and others have pulled out from the straw poll? guest: when mitt romney announce he would not participate in the straw poll, that told me he was diminishing expectations there. we do not know whether he will engage in the caucus or not. i suspect if he can diminish expectations in iowa, and he believes it, he could win in new hampshire, and he could somehow skip the straw poll. if you cannot compete in i like you do not have much of an argument about being a viable canada. -- viable candidate.

we have the most serious in the country. jon huntsman said he would not compete and i let either. -- in iowa either. there is an open field for people to come into iowa. i would invite all candidates to, and engaged in the straw poll. do not fear the ethanol issue. step forward and see if you can compete among midwesterners. i want to see the most effective constitutional conservative nominated as possible. i think it is good for them to engage in the caucus process. are around the table with a cup of coffee, where people get to know you in

front of and behind the curtain. my focus is to preserve the caucus. i want to promote the effectiveness of the south carolinian set -- south caolinians. if we ever lose these components, the next president would be the media personality created rather than having earned that by meeting people in a personal way. the iowa caucus performance is an essential -- if it did not exist in iowa, i would want to created somewhere else. host: independent line, please go ahead. caller: one thing i would like to say is that i have the most respect for you coming out and saying that you do not have the

knowledge about certain things. i think that is very important. anyone calling in wants to give their so-called opinion. they do have the right to do so. they're saying we should be out there, but why? i cannot make that assessment because i have not done enough homework to see if we should or should not be in there. i think this is where we have a major problem in our country. people are not getting educated on anything in any party. president obama for instance, he wrote a couple of books. dreams from my father and audacity of hope. i read both of them to make my decision on whether or not to vote for him. on page 271 of the audacity of hope, he made a comment that does not sit well with me. he stated in the wake of 9/11 --

he was talking about all the stuff about the pakistan is -- he said that if the political wind it should shift with them, he said he would be with the pakistan is. as far as our veterans, i applaud them. host: we are running out of time. guest: i have not read all of the audacity of hope, but i have read dreams from my father. i think what you have done is very important. my going to continue to get foundation and knowledge out. i have made trips around that part of the world. i go there and i take the readings from our top officers and then i go down the line to talk to troops. i asked if there is anyone from iowa.

sometimes there is not. it gives you a sense of the quality of the operations and the level of optimism. it also gives you the level of discouragement. you see a lot of dedication and patriotism and nobility. they have put themselves on the line for us. we owe them our best. those who take the stand to support our military also need to support the mission. we cannot put their lives on the line for the mission that is a wrong mission. if i had a disagreement with the president, i'm going to knock on the door of the white house and carried the message behind the scenes rather than through the press. i do not know enough, but i am trying to form a better opinion. i am likely to continue to support our operations outside

of libya. thank you very much. host: very quickly, what is the flood situation in your district? guest: we have seen the most water come down since 1992. we are evacuating everybody that lives on the west side of i-29. we have levees that have been overtop it in certain areas. this water is going to run up to 4 miles wide. for the i was side, i can say about 170 miles of water about 2.5 miles wide. pressure from the water in the river pushes the up onto its own

level. when it comes up, it comes up on opposite sides of the levees. we will see this until at least august 2 before it can be diminished. if there are heavier rains, there will be more discharge. this is going to take a lot of perseverance. be a lot of pumping and monitoring. we have to be there in order to patch up. it is now flushing its way down into misery. if we did not have the dams, this floor of water can come

exclusively out of the yellowstone. that is the amount of water that is falling down through iowa now. host: steve king is our guest. republic from iowa. up next, he alison as we continue our look at president obama's speech. -- keith ellison. >> in the last decade we spent one trillion dollars on war. now we must invest in america's greatest resource -- our people. we must unleash innovation that creates new jobs while living within our means. we must rebuild our infrastructure and find clean sources of energy. after a decade of passionate

debate, we must recapture the common purpose that we shared at the beginning of this time of war. our nation draws strength from our differences. no hill is too steep. america, it is time to focus on nation building here at home. >> in the supreme court tells the story of the supreme court through their eyes. this new edition includes an interview with the newest supreme court justice. available now or ever e-books

are sold. now available, a complete guide to the first session of the 112 congress. information on the white house, supreme court justices. order online at cspan.org/shop/ >> washington journal continues. host: we continue our conversation about the president. keith ellison is a democrat from minnesota. as co-chair of the progressive caucus, you have been calling for trooper trough for a long time. are you satisfied with what the president did last night. guest: i am encouraged that we are on our way. i did feel that it was not

nearly ambitious enough. the fact is that the president outlined a strategy for producing a surge, not reducing our overall footprint in afghanistan. i just have to believe that we can do much better than removing all the surge troops in 15 months. the president made himself very clear. i actually agree with him on this. our role is to protect america from threats from al-qaeda. more than that, mr. bin laden is off the scene. because of these factors, we should be talking about a fairly significant size in production. we should be talking about getting out of there.

i am encouraged that he is trying to move at the time line. there are people who wanted him to do even less. there was talk about removing 5000. that would be very discouraging. i think we can do better than 23,000 by the end of next summer. i am happy that we started, but in thinking that we could do more. host: republican from south carolina was on cnn. of any direction. >> i respect the vice president, but think we have undercut a strategy that was working. i think the 10,000 troops leaving this year is going to make this fighting season more difficult. having all the surge forces leave by next summer is going to compromise next summer's fighting season. guest: i just think that the senator is incorrect.

i do not believe that president obama would ever consider compromising the security of the troops there. i'm quite certain that the number he picked was probably overly conservative in favor of true security. my own view is that nobody has the right number here. it is impossible to know exactly what the proper, correct number is. i base my decision on the fact that there is a very small amount of al-qaeda and that osama bin laden is gone. i think that he is articulating partisan petition that i do not agree with. host: this is an e-mail that came in. i want to see your response. how would you define victory in afghanistan? guest: i think we need to first of all understand that we are not talking about two armies in

a battle line. this is not wwii. this is a terrorist organization. they do not observe a front. they do not wear uniforms and things like that. we need to look at it in a modern view. i think victory is to make sure that the al-qaeda threat is minimize. to eliminate completely unrealistic. it needs to be minimized and make sure that the american homeland is safe and secure. i think that would be a victory. i think we have achieved that at this point. i think we should be coming home. host: keith ellison is our guest. he got a lot degree from the university of minnesota. he is co-chair of the progression caucus. republican line, you are first up with keith ellison.

caller: i cannot understand why we cannot do what has ended all the wars we have been involved in. have everyone sit down at the table and discuss what is going to take to have peace in the nation. we have the taliban, we have tribes, and afghanistan has been there with fighting for centuries. it has proved that it is not a military solution to the war in afghanistan. why am i not hearing about some kind of peace action? when are people going to sit down and discuss what they need to do? we can remove all the troops, but that war is not going to be won militarily. guest: i think you are right. i'm glad you emphasized this

point. i will point out to you that all along, my position and even the president mentioned last night, there needs to be comprehensive discussion around settlement of this conflict. i do not believe there is a military solution to this problem. i think the only solution is a negotiated settlement. we need to get all the parties and align them in a way that saves lives. that means everyone we have trained and that might even mean other factors as well. iran shares a border. i think you're absolutely right about that. the president mentioned that last night. thank you for bringing attention to this issue. we need to not rely on the military. host: one of your fellow progressive caucus members tweeted out "not the significant

size people wanted." caller: people are not going to be too happy about what i'm saying. this war is all about money. it is all about the contractor's. like that woman said earlier today. a gallon of glass is -- a gallon of gas is $400. this is about money. this is not about anything else but money. halliburton, all these companies, we did not farmout all these jobs to contractors 20 years ago.

$400 for a gallon of fuel is ridiculous. it is all about money. guest: i am very concerned about profiteering with regards to afghanistan and iraq. i am in agreement that we have got to be way better stewards of the american tax payer dollars. this is an opportunity to protect our money -- to protect our country, not make money. i think that the united states was attacked on 9/11. it was fair that they tried to remove the to remove al-qaeda post. -- al-qaeda posed. we have to go after corruption and fraud. i'll be among the first to say

you are right about that. host: keith ellison two libya resolutions on the floor. how you plan to vote? guest: i am studying them carefully. i have three considerations weighing on me. one, i have tried to be in touch with libyan americans and be in dialogue with these folks. i've had several meetings. many of them are quite pleased that the united states stepped forward to save their relatives and try to help keeping them from harm. they want that change. at the same time, i do believe that the president has a duty, obligation and responsibility under the war powers act to be accountable to congress. it is clear there are

hostilities. what is not clear is whether or not we have interjected american troops into hostility. there are troops in libya. i think there are arguments to be made. we cannot allow another darfur or rwanda. but the president must be accountable to congress and apply to the war powers act. i am not going to blow for us to get out -- i am not going to vote for us to get out now. i'm looking at them very closely. host: atlanta. republican line. you're on with keith ellison. caller: i was listening to the

previous caller. when he said that were creates jobs, that is not correct. when these's vets -- vets come home without jobs, we're going to have problems. we have of a mechanic workers, we have a lot of companies over their working to assist them. if they come home, they will be without jobs. we need to look to the experts. we need to listen to the experts. there is a lot to know. well will happen when unemployment goes up and these people come home? thank you. guest: that is a great question. sometimes military actions create jobs. but civilian endeavor creates even more jobs.

the multiplier effect from a civilian job is way more than a military contractor jobs overseas. in my view, we need to start investing in our nation's infrastructure. with a surface transportation bill. when dave public jobs bill. -- we need a public jobs bill. the president was right when he said we need to do nation- building in america. 91 percent unemployment. -- 9.1% unemployment. all those talented individuals who are being used in warfare need to be put into building america.

we are relying on our grandparents infrastructure. we need to get busy. host: next call comes from afghanistan war veteran. please tell us your service and go ahead with your question. caller: i served on a combat outpost in 2006 and 2007 in afghanistan near the pakistan border. my question is in regards to if we pull out of afghanistan, what other nations will use afghanistan for their own benefit or to use the resources to develop afghanistan that might be our enemies? guest: i am glad that is something that is on your mind. it is an important consideration. that is why no one is asking for a withdrawal to the point where it would create a vacuum.

i think the president's numbers could be better, but the fact is we know is going to take several months to do this. no one is arguing for an abandonment of afghanistan. i think the international community, including united states, wants to stay involved in afghanistan diplomatically from a development standpoint. also, i think we ought to bear in mind that they are a sovereign country. they do have a duty, obligation and responsibility to run their own affairs. we've trained -- you have trained over 3000 of them. it is time for them to take the security the of their own country seriously. i think the fact is that we have put measures in place that minimize that risk. we need to get out of there.

we to recognize our financial pressures and the fact that we have vanquished al-qaeda -- you have helped it vanquish al- qaeda. we need to talk to them about how we exit. host: keith ellison, a 1 get your response to the financial times this morning. one guest: i think that he is

not a legitimate leader. he has ruled the country much the way his father did before him. in 1982, there was a city called hanna. people there demonstrated some disagreement with policies of their regime. 25,000 people were killed. the blood runs deep on the hands of this regime, which is continuous. we are in danger of another one if the world does not say something. i'm not in favor of boots on the ground in syria, but i do believe the world to put pressure on his regime and top financiers and business people in that country. there should be public statements and solidarity with the average system -- with the average citizens struggling in

that community. there are very import contributes to our society. they have let me know that they are very concerned about their homeland. he is a slick one. and he tries to work the p.r. but he is very transparent. i do not believe he is legitimate. he can no longer act like he is trying to be a serious player in the world of affairs. he is a leader who think needs to go, but not by boots on the ground. he has earned the international disapproval. host: next call comes from illinois. caller: good morning. i was fortunate enough to hear that last segment. it was painful to listen to

representative king. the reason we will never win any war, and i did three years of active duty, is that we have so few people engaged in war. when things go, we start getting people talking about what we're going to do, but less than 1 percent of the population goes. if you want a stop or, bring back the draft. pushe you'll continue to the solutions that they come up with that we can do these things. it never will be until everybody is engaged. when they do not have march madness in football games, they will be more serious about what they're doing. they are dedicated. we should be right where we are and they should be there to below. guest: i think there is a lot of

truth to what you said. we did not even put the war on the books. we did not even pay for. we did not even have a war tax. if we had a war tax, it would have engaged americans as to whether not this is the right word for us to be in. i think the point you're making is the cost to the average citizen is so low, they have no reason to stand up and oppose it. your point is well taken. whether or not we should have a draft, i think reasonable people can debate that issue. but your fundamental point is too few people have skin to gain when america decides to go to war, which makes it easier to not make the real hard-nosed analysis as to if this is the right thing.

i agree with your essential point. host: give us a snapshot of the economy. guest: my district is minneapolis, minnesota. i am very proud to represent golden valley, spring lake park, columbia heights. we have a great community. we get together in cities and suburbs. it is a wonderful group of people i get to represent. the economics are tough. we recently had a tornado blow through it and cause a lot of damage. they're people who were already low-income and struggling, and now they have nothing. other folks came into town and demonstrated a good samaritan spirit. our unemployment rate in the city is below the national average, but above the state average. is about 6.3%.

we are below 9.1%. in certain pockets, particularly among african-american youth, we are as high as 30%. maybe 35%. altogether, we have to be concerned about giving everybody an opportunity. of programsoponent that will put america back to work. i want to rebuild national infrastructure. at the surface transportation bill, that these roads fixed up and moving. public jobs,. also, a bill that will help state and local government retain its workers that offer important public services.

we have started a jobs and economic justice to work. we have 12 cities that we have identified that we're going to visit to make jobs the agenda. we have a group called change the wind that is knocking on doors nationally. people are speaking out for good jobs. we started last saturday. that was in the twin cities. it is right down the street of the convention. several people showed up in a packed room to talk about the essential importance of creating good jobs for americans. i believe anyone who works hard ought to be able to have a good job. it should have good benefits and good pay.

the american middle-class is not going to tolerate congress ignoring it. people are speaking out, raising their hands, and saying that we need another new deal. the economics of my district are tough, but we plan on mobilizing to make jobs the agenda. that we can pull together a new and brighter future for the american working class as, not just the rich folks. they're doing fine. the folks who earn a living with their hands every day are in tough shape. host: your district borders michelle bachmann. guest: it sure does. she and i were state legislators together. our views could not be any more different, but interpersonally we are fine. we see the world in a fundamentally different light. i believe an inclusion of all americans matter what color or

race. if you're an american, you are good enough for me. who i believe we need to -- i believe we'd working-class prosperity. labor laws, unions that will give people a chance. i believe in staying out of people's affairs like whether they're going to have a family and who they're going to marry. on those, her and i do not agree. sue price a note to everything i just said. -- she would probably say no to what i just said. host: are you satisfied with president obama and what he has done with his policies? guest: i do not see any primary

challenge to president obama. i am very pleased and phil we're lucky to have a president like him. i do not think it is the job of the progressive caucus to line up with the president or oppose the president. it is our job to try to make a call for an america that is hopeful, ambitious, inclusive and has a strong rooting of economic justice for americans. if the president is not per wrigley in line with that, i think we should call him back to that path. i think it is a real problem when the progressive politicians lined up behind the president, because that means we're not thinking for ourselves and pursuing our own values. host: congressmen keith ellison,

democrat from minnesota. thank you for being on the washington journal. we have about 20 minutes before the house comes into session. we will continue talking about president obama's speech from last night on afghanistan policy. but the numbers on the screen. 624 1111 democrats. 624-0760 independence. 737-2579 for afghan war veterans. please continue dialing in. we'll be right back after this news update from c-span radio. >> jobless numbers in this hour show more americans applied for unemployment benefits last week. the labor department says applications rose by 9000. it is the second increase in three weeks and the biggest jump

in one month. afghan president spoke from his presidential palace and said his up ands huge will stand defend his country as the u.s. pulls troops out. he thanked the u.s. for their support and said that the people would protect their homeland. announcement is set to withdraw all 4000 troops from france -- france is withdrawing 4000 troops. that will be starting this summer. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> this weekend on american history tv on c-span 3. edward cox talks about president

richard nixon. get the complete weekend schedule and at cspan.org/history. >> this weekend on cspan2 tv. the government concealed the true magnitude of terrace concealment in the u.s.. matthew algeo recalls of the president's secret surgery. sign up for booktv alerts to receive updates in your in box. washington journal continues. host: president obama announced

that the afghanistan mission would and by 2014. 2000 troops out by the end of this year and another 23,000 troops out by the end of 2012. we want to get your reaction to what you heard this morning and president obama's speech was night. we will put the numbers up on the screen. we will begin with a call from afghanistan war veteran, john in columbus, ohio. good morning. caller: hello. host: tell us about your service and your opinion of president obama's speech last night. caller: my service in afghanistan were short. i was wounded. i just want to say the american troops will do anything that the government and our country asks of them. it would do the same anywhere. the problem is once you take a step back and look at the big picture, you realize we're not building anything in afghanistan.

we have not build anything in iraq. over the course of a very short amount of time, you are going to see everything back to the way it was. did you put a bulldog in your backyard, it will chase everything out of the backyard. he pled bulldog that, everything comes back. -- if you pull that bulldog back, everything will come back. these things are going to come back unless you sit there was some kind of police force. that is not going happen and i do not think anyone thinks that is a good idea. host: thank you. next up a republican. good morning. caller: two points. the verses about the afghanistan war. when bush was in office, it was seeking destroyed. obama switched it to counter insurgency.

obama gives them 30,000 troops. we controlled 29 of them. the second point is, i feel that in a roundabout way, you ought -- he was trying to say that michelle bachmann is racist. guest: how did i say that? caller: i want prosperity for everybody. chile wants prosperity for the few. i want prosperity for all the americans. she only wants prosperity for the few. in a roundabout way you were insinuating that there was something wrong, maybe she was racist. guest: a u.s. importer of race? a

-- are you a supporter of her presidential race? caller: i'm not sure. i need to look into her tax rate. my number one person from the last election was mike huckabee. i was so disappointed he did not run this year. host: what do you? caller: i am a carpenter who has not worked in two years. host: why not? caller: the economy. everybody in america should watch the movie waiting for superman. i took time off to homes will my daughter. host: thank you for calling. our next call is from alabama. good morning.

caller: yes. host: please go ahead with your comment or question. caller: i live in alabama. it is a real rural area. i was against the war. for president obama. i'm really disappointed. we need health care in this country. i was a victim of a crime in 2000. i had a business. my wife and i lived a good what -- lifestyle. i lost everything and have. i'm on disability now. my $-- my daughter and i only make a little over $1,000 a month. if i did not have disability, my

medicine per month is $1,800. how can we not have health care in this country? host: we're going to leave it there. we're talking about the president's speech last night regarding the afghanistan strategy. that is what we want to get your reaction to. here are some editorials that appeared this morning in the paper. i'm going to reach the conclusion of usa today. the'm going to read conclusion of usa today. his announcement that jews will not going out will be favored.

mr. a lot -- mr. obama was laying out his theme. host: paul on our republican line. you are on c-span. caller: i am a little aggravated at all the stuff i heard this morning. i have been given a chance to say something that i don't think anyone has said. i think herman cain is probably only man with any sense to run this country. we are now fighting a war where we cannot guard our own borders. we have people starving to death

here in america. it is a shame that our men and women run up and down the street with an x on their back waiting for a bomb to destroy their family here at home. we have more people in prison over smoking pot and drinking beer and we do have crux who are work -- than we have crooks who are running this country. there are administrative policies in foreign countries that make no sense. -- they are administering policies in foreign countries that make no sense. they're just going to let them do what they want and cry about it. host: we will leave it there. washington post editorial this

morning. host: next up is a call from milwaukee. on our independent line, you are on c-span. caller: good morning. i think the speech was the latest in hypocrisy from our president. in american black man. i am proud of it. i voted for the present in the last election. i will not do it again. i find it very ironic that the year he is going to bring these troops home is the same year

that the health care is supposed to be implemented. i find that very ironic. there is something about libya. just the press led about weapons of mass discussion -- weapons of mass destruction, i wonder if they lie about the libyan leader killing his own people. it is all hypocrisy like the gentleman before me said. this is supposed to be a government for the people, not for corporations. host: new york times editorial, their conclusion. the headline is "the way out?"

host: that is the new york times this morning. frank, a republican. what is your reaction? caller: i am very discouraged. my whole situation right now, number one i was in the army three years back in the 1970's during the vietnam war. there are a few things that keith ellison made some comments on that i would like to correct. he made the, the numbers have skin in this game. the soldiers, god bless every one of them, but every american has been in this game. what about the americans that were in the tower that got blown up? as the americans that would have been dead if we had not stopped some of those planes in the sky few years back. we all have skin in this game.

president obama should be looking to his generals. yet a president who did nothing but community organizing, and yet he knows more than his own general on the ground? god forbid it he was running our military even though he is our commander in chief. i wish it were handed over to petraeus and leave him out of it. he is bringing our whole country down. host: we will leave it there. on wall street journal with some other news this morning.

host: here is the front of the boston globe newspaper this morning. a local story up at the top. but is also a store that a lot of people are familiar with. host: this is from the wall street journal as well here.

host: 1 more wall street journal article. this was a six minute drop from 2009. host: back to your calls on the afghanistan mission. the president has called for the combat portion to end by 2014. democrat, go ahead. caller: i guess all i wanta say

is everybody is giving president obama and hard time. what america needs to understand is there were 43 presidents before him that got us into this situation. we need to get americans back at all costs, medically and financially. we need to require all students to go into basic training before they graduate from high school. thank you. host: brookfield, mass. is next. independent line, you are on the air. caller: i have two points to make. my first point is that i have a problem with pundits would also drives the media outlets as far as the commander-in-chief.

my second point is that pakistan is a serious problem. they are a nuclear nation. they also have a serious problem keeping the terrorists -- from keeping the nuclear stash they have from the terrace. we need to have troops on the ground in afghanistan. we need to have that. that is what is going to ultimately squash the pakistan government right now. people do not realize that. that is all i have to say. host: from the washington times this morning.

host: he attributed the departure of his staff because he is politicians.

host: atlanta, are republican line. caller: i feel that obama would not have got one single trip home before the 2012 election, but when he killed osama bin laden to get a boost in his sagging poll numbers, that change public opinion so much that he had to bring some troops home. the reason why obama does not want to bring troops home is because there is no jobs. out of the 100,000 people better over there, there are no jobs. the housing is so messed up. they cannot find housing. there is no medical care. we will have soldiers coming home with lost limbs, and lost arms, and mental conditions that need help. that is what president obama

does not want to bring them home. they will not come home anytime soon. it will take at least 10 years to bring any of these trips home. host: we have a few more articles to show you. rick perry to make new hampshire trip. this is from the hill this morning. host: from austin american state newspaper in texas. host: this from the c-span website, right here. website, right here.