washington post foreign affairs columnist. at 8:30 eastern, we will focus on energy policy and the cost of oil and gasoline. we will discuss the farming and agriculture industry with our guest from the department of agriculture and a columnist with "the national journal." "washington journal" is next. host: good morning, you're watching "washington journal." the latest in the headlines this morning is what's being called twin opticals to the u.s. and nato time table for withdrawal and exit from afghanistan. that is a demand from karzai for

accelerating troops. and a break-up of talks between the u.s. and the taliban. we'll ask you what your reaction is to all this. with our phone lines open this morning. your comments by twitter and on facebook. our phone lines are -- as karzai demands a u.s. pull back of troops in afghanistan. and a good friday morning to you. well, let's begin with a piece of video. this week the brishes -- the british prime minister was here in washington, d.c. and the president and british prime minister talked about the agreed upon time table for nato draw down in afghanistan. let's listen and then we'll look at the headlines overnight and how that story's changing.

>> i don't anticipate at this stage that we're going to be making any sudden, additional changes to the plan that we currently have. we have already taken out 10,000 of our troops. we're slated to draw down an additional 23,000 by this summer. there will be a robust coalition presence inside of afghanistan during this fighting season to make sure that the taliban understand they're not going to be able to regain momentum. after the fighting season, in conjunction with all our allies we will continue to look at how do we do this that doesn't result in a steep cliff but rather is a gradual pace that accommodates the developing capacities of the afghan national security forces.

host: defense secretary was meeting with u.s. troops and also with mr. karzai in afghanistan. we have learned during that meeting mr. karzai made demands for an accelerated pace with regards to the troops. here is the "washington post" headline on the story. afghan exit plans faces new hurdles. he asks them to leave villages. here is the lead on the story filed from kabul -- that the u.s. led operation here

could unravel as trust arose between the afghans and their foreignbenefactors. of course all of this seemingly accelerated by the incident last week with the u.s. military person who is accused of going on a rampage in that afghanistan village. by the way, some information about that person, although his name has not been released yet. also became unknown yesterday. suspect still unidentified nearly after a week a u.s. soldier reportedly killed 16 after comban villagers. they are reporting about his move to kuwait. "the new york times" is telling us that officials in kuwait were not happy with that and as early as right now that suspect in the case could be moved from kuwait to bases here in the united states as they await further action on the charges against him.

going to show you some more stories but we would like to hear your reactions to this. we also posted this question overnight on your facebook page. let's begin with a call from clarksburg, west virginia. suspense is a democrat. you're on the air. caller: good morning, you are my favorite. i always wait to get my call in with you. you do an excellent job, the others do too. but you professional. host: appreciate, that's nice. hop onto your comment. caller: my comment is i think it's time for us to get out of there. i don't know when the people there were ever positive towards us in any way. that you know, they aren't with us, like you just read. that surprises me because as far as i'm concerned, we don't have the local people because there's so many divisions over there that it's just a place that you can't control. i think we ought to get out of there. if there's any problems in,

we'll address it that way. we need to look at the world problem of terrorism, not just that one situation. god bless you and have a great day. host: thanks so much for your call. from facebook, joe elers posted this. look at oil prices since we got there. we have a hard time listening to the people at all. host: let's take a call next from pittsburgh. this is paul, a republican. you're on the air, talk about the u.s. role in afghanistan and whether or not it changes this week with the demands from karzai and the breakoff of talks from the taliban. go ahead, paul. caller: good morning, and thank you for c-span. host: good morning. caller: i think the time to exit

is coming very close. because we've done a number of things that have made this very difficult. setting a deadline was the first indication to the afghans that we have a set date to leave. when you do that, you lose a lot of support. and then the other aspect of it is that, and i was in the navy 30 years, so i have a little experience on how things work. you have rules of engagement. we've hand-tied our military here. they can't do that operation. they can't do this, they can't do that. and i think it culminated a couple of days ago, or maybe yesterday or the day before when the secretary of defense is over there. and he has our marines disarm before they go into a meeting. this is ludicrous. what kind of message does send our military, our men and women over there fighting? can't they be trusted to attend

the meeting for fear they're going to sheet somebody? this is crazy. i think it's time to recognize that we're in a losing situation, and we're trying to fight for a people who are frugal. here you have a situation where you know, the reaction when the coran was mistakenly steroid, six americans killed, executed. another american soldier yesterday, i guess, was shot in the head while she was standing post. when they killed the 16 children and they interviewed one of the taliban, why aren't you reacting? well, that doesn't even begin to compare to what you did to the cokoran. i think that tells you all about the mindset. i think it's time to go. host: in addition to meeting with karzai, he also spoke to u.s. troops and reinforced their

role in the mission. let's listen to a little of his message. >> we will not allow individual incidents to undermine our resolve to that mission and to sticking to the strategy that we put in place. it's a successful strategy. it's one that you made possible by virtue of your sacrifices. and we're going to stick to that strategy and make sure that we achieve the mission that we're here to achieve. as tragic these events of violence have been, they do not define the relationship between the coalition and afghan forces, and the afghan people. what you are doing out here every day determines that relationship. host: that was the message to the troops from the defense secretary. just to show you how this story has been evolving over a short

period of time, "the new york times" posted this story on its website. karzai calls on u.s. to pull back as taliban cancels talk. reporters add this is how they describe the meeting with mr. panetta and mr. karzai. defense officials traveling with mr. panetta said the tone of the meeting between mr. karzai and mr. panetta was more positive than the statement would indicate and he made no demands to the defense secretary. officials acknowledge that mr. karzai told mr. panetta that american troops should be confined to bases by next year. but they have publicly tamped down the differences and portray the two countries working together. secretary panetta said we're on the same page here. that was in "the new york times." in the print edition of the paper, same reporter's story had been updated. here's how they've cast it. mr. karzai's surprise announcement, which would confine american troops to their bases a year earlier than mr.

obama proposed was initially made at a meeting with leon panetta. by way, you've also heard about a security breach that was possibly targeted at leon panetta. he said it was not. "the washington post" in their story this morning -- now interesting, this man if you have not heard, the afghan man was a civilian interpretor who had worked on contract for nato

officials who carried out this attack. he hijacked the truck by force 30 minutes before mr. panetta landed. back to phone calls. this is pittsburgh, brandon, independent. good morning sir, you're on. caller: hey, how are you doing? my comment is just that we should have never been in these wars in the first place. they're unconstitutional. every time you turn around all you hear is more propaganda to go into another war. i don't understand how obama and the pentagon basically told congress that you know, it's not up to them if they decide war. that's an act of treason right there and he could be impeached for that. i don't know where everyone is getting off on trying to go overseas and policing other countries when we don't even have our finger on what's going on in our country. we can't even resolve the debt crisis. and i just think it's a little bit ridiculous that everybody always just wants to go to war

or try to find a way to stay in a country. we shouldn't be occupying them, you know. we wouldn't appreciate it if china was over here in bases, trying to tell us they're doing it for our own good, you know? that's my comment. thank you, have a nice day. host: thank you. the military town of jacksonville, north carolina. up next, arlene, democrat there. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: i have two things i believe i want to say. one is about the soldier in the base shootings. my sister was in the second tower hit. she didn't die. but other people did, she was injured. but, 15 seconds after it happened, we all knew in america who did it. what they look like, how they did it and all. the soldier that killed those people, we should know who did it, how he looks, why he did it.

they know why. the question is do we need to come out? and i don't really think that the media is telling us what's really going on. the government's trying to persuade us that it's possible that we'll come out. but karzai is working with the government. anything that he's supposed to say so we can say we're not going to run like scared rabbits. i think this is all propaganda. and i wish you a good morning, everybody. host: thank you arlene for your phone call. she talks about the shooting suspect. name still secret, military waiting until soldier is charged. he hasn't spoken but he has hired a lawyer from his home base in seattle. attorney john henry brown who had a press conference yesterday. brown said that until he can speak more with the soldier, he

cannot address reports that the man may have been drinking which is some of the words we've heard. they were moved for their safety to washington state where he was based. she is "totally shocked" about the allegations, he said. military officials have said they will not identify the soldier until he's formerly charged but legal experts say it's highly unusual for a suspect's name to be kept secret for so long. host: now, here's "u.s.a. today"'s story on that same press conference.

host: next caller on u.s. afghan policy and our agreed upon nato time table for draw down, 2013 and then 2014 for more complete. this is lose, republican in hot springs, california. you're on. caller: yes. i pray for my father with this man. my heart's heavy for him. i kind of feel what went through him, you know? and any man that has fought for his country knows fear. but when fear comes at you in a dress, and a skirt or hidden in another way, or to look like you or me you have to know what this

fear is. and so if you take your policeman, because that's what you're used to and you get a room with 20 people and four policemen and then you put four people in there with guns, now you don't know who these people are, they're going to start shooting sooner or later. and i shall show you what fear is. if you want to stop the killing, plead with the country, what this boy's been through. that's what the problem is. how do you crucify a hero in our terms? and so, stand down. if you want to exit out easily you can do it easily. you beg the people over there to forgive this man, because he has been killing way too long and tell him to let the people -- let our soldiers come home. tell them to put the guns down, quit killing them and bring them home. if the military won't bring them home, then maybe the people will bring them home. i don't care. and can i have your operator

again? because i'm trying to reach brian lamb -- i wish you wouldn't read so many papers, because the public knows how to read. host: thank you sir. we can't put you back on hold but you can call our offices if you would like to leave a message for brian. next call is jim, an independent in virginia. caller: good morning, thank you for c-span. i'm a retired marine of 24 years. and the point i want to talk about this morning is the issue over our withdrawal. to me, the military action has always been like the last step in the political process. politicians act to set the military in motion. and when i find the politicians asking the generals what should we do or what is victory, and the answer i hear the general say is we're not sure what victory is but we'll recognize

it when we see it. and when i hear people criticizing us announcing when we're going to leave afghanistan, i consider that a red hering as well. when we're going to leave is, it's fine when it's announced. it really makes no difference. how we do it is important so the safety and the soldiers and ma leans and everyone -- and the marines is insured as we depart. to stay over there with some since of inevityability is just wrong. the mission we went to afghanistan for in the first place has been met. it's time for us to come home. thank you for c-span. host: thanks for calling. up next is seattle. this is bob, a republican on the air. you're on the air, bob. caller: yeah, we got to get out of there.

this is ridiculous. it's costing so much money. it's not a place we need to be. you know? people are getting killed in a country that has no control over itself. anyway, that's my point. host: thank you bob, appreciate your point. from twitter this morning, ronald gums posts can we afford this war? and below that, if that soldier that killed 16 people in afghan were in black water he would get paid hush money. back to phone calls, up next is a call from north carolina. this is joseph, an independent. hi joseph, you're on. caller: good morning, susan. host: good morning. caller: despite this specifiesity of the issue this morning i would like to pose a general question to listeners.

i sure would like to hear some responses. we're talking about specifically afghanistan. ever since the state of israel has been created, we've been stuck in one or another quagmire in the middle east and the arab nations, et cetera. i wonder what other people think about the possibility of us simply focusing on our own hemisphere. i know we're so deep and so commonly used to nitpicking about war. and perhaps i'm oversimplying the issue. but it seems to me that our affiliation and our total and

unconditional support of israel is the total impotus with that hem steer. host: this is a question for you. what about the fact that a good portion of our oil, energy comes from that region of the world? how do we focus on our hone hemisphere if in fact it provides a strategic commodity? caller: of course this would be disasterous in a way. i do appreciate that fact. but there are so many ways around with that with the canada pipeline and with mexico. and with alaska. i'm not pro oil in any respect, but i also acknowledge that we are in need of oil and it would take a very long time for us to stop using it. nonetheless, we are always --

people do not like us. and really? why don't they like us. susan, they don't like us because of our unconditional support of israel. host: all right joseph, we're going to stop you at that point. speaking of oil, jack gerard, the president and c.e.o. of the american patroleum institute will be on. we're going to consider the conversation with david ignatius. he'll be here 7:45 eastern time to take your telephone calls. next up is milwaukee. this is mike who is a republican. mike, hi, you're on. good morning. caller: hi susan. and thank you for your show. i'm a retired ranger who actually just came back from afghanistan. i used to do the patrol from kabul and back once a week. it takes that long to go through the mountains. so when i hear people talking about their gas prices i'm insensed. there's a word that refers to their wife, their house, their

property. if you're in their harem it's forbid, but at the same time they can't kill you. but at the same time watching post at 3:00 in the morning they rush us with a.k.-47's. they're dressed just like us that are in country. you can't tell who's friend or foe. i'm not sticking up for this guy. but we got to quit persecuting our boys that we sent there to be killers anyway. everybody knows that we are all trained killers. that's what we do. so i'm not saying he should get off scot free but i don't want to avoid the issue. should people complain about their oil? of course. do we need to run the world? no. i think we need to bring our boys home. host: we have consolidated a couple of headlines from g.o.p. candidates on the campaign trail as they talk about their approach. we will summarize this position

on afghanistan. you take a look and we'll listen to staten island. this is lawrence, an independent there. caller: how you doing? host: good, thanks. caller: thanks for having me on. for too long, our boys have died, for nothing. and that is unnecessary. we shouldn't be having it. i think he deserves a pass. i think we should stay there. i think we should fight for what we're fighting for. thank you. host: thank you, next up salt lake city, utah. joe, republican. you're on the air. caller: yeah, i want to say first of all i think it's an outrage that people are apologizing to our enemies, a country that we went over there and defended. you know, you remember ali babin

and the 40 thieves. you can't trust an arab as far as you throw them. we're making a mistake. we need to establish our presence over there. we've done that. we either need to bomb them smitherens and get out of there. and the gas prices are a big hoax. if you go to lindsay williams, a preacher who has been with the oil executives. there's enough oil on the slope of alaska to power this country. we don't need their oil. we need to take over the refineries in this country, make theme united states gasoline and all they got to do is take a tanger from alaska, bring it down to san francisco, pump the oil into refineries here the gas would be $1.50 a gallon if the

united states government took over the oil refineries. there's no problem that we could do that. so it's all a big hoax, people are getting killed. one last point. the reason all this is happening, no leadership from the president of the united states, and hillary clinton who needs a hair cut who has no clue what it is to be a secretary of state has caused all this. this is lack of leadership. so, that's my point. and the american people need to put these people out, get some real americans running this country, get all these foreigners out of our country and let's take our country back. this is our country. host: joe, from salt lake city, utah. edwin christian on face bike writes this. actually the second time in history. we were forced out of vietnam in 1975. to make it look good we declared we won the war. those of us who were there know better. a similar scene was struck in the pages of "pennsylvania times" obama's afghan failure

and below that, fire up the helicopters. host: next up is baltimore, donna. a democrat there. caller: good morning. i know you carry the congress right after your show, and if i'm not mistaken last friday, it wasn't five minutes after you went off the air that they had the short speeches by the congressmen.

and they never pubized this, and i can't remember which state he was from. but he was talking about an incident where we're training the afghan police or army or whatever. and these two marines were training, these three afghanistan army or police, or whatever they're training over there. and they had been training them for weeks. they sat down and ate dinner together. they went to bed. and one of them got up and shot the two marines. why isn't that being publicized. it was just a two minute speech last friday. on your channel. host: donna, i actually think if you do a search on the internet you will find more coverage of the story. it really was covered at the time. caller: ok, well i normally watch, just watch tv. why isn't that with this other story and show why they are going insane over there? host: in fact a couple of our

earlier callers i think referenced that incident. from twitter -- next is a call from arizona. michael, republican. hi michael. caller: hi, good morning susan. interesting conversation. following afghan pullout scenario, i see nothing wrong per say with just giving a timeline, we're going to be out in a year, year and a half. whether the cal pan is sitting back and taking advantage of that or not is really beside the point. the point is it has the united states security force there capable of handling the taliban, more or less on an equal basis. once the taliban recognizes that, pretty much the situation

is over as far as internal afghanistan goes and of course all of the insanity of discussions and perhaps even everybody getting together with some kind of understanding about what kind of government they're going to have. but with the united states presence there, all of that you can forget about it because it's not going to happen. especially with an incident like the sergeant that killed 26 civil yans. where ever we handle that, the rest of the world, and especially in afghanistan is not going to ever look at that as some kind of oh, poor mistaken, drunken soldier or something. it just won't fly. we make our bed. bet on rearming some more or less neutral security force to

afghanistan. make our bed and get out. have a good one, susan. host: thanks so much, michael. you to. we have about 15 more minutes left in this discussion. going to continue to listen to your calls, read your tweets, read your facebook comments but also want to mix in a few other stories. one of those is being reported by our next guest on the line with us, who writes for politico, about the ted stevens trial. it has been requested, a report by the special investigator and the headline on the story reports blast stevens prosecutors. what are the details about this? what should people know about the inquirery into senator stevens trial? and then we'll take it from there about what's next. caller: well, this is a report by special prosecutor henry, he was appointed by the court, a

federal judge here in washington who oversaw the corruption trial of the late senator ted stevens in 2008. that is senator stevens was convicted of failing to report some improper gifts more than $250,000 worth of gift. he lost his re-election that year. in the following spring -- well, after the conviction there started, there was an fi agent came forward and said prosecutors failed to provide evidence to stevens defense attorney. they would have called in the validity of the case. the attorney general eric holder in early 2009 asked to have the convictions set aside. a naturally stunning development. and the judge agreed to do that. and then he appointed this

gentleman to lead this investigation. i mean, we knew basically the outlines of the findings since last november. and we knew that there were major, major problems inside the prosecution over the steens case. i think what was stunning yesterday and yesterday's development is when you go through the report, it's a lengthy report. it's over 500 pages. then there's responses from the prosecutors. and so the folks involved in the case from the justice department side, which also is a lengthy response is just stunning that actually how much was held. how there were serious, serious doubts within the justice department, where there should have been more serious doubts about the case against stevens. and folks knew for a long time that there were senior justice

department officials knew for a long time how suspect parts of the case were against the late senator. host: there was a suspected suicide among the prosecution team. also the effects on the steven's family and those around him. on top of that, have you ever seen any estimates about how much it cost for the federal government to map this prosecution? caller: oh, it was millions of dollars. it's hard to overstate how important the case was. ted stevens was the longest serving republican in senate history. he was a legendary figure. he was dedicated to alaska, gruff, his job was he sought to

bring federal dollars to alaska and he was unapologetic. a powerful man inside the senate. it's hard to overstate how important that case was. and the thing was that they had raided steven's home in 2007 more than a year before he was indicted. they had a long time to look at this case. and it was a huge conviction. at the time it was seen as a huge victory for the justice department. now years later it's still a political issue. you have some of steven's former colleagues still barbing justice department -- bashing the justice department. it shattered morale at the public integrity section which is this unit that prosecutes, investigates, prosecutes corrupt public officials. it's still playing out. they have pulled back from some

cases that prior to the stevens case you would think you had gone after against the allegations against former senator john anson. they're still looking at it. but before the stevens case, and what happened here, the shocking developments here you would have thought they would have gone after them in other cases. so it's still playing out. there's still legislation on this trying to change standards. so, the fall out of this is still stunning. i think with the surprising thing, when you look at how strong this special prosecutor was. the other part is, everybody inside the justice department were pointing fingers at each other. junior prosecutors of the case, some of whom are being blamed for the bulk of what happened. the bosses are saying it was these guys. nobody wants to take

responsibility from it. it's surprising to me how much finger pointing and then -- he takes after some of these guys. he was interviewing, he interviewed everybody involved. they're all blaming each other and there are certain points where there's five or six of them in the room discussing things about the case that later came out. now none of them can recall what happened. it's kind of stunning. host: well, let me jump in john. it's a complex story. obviously hard to do justice in a couple of minutes on the phone here. but i would suggest to people that they read your story. lots of reporting. major piece in the "washington post" on it today. you were there for so much of the trial. are you thinking of give -- maybe a book coming out on the

case? >> i don't know, i'm sure there will be -- host: not from you though? caller: i don't know, we'll see. i think it would be fascinating to do so. i would hope somebody does it. i'm not sure i'll be the guy that does it. but it would be interesting to go through and talk to all these people. again, for your viewers, i mean it's important that issues like this get explored in depth. we need the justice department. we need them to police congress and powerful officials. but they have to do so in a responsible way. the line is very difficult to achieve, and i think in this case it's clear that the goal became more important than actual justice. i think that's a shame for democracy. lope let me jump in at this point with a thank you very much. giving us some of the details

involved in a very lengthy report from a special prosecutor in the stevens case, with the headlines on finding major misconduct by the justice department. the prosecution team in the ted stevens case. again we encourage you to read more about it. john bresnahan broke the story on the phone. so thanks so much john bresnahan. caller: thanks for having me. host: mr. bresnahan mentioned things are coming out. a long time friend of the senator has introduced what she considers major bipartisan standards. we're going to return to our topic with you this morning which is about u.s. policy in afghanistan. a few more minutes left, but we're going to continue the conversation with our next guest of the morning as well. so let ees hear from la grange,

georgia, charlie is a democrat. good morning charlie, you're on the air. caller: good morning. i'm reminded, he told us a long time ago when he came to look at america, america's greatness, and he concluded by saying america's great. but america was great because america is good. but when america is no longer good, it will no longer be great. i think we're getting there now because our goodness is gone, and we're going on these repet tive wars. i'm a rhett van, i retired after 30 years in the war. i was in vietnam. i only had one tour in vietnam, i was thinking about another. but there's no way in the world we can send people over and over to do these repetative tours

without getting the damage we've got, you know? i think the answer is we need to have the draft again. when people got into the game, they're not so quick to go to war in places we know nothing about. host: thank you. from facebook -- next is colleen, texas. he willo to dorothy who's an independent there. caller: hello. i'm not sure, are we still talking about afghanistan? host: we sure are. caller: of course, i'm for the pull out, of course. and not only pull out gradually, but cold turkey. out of afghanistan.

that is just necessary. first of all, we're confused afghanistan with oil. afghanistan and oil just doesn't seem to me has nothing to do with each other. afghanistan and terrorism, yes. but, we can handle, we know by now how we got bin laden, how we got a lot of other terrorists. we know by now there's another way that we can get these people without having boots on the ground. and the media who accused the sergeant that he may kill somebody because of alcohol or family problems is just totally outlandish. because all of our -- we all have family problems, and we don't go out and kill people. the man had three rotations in

iraq. i have a son in afghanistan who's been there for four years. he's a contractor though. different situation. he likes it in afghanistan. [laughter] host: we'll leave it at that point. preerblet your call. yesterday was considered by many watchers the official start of the obama re-election campaign. the vice president out on the road, as well as the president up in maryland. "washington post" has the story about vice president, every man find his roots. in addition to the vice president's campaigning, which he'll be visiting a number of swing states, last night the obama administration also released a 17 minute video. it is available on youtube if you're interested. they did a week of p.r. leading up to the release of the video, which is called the road less traveled. you see the youtube page there. it is narrated by tom hanks. next is a call from beaver

falls, pennsylvania. mandel, is that correct? caller: hey, good morning season. well, i'm for the pullout in afghanistan. i think the politicians in washington, when they get on tv and just smile and laugh like everything's all right, and bicker back and forth with each other. young men and women dying out here. we need to get out of the war. it's a waste of our time and resources. i pray to god that obama makes that decision real soon. host: ok, thank you so much for your call. in our last open phone discussion, mickey watching us in uma, arizona. go ahead mickey. caller: yes, what's happening in afghanistan has gotten too old. i was over there in the early 1960's. they didn't like us then, they don't like us now. we ought to leave, get out, let

them keep their stuff in their country. host: okay, ok, thanks for your call. we'll continue this discussion with david ignatius, the foreign follow si correspondent for "washington post." we'll be talking about syria and iran where there are continuing developments. but, domestic issue as we take our break here, virginia's attorney general, he was the person responsible for leading virginia's challenge to the health care law. the court did not take up virginia's case. in fact, it decided to review a coalition of 26 states. but their issues are the same. he was our guest on this week's "newsmaker" program. it will air on sunday morning at 10:00 a.m. here's what mr. cuccinelli had

to say about the health care law and the g.o.p. primary. >> the race is now down to two people effective, though ron paul and newt gingrich can affect it. one of them has been an advocate and now seen at the national level he was writing in favor of a national mandate, versus santorum, obviously, who has not. and in 20 105 i'll tell you just in virginia, we went from 6-5 democrat republican delegation to 8-3 republican. the health care case had a huge amount to do with that. it is the biggest political club of 2010. and the republicans picked up more seats than, fill in the years, it's been a long, long time. and one thing that people voting , they are deciding whether to give up that issue. for romney to get out and say i repeel it is fine, and i believe

him. but it doesn't have the power politically to motivate people to vote or volunteer that someone who has been a permanent opponent does. you're effectively giving that issue up if you select romney as the nominee. we may be doing that. we may end up doing that. the economy offers plenty more to talk about and that's been his focus. but i do think this issue plays a big role in that and santorum right now is leveraging it best he can. >> do you agree with santorum? he accuses romney of supporting the federal mandate do you think romney supporting the federal mandate as santorum said? >> if what i read is correct, yes. it was the model for the national version. i don't think that's a secret to anybody. he, romney, correctly distinguishes between the constitutional aspect versus the federal level. but if what i've seen surface

recently is accurate he supported it at the national level as well. and like newt gingrich, i have a problem with that. host: our first guest of the morning at the table here, david ignatius who writes and thinks about american foreign policy from his perch at the "washington post." he's also written a couple of interesting novels about similar issues. thank you for being here. we've been talking about all the developments in u.s. and afghanistan. you've been a spotter of the nato -- you've been a supporter of the nato strategy. does this week's events change your thinking thabeet at all? guest: well, we'll have to see. for the moment i think that we have a time table that we worked on, debated with our nato allies going back to a summit meeting in portugal a year or so ago. and that calls for a fazed withdrawal, calls for all the

nato troops essentially to be gone by the end of 2014. and for u.s. and nato troops to end their lead combat role, turn over the basic security in the country by the middle of next year. it may be that the announcements this week, especially by president karzai urging that sometime next year, it wasn't clear when, u.s. forces and all nato forces should stay on bases, pull out of the country side. the question obviously is whether afghan forces are ready to take over full responsibility, i think. if they are, they really can keep the country side stable. nobody would be happier to see that happen. our commander in kabul, general

john allen, if they're not ready, i have a feeling that president karzai, whose continued term as president depends on the stability of the country. he would probably defer it to the end of the year. i think that would work for the united states for sure. host: when you read through all of the secondary reporting on this, people who are quoted even in countries saying that once he faces the reality of what this means, he'll be pulling back from his demands, others saying he has a history of making very inflammatory demands and pulling away from them. what have we learned about his possibility as a leader? >> we've learned that president karzai is a very erratic, emotional leader that you have to be patient. you have to understand that what he says a week from now, a month from now, may not be exactly the

same as he's saying today. we find that from political leaders where. he's not unique in that regard. i think the core issue that the u.s. should be focusing on, i hope karzai is focusing on, is how is this country going to remain stable enough after with withdrawal of most american forces which is coming. there's no question about that. we're on our way out. how is the country going to remain stable enough to avoid a civil war? afghanistan has known just a hideous 30 years of war. it's a country that's been pounded in every corner. when i travel to afghanistan i have a lot, what you see is a terribly poor country that is visibly suffering these wounds of war. so, the last thing that anybody, especially president karzai should want is to set up conditions, kind of power vacuum

out of the country side. that's been the worry at the core of the u.s. strategy there, how do we build up the afghan forces enough, just good enough that they can handle. that's what people are struggling to explore, trying to keep talking u.s. to afghan's, even with these terrible instances like the burning of the koran and the massacre last weekend. host: there are so many countries that we could talk about here, much going on in the region, egypt, obviously, syria, iran and iraq. we're going to focus our initial conversation on syria and iran and afghanistan. you have questions for other countries in the region, david ignatius can take a stab at those. we welcome your participation. put the numbers on the screen. or you can comment on twitter or email us. all the addresses will be demonstrated on the screen as

our conversation continues. how many times have you been to afghanistan? guest: i haven't made an exact count. at least a dozen. host: if people at home are asking just the seminal question what does the u.s. and nato get for 10 years of investment of blood and treasure in that country, what would you say? guest: i would say in terms of the core goal that we set when u.s. forces first entered in 2001, after the attack on our u.s. world trade center and pentagon, what we got was a basic destruction of al qaeda's base in afghanistan. they flood across the borders. they have been attacking them there with mostly drone aircraft. slowly tracking those al qaeda

fugitives down, killing bin laden, as we remember from may 2. you could argue that that's been pretty successful. it was a broader goal of reversing the momentum of the taliban, which would seem to be sole problem of the country, even after they were powered by u.s. forces and their afghan allies in that 2001 campaign. that's gone less well. we still have to see precisely what the situation is and the key battle provinces in the south. and in the east, near the area where is so-called hakani network is based.

the strategy the u.s. had we called counter insurgency. bring in good governments, was a basic building strategy. that's had mixed results, i think we have to be honest. the afghan officials have not provided the kind of good government that keeps people comfortable with where they are and that enhances security. in many areas, the taliban forces have been driven out. afghans will tell people like me when we come visit that the taliban are not popular, there are some polling of afghans that says that that's true. they're viewed in many areas as just tough, tough people who make life more difficult. so the question, as u.s. forces begin to pull out of these areas where they surged last year, what will security be like?

will taliban spring back in. will they gain control of this district to the west of can door har, where the terrible mass car took place. now that's what all our commanders are watching, watching it week bye week and we'll have to see. host: well our phones are all lit up just with this topic. connecticut is on the air, a republican there, good morning jean. caller: good morning. i just mostly have a comment. i wonder how mr. ignatius would feel if he were one of the last people in afghanistan because what's going to happen there, the taliban is doing to take the country over. everybody knows it. all the people, because of the timed withdrawal, all the people there are taking their sides now. and you know most of the people are going to be atrade of the

taliban, afraid of losing their heads. so they're going to go with the taliban. they're scrambling for that right now. how would you like to be the last one there? you would lose your head. but we don't think anything of sending over people and leaving them knowing that we're going to pull out in 2014. that's all i have to say. host: thank you. guest: well, the caller raises a couple of good questions. the first that i would focus on is this question of whether the taliban will take over. my own guess is if you're looking for a bad outcome, to be a pessimist, which sure is easy gwynn that country's history. what you expect is not a takeover by the taliban but a civil war and a partition. and there are many ethnic groups

that makeup afghanistan, who will already beginning to stockpile the weapons, prepare to defend their regions to make sure that the taliban don't take control. so i think that's the thing to worry about more, is a splintering, a civil war in a country that results in partition. on the question of being the last person there, one thing the u.s. is pretty good at is forced protection. i don't know anybody who cares more about the security of soldiers than their senior officers. an idea we would leave the last man standing undefended, unable to protect himself, i don't see that happening. host: the topic, titled how to end the afghan mission, and we welcome you to find him on the "pennsylvania post" website. next call, david is a democrat

there. good morning, david, you're on. caller: good morning. just a question for mr. ignatius who appears to be very thoughtful and reflective man. just was wondering if to consider the counters factal so to speak, if after 9/11 we had characterized it as a criminal act, and involved the f.b.i., and in terms of securing the country from terrorism, and also engage the c.i.a. in terms of counter, you know gathering intelligence for terrorism that may be brewing abroad and never gone to war, just never gone to war in afghanistan, or iraq and taken a completely different route, would we be in a better position now?guest: i think it y possible that we would be in a better position. you have raised one of the most

important lessons in this 10 years of war, which is american power, in a funny way, is more powerful when it is at our side. when the gun is in the holster -- when we begin shooting, begin these wars with hundreds of thousands of u.s. troops, what has struck people overseas is how difficult it is to achieve our aims. i come to think, as i think the caller has, that a smaller, lighter footprint of forces, paramilitary forces operated by special forces command, perhaps the cia, would be a better answer with dealing with insurgencies and supporting friends of the united states.

that view is widely shared in our government. you would be surprised at how the generals who have done the heaviest work in this fighting, they are not enthusiastic about more wars in the model of the iraq and death in a stand. they understand the cost -- and afghanistan. they understand the cost. host: i will move on to iran, and a recent column. since you are arguing for sanctions, a global network expels as much as 30 banks. a global network called swift, which announced thursday it is crippling institutions ability.

it is the first time the consortium based in belgium has taken such a step. how important was this? guest: this was a big story because swift, which is like the world's financial central nervous system, if they cut you off, your ability to transact basic business becomes much, much harder. you have to plug into other remote outlets, if you can. you can see if you can finance transactions through turkey, other neighbors, and that is when the u.s. will be exerting influence on those countries not to help. this is one more step to say to iran their current course is not

supported by the world community. what i argued in the article you mention is that i think a military attack on iran by israel or the united states would be a mistake and produced the opposite result that we desired. it would probably rally the iranian people behind a regime that is not popular. i worry that it also might deflect the course of what we call the arabs spring, so it becomes more militant, more anti-western than it is. i think sanctions, which we often laughed at present ineffective policy, in this case seem to be working in the currency has lost more than half of its value in the last few

months. these sanctions will increase that value, and i would be amazed if they did not have some effect on iranian policy. host: we keep hearing more threatening statements from western leaders and israel about military action. with the prime minister visit wednesday, the president describes a window of diplomatic approaches closing. let's listen to him, and then talk about whether this is strategy or it is becoming an inevitability. [video clip] >> i have sent a message directly to them publicly that they need to see this opportunity of negotiations to avert even worse consequences for iran in the future. do i have a guarantee that iran will walk through this door?

no. in the past, there has been a tendency for iran in these negotiations to late, -- de lait, stock, do a lot of talking, but not move the ball forward. i think they should understand that the cuts that the sanctions, they are because we have deployed so many options available to us. the window for solving this issue diplomatically is shrinking. >> what do you think is -- host: what you think is going on? are we waiting a big stick, or are we on the verge of military

action? guest: you do not know until the state comes down, but i do not think that president obama wants to go to war with iran, and he hopes this increasing pressure of sanctions and other unstated sanctions that might be at work will convince the iranians to alter their course and allows some negotiated settlement. he feels that our country is fed up with war after 10 years and does not want to jump into another one. it has been very interesting to watch president obama tried to make a convincing enough threats that he is prepared to use military action to get the israelis to back off of their view that action may be

necessary, and also to convince iran to come into negotiations. it is a three-way the game of chicken. i have been to tehran. almost on every street corner, you have almost have an accident. usually these cars come rushing at each other, and then one has to negotiate the passing. we are all involved in a game of chicken at this intersection. i think people in washington do worry that over the next few months war is a possibility. host: matt is in annapolis watching us. an independent. on the air. caller: my concern is the

future infgni. brother in the ay that is deploying in the next couple of months, and he has stressed that some of the under officers -- younger officers are not ready, but seniors are pushing deployment. what is to prevent things that happen in afghanistan from happening in the future? guest: ben -- that is a great question. everyone listening feels for your brother going out and another deployment. we have retired army. that is not to say that it is not still fighting at a high level in maintaining good discipline, but we see incidents in afghanistan that show that people are doing things that

well-disciplined soldiers should not be. urinating of the dead, the 30- year-old staff sgt that left his base and started shooting civilians -- and no the army has in place a system to encourage people to talk about the stresses. your brother, and all of the brave soldiers heading off on new deployments, can count, i think, and better help from the military from their officers in dealing with the kinds of problems that arise in these stressful combat situations. what all of this reinforces for all of us, especially those serving, it is it would be great

to get forces back home now. host: albany, kansas. thomas is a republican. caller: i am from albany, ky. my name is thomas. we're talking about afghanistan. i see them committing crimes of passion instead of power and greed. sanctions really to work, but also reward of democracy does work. i would like to see as -- see us come together with some kind of outline to the standards of the democracy of the world. if we had some kind of outline for people to read and to understand and to live by, not

to kill, not to create crime -- we are up against people better committing crimes of passion, not crimes of greed. we need to grow from there. host: thank you. guest: well, you do see a lot of greed in afghanistan as well, but what i found is there is a yearning among the afghan people after these three decades of war for the rule of law, a sense of justice in their villages. when i was left in afghanistan, in june of last year, i traveled to a city in the far eastern edge of the country, almost to pakistan, and i went with a general who was running something he called the rule of

law field force. general martin showed me a map of the districts in afghanistan that do not have judges or prosecutors, and then he showed me a map of the districts where the taliban was strong, and guess what? it was the same map. where there is no justice, the taliban comes in and provides it. there is a demand by the people to arbitrate all the disputes that come up. so, general martin has been trying to recruit good judges and prosecutors to go into these areas. that is the kind of program i wish we had been doing all long time ago, and i hope we keep doing it even as combat troops are reduced because it gets to the problem the caller is talking about. what does afghanistan need?

it is not going to be switzerland, but if you could get basic judges to solve disputes, you would do better. host: indiana. steve. a democrat there. caller: we should have never been in afghanistan, iraq, and we need to tell israel to live iran alone because they are the ones causing all of the problems for us. guest: well, first, i guess i have come to agree that the invasion of iraq was a mistake. at the time, i thought it was justified, as a lot of people did, but it's in the costs and benefits it is hard to come -- but seeing the costs and benefits, it is hard to come to

that conclusion. if you go back to 2001, most americans had the feeling that we had to take the fight to the people that had done this. it is hard to think that we would not have gone into afghanistan. the question is how hard, how long, and i have been -- as i said earlier, i have learned that smaller footprint makes sense. in terms of israel and iran, it is clear president obama and most officials and commanders think it would be a mistake for israel to attack iran and trigger another war that is not as useful as it should be in dealing with the iranian nuclear problem and has enormous consequences that could catch us up in a big, complicated war all over again.

host: help us understand what the significance of and done it -- ahmadinejad being made to answer questions from religious leaders. guest: one reason i think military action is a mistake now is the military -- the political system is a train wreck. difference dubliners -- different governors are accusing each other of witchcraft, believe it or not. ahmadinejad is a willful, strong headed person that wants to run the government. it is a system divided among itself. as the problem of sanctions

deepens, iranians, who are sophisticated people, a rich culture that could be a very modern country, and as some point i think iranians will say enough. this divided government is not serving our interests, and a worsened economic situation is not acceptable. when that will be and how this will play out, and nobody knows. i am struck by this board -- disorder in iran. host: ahmadinejad is the face of around for most of us. how long will he be in power? guest: there will be a presidential election in 2013. one question is to the spiritual leader will back because he is a

powerful figure, and how open those elections will be. said lee, what we have some -- said lee, what we have seen in iran, it is more of the ayatollah's have turned the screws. they will not allow many candidates to run. if a candidate they fear is doing well, they will take away his votes it seems. so, the democratic opportunities iranians had are less, but they are still there, they will have the elections, will elect a new president, and there will be a lot of jockeying to see who is the candidate. host: the strategy behind sanctions -- they heard their rank-and-file populace. is the idea to have them become

so frustrated that they will rise up? guest: it is not described as a policy for reaching change, but the more i have thought about it, you have to be honest. if you cut the country off from the central nervous system, swift, essentially an act an embargo so the country can not sell its most important product, oil, and that will happen in the middle of this year, you are creating a situation that almost inevitably will have political repercussions. is this just and up hurting ordinary iranians and leaves the leadership intact, the opposite will happen. host: steve.

caller: your object to the is legendary. my question deals with afghanistan. i feel it is almost a taboo subject. opium. it is reported that the leader is an opium addict, and it is a fact that his brother is a super-rich heroin dealer, and afghanistan it is living in many regards in the 15th century. i want to know if you agree with that and any solution must deal with the opium trade or i am all wrong of of the. i am "trichet i'm also worried about women being brutalized -- i am also worried about women being brutalized after we go. i'm a great admirer. i will take your response offline.

guest: those are powerful questions. i have flown over opium and poppy fields mile after mile and just watched as people harvested those copies. sometimes there are a few hundred yards from nato forces. there is no question the opium trade has been an important source of revenue for the taliban and corrupt warlords who are almost as bad as the taliban. this base of narcotics trafficking in afghanistan is part of why some people fear we have been dealing with a criminal state, a criminal enterprise that is so rotten with corruption that it will not provide good governance for the people. is afghanistan the 15th century country? i do not think so. one of the things that struck

me was that as a court edit -- as it is, it is being transformed by modern communications. everyone has a cell phone. there are wonderful afghan television stations. i have a friend runs one of them, and he was dubbing sesame street. they have police shows chasing drug dealers and the taliban. when you think about afghanistan, think about a country that in large parts wants to become modern. they have their own version of "american idol" in a country where the taliban bled at -- band singing.

the rights of women, the ability for girls to go to school, it changes the have happened are wonderful. anyone who goes there is sick at the thought that you turned back towards a world where women's rights were deprived. i just read and wrote about an interview with a top taliban leader, who responding to public pressure said if we come back to more powerful positions we will not close women's schools. we understand girls should have education, etc. host: chris in new haven, connecticut. caller: my interest in iran goes back a long way. i saw pictures of my mother's system -- sister at their royal table of the shaw when my

cousin worked for him, and we promised the shop five nuclear power plants. -- the shaw five nuclear power plants. if we gave the nuclear power plants to the iranians it would take nuclear weapons off the table, and why i oppose nuclear proliferation, i think it would be better for them to have a fukushima over there than for us to store nuclear waste over here. i just wonder why you think about all of that. host: thank you. guest: you raced two good points. first, it was the u.s. that got the ball rolling on nuclear iran by fostering a nuclear program. the shaw had hoped the s he

moved down that road he would at some point -- that as he moved down that road he would be able to build nuclear weapons at some point. iran, like many countries does want to have nuclear power as a symbol of being a modern state. the program is popular in iran. the question for me is is there a formula that allows iran to be a nuclear power state with its own nuclear industry, as most countries do, without being a nuclear weapons state? it is still signed on for that kind of deal, and allows inspection of facilities to verify that it is playing by the rules. we think that there have been some real bricks from those rules. that is one of the reasons the

u.n. has sanctioned them repeatedly, but if you could come up with a deal where the world would be comfortable it was a power program, not a weapons program, that may satisfy iran's your name to be modern without scaring everybody else. host: we will put some video on the screen of a government- supported rally in syria there for the regime. people are on the streets, apparently encouraged by damascus to do that, and "the washington post" argues this morning there are a range of options including enforcing no- flight zones, setting up corridors, etc., and says if we stand on the sidelines, worst case scenarios are more likely

to result. do you agree with him? guest: i do not agree with the west part. -- the last part. syria is a tough problem for this administration, and for anyone like you or me who wants to figure out what the right policy is. the syrian loss of life is really grim. we now have well over 6000 people that have been killed. we have the insurgent stronghold in homs that has been overrun. we have had a terrible humanitarian situation. the regime of massad -- of president assad has been very unpopular around the world. the problem is the opposition still has a red tag force.

it calls itself a free syrian army, but as a friend told me the only thing in that statement that is true is syrian. it is not an army, and it will not free the country. to save the country, you're talking about foreign military forces ceiling that army off. i do not think the u.s. should do that. u.s. expeditionary forces in the moslem countries -- we have had enough of that. it is conceivable we could assist regional powers like turkey, the northern neighbor of syria or saudi arabia on the soft, it is the -- on the south, if they feel strongly and they make that decision and ask

for help, we should rethink it. this is one of those situations where you may desire to help civilians and reduce civilian loss of life, the united states with a hasty decision that is not brought -- thought through -- where will you train these civilians? if you do it wrong, you will get a lot more civilians killed, so the death toll rises from under 10,000, to some multiple. wars in this world can spread like wildfire. hi, the lebanese civil war. by some counts 100,000 people were killed by did not want to see that happen in -- and i do not want to see that happen in syria. host: ginger, what is your question? caller: i want to take care of

the usa. the border is a mess. our people are crying out? -- our people are crying out. what can we do? what can be done? guest: president obama often says we need nation-building at home, and the best thing i see is the u.s. economy starting beginning -- finally beginning to get muscle tone, and investors finally adding extra cash to build a new plant. so, as economic activity in the u.s. begins to pick up, i think we will feel better about things as we begin to go back to work, and this terrible feeling that we are fighting wars

overseas while we are struggling at home, if the economy keeps improving, we will not feel that as much. host: david ignatius's columns are available on "the washington post." he has also authored many books. thank you for being with us. out next, a guest from the american petroleum institute, jack gerard, to give us the industry perspective on why prices are rising at the pump. we will be right back. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> i was quite a radical as a young person, and i was the one

dead -- that singing "we shall overcome" was not an effective way of gaining civil rights, and i thought more confrontation was needed. >> economics professor, columnist, and substitute post for rush limbaugh, walter williams on being a radical. >> i believe a radical who believes in -- i believe a radical is any person that believes in limited government, and i've always been a person that believes people should not interfere with me, i should be able to do my own thing. >> more with walter williams sunday night on c-span's "q&a." >> they would wear garments with homespun cloth.

by wearing this, women were visibly and physically displaying their political sentiments. >> sunday night, rose marie zagarri in the -- on the role of women in the revolutionary war. >> the support from with -- from where this movement originated, gives us an excellent base to go to court on november the fifth with, and we will in my judgment go forward with at least the 107 elect toro votes, and when you couple that with just a few rich elect or zero votes, and when you couple that with just a few at -- when you couple that with a few electoral

votes, you have enough to maintain the presidency. >> we look at the 14 men and then -- that when -- ran for president and had a lasting effect on american politics. >> there has been contention, disagreement, and considerable arguments. do not let anybody be misled by that. you have given here in this hall a molding and dramatic proof of how americans who honestly do differ will move forward for the nation's well- being, shoulder-to-shoulder. >> "washington journal" continues. host: next, meet jack gerard,

president and ceo of the american petroleum institute. "usa today" gas prices could top $4 before leveling. will you give us the industry perspective on why prices at the pump are going up? guest: there are a lot of variables that influence the price of gasoline, but the number one variable is the cost of crude oil. close to 80% of the cost of gasoline is determined by the cost of crude oil. crude oil is traded on a global basis, and today a number of factors are putting upward pressure on it, like the unrest in the middle east, and increasing demand in china and india and places like that. from the u.s. perspective, we believe the greatest role we play is bringing more supply to the marketplace to put downward pressure on the price by adding additional crude oil to the marketplace.

we believe there is an answer on the part of the united states government, and that is to get involved with more production here at home. >> this week, when prime minister david cameron came to the united states, there was a discussion about tapping strategic petroleum reserves. do you support that in the short term? guest: is interesting, because talking about capping the strategic -- tapping the strategic petroleum reserve acknowledges that if we put more supply in the marketplace it will have a downward impact. we stand on the strategic petroleum reserve, where we have billions of barrels of oil kept off limits by governmental policy. they were originally designed for major disruptions on a global basis.

it is really a political decision on whether it should be released, but underlying economics remind us that more supply to the marketplace will put downward pressure on crude oil prices, thus downward pressure on gasoline prices. we think we should look to the petroleum reserve we have come up produce more american energy by americans, for americans. host: the president has been thinking a lot about energy prices. here is "the baltimore sun" from his trip yesterday. let's listen to what he was saying. [video clip] >> we have more oil rigs operating now than ever. that is a fact. we have approved dozens of new pipelines to move oil across the country. we announced our support for a new one in oklahoma that will help get more oil down two refineries on the gulf coast.

over the last three years, my administration has opened millions of acres of land in 23 different states for oil and gas exploration. [applause] >> offshore, i have directed my administration to open up more than 75% of our potential oil resources, and that includes an area in the gulf of mexico that could produce more than 400 million barrels of oil. do not tell me that we are not drilling. we are drilling all over this country. [applause] host: mr. gerard, let me pair that with this headline -- host: what is your criticism? guest: the president has taken an interest as the price of

gasoline has begun to rise, but the fundamentals of the united states our oil production on federal lands is down here in the united states. leasing, permitting, the number of wells on federal lands, the area the president has control over, it is down significantly in the united states. the president has the tendency to selectively use the fact that he thinks helps to make his point that production is up, but it is only up because of governors on state land and private land, but in the areas the president controls, he has placed 87% off limits. if we want to develop our own resources, clearly the administration's policy has failed because they have locked up resources. they have restricted our ability to produce oil and natural gas on the nation's land. host: here is a paragraph in the

story. a spokesman for the answer department says oil production on federal land has increased 13% since 2006 and natural gas production has risen 6% in the same time. guest: what is important to remember is when you look at the president's activity, it takes roughly three years from the point of securing a lease on federal land to the point of production. in the first year or so of the administration, we were living on leasing and production coming on line as a result of the previous the administration. here-over-year, just yesterday, part of the current administration came out and made clear that oil production on federal lands in the united states is down 14% year-over- year. natural gas production on federal lands is down 11% year-

over-year. where the statements of the president are misleading is private land, and state land, with the president does not have control, production and there is up significantly. the president wants to take credit for what the industry has done, but he does not want the american people to know that the areas he has control over his putting restrictions on. host: we welcome your phone calls and you can send us an e- mail or a tweet. newt gingrich keeps talking about the possibility of two dollars and 50 cents a gallon of gas, and put out a brand new at this morning. let's listen to what he is saying. [video clip] >> it means anyone who tells you we can drill our way out of this problem does not know what they're talking about or just is

not telling you the truth. >> if you would like to have national energy policy, never bowed to a saudi king, and pay 2.50 a gallon gas, newt gingrich is your candidate. host: what you think about that? guest: what the speaker is talking about those that we -- is those that we import oil from today. i think it is interesting that the demonstration has called on saudi arabia to increase production to put downward pressure on prices. the fundamental question is where do we get our energy from? do we want to continue to rely on other sources, or do we want to take advantage of the best

resource we have in the united states? -- vast resources we have in the united states? with speaker gingrich is trying to point out is we could produce more in the united states. the president seems to suggest a drill policy is a failed policy. it has been talked about for 30- to-sell 40 years. we should look to develop more of our resources. in north dakota we found vast resources of oil. just last week, north dakota surpassed california as the number 3 oil producer in the united states. the unemployment rate is 3.3%. the median income is $90,000 a year per job. the median income for all other jobs is $45,000 a year in the state. we have high-school graduates in north dakota making twice as much as their parents make. that is a good sign.

we need to take that model in north dakota and say let's develop our own domestic resources and push them across the country. host: a number of interesting statistics in the papers today. in "the wall street journal" and yet "the washington post." paul krugman writes about it this morning with the headline "natural born drillers." robert, maryland. a democrat. good morning. caller: i would like to ask the gentleman that if federal production of oil was a loud, who would control -- was allowed, who would control that? will you take the oil and still

charges whatever you want to charges, or with the government control leases to the extent where the american people would get a break? domestic oil production in the united states, what happens to it? is it sold overseas? is it given to the american people on a reduced rate? guest: great questions. the leasing in the united states is entirely controlled on federal lands by the federal government. in other words, the government does not know where their resources are, so they make land available, and we as industry risk our capital and try to find oil and gas in those areas. we pay millions of dollars for the right to go look. once we find something we pay the government about 18% royalty for all that is produced all -- off of that land. if today, the u.s. oil and gas industry contributes $86 billion

a day to the federal treasury in the form of taxes, rose to payments, and other things. that is -- royalty payments and other things. that is controlled by the federal government. it is a highly-regulated activity controlled by federal and, in some cases, state law. when we produce in the united states is by and large consumed in the medicis. we're still a net importer -- in the united states. we are still a net importer of crude oil. host: the next question comes from sam, ill., republican. caller: good morning, mr. gerard. i have a question no one seems able to answer. he said that guests at the pump price is reflective of the price of a barrel of oil.

in 2008, it was $145 a barrel, and gas was $4. now is $105 a barrel, and guess is $4. your barrel of oil is losing out on $40 a barrel. why would they cheat themselves? guest: if you take a look the price of crude oil and the way it moves in the global marketplace you can almost tract directly the cost of gasoline. about 80% of the cost is tied directly to the cost of crude oil. the other big component is state and federal taxes, which is equal to about 50 cents an each gallon of gasoline. put those two items together, and you are well over $3 currently before you even get to refining, marketing, transporting, distribution, etc.

that is what we do as an industry. you see the impact on the cost of gasoline is driven by the price of crude oil. host: on twitter when you were asked do you want another golf blow all with more offshore drilling? -- gulf coast blocked with more offshore drilling? together ae put center to bring in breast the best practices and third-party -- best practices and third- party auditors. in addition, fabular -- federal regulators has regulated more closely, looking at operations, practices, and our ability to protect the environment and our people.

the event in the gulf was a tragic event, one we want to make sure never happens again, but let me also say we were operating in the gulf for 65 years, drilled over 42,000 wells before that tragic incident happened. when we put into context all energy production of whatever form is a question of risk management, and we recognize that it is our responsibility to make sure that never happens again, and we are committed to achieve that. host: watching how long it took to tap the gusher, it's in the technology was not in place to deal with possible blowouts. is there more research and development money try to understand the complexity of these problems? guest: from that tragic incident, we have learned a lot of lessons. one of the things we did immediately is put together a couple groups that have already

developed the containment mechanisms. those have been built and are now sitting ready to go. in historical context, through our long history of great and safe operations, we learned lessons from this incident that we never had before, and we are committed to develop best practices and standards. we promote those all over the world. in addition to that, we're putting millions of dollars into additional research. looking at questions like the spermine -- disbursement, how we manage those questions to protect the people and the environment. host: joe in texas. caller: i would like to explain

to the american people -- i kept this "houston chronicle" article. it explains how many several millions -- million barrels a left this country, and how almost one and 60 million barrels were actual gasoline. if we are concerned about the american people, and drill, the be drilled, why are you selling the stuff out appear to keep the prices up? guest: that is a great question, and it has very little if any impact on the price. due to our state of the art refineries we have produced more product than ever. we have produced more refined products than our market can consume. today, some of that is exported

because it is access. what we should not do, and sometimes politicians like to confuse these facts -- we need to remember the refined product is a finished product, but the cost, the impact on price is driven by the price of crude oil. it is just like an automobile. if you're going to build a car, and you have $20,000 worth of steel in the car, once you produce the car, you can not change that front-end cost. in order to get the price down, you need to drop the price of the steel down. the same principle applies to gasoline. if we want to impact the price, we need to bring the cost of the crude oil down, and that is where the supply makes a big difference. so, what happens on this end of the equation in terms of the products that have been purchased, defined -- refined, and it for consumption has

little impact. that is why we are pushing hard to bring more supply to the marketplace, lower the price of crude oil, and you will see an impact on the cost of gasoline. host: a twitter skeptic rights -- guest: not at all. if you talk to the leaders of the industry our view is more stability and a global basis is the best approach. we produce a product that all consumers use. almost 62% of the energy use in the united states is oil and natural gas. our goal is to have a steady, even supply of product that we could process, refine, and make available to consumers. it is in our best interest to assist the marketplace to drive economic activity. the keystone pipeline is

critically important to the united states. it was designed to bring close to 600,000 barrels of crude a day from canada to the u.s. to be refined and consumed here. unfortunately, the president's decision has put that off and cost 20,000 new american jobs, and the ability to not only bring in oil from canada, but we have great production in north dakota and montana today, about 100,000 barrels of which would go into that pipeline take to our refineries in the houston corridor. it is important to the infrastructure of the united states to allow us to move product and bring in more supply the brings the press about -- down. host: susan, connecticut. caller: hi, mr. gerard. i have relatives in montana who

had emphysema and as much from the refining techniques you do there, and i would suggest that you read "resource wars" because it will explain that your state- of-the-art technology might have good intentions, but you can not possibly have more accidents because the oil you're trying to get is much more difficult to reach, so actually with all of this drilling the price will go up. the governor said we of new techniques that will get us gas, and that will be fracturing in new york state, which will disturb our water, almost precious resource that we will have a resource war, sir. thank you. guest: i appreciate your

comments, but i strongly disagree. if you look at history, a lot of what you have said is not accurate. the comment about hydraulic fracturing -- there has been no confirmed case of contamination of groundwater as a result of hydraulic fracturing, yet if you read public press you will see startling headlines that suggest otherwise. the modern technology of hydraulic fracturing has been used for over 65 years and we have drilled over 1 million wells. what it allows us to do is get pockets of natural gas that were previously on economical and bring this to the marketplace. that is why the price is dropping in the u.s.. let's the state of pennsylvania. in the last 18 months, we have created 83,000 great-paying jobs just in the state of pennsylvania producing natural

gas. in unemployment rate is coming down. the government estimates it has saved consumers in heating and cooling costs merely because we brought the price down because we of the allowed to bring more supply to the marketplace. what history and basic economics shows is that if we are allowed to produce our own domestic resources, the market's takeover, and the cost of the product will be driven down. just one last comment, and this is important to the broader discussion of job creation in the united states. just the day before yesterday, shell oil announced a brand new manufacturing plant they will build in the state of pennsylvania. dow chemical has talked about a new facility they are bringing home. chevron and others -- the reason a lot of that new manufacturing is coming back to the united

states is because the cost of energy is coming down, specifically natural gas. those decisions to bring to the united states of those manufacturing jobs that we lost as a result of high energy costs, are driven heavily by the cost of energy, in this case, natural gas. the more we bring to the marketplace is not only benefits us as consumers with lower prices, it brings in more jobs that we rely on and a high standard of living. host: i will turn to the paul krugman column because the other two more or less agree with your point of view. he writes "what about jobs? i have to limit what -- i started laughing when i saw the article offering north dakota as a role model. the oil boom has pushed unemployment down to 3.2%, but

that is only possible because the whole state has fewer residents than metropolitan albany, so few residents that adding a few jobs in the sector is a big deal. the vote in pennsylvania has had hardly any effect on the employment picture because in the end not that many jobs are involved. giving the oil industry are pledges not a serious plan. put it this way, in plymouth in oil and gas extraction has risen more than 50% since the middle of last decade, but that amounts to only 70,000 jobs, around 0.10% of total u.s. employment. guest: i do not know where he gets his facts or his numbers. gets his facts or his numbers.