embassies. and a look at u.s. russia relations after the announcement that president obama has canceled his meeting with russian president vladimir putin. that is all next on "washington journal." ♪ is sunday,orning, it august 11 come up 20 13. it is today, resident obama began his week long vacation at martha's vineyard. today we will be discussing the state of u.s. relations with dive intoking a deep u.s. job numbers, and talking about recent al qaeda threats. before we do that we want to hear about the state of news media from our viewers. the pew research center's -- you research center released its biannual data and while there is

still plenty of criticism about the industry, most americans continue to believe the media plays an important watchdog role. as we take you through that reports this morning, we want to hear your thoughts. he of us a call. we split our lineup -- we split our lines up by age group. you can also catch up with us on all of your favorite social media sites, on twitter and facebook. you can also e-mail us at .ww.c-span.org we want to take you to that report that was released on thursday by the pew research

center for the people. public valuations of news organizations performance on key measures, such as accuracy, fairness, and independents remain mired near all-time lows. there is a bright spot on otherwise gloomy ratings. brought majority continues to say the press acts like a watchdog --

and you outside of its role, the pew research notes --

that story has a charge that goes with it, noting the change over the past three decades when they started tracking these numbers back in 1985. the orange line on top is responders who believe that news leaders keep -- news keeps leaders from doing things that should not be done. the gray lines down here is the number of respondents who believe news organizations get the facts straight. those that believe that news organizations are fair to all sides, that is down to 19%. not an all-time low, but down there. we want to hear from you as we take you through these poll results numbers on your opinion of this state of the u.s. media.

we will start with jim from akron ohio on our -- a democrat from akron, ohio. good morning. i am older. and i have watched the news very years.y for the last 35 i am a news junkie. it seems certain stations stick with certain lies. they support either conservatives, in some cases, or liberal causes. it should be the reporting of .he facts if they want to editorialize, i think that should be done on a different type of program.

>> on that subject of concerned media organizations -- of concern over media organizations, the story about cnn and nbc coming out with depictions of hillary clinton and one documentary, here is a story from "the huffington post" on that --

we want to talk -- we are going to talk with john, calling in on old 32-year old to 49-year- line. what do you think of the rnc's position on this documentary miniseries coming out? we need the republicans to stand up. somebody has the guts to stand up. it is just incredible how you now have an us -- how you have a mess nbc packing obama.

backing obama. each news organization should and not takects control of our elections. it is pretty sad to see that in . if you go against anything they say, you are a racist and you do not like the president. you -- i think our country is at a turning point. i hope the republicans come up with a decent candidate in 2016. that is all i have to say. is out ofis country control, our media is out of , they should report the

facts and not their agendas. we want to show you what documentariesese and miniseries about former secretary of state hillary clinton. this is from bloomberg tv. [video clip] clucks we are going to do what we want to do and we're just going to shut them out of our debates. it is not whining, it is us telling them what we are going to do about it. already getting comments on twitter and facebook. this is on our twitter page --

we are taking your calls and thoughts on this issue. our phone lines are split up by age group this morning. along with talking about people's views on the media and its content, that pew research poll that came out on thursday also looked into how people consume their media. that shows that the internet is a leading source of news for those under 50. the research report finds that the main source for national --

the research report also shows those numbers in chart form on .ow people consume their media this chart showing 18 to 29- year-olds, the dark line there is the internet being the top way they view or consume their media. i should note that in this polling, respondents were about -- were allowed to pick two choices. 71% said jeanette, 55% said television, and there's newspaper and radio. compare that to those who are 65 or older, which is down here on this chart. television being the top way that they consume their media.

84% responded. 54% picked newspapers. radio down to and 15%. we are taking your thoughts and comments. we will go to our 5264-year-old line. should vote -- to old 264-year-old line. i do not have a computer. i would rather listen to the television. sometimes i read the paper. i feel like reading the paper is a very important part of finding out what is going on in our country. when you look at 9/11, what broke the news, i was watching the television that morning. media.ot do away with

media plays a very important part of our lives here in the united states. when you have pictures that show us what is going on in other , intries and in our country think you cannot do away with that. believe in polls. i have never been polled about anything. i am 61. where do you get these polls from? this is a pew research center poll. they have been doing a poll on the subject since at least 1985. i have never been polled. [indiscernible] we are going to kentucky

on our 39-year-old line. -- on our 30 to 49-year-old line. the consolidation of media and billionaires like the trying to purchase media. the much of the news i get is from c-span or independent media like democracy now. what are your thoughts on the blurring of the lines between entertainment and hard news? is that an issue that you think is happening in today's media? time.: big you hear more about michael jackson and britney spears than you do hard news stories. it is a slow day when all you see is entertainment. report the news.

that are goinggs to affect everyday life. i do not want to read about pretty spears or whoever else. i will read national enquirer or one of the capital -- the tablets. talk of -- and himself back in the conservative bubble. like he may not be taking the white house in 2016. line on this issue of the between entertainment and hard news, there was an issue that came up thursday at a politics and journalism for him here in d.c.. i want to show you a little bit of buzz feed washington bureau chief talking about the history of that subject. [video clip]

>> we have created this notion that there were decades and centuries long. of -- centuries long period of doing serious news. suddenly kim kardashian is the destruction of journalism. it is wrong. ,he history of this profession those things are talk about. that is what people want to know. they want to know what is going on with kim kardashian. a want to know what is going on with sports teams. they also want to know when a general is acting like a crazy person and saying bad things about the commander-in-chief. they want that hard-hitting journalism. i have never understood the notion that those things cannot coexist together. there are serious journalists that write these stories about politics and then sort of these

other idiots that do that sort of stuff. we are taking your thoughts in the next half-hour on the subject of the state of new -- on the state of u.s. yo news media. linda wrightson -- -- layla writes in -- we are taking you through a recent pew research center poll. we will go to gym from chicago illinois on our 65 and older line. caller:caller: good moaning. -- good morning. caller: i consider myself a news junkie. they're sticking -- unlike american newspapers, which i consider that they are acting like a bunch of prostitutes.

the fact that the corporations own the news media's these days. host: you bring up the state of newspapers. let me read you a bit from that report we have been talking about this morning. it'snewspaper budgets have shrunk and news staff has declined. atfessional editorial jobs newspapers declined another 6.4% for the year in 2012, leading the industry before -- the industry below 40,000 for the first time since american society of news editors began news for the census in 1978. we are going to show a chart on newsroom workforce and how it has risen and fallen over the years. today is down below 40,000. does that concern you in terms of staff members and number of members on staff for newspapers? there's no such thing as

investigative reporting. they are concerned about the bottom line. money seems to be the issue. i think that is why "the washington post," "the boston globe," they are losing money each year. up the sale ofs "the washington post." that is one of the big stories here in washington dc last week. here's the front page from august 6, when the post announced the sale. it was sold to amazon founder jeff bezos. to buy one of the sea's flagship papers. continues about the jeff bezos purchase. here's the front page of "the washington post."

also inside, the portrait of jeff bezos's curious mind. a picture there of jeff bezos, "the washington post," for a reported $250 million. we will take you through some of the aspects of that story. we will first hear from patty from north branford, connecticut old line.-64-year- did you hear about the sale of the washington post up there in connecticut? i did.caller: maybe it will get rid of the liberal bias. that has all been in "the new york times." i am calling up to say that i think the press are lapdogs to obama. last week we had the press conference.

they talked about questions and nothing about the internal revenue, fast and furious, healthcare, benghazi, then of these things are all softball questions. puts obama iness office, now they have to make him look good. is across-u think it the-board? is there anyone doing a good job? caller: 75% is biased, i believe that. i get my information from the internet. host: what sites do you usually used to get your information? caller: i draw my own conclusion. if you put it on television like nbc, the are way off. if they are going to make a movie about hillary, hit the mall. -- hit them all. host: we were just talking about the sale of "the washington post

" to jeff bezos, the amazon -- the founder of amazon. your is another story in today's -- here ist issue another story on today's post on that issued --

that is from today's "washington post." one other story on this issue, and analysis of the purchase. this is from "the financial times" yesterday. the headline --

that analysis piece from "the financial times" yesterday. if you want to read more on that -- we are taking your thoughts and comments on the state of u.s. news media. john is up next from watertown, new york on our dirty-49-year- old line. 30 -- 49-year-old line. when you're dealing with

a local issue, it is important to have a press that is more and go afterig in wrongdoers, no matter what side they are on. you get to a regional and national level, instead of having investigative journalists you have people who are pundits for one side or another and they pushed their agenda. it is what it is. how can the national news organizations become like those milk will news organizations that you seem to trust more? -- those local news organizations that you seem to trust more? i am knowledgeable on a lot of things but sometimes i just find myself way outside my lane. i do not have an answer for it. host: thank you for the call. can is up next from scottsdale,

arizona on our 65 and older line. we showed some stats a little while ago about how folks in different age groups consume their media according to the pew research poll that came out last week? as your topou rank medium for consuming media? caller: for serious news, the newspapers. they are the only true source of information that you can use. ast: i am showing our viewers chart showing the slide in print 22012,s from 2003 billions of dollars in 2003 down 2012. billion per year in concern about the future of newspapers on your part, as somebody who sees newspapers as a source of serious news? seenr: it remains to be

years from now what happens with "the washington post." it is not going to show up right away, good or bad. yes, the long-term concern is there. if the papers go away america will be in very serious trouble because when you get down to it the television reporters are , what that one guy said, they are lap poodles. it is basically nothing more than lap pools for house members here in phoenix. you just do not know what is going on in washington from the electronic media at all. for the callou this morning. on that subject that you talked about on the future of newspapers and specifically what

might happen with "the washington post," and this bezos -- by jeff might've contributed to part the sale. here's a bit of what he said. [video clip] was latemily was in -- in adopting a payroll product, which most of the major market has already started doing. the fact that they could've started that years ago, the way the financial times or the wall street journal had done years ago, i think maybe that certainly hastens their financial difficulties, that they were so late to doing a pay wall. politico is a block in bc. they have a high tier subscription product, which seems to be doing very well. it wasn't as if there wasn't a

market for it. i think they are trying to balance the issue of being a community newspaper as well as an inside beltway read. that is where they might have taken a misstep. that episode will re-air on monday at 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. eastern. we are taking your thoughts and comments on the state of u.s. media. we also want to share with you some of the other news going on around the country. this is from today's "new york "obama assures disabled veterans they will get aid."

host: that from today's "new york times." one other story we want to point out to you on u.s. actions overseas. two" drone kills

we will get more into our qaeda threats and u.s. actions in yemen in a later segment of today's show. we have about 15 minutes left to talk about the state of u.s. media with our viewers. 30-49-is up next on our year-old line from tampa, florida. good morning to you. caller: i just wanted to say i love that having people from across the political spectrum, they can agree that the media is incredibly important, and also that the media is in crisis. the fact of the matter is that work for do not informing the american public. as somebody mentioned earlier about the iraq war, the media did not question or anything or

something like that. another gentleman mentioned kim kardashian. they are extremely busy, but they are busy and covering exactly what they want to cover. i'm sorry. i'm a little nervous. they are covering things that are not of import. for the iraq war, they championed it. they did not sit on their laurels. they championed and cheerlead it it. host: monti writes in on twitter what do you make of that statement? caller: i think it is interesting that most of the american media is a corporate business. it is a corporate enterprise. i law, corporate enterprise, the number one priority is to make profits or shareholders. it is not a priority to inform the american public.

if you're getting your information from corporate media, you are being sold allies. they are trying to convince you to buy things that you do not need. it is not about informing you. that is all i have to say. this justin from tampa morning. another comment on our facebook page from patty -- www.facebook.com/c-span. we are looking for your comments there and taking your tweets. we will go to carl from alabama on our 50-64-year-old line. good morning. caller: good morning.

they cover all different kinds of eggs. it is ridiculous -- kinds of things. it is ridiculous great we have 20,000 people without work. in missouri, they went bankrupt on their retirement. we cannot get no publicity on that. it has gotten ridiculous. that's all. people in america, they are covering what i call petty things, like the kardashian's and that stuff, but we have 20,000 people that are unable to work come a -- work. they are cutting their checks out, their insurance out. this tuesday, there was a rally up there in missouri. there's nobody left with local news. host: it is a priority issue in

your mind? caller: yes, it is. host: let me ask you about the finding. this pew research center poll found that 68% of folks who responded said that news organizations keep leaders from doing things that should not be done. that media still plays an important watchdog role. do you disagree with that finding? are you in the category that would not agree that the media keeps leaders from doing things that should not be done? caller: they do not watch it close enough. out about areport guy killed in iraq. here who 20,000 people are retired who cannot even get their checks. nobody knows about it because they will not put it on the air for us. host: carl is from alabama. upl be is up next -- obvious

next on our 18-29 your old line. is up next on our 18- 29-year-old line. caller: there are a lot of things that are not being discussed on every major news channel on tv right now. we have problems with our government. we have a new civil war. a new american civil war that is not being discussed. we have police militarization. programw, the medicare is now being closed. bobby, turn your tv down so we do not get the feedback from that. some folks who called in earlier today noted that they seem to trust their local news a little bit more than national media. do you trust the local news organizations down there in louisiana? caller: it depends.

it varies on whatever topics. host: what do you trust the local news more on? like i said, it varies. host: bobby from lake charles. you will go to barbara from akron, ohio on our 65 or older line. good morning. caller: i agree with so many of your colors. it is difficult to name all of them. age is really sad be in my is seen over the last 20 years how the tv stations that used to tell their viewers what congress 2020 --ng, for example, " "20/20." they told us what was going on behind the scenes. now they tell us what they want us to know.

so many young people from your statistics no longer read newspapers, which is the only place where you can find out what is going on, and i include "the wall street journal" among that group -- that so many young people no longer feel that it is important to spend the money every month to find out what is going on in their country, we are harming our country more than they know. the newspapers are our lifeblood and liberty. both parties talk about liberty and freedom. ourout the newspapers, and country being read, i fear for what is happening to our country. >> on that subject of what is happening in the newspapers, your is the front page of "the a profile ofs," larry summers, who is known to be in consideration as the next chairman of the federal reserve.

all whole piece on him and his background. the story notes you can read that profile in "the new york times" today. on page three of "the washington i -- on large piece obama's second term in the policy.

that is in today's "the washington post." on that subject, in his republican weekly address the suite, congressman tim scott of south carolina accused the obama administration of blocking and delaying new american energy production, which he says could create thousands of jobs. i want to play you a bit of that now. [video clip] unfortunately, the obama administration has actively blocked and delayed new american energy production, continuing our dependence on dangerous foreign countries or energy. -- for energy. the administration continues to block projects such as the keystone xl pipeline which will support 40,000 new jobs. there is no disputing the fact that energy production is down on federal lands and waters that president obama controls. when president obama took office in 2009, nearly all of our offshore areas were open to

american energy production. today, president obama has effectively reimposed an offshore moratorium, blocking access to american oil and natural gas resources. preventing the creation of tens of thousands of american jobs and continuing our reliance on foreign oil. , just in my a study own state south carolina, opening the offshore to energy production has the potential to havee over 7500 new jobs, a statewide economic impact of over $2.2 billion annually, and generate around $87.5 million in new state revenue. we have seen success stories play out across the country. on state andtion private lands in places like hash dakota and texas skyrocketed. in those states, energy permits can be approved in just a few weeks.

to on federal lands, where president obama's anti-energy redtape takes over 300 days. the cost of that delay means less job creation, less economic activity, and less american energy. instead of playing politics with energy, we have a plan to jumpstart our economy with it. we want a true all of the above energy strategy because a diverse, market-based energy portfolio of nuclear, wind, solar, and other renewables means more competition and lower prices for the consumer. republicans will work to stop government policies that are driving up energy costs, preventing businesses from hiring new employees. host: that was tim scott of south carolina, talking about energy costs and the president's policies and the republican weekly address. i showed you the republican

weekly address. i want to show you president obama's weekly address. he talked about steps to strengthen the housing market. here is a bit of that. [video clip] >> over the past four years, we have worked to help millions of responsible homeowners to get back on their feet on and while we are not where we need to be yet, our housing market is beginning to heal. sales are rising. construction is up. foreclosures are down. millions of families have come up for air because they are no longer underwater on their mortgages. now we have to build on this progress. congress should give every american the chance to refinance at today's low rates. we should help more qualified families get a mortgage and buy their first home. we should get construction workers back on the job, rebuilding communities hit hardest by the crisis. we should make sure that folks who do not want to buy a home have a decent, affordable place to rent. rise, we have to turn the page on the bubble and burst mentality that created

this mess and build a housing system that is rocksolid. one that rewards responsibility for generations to come. that means wanted on the companies known as fannie mae and freddie mac. making sure that private capital plays a bigger role in the ending therket and era of expecting a bailout after your pursuit of profit puts the whole country at risk. we need to preserve access to safe and simple mortgages like a 30 year fixed-rate mortgage. we need to keep laying down rules of the road that protect homeowners when they are making the biggest purchase of their lives. finally, congress needs to confirm mel watt to be our nation's top housing regulators so that he can protect consumers and help responsible lenders provide credit. no program or policy will solve all the problems of a multi- trillion dollar housing market, and it will take time to fully recover, but if we work together, we can make a home a source of pride and middle-class security again.

if washington is able to set aside politics and focus on what really matters, we can rebuild an economy where if you work hard, you can get ahead. the: those were both democratic and republican weekly address is. -- addresses. a few minutes left to talk to you about the state of the u.s. news media. we will go to jane from bowling green, kentucky on the line we set up for 50-64-year-olds. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i just wanted to say, i subscribe to a newspaper. i have since i was 20 years old. i have read a newspaper every day of my life. magazineok "newsweek" for almost 30 years. for those of us who did have "newsweek" coming every week, rounding up the news with good, in-depth articles, perhaps we can recall what "newsweek"

turned into. -- arned into a maggs it magazine of columnists. i think that kind of brought on its demise, and i think it also illustrated that the cult of personality and opinions was taking over a great deal of the media. going throughbeen the pew research center poll. one finding from the poll notes that in the current new it is -- current news environment, a slim majority say journalists are more important than in the past it as they help make sense of all information available. that, while 38% said journalists are less important than in the past. which category do you fall into? the first.ould say i do look, i do read, do research -- i do look at many different sites.

i am always interested to read differing opinions. what i did not want to see in the news magazine was an interpretation of an event by six different columnists, instead of the investigative research that i had come to expect from the magazine. afraid -- i'm'm afraid what is happening, people are telling us what they think is important, whether it is the kardashians or haircuts, and they are trying to tell us what they think we need to know instead of doing the good investigative reporting that 20 years ago made up a good news magazine. host: jane, thanks for the call. that is all the time we have in this first segment of the washington -- of "the washington journal." up next, we will be joined by keith hall to talk about the , and later,ket

former u.s. ambassador chris hill will talk to us about the closing of several embassies in the wake of this latest terror threat. first, a look at what is coming up on the sunday shows with c- span radio. television's sunday talk shows, topics include relations,.-russia surveillance programs, the upcoming 2014 elections, and the sale of "the washington post." you can hear all the programs on c-span radio beginning at noon eastern with nbc's meet the press. today's guests include republican representative michael mccaul and steve king, and democratic senator claire mccaskill. at 1:00 p.m., here abc's this week with an appearance by edward snowden's father and their attorney. also democratic senator bob menendez and republican representatives ed royce and louie gohmert. additionally, representative

joaquin castro, a texas democrat. at 2:00, it is fox news sunday. arizona republican senator john mccain, democratic strategist joe trippi, and chip saltzman, a republican strategist. state of the union follows at 3:00 p.m. eastern. wright's treatise, chairman of the republican national committee, and also an appearance by democratic congressman james clyburn of south carolina. at 4:00, it is face the nation from cbs, and host bob schieffer welcomes representative dutch ruppersberger and peter king, new york republican. also on the show, general michael hayden, the former nsa and cia director, and an appearance by glenn downey, former executive editor of "the washington post." the sunday network tv talk shows are on c-span radio and brought to you as a public service by the networks and c-span. atin, rebroadcasts begin noon eastern with nbc's meet the week, 2:00, abc's this p.m., fox news sunday, 3:00,

state of the union, and for clock p.m. eastern time, ace the nation from cbs. you can listen to them all on c- in thedio on 90.1 fm washington dc area. across the country, on xm satellite radio channel 119. -o online to c-span radio -- c spanradio.org. sort of anti-me suburb or person who thinks that everybody needs to live in new york city. i was very sensitive to coming across as an espresso-sipping, condo-dwelling elitist. that is not why i did this book. i understand why people like the suburbs. i get fed up with a lot of daily life in new york city. i was more drawn -- the trends were so undeniable, and the fact that there is a shift in the way

suburban america is perceived by the people that live there is too big a story to ignore. llagher on where the american dream is moving tonight at 9:00 on "afterwords." >>"washington journal" continues. host: we found out earlier this month that the u.s. added 162,000 jobs in july, which marked the 41st consecutive numbers.positive job some analysts are becoming increasingly concerned about the quality of those new jobs. thisng us now to discuss issue is keith hall, a former commissioner at the bureau of labor statistics, which tracks employment rates and job numbers. mr. hall, here's the headline from the associated press on this issue

explain the concern. guest: the concern is that although we are getting job growth, and it is not strong job growth unfortunately, we are also having a real problem with underemployment. we have people in jobs because they have been through such a long recession, in jobs that do not match their skills. a lot of the job growth lately has been in part-time jobs. people who are not working full- time, 40 hours a week. host: some stats on those numbers cited by the ap -- give us some examples. what do we mean? what is an example of a low- paying job? guest: if you look at the wide right of jobs, what sort of industries are gaining jobs, although there has been modest

job growth in a lot of industries, a lot of the industries that have below average wages are getting the job growth right now. host: the ap story also notes that part-time work is made up 77% of the job growth so far this year. how does the government defined part-time work? guest: it resolved -- it revolves around 35 hours. more, full-time. less than that, part-time. what i'm concerned about is some of the statistics that people cite a lot, like the unemployment rate, they do not distinguish between a part-time and full-time work. if you have even one hour of work, you're considered employed. u.s. some numbers on the july unemployment measures this is according to gallup numbers.

mr. hall, explain underemployment and info -- and involuntary part-time. these are phrases used by bls> guest: those are efforts to try to capture some underemployment. they do not do a great job. it is an attempt. one of the things they ask people if they are part-time, do you want to be full-time? if you are part-time, why are you part-time? family responsibilities or is it because you cannot find full- time work? there is a dissension between part-time for economic reasons and part-time for other reasons. underemployment, it tries to compound the people are part- time for economic reasons because they cannot find full- time work.

there is an effort to try to measure people not counted as unemployed because of their not actively searching, but they want to work and have worked lately. i think that is a flaw in the unemployment rate that these people are not somehow included in the normal unemployment rate. host: we are talking with keith hall, he is a former commissioner at the bureau of labor statistics, also a professor at george mason university's center for -- a senior research fellow at the center. you can check out his work online. we are taking your thoughts and comments. we want to hear your stories about your job search. we set up our lines a little bit different in this segment. those who are looking for a job, give us a call at

tell us about your situation. those who are employed we will keep the numbers up on the screen for a little bit so you can figure out which category you fall into. mr. hall, go through some of the situationns for this about underemployment and part- time jobs. has beennation that put out there in some recent stories is that sequestration might have helped bump up some of these numbers from this recent report, that federal workers who have had to take time off involuntarily might fall into some of these categories. take us through that. guest: sure. first of all, there have been a large number of part-time weekrs throughout the recovery. this is not the first time it has become an issue. monthly of people

working are part-time. year, theappened this number started to go downgrade the number of part-time people has gone down. suddenly, this your comment started to increase significantly. that has been part of the concern about some of the economic policy uncertainty we've gotten, that businesses are reluctant to bring people on full-time. host: one issue you have talked about is the impact of the affordable care act possibly. explain that. guest: sure. i think this is part of a broader economic policy uncertainty that we have right now. companies, especially small businesses, express a lot of concern over regulation and taxes and what may be happening policy wise. i think the affordable care act is part of that. tohink that is starting perhaps show in the data significantly. i think one of the challenges is the data does not show underemployment very well. there is no way for the data to who is anody

engineer, highly trained and experienced, who is working something simple like retail where it is not a good match of experience and career. that isn't showing up well in the data. you can sort of see it. going back to the healthcare law, why would an employer want to keep somebody on part-time as opposed to full- time status because of that law? explain that aspect of it. guest: this has been an issue for a number of years in terms of benefits. employees and having fairly high benefits, nonwage compensation. with the affordable care act, there is concern that they bring people on full-time, they will be subject to the affordable care act requirements to bring people -- requirements. i haven't looked at this in some detail. that is what the speculation is. host: the white house recently

pushed back that requirement for businesses in terms of what they would have to provide. guest: correct. that could be a response to businesses voicing concerns. host: we are taking your calls on the subject with keith hall, a professor at george mason university. also a former commissioner at the bureau of labor statistics. we will go first to jamie from evergreen park, illinois who is currently looking for a job. ellis about your situation. caller: -- tell us about your situation. caller: what i have been finding --thank you. retired, disabled, but i'm looking for part-time work. what i'm finding is a lot of the

are having you go online and look for work. you either have to know somebody or have an inside contact. thecontact, and their system iso -- because there are so many unemployed people, it is not enough jobs for everyone is what i'm finding. know someone, you're to go through the red tape, you have to wait, jump through hoops . maybe you will get hired or maybe you want. but so far -- no. about -- hall, talk jamie is looking for work, how does one become classified under these numbers, the bls released as looking for work. what are the requirements to be considered looking for work? as -- to be defied defined as i employed as opposed to jobless camille to be currently looking for work, and by actively they mean you are doing something which in itself would get you a job. you have to be interviewing with

an employer or sending out a theme and just looking at want ads, for example, is not considered active enough. i think that is one of the issues with the unemployment rate right now. the unemployment rate has gone down largely because people have jumped from unemployed to jobless. one of the things you are saying is that the labor market is much worse than it seems with the 7.4% unemployment rate. one of the things i like to point out as we have something called the employment rate, which is the number of people of thejob, a share working age population, skewed and i worry about whether the people are unemployed or just jobless. either you have a job or in -- or you don't. that number is very low and is lower now than it was at the end of the recession. i think that is a better reflection of the road labor market. from here is a bls report

july that just came out at the beginning of august. it notes that among the marginally attached, there were 988,000 discouraged workers in by 136,000 from a year earlier. explain marginally attached, disgorge lee -- discouraged workers. guest: marginally attached have had a job in the last year and say they want work but they are not active at the moment. they're not doing something everyone -- every month that gwen give them work. but they jump out of the unemployment, but they become marginally attached. the disgorged it -- the -- thelly attached discouraged is part of the marginally attached, they are discouraged from looking. hall is a former commissioner with the bureau of labor statistics. we're taking your calls and your questions for him this morning. we split up our lines by those looking for a job, stop looking,

those who consider themselves under employed, and then a line for those who are employed here it on that underemployed line we will go to diana from lincoln, nebraska. diana, tell us what you are underemployed. caller: well, for the last four years, i have been working a series of our time and temporary positions. making almost half of what i made when i was laid off working for local government about four years ago. right now, i am working two part-time jobs, one is .5 hours a week, one is 10 hours a week. i am actively still searching for a job. i average at least one interview a week. i am 58 years old, and i'm pretty much the last choice. even though i do have skills. both the part-time jobs i am working, i make $10 an hour. i used to make $70 an hour when i worked -- $17 an hour when i

worked long-term for the government. host: what did you do for the government, diane? caller: administrative assistant. host: are you hopeful that things are going to improve, or do you think things are getting worse at this point? must bei guess i hopeful because i am still actively, very actively looking for work. but i don't have much hope that all. before i reached 605i will have a full-time job. guest: this points out some limitations of the economic data. because you are working, you're -- countedunemployed as employed. it is very difficult to measure someone like you who is clearly underemployed, really in a number of ways. this is no consolation to you i'm sure, but there are millions of people who are long-term, unemployed or jobless who are in the same situation about wanting to work, looking for work, but

actually don't have work at the moment. some of those folks -- many of those folks have been unemployed or jobless for two years. we're talking with keith hall, a former commissioner with the bureau of labor statistics. he currently works at george mason university where he is a research fellow at the mercator center there. mr. hall, who is bearing the brunt of this part-time job work? gallup a that from talking about young americans and that there are fewer young americans holding full-time jobs. the chart showing a drop from about 46% back in mid-2010 down to 43% now. the younger over were represented in the part-time and in the underemployed. these are people that are not

out of school all that long feared the other reason is in the youth, the youth get a double hit from a recession like this. all, when firms downside, they do not over downsize so they can hire people out of school. so the youths take their brunt of new jobs when they graduate during times like this. but then a second part is related to underemployment. the way people's careers typically work is that people start at entry level positions and they move through their throughver the years retirement or think of this as climbing a ladder through your career. what has happened in this recession is the career ladder has slowed down. people have not been moving through a job like a normally do, so it is sort of a stall. even if they get irked, many of them are getting very behind in their career advancements. that may take decades really to correct. -- host:e they, from here is a comment on twitter --

part-time work for blue-collar, contract work for white-collar, no retirement and eight -- in sight. we will show you the overall job numbers from that august report. it noted that in july 2013 along werethe 162,000 jobs that added, 29% were in retail, 24% were in hospitality, 22% weren't business, and 9% in finance. talk about the types of industries that these part-time jobs are in. a lot of the traditional part-time industries, every thing from retail to a lots of the professional services and that sort of job. that the number of part- time is probably pretty high in almost any industry right now. that has been one of the things about this particular recession. some industries and some groups

of people have been hurt more, but almost everybody has taken 18 in this recession -- taken a ding. ken, good morning to you, you were on with keith hall. caller: my job search was eight months. finally i got hired in may of this year. i was laid off from the state of michigan by our illustrious 400 claimso laid off adjusters. now i am working for a contract company, assigned to one of the big three companies doing customer service. but it was a very lonely eight months. i think this governor snyder -- he don't care about who he hurts. i am just a little unsettled about him and his right-wing agenda. what more can i say? i am just thankful life that work. $14 an hour, college-educated,

what else might going to do. it is barely pays the bills, but it is a respectful job. that is all i need is a purity why. commentingis ken from as she entered will go to malcolm from hollywood, florida. i was just listening to him earlier talking, and he said most people are not actively looking. looking.vely becausetively looking, i notice when i do go to interviews, i'm either overqualified, or i am not the .deal guy they want i work for miami-dade county for over 17 years.

as a county worker, you feel like there is loyalty. there is no loyalty here in florida. people are here -- we're working for much less. our bills keep going up and up. what do you say about those things? host: mr. hall. unfortunately, it really is a weak labor market, and one of the things that i think we're likely to see the impact of a weak labor market go on for quite a long time. there are a really extraordinary number of people who are longform -- long-term unemployed. that suppresses wages, wages do not grow well. when you are looking for work, when companies are looking for workers, there are so many people to choose from. one of the things i get worried in part they seem to let the labor department -- labor market decide who they

should look for. they skip over long-term unemployed. the long-term unemployed are almost excluded sometimes. in job hunts. in a typical recession, the long-term unemployed will eventually start to go down, but they are some of the last folks to be rehired. i think that is very much happening right now. "u.s. newsrote in as world report" recently, bad as the data appears come in still underestimates the problem. if is that what you are talking about their? guestre? guest: exactly right. that number is probably millions higher of people who are long- term jobless, in other words they want work. thatdo some of the things he just mentions. checking the want ads, go to the employment office, but that is not considered active enough to be part of the unemployment statistics. i think that is a fault of these statistics, they should be capturing more people.

understanding,r i think, how weak the labor market continues to be. host: you bring up a fault in a sadistic, is that something you brought up when you are at the bureau of labor statistics? you are there in the heart of the recession from 2008 until 2012. guest: one of the things i was trying to do was point to other data beside the unemployment rate. that unemployment rate really is one of them. we started out the recession with about 63% of the population employed. right now we are down to about 58.7%. that is a gap right now of about 10.5 million people are a. that is a much bigger gap in the unemployment rate would lead you to believe. jen wrightson on twitter -- how much does where you live have to do with being able to find a job?

city, unable to move where jobs are? guest: i think different states have done better in the recovery . just about all the states was invaded -- states participated in the situation. it is planned to things. trying to say how much the mobility issue comes into play. there was concern early on in the recession that people with houses underwater where they could not move to find a new job , that that was holding back the economy, but that does not really seem to be the case, that housing at least is causing that problem. athens,call from alabama. avery, good morning to you. caller: good morning. is like many people, many years ago, up until maybe 10 years ago, i made a decent amount, a living. to $25 an hour.

having moved from a big city like new york to alabama, living rurally, having to travel for even a low-wage service industry job that pays well below the , meaning thatwage some of these jobs in alabama and the rural areas paid two dollars, three dollars an hour. southern people. it is criminal. it is evil, and it is wrong to have people attend to live on wages equivalent to 30 years ago. and the amount of profits with the richest country in the world, it is insane for anyone to be employed in any industry making anything south of $20 an hour. bringsr. hall, burr this up the subject of president

obama's budget proposal for raising the minimum wage to nine dollars an hour. what to do think that would do for the unemployment rate? guest: my concern over trying to raise wages that way is that it can create unemployment, to be honest. risk areo are most at the low skilled workers, in particular. we want to see higher ages, we want to see wages grow, but we want to see from the demand side, from east wronger economic -- from the stronger economic growth. if you force wages to be higher with a higher minimum wage, that may work out for some below, but the danger could be that this -- that businesses will shift away and substitute more skilled labor for the unskilled labor. and it is well seen right now with retail that technology can be substituted for cheap labor. the one thing i would hate to see is an increase use of scanner not only a retail but in

other businesses. the use of technology as a result of pushing minimum wage too high. and: we will go to diana california on our unemployed line. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you doing? i was with a company for 23 years, and i got laid off. i was laid off for two years, and found a job, but i'm making so much less than i was before. aw i've come to find out that little company that usually has never laid off that i am working for now is going to be laying off. and i am on the total goal again. poleat i am -- the totem again. so what i am saying is the job market is not here. it is so bad, you cannot find anything good when you do find something, i end up losing my retirement, my savings.

had alucky my husband full-time job and he is making good money. very, very tough on the people out here. host: dr. hall, if you want to talk about those looking for a long time, find a job, and then like the last caller, are the first ones to go if the company cuts back. guest: that is a real concern. if i were to give anybody advise it would be to try to keep working, even if you feel underemployed. i think one of the things that happens is labor markets views people who are unemployed for a long period of time as not hire a bowl for some reason. for some reason. it shows in the data that companies sometime will only look at people either currently looking for open conditions or people who have only recently

lost their work. they don't there is a consider people who are long-term unemployed. that is unfair, but that is a symptom of a weak labor market. ideally, after a couple of years into a recovery, the long-term employed -- long-term unemployed get reemployed because the labor market strength and spirit that just has not happened yet, four years after the end of the recession. having the just conversation, joy wrightson we are having a 70% consumer driven economy that can be created with minimum wage part-time jobs. we will go to don now. good morning, tell us about your saturation. caller: -- your situation. caller: i am employed, but like many people, i am very underemployed are demanding a want to touch that john is it seems to me like labor nowadays

--seen as a global commodity i am very underemployed as many are. the subject i want to touch on is it seems to me like labor nowadays is seen as a global commodity. because thes money country is used to having money. but it seems to me as well that if you look at the ratios of $.86even in the 1990's, compared to the minimum wage of four dollars and i believe 70 something cents, relative to today's minimum wage in the present one gallon of gas, you can see that there is a disparity and where we are headed, and unfortunately it does not seem like the

politicians really care for that. it seems like the federal government, the current demonstration now doesn't like the fossil fuels for a much, so you can see the domino effect that that has. thank you. host: mr. hall. true: that is probably that high energy prices, gasoline prices have been a drag on the economy for quite a while now. i do think that is probably an underappreciated part of what has been going on. he actually even before the recession started, i think the drag from gasoline prices was quietly pretty significant. dave written on twitter -- can you list any of the jobs that were created from obama's stimulus package, how about all the green jobs that obama has promised? untilre at bls from 2008 2012. can you speak from your experience there? guest: one of the things that is very difficult is to know what

is causing what. i was looking at the data when stimulus spending occurred. i am not sure there was any obvious impact. i think for those who believe that the stimulus worked well are folks who believe that the economy would have been in even worse shape than without the stimulus. what i know though is the economy was in and still is in terrible shape. where we wered losing 800,000 jobs a month. that is unprecedented. it is not clear what sort of effect that the stimulus had. i think one of the real concerns probably has been whether that effect was very long-lasting and whether that effect -- whether the spending was done it once quickly enough to actually have any real impact, or whether it was spread out over a a number of years.

the reality is of course we do not know what the economy would have looked like if it had not been for the stimulus. host: he thought was a commissioner at bls, networks at georgecatus center at mason university. would you do there, what is your area of expertise? guest: the labor market, i suppose. i have had a long government's career, doing a number of things. but labor market is what i am focusing on. host: people can check out your work at mercatous.org. from west up next palm beach, florida. have stopped looking for work or to stephen, what made you stop working? caller: hello, can you hear me? i asked your staff if it was ok if i talk. i left the workforce, i am a young man, when i was a young man, 20 years ago. i made a good amount of money. i have a lot of issues with the

economics professor and his lack of rigor. i want to challenge the premise of this whole segment of your program. have you ever asked yourself whether the people calling are simply disillusioned because they have been misled? we live in a capitalism. the economy, demand for goods, services, and labor, have been slow. what the premise of this show is is that it seems based on your marquee at the bottom is that wages should be higher, that employment should be full-time. i reject that premise. it seems to me that these people sound very disillusioned, and it is sad that they are, but it is not tragic. americans seem to be spoiled, and they have become soft. phd exam and applied physics, but there is nothing special about me and my skills.

their are a thousand physicists out there, millions. if the president of the united states gets shot and killed, somebody takes his place. does that mean the president's underemployed or something like that, that is not the case. host: let's have mr. hall jump in on this issue. possible inement the united states? and respond to some of the issues that stephen brings up. guest: if you look at things like income growth, the growth growthonal income, the of wealth, when you look at welfare, how many people are in federaland not, spending on means tested programs, all of that is driven by the employment rate. tracks thething health of the economy and the health of the country better than something like the employment rate. and when you worry about something like the large number of part-time people, this is

showing signs of weakness in the labor market. it is not strong. one of the things i worry about is that we have not gotten a strong enough recovery going yet . we could actually see it start to taper off a bit. i do not think we have been getting very strong economic growth. move toward part- time growth, we see the growth start to drop. it has been pretty weak so far, i would hate to see it drop further. host: sea of tranquility rights on twitter -- is there any state that has low unemployment? if so, should the u.s. try to adapt their economic model? guest: there are some states that are doing well. some are not diverse states, they rely on -- the ones that are not doing well are not diverse states feared the roi on diverse states. they rely on one industry in particular. maybe energy. host: like the situation in north dakota right now?

guest: north dakota is doing well, but it is doing well because of energy and the price of energy is going up, so that has created a lot of growth there and related things, mining and that sort of thing. that does not work for the rest of the country on the whole. from we have a call arlington, texas on our employee line. there'll, good morning. caller: good morning to you both. first of all, let me say about the gas, -- guest, stephen from florida on the first of all, he is white, and second of all, there is also legacy, where he been given a leg up. host: why do you say that? item i think the caller said anything about what his back rent was or his financial situation. had some babel helping him or connections. but my question for mr. hall, and it may have already been addressed because i miss a

little bit of this segment, but mr. hall, my concern is about illegal immigrants. i mean, i do not know whether you have artie talked about that , but in my employment, i see hundreds of people who are , and i who have jobs don't mean low-paying jobs. i mean they have high dollar jobs. so my question is what has that impact had on people, americans, who now can't find the job or if they can, it is only after everybody else has been given a job. mr. hall. when the eagle my make data is collected, they make no effort to determine somebody's economic data -- status. the data tries to be blind to that, and i think it only does.

and this data probably does. the problem with illegal immigrants is it is very hard to even know how many are in the country and do have some idea. ifdies have shown that immigration has an impact, and has been primarily on below average jobs, on some of the basic jobs. and i probably have had some impact. -- and that's probably has had some impact in that respect. host: yvonne in new jersey is looking for a job. what are you finding right now as you look for a job out there yo? industry,e insurance which that is where i come from, for what i used to do, i see that there are a lot of jobs because mostly you apply for these jobs on the internet, not like he used to be a long time ago when i searched for a job, and you were able to go to the human resources and fill out an

application. positions, lot of but i am wondering, and i have over 20 years experience, i am wondering if these jobs are real or are they placeholders? there was such a massive layoff at the company i used to work thathat i am -- to work at i am competing with so many other workers that use to do what i do. it's hard. i have been looking since last april. my job was outsourced. but i am still being positive. i am about to run out of my unemployment. that if i need) to come i can get to that. i have a mortgage to pay, but i'm still trying to pay -- to be optimistic. a lot of times you get contracted jobs, jobs for maybe two months among jobs maybe for six months.

thinking after my unemployment runs out that i'm just going to have to take whatever i can and as far as , i talked togod somebody the other day, and the job, which is what i use a view which was fairly high-paying, pays $13 an hour, and it was in new york. host: let's let keith hall jump in. yvonne is looking for longer- term stability, and is questioning whether the jobs out there are real. guest: you actually read the really good point, this is something that we've actually notice. foreconomists have noticed a few years. you look at the number of advertising job openings, you should be getting a lot stronger job growth and we are given the number of job openings out there. and what it seems to indicate, i mean there has been some debate. some economists say they're looking for skills that are there, that the workers are not

there. i do not believe it. i think there has been a change in business practices, that companies now are putting in ads for positions, and there just aren't looking to hire necessarily. it is like they are keeping a list of applications ready. so they have these openings, and they just are not hiring very much from them. but that is very evident in the data that there are just a lot of jobs simulator that aren't being filled. host: keith hall is a research fellow at george mason university. he did it on his work at me rcatus.org. thank you for coming in and joining us this morning. up next, we will be talking with former u.s. investor to iraq and veteran diplomat christopher hill to discuss the recent in the sea closings worldwide amid this latest terror threat. and then the wilson center's matthew rojanksy will discuss the iterating u.s.-russia

relationship. we will be right back. ♪ >> mayor agent city and council member then think ray face each other and one of the most offensive elections in bc history. since he raise about $5 million in an attempt to hold onto his seat. $1.2think ray only raised million. but he won the election. shortly after gray took office mr. brown told the "washington post" that he was paid a promise a job and turned for disparaging fenty. investigators found that much of his story was true. they also uncovered another secret -- the saddle -- the shadow campaign. basically you had a campaign

.hat was going on yet another group of folks that were in office right next to the great campaign. are soa campaign, there much going on. you have several workers complaining about the other workers because they felt that they were getting paid more, and there was a lot of confusion as itwho was paying them, etc. was not until a year later that they realized that the folks who were next door, we cannot find any record of the many campaign finance records that we see, so how did those folks get paid, and who was in charge of them? atnikita stewart looks corruption in d.c. city politics tonight at 8:00 on c-span for the q&a. >> there were a lot of handsome, young officers that were surrounding my grandmother, who

was 23 years old at the time. my grandfather had been trying to get to her and talk to her and could not because of all of the handsome young naval officers around. but when the ship called, they left to do it they used to do. fell in behinder her going up to the steps of to the deck. they said do not let ms. gardner fall because her father is dead. when she heard that, she fainted, right into the arms of my grandfather. >> this week, the encore of our special "first ladies undergo this week, anna harrison to eliza johnson. "first ladies" all this month at 9:00 eastern on c-span. "washington journal" continues. today, 18 of 19 u.s.

diplomatic missions in the middle east that were closed due to the recent terror threats are scheduled to reopen, but concern over the possibility of an al qaeda attack against u.s. personnel and interests continues to be heightened. joining us now to discuss the current threats is former assistant secretary of state chris for hill, who also previously served as a u.s. ambassador overseas. mr. hill, let's start with the threat that caused the empathy and diplomatic clothings. -- closings for it at this point, what we know about what the threat was? wast: i think the threat kind of widespread, hence the need to close up to 21 indices and consulates. i think there were some very much specific information with respect to yemen. yemen is one of the countries that have gone under leadership change. it has always had its challenges with terrorism.

it is a place where al qaeda has invested over the years. it has been a very tough security environment, and the decision was to keep that post closed. host: in terms of specifics of who may be threats am a there was some confusion last week whether it came from al qaeda and the arabian peninsula, whether came from members in pakistan, what do we know a week later looking back at this ? guest: what we know through various leagues, etc., is that there were some conversations that we were able to overhear between some senior al qaeda officials, al qaeda members, i should say, and they were -- they indicated that they had a big plan in yemen. so there is a lot of this kind of chatter that is intercepted, but in this case, it was specific. the feeling was it was very real. that we had to take some

countermeasures. i'm sure the u.s. security services worked with the yemenis security services to try to address this, but i suspect that this kind of problem that we are seeing is not at an end. there is a lot of turmoil in the middle east right now. just look at the situation in syria, look at the situation in egypt right now where you have , loggerheads,sts is not as the egyptian military that is battling the veriest islamists, but within the islamist communities with the muslim brotherhood, etc., it is quite a free-for-all. in order to sort of come out and come out on top, there is always -- wellse were maybe maybe we can attack american

interests, and that will in us broader support. i think we're in for tough times, at least until we see some resolution or some way forward in egypt and assyria. host: before we leave this issue of this specific thread from last week, there were some members on capitol hill calling perhaps biggest threat a back to november 11, 2001. why are they calling it that you ? is it just how specific -- dating back to september 11, 2001 here why are they calling it that? is it just how specific the information is? the information could involve shooting in these kinds of things. i think the concern was that this could be a large-scale attack. kind of along the lines of what took place in algiers where there were many foreign workers who were essentially kidnapped,

and many were killed. about a year ago. this kind of thing, but my understanding is it was on a bigger scale, and it could have affected a sort of overall economic interests in the world economy. so it was not something to be trifled with. the question is -- how much do we know about it today? how satisfied are we that we have addressed the threat? clearly it is ongoing. i think people are rightly taking it very seriously as we go forward. host: we are talking with christopher hill, a former ambassador to iraq from 2009 2 2010, also serve as a assistant secretary to the vision and pacific affairs edward taking your calls and questions, -- affairs. we are taking your calls and questions. ,epublicans (202) 585-3881

democrats (202) 585-3880, independents (202) 585-3882. outside the u.s., it is (202) 585-3883. our phone lines are open if you have questions or comments. mr. hill, take us to the general of alth and capability qaeda in 2013. guest: from what we understand, it is a different organization from what it was before. this has to do with our very aggressive tarnishing -- targeting of the al qaeda leadership. we have had a whole chart on who these people are, and we have come after them in a very serious way. we have gotten very good at figuring out what they're up to. our technical capacities to understand, to know what's communications they have, things

like that. so we have gotten very good at dealing with al qaeda. it is clearly not the organization or the instrument that it was in 9/11. however, it represents a kind of extremist religious view within islam. very extremist view. so there continue to be people idea, and sohis for lack of a better word, we will call it's kind of a that ise type operation not necessarily take orders from top-down, but it does very much engaged in attacking western interests. again, though, i would like to point out that this is not just about the united states. this is not just about attacking our interests. very strong ino the way they have attacked shia

interests. this goes back to the theological questions, that this extremist sunni group as for shia. what we're seeing in iraq, for example, where there are deaths on a scale that is, getting back to 2007, we are seeing a lot of this violence against shia, and it is awesome -- it is often described as a sunni on shia violence, but i think it's hard to talk about the sooner -- the sunni community and talk about ikeda. -- about al qaeda. al qaeda is such an extremist version. a lot of violence against shia and other groups that the al qaeda would consider apostates, that is fallen believers. host: lots of opinion pieces and comments this week about the threats of al qaeda and how significant it is and whether president obama's earlier this year back in may on the threat of al qaeda coincided with what

is happening now. here is an opinion piece from today's "usa today," i'm sorry, this is wednesday's "usa today." let's keep al qaeda's threats and perspective. president obama friday during his press conference that he held talks about this latest security concern. there were also questions about whether his description of the thread about al qaeda is consistent with the earlier comments he made here is a bit of that now. [video clip] sameat i said in the national defense university speech back in may that i referred to earlier is that core al qaeda is on it's heels, has been decimated, but what i also said was that al qaeda and other extremist have metastasized into regional groups that can pose a significant dangers.

and i would refer you back to that speech just back in may. where i said specifically that although they are less likely to be able to carry out spectacular homeland attacks like 9/11, they have the capacity to go after our embassies. they have the capacity potentially to go out there are businesses. to beave the capacity destabilizing and disruptive in countries where their security apparatus is weak. host: mr. hill, you are familiar .ith that speech do you think the president has been consistent in his description, and does it matter? guest: i think he has been pretty consistent. he is quite right, the senior leadership as we have known it since 9/11 is very much on their heels. but the problem persists, and it persists and what i refer to as , but asf franchising

the president referred to as a kind of messed up the sizing -- of thesethe size -- groups. they do have a planning capability that is often not seen in local terrorist organizations. they do seem to have some kind of rotter concepts of how to plan for these attacks. i do think this is quite right. in the united states, of course, we're going to rape very political -- we are going through a very political period in our history. i can understand that people want to attack the president politically. that is kind of where we are. but i think is pretty clear what he was trying to say, which is anytime you can take osama bin laden off the board and kind of decimates the rest of their leadership, and by the way this administration has been extremely aggressive in the use of drone strikes in various

places that we don't have boots on the ground. so i think we just have to continue to go after these people with the understanding it does not completely eliminate the threat. host: the disagreement over analyzing the threat and what it means -- this from the --nancial times" on friday terror alert returns al qaeda to center stage. u.s. claims of decimated enemy appear exaggerated. in that piece from friday's financial times. we are taking your calls and comments on this issue and the threat of al qaeda right now. our democratl on line from detroit, michigan. good morning, you were on with christopher hill. caller: good morning. withieve the whole thing the embassies and everything was a manufactured crisis because of the snowden release.

once again, it is just like the terror alert. one native yellow, one day it is green, get people scared. governmente basically gets permission to take your rights away. i do not trust anything the more the government says. it is just too convenient after the snowden release that is when this came out. host: mr. hill, your take on ais, his belief that this was way to scare the american public. guest: i do not think that is the case. having said that, we need to see this against the backdrop of rising tensions in the world of rising sectarianism in the arab world. i'm trying to relate it to broader issues. i would not relate this to the case of snowden in moscow or the toinistration's efforts

deflect the attention it. when you close an embassy, it is a very syria's -- a very serious thing. they are our eyes and ears. they are how we as a country deal with other countries without we manage our official relations, whether it is with a foreign ministry or a prime ministership, it is that we reach out to the people in a foreign country. so when we shut those capabilities down for as long as we have done, that is a very serious matter. as much as our indices look like fortress america with thick walls, they are places where there is a lot of business going on, a lot of exchanges are going on. so when they are shut down, this is a very tough. ant: did you ever oversee invitation down during your time as an investor? embassy shut down during your time as an ambassador? guest: i did.

host: it it safer staying at home versus the fortress compound? what you can talk about, let us know. occasions, couple of during my career in macedonia, we were attacked by several thousand demonstrators who burned our outbuildings, burned all of our cars and essentially broke every window that was in the embassy. so we had to make a decision, are we going to keep this place open? or are we going to shut it down? or are we going to evacuate? the issue of evacuation always comes up. this is a situation where i was able to talk to people in washington, explain the pros and cons of much of the people in washington what we're doing and why we think our course of action was correct. days,t it down for a few we got ourselves ready, and then we opened up because we felt it was very important to show the

macedonian people that we were alive and well, and that this situation was not going to scare us away. now, in the case of this most recent issue, from what i can understand, these were not request information field. this was a decision made in washington on the basis of this broad yet specific threats that they had to shut down. they sentat works is a telegram out to post or probably a lot of telephone calls as well, and they explained that we are going to have to shut you down for the next few days. there is of course the question -- do you want essential people coming into work? do you want some people there were not? i suspect they went through that question. then there are the issues of families, should they stay in their homes, what should happen to the international school or the american school?

goingwant our children there because sometimes schools can actually be a target. these are terrorists who will attack you in a school, attack you at a funeral, see have to make those calls, those tough decisions. in this case, we are in august, so probably they did not have a lot of school problems to consider. a lot of people are on vacation in august, so probably the embassies were at a minimal staff anyway. i think the decision was made out of an abundance of caution, let's shut bases now. i'm sure there were a few people working in the embassies still. larry is from hastings, oklahoma, on our independent line. you are with former u.s. ambassador chris hill. caller: thank you. ambassador hill, it is an honor to speak with you, sir. i would like to ask you if you agree or disagree with my,, and if so why. comment, and if so

why. i do not think it is a secret that islamists radical as have declared war on western civilization. we handle eggs on make -- islamic extremists in a different faction. hussein, the major murdering and wounding numerous of our soldiers in fort hood, to the attack in benghazi where they murdered the president was the representative -- the president's representatives as well as three other americans feared we regular get through the courts, through the justice department. we do not see that, we do not call that an act of war. we call it a workplace violence. war, opinion, if i were at and i am a veteran, sir, if i'm at war with a nation, and i go into a village, and i

slaughtered children and women and on unarmed people for no reason, and they arrest me and put me in court or they do i am going to feel emboldened to go to the next village and do it again. host: larry, let's let ambassador hill jump in. well, this issue of the core system versus the use of the military court system is an issue that is discussed in the united states. it is not particularly my issue as a former diplomat, but i will say, however, that i think the court system has done a pretty good job of prosecuting these people. i'm not aware of any terrorist getting out because they went through our civilian courts. were a if there prosecutor here today, that

person would tell you that they are very proud of their record of putting these people away. issues the the caller speaks to is a question of motivation. when you have someone like this hood, at photo -- at fort is he acting at the behest of a foreign entity, or if the acting out of a sense of warped views of his own religion or something like that? did he receive orders to do this? i do not have the sense he received any orders. i have the sense that he was a deranged individual who committed a hideous crime. i think he was dealt with appropriately. i think with respect to the boston bombers as well, i think the prosecutors have done an excellent job of being all over that case. but at the end of the day, you have to remember we are dealing with american citizens. so there are certain rights and responsibilities that our system has.

so i think overall, people should understand the fight against terrorism generally and terrorism forces in ugly as a kind of all- struggle. it is a purview of a lot of courses and third overall as a nation, in terms of balancing rights of the individual and responsibilities of the states to protect the rest of the individuals, i think we have done a pretty good job of this. i think when the history books are written about this period after 9/11, and they looked at how the u.s. managed it, how we went after the people who attacked us that day, and how we have kind of preserve our way of life, i think it has been pretty impressive. i think we can all take some measure of pride in how we have done that.

obviously, we do more things airportsports -- at than ever before, but overall life has gone on. host: ambassador hill, on the flip side of the deck relation -- of the declaration of war, whether we are at war, laura wrightson on twitter -- we have become the terrorists. we are droning countries but we are not at war with those countries. the use ofk about drones here and what that has done to our image ech? guest: obviously this is a huge issue. it is a technological capability that did not exist in the past. more a legal and infrastructure around this technology. frankly speaking, it is not there yet. so there are a lot of issues about whether one should reach into a country with this kind of

capability and go after person is, who is the a terrorist, the host government have a responsibility to arrest and prosecute. yet we have gone ahead and done this. so i think these kinds of issues are not easy issues to resolve. ithink the united states, think the obama administration and the bush administration before that felt that they had a pretty serious means with how weht to deal with target these terrorists, and again made able disagree that it is inadequate -- many people disagree that it is inadequate as a framework and mechanism for dealing with this. i think we do need to understand as the previous caller suggested that we are in a kind of unprecedented situation.

we do have countries out there that are not the filling their responsibilities. we have done this to protect our own people and other people as well. will come up as this technology becomes more available not just to the united states but to other countries that may not have the kinds of democratic traditions that we do and will use this technology in a way that we do not believe there will be proper oversight. when that day comes, and it will come, i think the problem will actually be more serious than it is today. christopher hill as a former u.s. ambassador to iraq. he served there from april 2009 until august 2010. he serves as a dean at a school of international studies at the university in denver.

he is taking your calls and questions. bill is up next on our democratic line from st. louis, missouri. bill, good morning to you. caller: good morning to you. when i look at iraq and afghanistan and libya and syria and yemen and say what we have done to these countries in the , to see this man sit up there and talk -- it just drives me crazy. if anybody is a terrorist and that's part of the world, it is the united states of america. why has this man ever said anything about all the people we have murdered in iraq? we all know it was based on a lie. yet he says there with the that smirk on his face -- host: let christopher hill actually respond. he was over there in iraq and served as our ambassador in thei -- over there. go ahead. guest: i must say i some

difficulties with the premise of the question, but let me simply say that obviously the invasion of iraq, which was based on some information, which did not prove to be accurate -- that invasion will be looked at for many generations whether that was the right thing to do. i will tell you, however, that when you are serving their, when you are serving with other americans there, and by the way when you have relationships, friendships, etc. with iraq use, you do not come to the conclusion that taking saddam hussein down with some kind of bad idea. i mean, this was a person who murdered people with impunity. he murdered thousands and thousands of people. and as much as this war has been so costly, not only to people in iraq but also to be able in the united states, to our

getting rid of a person like saddam hussein was not a bad idea. gone, and iraq has a much better future because of that. certainly disagree on the issue of iraq. issue withve to take the notion that those of us who went there and serve there, and tried to make it a better place, were somehow terrorists, as your question suggests that. we did the best we could. we did the best for the iraqi people. the fact that saddam hussein is gone, that they have a democratic -- albeit not perfect testimony to, is a the hard work of so many of our veterans and foreign service officers. a question on twitter.

guest: the issue was that the president came into office to windt -- determined down the military role in iraq. was, he among people would've been a better solution to leave a few american soldiers. not to conduct conduct operations, but to train iraqi forces and have some presence in , and convince others that they should understand the

u.s. remains interested and engaged in iraq. it was an effort to forge an agreement on what would be the status of our troops there. very important questions when you station american troops abroad. do you make them subject to local laws? do you have immunities as a diplomat might have? what is the basis of keeping the troops there, and what is their legal status when they are there? difficultraqis had a time coming to a consensus on the idea that u.s. soldiers should be there was some grant trafficity in case of a accident, and those kinds of the iraqiultimately, government, iraqi opposition, political parties -- the iraqi , they were not able

to come to an agreement on that. the decision was made to pull the remainder of the troops out. the downside of that decision has been the perception in the arab world that somehow the u.s. is less interested in the problems in the middle east, that we have pivoted over to east asia, that we are more engaged in other parts of the world and we are in the middle east -- then we are in the middle east. we have a new secretary of state who has made six or to the middle east. he's working very hard on those problems in the middle east. i hope this effort will convince people in the middle east that we have not abandoned our efforts there. host: when we see headlines like drives al qaeda rise, -- iraq toward chaos.

foresee a time when u.s. troops or special forces might need to return to iraq to fight the threat of al qaeda? i do not see that. inee a stronger u.s. role what the arrangements going forward will be in syria. rack --are seeing is a and emboldened sunni radical faction that is attacking the shia. they are attacking other muslims. direct result of the ongoing conflict in syria. the problem with the conflict in syria, the people fighting in it

have no idea what their futures are going to be. more needs to be a much sustained effort by the u.s. and other countries to see what we can do to help serious identify what the future will be -- syrians identify what the future will be. in the past, it was run by this represent a, who tribe which is 15% of the population there. it has been brutally run. who don'tmany syrians like it. and there are serious to our religiously opposed to these people, from the sunni community arehsoe who -- those who seriously opposed to these people, from the sunni community. there is sustained

diplomatic engagement in syria, that war will go on. when that war goes on, it will metastasize to other places like lebanon and a rack. -- iraq. james is from texas, on our independent line. good morning. i want to ask you why the president never uses the word, islamist. especially islamist terrorist. in the past, he said the taliban is not our enemy. i'm mostly concerned about why he just refuses to word -- use the word islamist. what is the difference between islamist, and the people attacking us? islamists whore have no interest in violence at all. to call them islamist is to say that everyone who is islamist is some kind of terrorist.

it's important to avoid the that united states and western countries countries are at war with islam. pinpoint it a little more, to talk these terrorists who have global reach and motivations that may be religious. in any event, they are a small group compared to the muslim .orld billions of people host: a caller on our independent line. pleasure it is to listen to someone who uses words with precision and clarity. i want to point out to the headline writer of that newspaper that decimated does not mean devastated. bymeans reduced enforced 1/10.

ae president is constitutional scholar, and brilliant man. i'm sure he knows what the word decimated means. he uses words judiciously. a calls to my wish that we could get more clarity and understanding of words among so many politicians and journalists. politicians are not charged with using words precisely. journalists should be. i love that word, metastasized. it applies to the situation so well. president onth the the issue of mr. snowden, but he answered that question in a measured fashion, pointing out that he claimed that mr. snowden is not a patriot. i don't know. either/ornot an situation. these issues are so complex. . i wish people would listen better. we will go to john from

america's georgia on our democratic line. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i love it. caller who talked about it with a smirk on his on point.ight host: what issue do you disagree with? caller: he smoothed over the if wefor going to iraq as went there just to get saddam hussein. bomb dropped, things were going fine. the number of people we killed, including our own people, did not make sense. me know if there's

something you want to add to your earlier statements on this subject. go ahead. i don't have much more to say, except that i think this issue will be debated for many years. i think that caller and the previous caller, or the couple ago,lors ago -- callers needs to understand that when you are leading men and women there, you do your best for the situation and for the country. at some point, the historians will judge this exercise. we did our best to try to make iraq a better place. i do believe that saddam hussein departing the scene was an important development, and i believe that many iraqis would agree with me that their country has a much brighter future today

than it did before. i'm very sorry that these callers feel this way about the situation. they certainly have a right to feel that way. but i also have a right to respectfully disagree with their perspective. host: a question on twitter -- guest: these are rules and procedures that are established within the u.s. government. the justice department plays a role. national security agencies play a role. ultimately, the decisions are made by the president of the united states. i can understand, the obama administration inherited the system during the bush administration, has made some changes to it, but it basically involves the president making a very difficult decision.

drone isult as this for many people -- issue is for many people, one should not get the impression that this is welcomed by people in washington . anytime there is information of one of of these people, it is a use thismn decision to technology against these people. i understand the problems, the disagreements with it, but i also understand that some very dangerous and criminally minded people have been taken off the board by this technology. as difficult and challenging it is in terms of its legal and constitutional framework, i think it is overall been the right policy for the last two administrations to follow. host: colleen is waiting in

chapel hill. you're on with former ambassador hill. i do believe with the people that wrote in. people need to read a call -- book called "dirty wars." it tells what we are doing in places like libya, somalia. the attacks we have been doing on wedding processions, funeral processions. the answer we get from the government about going into iraq is that at least we don't have saddam anymore. to come, people will look back and figure out what we did or did not do right there. peopleer to that is, the

who have committed these war crimes -- which they are -- will not be watching this earth anymore. who will be held responsible for what we have done and continue to do? host: we have a minute left for you to respond. iraq is a deeply divided society. democratic government that is trying to bring the country together. it is now the democratic government, or the best democratic government that one could imagine. that the people there are trying. these are tough issues. i do not accept the notion that somehow, or only if saddam hussein were still around, it would be a safer place. problem.ssein was the he really created a kind of that i think,e

for many years, has caused this deep division within that country. can pullhe iraqis themselves out of it, whether the rest of the arab world can come to accept shia-led iraq, time will tell. bestmply have to do our with the understanding that at the end of the day, it is for the iraqis to do. christopher hill, thank you for coming on with us this morning. up next, we will be joined by matthew rojansky to look at the state of the u.s.-russia relationship. first, a look at what is coming up on the sunday shows with c- span radio. . topics include u.s.-russia

relations, the upcoming 2014 elections, and the sale of "the washington post." you can hear rebroadcasts of the radio.s on c-span today's guests include michael mccaul and steve king,, democratic senator claire mccaskill. with00 p.m., "this week," an appearance by edward snowden's father. bob menendez, and republican representative and royce and louise geomet. mccain, joe trippi, and strategist.n, candy crowley talks with the chairman of the republican national committee. my credit representative jim republican

representative jim clyburn. bob schieffer rep -- welcomes the maryland democrat, and peter king. general michael hayden, former nsa and cia director. an appearance by len downie, former executive editor of "the washington post." service, by the networks, and c-span. rebroadcasts of the shows begin at noon eastern with "meet the press." union."n "state of the 4:00 p.m., "face the nation. shows at 90.1 in the washington, d.c. area. channel 119. download our app for your smart phone, or listen online. affairsing public

events from washington directly to you, putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house events, briefings, and conferences, and offering complete gavel-to-gavel coverage of the u.s. house all the public service of private industry. c-span, created by the cable industry and funded by your local cable or satellite provider. now, you can watch us in hd. host: we are joined by matthew rojansky, russian expert at the wilson center. obama canceled a scheduled meeting with vladimir fallout overe russia's decision to grant asylum to committed nsa leaker edward snowden. how do you describe the current state of u.s.-russia relations today? guest: it is not going in a good direction. there have been worse periods.

2008, the russians fought a brief but bloody war with the georgians, who had been a close partner of the united states. they aspire to be a nato ally. people believe they had depended on the u.s. in the march to war, thinking washington would rise to the rescue and save them from the big, bad russian bear. the relationship hit the points -- low points before. thathe positive momentum happened after 2009 when obama came in, he announced a reset, made all this progress very quickly, signing a new nuclear treaty, getting russian help on afghanistan -- there were supplying up to 50% of nato in afghanistan. that progress has disappeared.

the scent from the white house was, they don't expect progress in the short term, which is why -- cents from the white house was, they don't expect progress in the short term, which is why they canceled. the russians not only refused the sixth licit == request tod personal help the u.s. on this issue, it was a strong statement. the fact that the president is beginning to lose interest in say, i'veionship, to invested a lot of political capital here and i'm not getting the return on the investment i was getting before and need to get for my legacy -- this is a president tearing down the barrel of three more years of his presidency. it's costly for him to continue to line up with this engagement with russia policy when the russians are not doing him any favors. president obama was asked

about his relationship with vladimir putin and russia going forward at the press conference on friday. [video clip] don't have a bad personal relationship with putin. when we have conversations, they are candid and blunt. oftentimes their constructive. the press likes to focus on body language, and, he's got that slouch, looking like the board kid in the back of the classroom . when we are in conversations together, often times it is very productive. the issue here has to do with, where do they want to take russia? it is substantive. no. just a matter is of where mr. putin and the russian people want to go. if they're looking forward into the 21st century and how they andadvance their economy

make sure that our joint concerns on terrorism are managed effectively, we can work together. -- if the framed as u.s. is, russia should be against it it, or were going to be finding ways we can poke each .ther at every opportunity then, probably, we don't get as much done. host: which avenue is the more likely one in the future? russia at poking every opportunity, or is there a way countries can come back and work with each other again? guest: there is a way for the countries to get back on track. a binaryhink this is choice. i don't think it fails completely or works perfectly. the challenge we have as the honestly, i think the president is sugar coating things a little bit.

the two don't see i to eye on how you do this relationship, how you manage disagreements. obama's view is, if you want to come back to the u.s. with counterproposals, work on setting the agenda, we can talk about pragmatic interests. putin wants to see respect. he wants to see russia treated in a way that he feels the west is not done for decades. these two things are not driving. when obama was on the "leno" setting thingsot up people medically. -- diplomatically. the fact that he is disengaging -- you're not worth my time right now, because you're not willing to commit to an american version of the agenda. here is a personal dynamic that is unproductive. rhetoric reminiscent of

cold war posturing, from "the washington post." if you have a question for matthew rojansky, give us a ring. the numbers are on your screen. we will start with matthew on our independent line. you are on with matthew rojansky . caller: good morning. when i look at president putin -- i studied russian relationships while i was at university of missouri. i see the former kgb in him

every time he interacts with the president. i also see a man who is trying the culture against that has overtaken moscow, st. petersburg, and so forth. a lot ofally taken on -- like our conservative leaders here in america, where he sees the tide is changing. is why he is so cold to president obama, who is a figurehead in the new culture that is america. that is why i believe he holds the demeanor that he has. thank you. you: matthew rojansky, give a chance to talk about the personal side of president vladimir putin of russia. a guy whoseis

outlook has changed procedure medically. issues where i do take with the president simply writing him off as having been kgb from the start, and still kgb. that rhetoric is bipartisan. plenty of republicans say that same thing. guy who, from the outset, was about stability. he is a statist figure. he wanted to defeat the and suffering for ordinary russians of the 1990's. the way he did that was to come in and assert the power, the monopoly of power of the state. inhis third or fourth term supreme power in russia, his outlook has changed and he is playing much more into the culture war issues. a lot of questions become about prestige. it's not just personal munchies mow. it is a most collective national machismo, that russia is this last bastion of true christian

values and a way that the decadent west knighted states, -- in a way that the decadent west has not gotten it. this western model doesn't work, we have a better model. then he uses issues like snowden to say, you have your dissidents as well. your system is broken. mentionedpresident the two men's personal relationship, the images of them that appear in the press. here's a picture, part of ery about thell relationship between barack obama and vladimir putin. different pictures of how the men interact with each other. if you could talk about president obama's relationship with the former president of russia, mr. medved did -- mr.

medvedev. came in at the end of the chaotic and difficult 1990's and restored order. medvedev had always been a technocrat. he's a lawyer, just like president obama. he's a younger figure by a decade, representative of the new generation, the ipad user. andidea was that obama medvedev were able to come to agreement on pragmatic interests. in 2009,irst meeting obama says, you don't want us to fail in afghanistan because if we fail in afghanistan, drugs, weapons, and islamist tourists flow north into russia's soft underbelly, and then into europe. med --medvedev goes, you're right.

in the very same visit, he meets with putin. before he has a chance to get to the substance of agenda, putin begins to lecture him about everything the u.s. has done wrong. this is a guy who sees himself as coming from the position of moral righteousness and says to the u.s., you don't get to dictate terms and outcomes. now: where is medvedev ? it is a parliamentary presidential system. he has quite a bit of influence, but it's understood -- it was clearly understood at the end of 2011 when putin announced, and used meta-of -- medvedev to announce the presidency, he understood who was calling the shots. host: scott is calling on our republican line. you're on with matthew rojansky. caller: good to hear you this

morning. i would take issue with many things you said, though. dvd -- there's a compelling i have been looking at, called "exposing terrorism. it's put up by the john birch society. shows thatse that -- russia has been the leading exporter of terrorism for many years. we need to have relations with these folks, and have joint ventures, cracking down on terrorism. exporting it, causing terrorism to happen in many cases. host: is russia exporting terrorism? guest: no. that russian arms exports have gotten in the hands of some bad folks. russians are aware of that. it is clearly a mistake. but it is an area of

disagreement between russia and the u.s. 2001, the russians believed that the u.s. would now finally see the world through the lens, was that they have been fighting terrorists in their own north caucasus region. they have islamist separatists there who use tremendous violence, who have mounted attacks inside the city of moscow, blown up metro cars, planted bombs in apartments, done assassinations. the russians believed, now america will take our side in this wider global war on terrorism. u.s. says, is, the that is an insurgency. the issues there are about human rights and political issues. we're fighting the real terrorists. commone deeply, and, -- shared interests here. the russians recognize, the issue in afghanistan is about drugs and weapons trafficking,

and about this islamist extremist threat. the russians helped to train counter narcotics officers. they have helped with the transit. in soviet history, the soviets had almost their vietnam in afghanistan in the 1980's. there had been russian boots on the ground, helping in joint u.s. or nato russian raids on heroin labs in the border region. host: we're talking with matthew rojansky. you can see his work at the wilson center website. wilsoncenter.org. you can also catch up with him on twitter @matthewrojansky. what did you do before you worked at the wilson center? russiai was in the program at the carnegie center for peace. i was working with retired members of the house and senate, try to promote bipartisanship. host: what do you oversee at the wilson center? guest: we have the canon center

there. for one of his ancestors, who was among the first americans to explore siberia. an amazing story. great books,n some classic was about how difficult the russian languages. host: folks can come to find out more at your website? guest: yes. host: a caller on our republican line. caller: i was going to ask matthew what he thinks about putin. putin seems to think that obama is no threat to him. he knows he has been lying to the american people. he knows he would probably like to putin. it's why he doesn't trust him. the american people don't trust him. has ai don't think putin

specific understanding of american politics. one of the pieces of evidence of that is the fact that he knows most conservatives in the u.s., certainly a lot of republicans in the hill, have become anti- russia, at least anti-putin on human rights grounds, in terms of russia's behavior internationally and for other reasons. this moral crusade he has been mounting lately, this anti-game of -- anti-gay move, his crackdown on ngo's, has alienated liberals in the u.s. too. if he ever wanted to have reliable allies in the u.s. political process, he both -- lost both of them from both sides of the aisle. this week on "newsmakers," we had dana rohrabacher, who

chairs the foreign relations committee on europe, eurasia, an emerging threat. he offered up his views on russia and the u.s. canceling that meeting between putin and obama. [video clip] it is imperative we have a good relationship with russia. yet we have this administration -- many republicans as well -- pushing russia away, still thinking about russia as it was during the cold war. this is no good for the cause of peace, and no good for us. >> russia is hosting edward snowden, who u.s. officials have said is the most damaging leaker in american history. i think what mr. snowden did, by alerting the american people to over surveillance on the part

of our own government of our population, to call him a traitor -- he was being loyal to the rest of us by letting the american people know that their government was getting out of hand. host: that was congressman dana rohrabacher, republican of california. he serves as a member of the foreign affairs committee. you can see that full interview today on c-span at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern time. right now we are talking with u.s.-w rojansky, talking russia relationships. john is up next from casper, california. he is on our independent line. caller: a pleasure to talk to you this morning. i want to talk about the soviets, how they were allies during the civil war, where they blockaded the south there.

i don't think they teach that in history anymore. also, when they talk about putin and what he has done -- he paid off the rothschilds, pay the central bank off. and the body politic? we have that here, by consent, which is fraud. at least they tell the people what they are going to do. ay, there are-g some place i i read before where you cannot legislate morality. you're not going to be able to govern immoral people. anti-gay is immoral. cut it any way you want. host: you brought up some of the history of the u.s.-russian relationship. we have 25 minutes (if you want to give us a brief history.

guest: this is something i lecture on in my courses. i could go on for a few hours for you. it is not generally a subject we hear much about, you're right. we usually jump into the contemporary -- we can -- frank we forget what was the u.s. role in russia after the cold war. victor's hubris. we came in and said, rewrite to help you build democracy and market economy. at way that is are membered the russians -- remembered by the russians is that you came in, you capitalists took away money, you made a few russians very wealthy, and you left us in a large and went off to fight your other wars around the world. if you go further back in history -- you mentioned the civil war. i was out at the anniversary conference of for raw in northern california, the

northernmost extent of russian colonization. i learned that the czar, at the request of the union government, sent a fleet to protect san francisco bay potentially from -- not the south among which did not have the capability to invade their -- from the british and french allies of the south. our nato allies, britain and france, were potentially threatening the american west coast. the russians were going to protect us from that. history has a lots of twists and turns. the russians love to point out, we were allies in world war ii. we have never been anything but on the same side in a major war. i'm not trying to paint some artificial, rosy picture. the cold war was a real and dangerous confrontation. almost as aps are practical advice advice, for politicians, for ordinary people -- a piece of practical advice, for politicians, for ordinary people, we do have a lot of common interests and a lot of

common values -- it gets a lot of mileage, and changes the character of the conversation. don wants to know about the future. is russia thetes, greatest geopolitical strategic threat to the 21st century? guest: that's an overstatement. the trick about russia is, it is hard to overstate its importance. a famous american diplomat bill burns once said, russia is a bigger player on a wider range of issues of great importance to the u.s. than almost any other country. the key here is to remember that russia is going to pursue its interests. russia is fundamentally after advancement of russia's national interests are at -- intersetrs -- interests. 2011,2009 until early when we got done those

accomplishments i mentioned, including a major nuclear treaty, that was a time that interests aligned and we were able to make process. russia is not the greatest threat to the world. is potentially an enormously important harder on a lot of those issues. we're still going to disagree with them. when we disagree, it will be important to figure out how to do that in ways that don't spin out of control. host: some of these mutual interests were discussed at a friday meeting between secretary of state john kerry, and chuck hagel, secretary of defense. i want to play a little bit of secretary kerry during that friday meeting. [video clip] russia,en the u.s. and it is a very important relationship. interestsed by shared , and at times, colliding and

conflicting interests. we are all very clear eyed about that. we both know that diplomacy, like hockey, can sometimes result in the occasional collision. we are candid, very candid about the areas in which we agree, but also the areas in which we disagree. it's no secret that we have experienced some challenging moments. and just over the snowden case. kerry from friday, talking about the u.s.-russia relationship. what came out of that 212 meeting -- two on two meeting? guest: not much. theof the problems with president's decision this past week to cancel the summit which putin invited him to have after the g 20 meeting, which the russians are hosting --putin is

the main man for this meeting, no matter how you slice it. obama has said, i'm not going to sit down separately with you. you have got to keep doing business with the russians. the white house acknowledged this. we have this so-called two plus two. that is when the progress will be made. , and inell the top guy the russian system, the only guy who makes the big decisions, you are not going to talk to him, do you really think his subordinates are going to come to you with big, creative, new ideas of how to get the relationship back on track? the outcome of that meeting was, we're going to continue having meetings. host: george is up next for miami, florida on our republican line. caller: hello, matthew. that russia believe is still a communist country? host: simple answer to that.

no. russia is not a communist country. it's not the soviet union. the soviet union was twice the population and included ukraine, georgia, cap extend, which are independent now. kazakhstan, which are independent now. the russian ruling elite does not have a democratic ideology. they don't have a capitalist ideology. they don't have a communist ideology. they are about power and self- preservation. we have dealt with a lot of world powers and a lot of smaller countries in the past, where the leadership has had that type of global outlook. if we remember that, we can be effective in dealing with them. we knew how to do this stuff in the past. the problem is that we had forgotten. when you are dealing with folks who don't care much for that

sort of thing, you get russia. a caller. caller: let's assume the roles were reversed, and someone like , would have been seeking asylum in the u.s. surrender that operate of two russians -- opera tive to the russians? host: it's one i'm sure you know has been posed by a lot of people in the commentary and media. i'm inclined to agree with most that we probably would not have given him up. we almost certainly would not have given him up if the approach had been like the approach that washington made to areow, which was to say, we revoking this guy possibility to travel.

sent him there to face a treason trial, you're the bad guy. it is a binary choice. the u.s. does not like to be put in a corner like that. we got the outcome that we got. there is still a possibility, even today -- even in your hypothetical, there would have been a possibility to work things out behind the scenes. back to the interest of self- preservation. what does the system want out of us, what can we offer them? i would not exclude the possibility that sometime in the next few months, snowden is able to get on an airplane, maybe quietly, maybe without our knowing about it, slides onto a third country. it's a decent interval of time has passed, he ends up back in the u.s.. host: we brought up syria previously. laura writes in on twitter, what russia?es assad offer

syria is a tricky case for the russians. it looked like they might be able to quickly stamp down this rebellion, remain control for syria wasfamily, then an important ally. they had a semi base in the mediterranean. they had billions of dollars of contracts traded had outstanding debts. on them. assad's name assad had not succeeded in defeating the rebellion for two years. it has become a liability for everyone, including the russians. now is why you're seeing a bit of a rethinking for moscow. a lot will depend on how things go on the ground. we talk a lot of talk about how serious is a problem, and there is bloodshed. -- syria is a problem, and there

is bloodshed. when they don't see a real alternative from the u.s., part of their answer is, you guys are not solving the problem either. why don't you let us deal with it our way? guest: a caller on our independent line. discussionound your of russia's involvement in the civil war to be quite interesting. our history books don't tend to service very well in what real history is behind russia and u.s. relations. i think edward snowden is the bravest man on the planet. what he is facing, and what bradley manning went through, is an awful thing for what he is going to gain from this. celebrated the anniversary of what i considered to be two of the biggest terror wracked in history of the world.

-- acts in the history of the world. you tell us what the history books don't tell us, what the motivation was behind the bombing? was it to save american lives, or send a message to the russians? guest: i only know what i've read. i would tend to think it is at least both of those. i really do think that truman, when he made that call, was thinking about an impending potential conflict with the soviets. weaponsrget, the atomic race was not just between the u.s. and germany. the u.s. -- the soviets were actively spying on western .rograms trad the rosenbergs were far from the worst soviet moles. there was a guy inside the

program, who serve any unit that my grandfather happened to be apart of of. he was a soviet plant. that is now something that has been written up in "the new york times" and "smithsonian" magazine. the soviets did develop their own atomic weapons. that is how we ended up in the mutually assured distraction dynamic of the curled war. its origins were in the manhattan project in world war ii. exactly what led to what and what came first is still very hard to say. i have worked in a former soviet archive in russia. it is all still shrouded in many, many layers of government controlled secrecy. one of the most effective, devastating spies soviet union ever had --putin only gave him the highest award possible in russia after he died. this was in 2008. that was when the world learned the secret that had been concealed for 50 years.

host: we're talking about history. there's a twitter question about the future. guest: it depends a lot on the part of the military in question. the russians still have a massive conscript force. they are drafting ordinary kids. they tend to not feed them very well or train them very well. the bulk of russia's conventional forces are not an effective fighting force. they are poor, conscript kids who are literally used for forced labor in a lot of uses. just put in to work because they are there, a gulag mentality. then you have the special elite forces. these guys are pretty effective. you have the strategic rocket

forces, the inheritor of that soviet nuclear legacy i was talking about. there's a lot of investment in these forces. getting major new commitments of technology and weapons. one of the big promises putin made, in addition to restoring the pay of military officers, he said he's going to invest tens equipping andn re- training the military. you have the money, will all of it disappear into corruption as it has , if thenally done question remaining. if you look at the 2008 russia- georgia war, one of the lessons was that russia is a behemoth. least in theirat neighborhood. another lesson is, why did it take the russians a week to defeat this tiny military, which did not have support from anyone in the outside world?

the russian military is not what the soviet military once was. host: we have time for a few more calls. michael is calling from brooklyn, new york on our republican line. caller: i'm really enjoying the conversation. do personal relations matter to putin? can you explain the differences between his relationship with bush, and obama, and how that translated to u.s.-russian politics and policy? guest: that's a great question. i don't know that anyone will ever know what is inside vladimir putin's head. that was the irony of george w. bush coming back from that first meeting with putin and saying, i looked into his eyes and saw the man's soul. nobody really knows what putin is thinking. what we know from his behavior in public statements is, he really values a partner. whether it is an american leader

or a leader of any other country , who is in control of his own country, who has a similar level of this vertical of power that putin possesses in russia. when the leader commits something, when president obama says, we will do this, it happens. this was one of the things he saw as different between bush and obama. he viewed bush as a guy who would say something, and would stand behind it, at least as far as his power allowed him to do so. his view of obama has been, he is to subject to domestic political constraints. to domesticbject political constraints. russia acceded to the wto organization. the implement thing legislation, we had to repeal these old, cold war era sanctions to get the benefit. along with that, a lot of folks

on the hill inserted new sanctions to try to punish the putin regime for what they viewed as human rights violations. putin's view was, obama rolled over and excepted this. -- accepted this. it is a new sanctions act against russia. was,erception from russia obama can't even defend his own administration's reset, his own administration's policies. this guy is not a reliable partner. from ocean grove, new jersey on our independent line. apart from snowden, i'm curious what you think our number one geopolitical objective would be if we had our way with russian relations. what is it we want most? do you have any thoughts about the rt television network? if i were king of russia

policy, number one is strategic stability. russia is one country in the world that can obliterate civilization as we know it within 30 minutes. we have to make sure that doesn't happen. whether you do that by maintaining the basic deterrence framework we have had for decades, or do it by ultimately moving towards zero nuclear weapons in the world, in some ways that is a political choice. going forward, look at this country as essentially one of the world's largest geostrategic players. it stretches from the baltic sea to the northern pacific. asia, u.s. thinks that the middle east, or central asia, europe matters, we have to be cooperating with the russians on security issues. to get to your question about propagandatoday, a television station broadcast in

english, spanish, arabic. it presents the russian government perspective. it presents a strange russian government perspective. it is not something you would hear the russian foreign minister saying. it is a highly propagandized, counterpoint to voice of america or the united states point of view. the weirdest thing to me about it is, i tend to only pick it up when i'm in for hotel rooms -- they will play these strangely antiquated cold war many documentaries, or even cartoon strips that make fun of americans. they honestly don't fit with the attitudes of the russian people today. we have plenty of disagreements, but i'm surprised by how unsophisticated rt can be. host: the canon institute director at the wilson center, matthew rojansky. thanks much for coming on with us this morning.

we will be joined tomorrow by matt bennett, cofounder of third way, to discuss his group's ongoing efforts to influence policy when it comes to issues like the economy, immigration reform, and national security. us to rau will join discuss the federal health-care law. and douglas besharov. hope you have a great sunday. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]

>> coming up next "newsmakers" would be chairman of the subcommittee on emerging threats. he talks about u.s./russia relations, al qaeda, and the palestinian/israeli peace talks. then tom cole hosting a town hall meeting followed by sheldon whitehouse. vincent gray and he faced each other in the most expensive elections in the recent history. early $5 million in an attempt to hold on. then send gray only raised one point $2 million but he won the public over. took officer great in 2011, brown would alsru