noon eastern with nbc's "meet the press," 1:00 with abc's "this week," 2:00 fox news sunday, and finally 4 p.m. eastern time "face the nation" with cbs. you can listen across the country on xm satellite radio channel 120. you can download our free app for your smart phone or go online at www.c-span.org. host: guest we want to come baco the issue of immigration and deportation. theblicans look up possibility of taking up this issue after the senate voted on a bipartisan bill. still a lot of questions and this policy is a potential slowdown of deportation by the administration. joining us live on the phone is someone who is following the story for the national journal. with us.iate you being

set up what the administration has been doing and the larger issue of what this could potentially have among house guest: the ministration is -- among house republicans. is -- the administration ofhas been a huge subject protest among the immigrant advocacy community. jeh johnson has been listening to a lot of advocates and talking about the things they can do. it is not entirely clear what they will do. the thinking is there will probably be some good -- some new guidance about what they should consider when it comes to .ooking at immigration people who are living in mixed of them aree

citizens, some of them are illegal's. advocates would like the president to expand his deferred action program that he has to a broader population of people. he put something together a couple of years ago under some protest that finally allowed this to happen. young people who were brought here by their parents, they don't have to worry about being deported anymore. we are not sure what the administration is going to do but those are the kinds of things we're looking at. on pbs news,nson sparking another round of stories, including a series this weekend -- let's listen to what he said thursday. [video clip] our currentaluating enforcement priorities. that is something the president announced that he asked me to do on march 13.

have been looking at this since i took office in late december. that is taking a look at our security program. judgment, secure communities should be an efficient way to work with state to local law enforcement reach the removal priorities that we have. the program has become controversial. i told a group of sheriffs and cheese that i met with a couple of days ago that we needed a fresh start. this is a conversation i have been having with a number of mayors and governors. >> could that happen? >> i believe it will and it should. host: judy woodruff with jeh johnson. that was last thursday on the pbs news hour. joining us is fond johnson,

following the peas for the national journal. following johnson, the piece for the "national journal." guest: i think that is going to continue no matter what the president does on this administrative review. the republicans have used this line over and over again about how they do not want to pass anything when they do not trust the president to enforce the laws we have. the kinds of things the white house are doing are well within their administrative capacity. thes the purview of department of homeland security only to figure out how we enforce the immigration laws.

think about the number of people who go speeding on the highway or parking places they are not supposed to part. -- supposed to park. it would require a tremendous amount of law enforcement to prosecute all of those people. this is something the administration can figure out how to do. they need to tweak it for the sake of people who have been affected by it. just how far they are going to go is the real question. i think no matter what the administration does, the republicans do not trust the president. it does not have to do with immigration, it has more to do with health care lobbying -- health-care law. the lack of trust between the republicans in congress and the administration -- the relationship there is almost nonexistent.

host: where is speaker boehner and where are house republicans on this? we have been getting a number of conflicting reports. the speaker backs off -- where is that? as i best understand the speaker would very much like to do something about immigration this year. but i am not sure what that would be. it is probably not the kind of thing that is necessarily -- the white house or immigration advocates -- the kind of thing the white house or immigration advocates would want. he only has a certain amount of power. the rest of the house would rather not take up the issue because they know it would take up a lot of time, it would be incredibly disruptive in their party. they don't feel like they need to, at least this year. is secure. the senate looks like it could be flipped to republican control. there are a lot of holding

patterns going on. i do think there have been -- i have heard reports -- well, ,umors is what i have heard that they're going to try and do something in the next couple of weeks. i will not leave it until i see it. it seems like it is such a toxic issues for -- toxic issue for republicans. they need to know what happens next. there's absolutely no sense of what would happen on that. my guess is we will hear more rumors. and we will not see anything. dot: in terms of numbers, you know how many annually the -- thetration and the administration in charge of this have been earning? guest: they hit the 2 million mark sometime in the last month. the number of deportations have slowed considerably in the last couple of months. protests have gotten quite

heated. it is a rapid rate of deportation. one of the things that changed administratively, which i do not view as a bad thing, is under the bush administration in the past decade what used to happen when people were crossed that people cross the border and were picked up within 10 miles of the border, they may have been flagged. they were not actually charged with any violation. over the course of the last few years the border patrol has changed that policy such that people who have crossed the border are charged with violation across the border. what happens is if they try to cross and again, now they have a record of violation. deportations, there are deportations of people who have been in the country for a long time.

a significant portion of the deportations are in that churn that happens along the border. the numbers can be looked at in a number of different ways. they will continue to do so until something changes. host: thank you for that background. we look for you online. we appreciate you being with us. and another take from "the wall street journal," who points out -- jeh johnson said president to direct him to look for a more "humane way to enforce immigration law here: -- immigration law." we will go to karl joining us from chicago, democrats line and

-- democrats line. the republicans do nothing more than talk. the president from the beginning try to argue about following the loss of deportation. it is not about the deportations. want toervatives do not understand what the real problem is. we have always exploited other people's labor created that other people's labor. other people's labor. the conservatives don't want to face this. want, listen to what they they talk about having two

types of people here. -- you cannot have citizens and noncitizens in america. for: on the republican line michigan, amy is on the air. caller: thank you for c-span. that itanted to say seems like they could have some a social services or department mexicon resources in where the department of human services can communicate, especially bilingual he, with some kind of department of social services in mexico. get all thed to birth certificates. just like we have to go on food , i cannot believe all

the paperwork when i got laid off my job. think about getting all that stuff over here and translated i link only -- and translated ly and do that over computers and have all those birth certificates and what not. -- and what not hire to them coming over here. it seems like it will be less of a hassle. host: thank you for the call. jim has this point -- we will go back to this moment .- to this issue of the headline -- the headline -- the piece pointing out --

the extensive piece from the front page and jump page of "the washington post." writing about the --

"such steps are unlikely to satisfy advocates demanding dramatic action to help leads of people living in the u.s. illegally." john is joining us from florida. there was a story that came out last week that was buried. pages not on the front of any paper. it was not on the nightly news. over 36,000 illegal migrants were released in 2013 . murders, 400200 rapists, 300 kidnappers. internaln to say the department of homeland security document showed that over immigrantsegal

immigrantcuments -- -- icts, documents showed 870,000 illegal immigrants have been removed from ice dockets despite being in defiance of the law. i hope the washington journal will do at least half an hour on this report that was buried. thought president obama's policy was to deport the criminals. in this report he is even releasing the criminals. thank you for your time. host: that is why we are focusing on this issue. thank you for your call and comment. we are trying to cover all sides. mike has this point on our twitter page --

on the senate floor earlier this , -- had this to say about the latest policy from the administration -- [video clip] leader reid and senator chuck schumer came to the senate floor to demand the house of representatives passed their immigration bill. republicans as extremists but not giving in to their demands. they are correct about one thing, the house is not giving in. at this point in time the house theefusing to yield to pressure of special interest groups and political lobbyists and senate democrats to pass a bill that would be bad for america. it just will be bad for america. once again i think the special

interests will lose and the voice of the american people will be heard. host: jeff sessions, who is a critic of the senate passed immigration bill, urging his colleagues to hold off on any plan for immigration. we are getting a number of different reports on where house leadership is in potentially drafting an immigration bill. our question is does the latest deportation policy by the department of homeland security impact the house debate? joe has this point, saying -- todd is joining us from litchfield, illinois. welcome to the program. i am all for it importing -- all for deporting them. larry from washington dc, you are on the air. amount is notue

something million. -- not 17 million. it is 20 million. all over the world you have sending people. you have terrorists and -- host: steve also on the republican line. caller: good morning. policyppened to the old -- they had to have a job, they had to have a place to live, they had to have a sponsor, and they had to become an american citizen. host: ryan is on the line from ohio created -- from ohio. caller: that's about right. people saying these guys are coming over here in our country

-- and are committed felons. convicted felons. a nation lets the prison doors open. if these people come in and create felonies -- they don't pay taxes and get all these .enefits what does that tell the rest of the country? bill has this point on our twitter page -- there is this story from the san jose mercury news -- "if there is a match i scan then

asked local police and sheriffs to detain the person and decide whether to deport them. in 2008ram was started under the bush administration and has been expanded. the current administration leads to complaints that people are being deported without being convicted of any crime or with only minor offenses. police and sheriff officials also complained of people are afraid to interact with law-enforcement and report crimes because they're worried they are going to be deported. states have begun refusing all the tension request that all detention requests. all detentioning bequests. that story is available online with some more background on the debate that we are focusing on this morning. we are going to hear from lee in

montana. good morning. anger: there is a lot of this morning. shooting people coming across the border? i wouldn't do that. 1975 my family -- i love the mexican people. i used to help a coyote bring people here. they were starving. over the years i learned that they learned how to game the system, not only them but all the immigrants. i have a deep compassion for these people, really i do. i love them. i have four children that are half mexican. i think we need to slow down

and i believe we need to enforce our laws. host: this related tweet says -- from inside "cq weekly," a look at a melbourne debate as congress takes up the transportation bill. here's the story from nathan hearst, who writes -- from who writes --, the president focusing on the highway trust fund in his weekly address. he will travel to tubers town, new york.

-- to cooperstown, new york. richard joining us from massachusetts as we focus on the question of u.s. deportation policies and the immigration debate. good morning. i think they should deport them all. they are elite- located if we can put the military on the border of other countries and not our own -- we need to do that. these people can going to an emergency room and you are not even allowed to ask them if they are illegal or legal. i worked on the fire department and i took many of them to the emergency rooms. they are not allowed to ask him if they are in legal not. host: from marie, who says -- another story related to this

debate online at "usa today.com." "36,000 convicted criminals were released for immigration last year. immigrationor studies says those releases show the administration needs to toughen its immigration enforcement efforts, not weakening them." .ou can get full details online senator harry reid also weighing in on the immigration debate. here's the senate them aquatic leader. [video clip] >> the republican-controlled house of representatives has done absolutely nothing to address our nation's problems dealing with our broken immigration system. it is a system that is broken and needs to be fixed. it cannot be fixed on a piecemeal basis. it beats comprehensive reform.

to the extremists in the house, the time went by like that. president, inside the republican party that may have been the case. maybe really it is just a snap of the fingers. outside the capital we are dealing with people's lives. those 321 days felt like a lifetime. to american families forced to live in the shadows, each one of is a date on away from your family. immigrants have been living in fear for the last 46 weeks. they will have to leave the country they call home. the senate did its work. months, house0.5 republicans have twiddled their thumbs. enough is enough.

created a newid report by the pew research center thomas title -- -- q research center, titled -- pew research center, titled -- highlight from the department of homeland security that focuses on a couple of key areas. first of all -- there is this from our twitter page --

we will go to sylvia, joining us from burlington, vermont on our republican line. caller: i think the reason why we can't get the house to pass that bill, boehner is afraid of losing his job. he know that the u.s. is going brown. the republicans we face now is all old white men. all these angry men who have been calling in today, all republicans. even -- recently said that if keep treatings the immigrants the way they have been, they are going to lose not the lack still presidential -- not only the next

presidential election, they will lose the next three. we have people walking our streets with no identification. is that better than pulling them out of the shadows, saying , welcome tore you the u.s.? it doesn't make sense. host: from bloomberg news this morning, a story on the ouster -- of abrasomsome -- "i discussed these issues with

jill herself and warned her that unless they were addressed she risks losing the trust of the newsroom." jillis from the ouster of abramson. a piece in "the washington post ," -- calls on the issue of immigration and deportation. independent line, florida, good morning. good morning. i'm sitting here in total dismay about our immigration policy that has come forth in this administration. i think maybe we should have a policy of reciprocity where we have the same laws as mexico or same immigration laws as they do

in canada. fellows -- had two fellows that were veterans chained to his cop in mexico because the local police just picked him up. our local police can't pick you up. we need reciprocity. host: front page of "the l.a. times," -- there is a related story from the "financial times" website, reading -- the obama administration could be facing a genuine scandal about its treatment of military shows -- military officials. mounting evidence that some of the hostels it runs have been keeping two sets of books to make it look like they have been reducing waiting time to see a

doctor paid more than 970 thousand veterans from iraq and afghanistan have filed disability claims, making the total enrolled the a system -- enrolled v.a. system an excess of 8.5 million veterans. from pennsylvania, republican line, good morning. say thei just want to laws are two lakhs with these illegal immigrants. too laxed with these illegal immigrants. they don't even know who is in this country. how are you going to pass immigration laws when you don't even know who is in the country? call thank you for your and comment. we will move on to jim from

pennsylvania on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning, sir. it's nice and sunny here. we hope you're doing well. this immigration thing shouldn't be about the people. andhould be about the law enforcing the law. there are laws on the books. there are laws there. why don't these people enforce these laws that we have? i don't put anyone down for trying to better their lives. but there are processes and other things. illegal doing something i would be punished to the full extent of the law. i don't understand how our -- they allowed just anybody to come into this country and stay here, take our jobs. letting matter of criminals, rapists out of jail into the general public, what

are our leaders trying to do to a c echo host: a related point from denny on our twitter page -- as he said at the top of the program, this headline from the san antonio express-news, the current mayor and keynote speaker at the convention is d.c. bound. mayor is looking for not for the housing and urban developing public position. post," whatshington you need to know about julio castro. he is 39 years old. he is a twin brother of walking quin castro. joa

the new york times magazine profiling him as the next in line of a tradition of great spanish hope. that is this morning from inside the washington post and online at washington post.com. roger from south carolina, democrats line, good morning. caller: good morning. we appreciate -- i appreciate you taking my call. i haven't heard anybody saying bushing about president when he says we need to bring these people here because americans won't to do this kind of work created he passed the executive order and that is when the flood of these immigrants came in. when was that executive order?

-- executive order not past? host: are you still with us? he hung up in an executive order of what congress would do read -- would do. it potential democratic candidate, senator bernie sanders. the leftould be alternative if clinton runs. he doesn't know whether clinton will run or not but everyone can see the directions of things this spring. saying --

jason is joining us from georgia on the independent line. good morning. caller: i just wanted to make a quick point. i am an immigrant myself. i was lucky enough to come here legally. host: where are you from? caller: i am from seneca, west africa. my mother is 79 years old right now. she doesn't know much about the u.s.. she doesn't even want to come here. she loves this country. her boy to do something with his life. to all these people criticizing immigrants, if you go back to the families there is somebody

that was allowed to come here illegally and given a chance to do something. who was saying what happened to the people coming in through ellis island, think about it. s anybody talking about illegal european immigrants? no, they are not. there is a lot of intricate -- a lot of racism in immigration right now. every time you see a mexican , the first thing that comes to your mind is if he is illegal. he may have been born here. for the call.u we only have a few minutes left. i want to share with you another thought from one of our viewers, who says --

a reference to billionaires from , antor bernie sanders extensive look at the koch brothers. here is a for graph for the 1980 campaign. koch says -- -- he says -- that is inset new york times. let's go to kelly joining us from georgia, republican line.

caller: i just wanted to call and remind everyone as they are bashing the house republicans that the democratic party did house, the senate, and the white house. have passed any and everything on immigration that he wanted. a full wanted to pass immigration law they could have passed it. be bordericans won't locked down. and foremostull thing we want. after that we are fully open to anything on immigration. tother thing i would like put out there for my democratic friends, the hispanics are doing very well in unemployment.

entitlements,to when you add up all the soitlements there is only much of the piece of the pie. when you added another 30 million p o there is only going to be so much of the piece of the pie to go around. host: you can see from the anguished faces the frustration created 270 six girls of different from a nigerian school. human trafficking is the story in the magazine this week. a summit took place led by the french president francois hollande, looking at boko haram, it's access to money and weapons. that the boko haram has --

one of the note on the immigration debate as the house returns this week, we will hear more from speaker boehner on warehouse lawmakers are on the issue. this point on our twitter page -- one other note we want to share with you from president george w. bush. yesterdayon instagram -- here is a photograph. thescottish terrier died at age of nine after battling lymphoma. the former president said she was a source of joy. even though barney reed -- barney received all the

attention -- a shortoing to take break. we are going to focus on a book that is getting a lot of attention. it is called "stress test." katz will be joining us to give us his perspective of what is in the work. the washington journal continues on this sunday morning. we are back in a moment. ♪ who first remember influenced you to think about issues and government? >> that was my father and mother. i was so impressed with it that i put it in a book. they raised two children and a

factory town in england. around theersation dinner table. there was no looking at tv or listening to radio. we talked and they challenged us in a nice way. they needled us and choked with us. with us.oked freedom requires responsibility. you can't just say i want freedom. most people think they are free because they are personally free. own clothes,their make their own friends, each with them want -- what they want. you have to engage in democracy. my dad would say if you don't use your rights you are going to lose your rights. at 8:00 nader tonight on c-span's "q and a." over 35 year c-span brings public affairs events

from washington directly to you, putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house events, briefings, and conferences, and offering coveragegavel to gavel of the u.s. house all as a public service of private industry. we are c-span created by the cable industry 35 years ago and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. watch us on hd, follow us on facebook, and follow us on twitter. we welcome ian katz, he covers economic issues for bloomberg news. inc. you for being with us. test,ok is titled "stress elections on financial crisis." what is your brought take away as we drill down some of the specifics? it is pretty readable for a book that a 600 pages long and it goes over some pretty dense topics.

this is a lot of washington inside stuff in there. i think they did a good job putting it together and making it readable. there are some interesting behind-the-scenes stuff from the financial crisis. not full of huge surprises for those of us that followed geithner are closely over the last few years. interestinglot of things about him, his background growing up, and some of the things that happened at crucial moments that will certainly add to the store of knowledge on the financial crisis. and: did he want the job when he faced that fears criticism over his own taxes, why did he decide to stay in the nomination? guest: he was a reluctant person to take the job. his wife was downright imposed -- downright opposed.

feeling thatng when the president asks you to do something you do it. i think they always felt like that when they went through the tough nomination fight it was going to be tough. i don't think i ever really felt like -- maybe there were some moments of doubt. i think at the end he felt like he was going to make it through. then a couple of years later, when he was trying to get out of the job and pretty much had enough and wanted to leave, the president asks them to stay on and said he needed them to stay on for a little longer. when the president asks you to do something you do it. host: whether the debate over the's dimmest spending program that over the stimulus spending program, one view of time geithner -- of tim geithner is --

guest: i think he expressed an felt particular discussed with the whole debt limit process, especially in 2011. it felt like there was a lot of grandstanding going on from his perspective. the united states of america is not going to default on its debt. with all the angst and all the trauma --all the drama, the markets -- the treasury refers to it as self-inflicted wounds.

i think that particularly great at him. he felt like this is for show, this isn't real, they need to get on with it. for: a way to set the stage the geithner are nomination, let's go back to november 2 thousand eight. the president winning his working with the transition office. here's tim geithner as the new treasury secretary. [video clip] fed, timf and new york geithner not only offers extensive experience shaping policy and managing financial markets, he also has an unparalleled understanding of our current economic crisis in all of its depth, complexity, and urgency. tim will waste no time getting up to speed. he will start his first day on the job with a unique insight into the failures of today's markets and a clear vision of the steps we must take to revive them.

the reality is the economic crisis we face is no longer an american crisis, it is a global crisis. we will need to reach out to countries around the world for a global response. tim's extensive international experience makes him suited to do that work. growing up in africa and having lived in asia, having served under secretary of the treasury for international affairs, one of the many roles in the international arena, and having studied chinese and japanese, tim understands the language of today's international markets in more ways than one. tim served with the distinction of being under both the democrats and republicans. 2008, asm november president was elected in tim geithner, was their relationship over the past four years? geithner her and obama

built up close relationships to wear geiger was not the most senior economic advisor but was -- he really had a report. in similar ways. they are both pragmatic. think and what can be done in the context of the reality they face. often --eithner are dayton are also often had the -- often hadithner the president's ear. there andtill go out push forward. he was a good soldier, very disciplined on message. the president, i think, always appreciated that. host: we heard a little bit of tim geithner are in the introduction by the president elect. he writes about his own

background in washington dc, meeting his wife at dartmouth college. what else did you learn about him as a person? than: i learned a lot more what most people knew about his time going up in africa and asia. lot.aw that they moved a they did a few years in thailand and then came back to the u.s.. he was in india. he has some real exposure to other cultures, more so than most government officials you will see. the other thing that is crucial read --e book is if you i believe it is the second chapter. it goes over his early days in treasury. i think those are the times that really shaped his thinking, especially his thinking later on during the financial crisis in 2008 and 2009. shaped by the mexico

crisis, he was shaped by the asian financial crisis in the late1890's -- in the 1980's. he was also shaped by larry you couldn't kill off a crisis with half measures. had to use massive decisive force and not leave any doubt to anyone, either the markets or the public, that you were serious about fighting this. theextensive that would be moral hazard argument, that you would encourage people to miss behave in the future. he always thought that was secondary to making sure that a crisis did not spread. host: what was his relationship like with former chairman ben bernanke? similar views, especially during the crisis. from the best we could tell they had nothing but praise for each

other. i think he has a lot of respect for the way bernanke was very calm and calculated during the crisis. fact thatated the bernanke had a real historians view from the great depression and felt like he knew what needed to be done to avoid a repeat of that. apparently they have a good and close working relationship during the whole time bernanke was fed chairman. host: our guest is ian katz from bloomberg news. the book is titled "stress test," out this week by tim geithner. thank you for being with us. we are going to get your calls and comments. our phone lines are open. the lines are -- chris is on the phone from the walkie, our line for independents. good morning to you.

, our line forkee independents. good morning to you. caller: the government and administrators were sent to jail for their role in it. we could have paid off all the mortgages for these poor people who lost their homes who have and weate mortgages would have been further ahead. they lost their homes because they lost their jobs because of the economic downturn. these weren't people who could afford a home at a time. guest: one of the things that lingers on for the crisis that is a major point of criticism

about the handling of the crisis and the bailouts is that there are people in jail, there aren't big shots or pigheadedness -- big shots or big heads contributed in a big way to what was called the great recession. in jail. it is a complicated issue. the treasury department does not prosecute criminals, that is the justice department. it gets complicated. ve wrongdoing.o it think most people sitting here six years after the crisis rope are very surprised that there are not some big shots in jail at this time. on the second point that the caller made on mortgages, it is an interesting point. geithner goes over this in the book for my and it is one of the

things he gives a little more detail on that he did when he was in office. his really all along was that if you improve the economy, if you put a solid foundation under the economy and you consider a blaze things and then get the economy growing again, that that was the best way to all homeowners. one frustration that they did not knew more, that they could not, but any better ideas to help homeowners. , the toolsof the day they had available was to bolster the economy. is like another tweet we have had -- your thoughts? guest: that has been the common accusation and frequent knock on

him. the bailout. it really grates on him, and he spells it out in the book. -- bales are seen bailouts are seen as for the bankers. the way that gartner sees that is that you cannot save the economy without cvb financial system, and he cannot save the financial system without saving the largest banks. unfortunately, some of the characters who contributed to these problems and updating their hides saved with bailouts. the criticism that this was aimed at helping wall street over main street. that is one of the things that he really points up frequently in the book. he says the following --

guest: right. that sums it up. his view of it. odds withput him at the popular view, that you should be doing more for main street, the that you should not be bailing out the bankers. is a really interesting argument as he gets into moral hazard, the holding that if you do this again, that the bankers theeverybody will just get feeling like you can always miss behave any will be bailed out by the government. to benly there is a lot said for that view, and there is

a certain amount of common sense to it. guys thursday was that he felt it was secondary to saving the system. if you got a little bit too moralistic or tried to make too much of a principal or a point of punishing people, that you might hurt the broader economy and the main priority, the main point was to save the system. that is what he was saying. this point is making -- ande the treasury secretary president were in tandem on many of these issues, we did learn that the president was pushing for war to mastic items, and eisner said he cannot do any of that until there were more monetary solutions.

guest: when you still president , and you getrk fed the dodd frank financial we form -- reform, he spearheaded that. he was very pragmatic and he took a look at what could be done, rather than looking very , were being very ambitious. and then he had the european crisis on his hands, and trying to convince europeans to take his approach of taking massive forced to kill the crisis. he expressed rotation that they were using cap measures -- frustration that they were using half measures. it has been pretty hard for the

administration to get ideas through. some critics would say they have not had a lot of ideas or initiative. would say they have had a very uncooperative congress. or 2012, aside1 for the debt limit crisis, the last couple of years of his time in office was far less eventful than the first couple of years. host: when the democrats with a more geordie in the house, the house financial services had this to say on too big to fail. [video clip] the federal reserve bank of new york was aware that lehman was owes -- overstating his liquidity. is that a true statement? a fair not know that is

statement. i will go what the chair said, that there is nothing in that experience that did anything but confirm our adjustment that vulnerable to these gathering storm, both in my lunch leverage they had at how much they were funding themselves. we were deeply concerned about that. >> were they aware that they were overstating the liquidity? the: showing the tension in committee. of the things that came out of the crisis was this weren that these big banks all basically protected by the government, that the government was not going to allow them to go under. really lehman brothers that did.

bear stearns was saved, citigroup, which many folks thought was going to go under was also saved, and other banks on wall street. there is a suspicion that no matter what these guys do the government will be there to bail them out. in dodd frank the idea was to eliminate that, that notion that some institutions were too big to fail. , in his book, put a bit of reality on that and said you can never really actually thatnate the possibility you might have to bail out a large institution. he just do the best you can to prevent that from happening. it is one of those contentious , youg with -- arguments bail out these bags can believe

creates this moral hazard, and they feel like they can never go under. geisler has certainly -- with the book of and with his statements, has fed into that because he has supported the notion that you should not allow these huge institution to fail what you just want to set up a situation where you do not have to make that choice down the road. let me ask you about his own personal tax issue. he addresses it in his book, saying they were all honest mistakes, most noticeably when he worked at the imf. what happened? guest: there were some things report, and the if,on't know- he wast know if

accused of deliberately try to taxes, but if the treasury secretary the artist is cannot do his taxes right, there is a certain amount of irony. it was an embarrassment for him and for the administration. thee was the feeling that obama administration did not have all of its ducks in a row because they should have seen that coming and been able to prevent it or preempted before it became a miniscandal. host: a tweet -- last week the cover story of the new york times focused on the .ew book with

we are joined right in -- we are .oined nby ian katz interesting that the gentleman there blames the republicans for the economy collapsing. let me tell you something. timothy geithner, it is funny -- let is surrounded by me give you a website first. if you google frontline, the episode called the warning, and watch the video, then you will need to collapse the economy. timothy geithner was one of the top 10 people. if you could pick 10 people in the united states who collapsed the world economy in 2008, rubiny geithner, robert

is number one, and barney frank. host: your response? interesting, and this has been written a lot as well. one of the big issues that came up in the financial crisis was how did this happen? as a list look at it there is a lot of blame to go around on both sides of the aisle. under the clinton administration, banking regulations were loosened. there was a lot more liberalization of the financial somets which allowed excessive risk taking to take place. only happen under

the republican watch, it also happened under the democratic watch as well. there is plenty of blame to go around. host: i want to ask you about what he faced from a number of leading critics of the president from his left flank. tookis an exchange that place. i want to ask you what he faced from elizabeth warren. [video clip] >> you talk about leaving the homeowner. this is what about whether or not the investors in these mortgages, some who made substantial profits during the glory days should be required to the the losses when mortgages that they invest in turn out not to be worth nearly so much as they had promised. one means would be through bankruptcy, which would not bring the american taxpayer any

money. and the extent to which the current programs that treasury advances sends a signal to investors and mortgages of and the signal is sent on the sidelines. come to no reason to the table and negotiate these mortgages, you can wait for the u.s. treasury to offer a bribe to get you to the table to do what have been and your interest to begin with. we all understand that foreclosures do not destroy value for homeowners only, they destroy value for investors themselves. and yet investors are hanging back. they're not engaging in rational write-downs that would keep a good stream of payments coming from these businesses, instead holding out for larger streams of payment and for help from your treasury department. >> i do not quite agree with that. as you one option, but know the president of the united states its proposal was

theorted -- did support ability for improvement in housing markets for broader returns. the suggestion that congress considered and chose a different strategy. not agree that the programs in place are working against this process of repair that will support. i think they are helping. we're seeing quite a lot of new interest and willingness in investors and people holding the things to renegotiate and write down. i do not think we are deterring that. i lived through a big housing boom and bust down in the southwest during the late 1980's. the government did not step in and help in the same way. eat theers had to

losses for bad investment that they got involved in an subject to homeowners. this was not a question of taxpayer support. >> this crisis is nothing like that crisis. it is much more dramatic in a scale and impact, much broader effects of the country. i do not think there is anything from that prices in the past that would have been help now. sense oft gives you a the exchange between elizabeth secretary treasury timothy geithner. writerin the book says -- timothy geisler says he had a couple gave the relationship with warren. -- complicated relationship with ren, and she really went after him. geisler andelt like

the ministry should were doing way more for wall street than for main street, and that exchange is an example of that. what he felt was to do early on housing, as i mentioned earlier, he expressed a lot of his own frustration that they could not do more on housing. that there were not a whole lot of workable ideas. his view, and he mentions this in the book, was that she expressed her frustration quite well, but she did not have a lot of alternatives. ofre were not a whole lot laudable ideas out there -- plausible ideas out there. they did have a fairly contentious relationship, as you saw there.

there were some others that hearings in congress. he was largely complementary of her. there was once widely took where he did say she did not often offered absurdities, and also said that he felt her hearings to createdesigned clips for youtube than they were to go after the substance. that was about the harshest criticism he had. it was a complicated relationship. the interesting thing about the hele geithner time is that would be seen by most people as fairly moderate and yet he --aged to be ready devices and divisive or polarizing to both the left side of the democratic party as a lot of republicans. but of histtle

personality, at the time that he , but he did manage to draw a lot of animosity during his time in office, despite the fact that he would be seen by those people down the middle. he also has a whole lot of admirers. finally, what is he doing today? foresee have ever returned to office? nott: he felt like he could to a financial institution that he had regulated. private equity firms that he had bailed out. something like were berg because to him felt like -- like warburg pincus felt like something he could do.

more orle have said less do not count on it, never say never, but for a while he does not want a job where he is or having toat, run something as complicated and as huge as the treasury department or the new york fed or the federal reserve. but a dozen years from now, who knows? , thank you for being with us. we went to continue our conversation on the book, isning us here at the table stephenelleher and moore.

thank you for being with us. what is your take on the book? guest: i thought it was pretty sanctimonious. book, not read the whole but i have read major parts of it and he comes out as someone who made no mistakes. i look back at that time, and there are really two times. there was the time he was hoping help advise the bush treasury secretary, and then when he took over as the treasury secretary. financial view is the crisis was created in large part by massive government failures. the big bubble that built up in housing that cause the crisis in the first place was a result of the fact that the government was providing massive subsidies and insurance for these mortgages. when it collapsed we then ran to the government to try to save us.

phrase,ber that famous that we have to get around the free market system to say that. -- save it. if we look at where the economy is today, it is hard to say that we did much to help the economy. most of the things we did probably put us in this dismal situation we're in right now. host: your perspective? guest: i thought it was a terrific an important book about whether you agree or disagree with his defense of everything he did and what the administration did. it is a unique window into the of one of the key players from 2003 all the way to 2013, which is the buildup to the crisis, the crisis itself, and the aftermath. window intomportant the insights and thinking into why people did certain things.

i think steve is wrong when he says that things have not improved much. incorrect going captures the abyss that the united states was staring into at the fall of 08 and the spring of 2009. i was involved in many of the meetings and discussions that was being had at the time as to what to do. i think secretary geithner correctly captures the choices. we can argue about the choices and the terms of the choices, but the choice facing this country at the time was the real risk of a second great depression. when you talk about great depression when you talk about unemployment of more than 20%. a drop in gdp of massive amounts of numbers, and economic wreckage on a scale we have not seen since the 1930's. that was the this i -- the abyss they were staring into. i disagree with some of the terms and some of the methods that they chose of the time, and i certainly disagree with a whole bunch of the things they did afterwards in connection with the failure to deal with the foreclosure crisis and the

homeowner crisis, and the terms of the financial reform law. thato one should forget the abyss, which was a second great depression, which they avoided, and they should all get credit for, we should never forget that. that is what is at stake here and financial reform. we need a system now that is much more resilient as one more protect you have of the real economy from the financing economy to make sure that no one ever has to look into that abyss again in the future and decide what to do. i want to read you what he says about this issue -- guest: there is a famous phrase by thomas jefferson that says that crisis is the rallying cry of the tyrant.

most of the catastrophic decisions we have made government throughout the history have been in a. time of crisis. this idea that we were facing a second great depression, this is the proto-factual what might have happened if we had done other things. not just suspend the income tax for your that would get economy moving much more rapidly than bailing out. a couple of things to think about. when you look back at that time will be bailed out the banks and we build up the people who took a bad mortgages, we really we awarded the wrongdoers. always ahat is mistake. why not let the bankruptcy process work? make the people who did catastrophically bad decisions,

who wrote the economy to the point of a meltdown, why not punish them? why not make taxpayers pick up the cost of the horrible decisions? cry ofthe rallying that should- really be george w. bush and paulson.o -- hank a obama and secretary gardner to go from generate 20th of 2009 forward. when you have that range of politicians and political views all saying the same thing, a real risk of the second great depression, i think after the fact little thing that or suggesting that it was not of

that level severity or some gimmick about the income tax would solve that problem as they -- is a gross disservice -- it is a gross disservice to people who understand what happened and want to prevent it from happening again. i certainly agree that rewarding wrongdoers is not only bad policy and bad, what's so bad about it is it creates the wrong incentives. we certainly agree with better markets, but we are fighting for financial reform now within an imperfect structure that resulted from an imperfect political process. the terms of the bailout over time more poor and should have been down significantly differently. guest: i think that the service to the american people of the thing we have done in the last five years. this has been the worst recovery from a recession in american history since the 1930's. you look back at the bailouts, the $830 billion stability of --

stimulus, would you cannot blame on george bush, i that was done by obama and that is one of the most expensive failures in american history. guest: one further statistic that everyone should know -- $2 trillion. that is the difference of how big the economy would be today d anything like the reagan expansion during another time of economic crisis versus what we had under barack obama. that is a huge number of underperformance in the economy. stephen moore and dennis kelleher. thank you very much for being

with us. i want you to comment on what timothy geithner said to chairman roads. [video clip] at the same time, not letting people who had helped create the crisis get away with it. >> wiser men and women than i am if a way to do that, but i do not think it is possible. at the core of what it takes, it is a very counterintuitive, unfair thing. there is no way to keep the lights on, there are going to be collateral data fisheries. you can try to have it always. you can try to graft a response that is popular and effective, that metes out a measure of justice in real-time before you say this is --

you can try those things. we tried those in early 2007 and 2008 before we decided there was an alternative to overloading force. look at europe the last four years or so. when you try to have it all ways, and to try to satisfy the popular imperative, mostly what you end up doing is creating much worse outcomes in terms of unemployment or lost businesses and homes. host: latest in a series of interviews. guest: i think this is going to be one of the things of the administration is going to be just most harshly on. on.udged most harshly the economy since then has not been great, but you cannot compare to reagan or other times outside of the great depression. the economic shock until the andt and 2009, -- in 2008 is apples and oranges

unless you compare it to 1930. when you compare it to that and the shock to the system, you're necessarily going to have a worse recovery that takes longer than lesser shocks. on the larger point that you bring up, the terms under which the bailouts were done, and the terms under which they tried to address the system, secretary geithner says there was no way to do it, it was impossible. he had meetings with senior senators and policy officials and they also adjusted setting up a financial crimes task force and funding it at a sufficient level in early 2009 so that the american people they were that while being bailed out, they would not be giving off scott free. now is not the time.

if you look at the crisis from the early 1990's, which was nothing compared to the financial crisis, there were referrals, criminal and over 1000 senior executives were sent to jail. that is because the united states government at the time try your tightest -- rye or ties to the enforcement of the law. rhey been together theri best prosecutors, and said go get the bad guys. you do not do that in the fall of 2008 at the spring of 2009, but you do it at the end of 2009 dead afterwards. after the crisis has abated you have to have accountability. if you do not the reward and incentivize crime and recklessness, and you actually create the seeds for the next crisis. that is the fundamental flaw in what they did at the time. host: we want to bring in our callers and comments. tweet -- -- at

is interesting that they came out of this smelling like a rose. you have had this kind of revolving door of people at the big investment banks coming at working for the government. it is interesting that the firm that made out so well during -- crisis chri was goldman. we were providing 100% guarantees on these mortgages, some people had an incentive and banks made incentive to make these mortgages. what is troubling to me is that here we are six years later and we have fannie mae, freddie mac, to institutions which we agreed we should have let them fail, but they are bigger than ever. almost 100% of the mortgages today are carrying with them the same guarantees that we gave the 2000 that made the

crisis in the first place. one of my concerns is did we learn anything from this? why do we continue to do the same things we did back in 2005, 2006, and 2007? more on will have newsmakers. we welcome our listeners on c-span radio as we focus on the new book out the past week by timothy geithner, called stress test. programbe on the tomorrow at noon. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm interested in knowing if geithner had a specific reaction to the bowles simpson report, whether he supported it, and

what was his reaction to the president's ignoring the whole thing? guest: the report on the tax entitlements? caller: yes. presidentically the -- this is a bipartisan commission that looked at how we could bring the deficit under control and how we could reform our tax system. there is general agreement that we have to do something about our entitlements and that our tax code is not working to make america the economic powerhouse that we should be. one of the atrocities was not thatk obama -- was barack obama decided he did not want to do that, and i think to the geithner was in favor of reforms. should any president to somebody who does not have that kind of experience? are you able to deal with wall street, and if you're part of wall street are you part of the

revolving door? guest: we have been a pretty harsh critic of the revolving door. but we have to recognize that we need people in the government who have private sector experience. when the people in the private sector who have government experience. what we don't need is people peddling influence and access. it is a difficult distinction. we believe there is a good revolving door and a bad revolving door. part of it is cooling off times which is essential. we have isproblems that when senior government officials leave the government and they all end up in one place which is the financial industry, one of the biggest problems is that the financial industry in this country has extreme undue influence in washington and has for many years. what we had is a 20 year bipartisan deregulation mentality, the market knows best

for the market relates itself. that was all done through the wall street and financial industry using their economic power to buy political power, to get more economic power. the revolving door is at the heart of that. it is difficult, but we have to take it on not as a black or white, all bad, all good, we have to be got have the government can give the best of the are and have a private actor the government can get the best of the private sector, and the private sector can get the best of the government. we were flashing the warning signs at fanning rape and freddie mac -- about fannie and we freddie mac, warned about this crisis that was erupting because of the fact that they were guaranteeing all of these mortgages. been for these

massive shelters, and the massive insurance of these mortgages, do you really think the banks would have gone out there and made these? mortgagesvate-label were exceeded by in will will mortgages that were backed by freddie and fannie. anybody who thinks that there was a single cause of this crisis is doing a disservice to history. history will show -- guest: i thought you said it was deregulation. it incentivized recklessness, lawlessness, and commonality -- criminality. they were nowhere near the dominant role and bogeyman that so many people want to -- president have obama's budget secretary who says this is a one in a million not that fannie and freddie would fail. guest: it was george was posh treasury secretary.

guest: no it was the budget director for barack obama who did a famous study saying it was a one in a million event. a lot of people in government said that and they were wrong. host: let me jump in. would you have favorite the approach taken by iceland rather than our massive a lot -- of bailouts? guest: what i would have done would have been to let the bankruptcy process work. let the private sector take over. -- you mayhe right be right that we were on the anotherce of great depression. we were very worried about the structure of tarp. what worries me now going forward is this idea that you

thistalking about earlier, moral hazard problem. what we have created now, for better or for worse, is a perception in the market that it will be very difficult to get rid of, that any big company in america has a safety net. vendors know something you want any free-market system -- that is not something you want any free-market system. guest: an implicit assumption that the government would back up the financial system, that became explicit during the financial crisis. for all intents and purposes, that is that for our economy, for market discipline, and for restricting government from places in the private sector does not need to be. on howgreed quite a bit was caused and how you fix it, but we certainly agree on that. host: another quote from the

book -- let us go to michael in michigan. caller: good morning. i am very disappointed with your poor description of mr. moore. host: i said chief economist. the bearded foundation is funded by corporate america. i am the one who said we should not have bailed out the corporations. how can you say i am a spokesman for the?

m? caller: your foundation is interviewed into by corporations. let's face it. corporate america owns the country. they are running the show. they are running the country, it is not influence, it is pay off. look at the $40,000 dinner plates. price of oil. we have more oil now in this andtry than we ever have, cars are getting better and better fuel economy. bankerscompanies and dictate these prices. gasolinering now with is you have wall street traders who buy millions of barrels of

oil without taking delivery. the big do think one of problems in washington dc is crony capitalism. this is one of the reasons i do not like a lot that stimulus plans because the money goes to the big corporations. i think they have way too much influence in washington. this is a bipartisan problem. republicans are part of the this hugeut look at contributor to the democratic party uses i will give you $100 not buildnd we will the keystone pipeline because you do not want it. there's big money on both sides of the aisle. this is one of the reasons you want a separation. you do not want government in the business of bailing out and giving subsidies to business because it creates this pay to play system. host: another tweet -- let me go back to the book and get your reaction to what timothy geithner says --

guest: that is clearly right, and a little but humorous because of secretary geithner find them defending him, he they're going to be wondering .hat happened to there is no question, as i said earlier, those were the choices. the question is a terms under which you avoid a second great depression. better markets actually did a study on the cost of the crisis. lookow that if you just us

at lost gdp, the crisis is going to cost more than $13 trillion. there is estimate that have come as, that the cost could be high as $40 trillion. that would equate to about $120,000 for every man, woman, and child in the united states. the cost of avoiding the thing that the great depression is almost unimaginably high. that is why it is so important to work hard not to prevent it. that is actually the risk of getting financial reform wrong mode which is the battle we are in now. with thehat is dealing legacy that he lays out in his book. michael is articulating the feeling of the broad majority of the american people, that wall street bailed out, mainstream got the bill, and it is hard to prove the negative.

you cannot say that things would have been so much worse about notwithstanding the fact that a would have been. we're much better off than what would've happened. secretary not rightnow secretaryes this, -- geithner acknowledges this, that we avoided the war come of the second great depression. accountability and changing the incentives up and down the line in the financial industry is what is so important now. people do not realize this, but the same financial industry that of this massive government bailout is the same financial industry that is fighting financial reform today to the and they'll at the fed and that the agencies to weaken or kill financial reform. better markets is on the other side of them.

we are the only ones on the other side pushing back for the public interest. distortedg with the incentives, is going to result in a greater likelihood of another crisis rather than a lesser likelihood. host: sunday roundtable focusing on the new timothy geithner book. paul on the democrat line. caller: it seems to me the bailouts continue on a monthly basis with the money flowing. mostly seems to me that ceos perjured themselves before congress and has to be on tape and someone needs to go to jail. i read a book a few how americanut

sovereignty was being sacrificed. crisisefore the happened, they predicted what would happen because of the trade policies of america. tariffs,accepted big 80% tariffs on things that would go abroad, but we would have to say that it would come into our country for free. host: another tweet -- i think the key point here is the one that dennis made, which is even though we disagree pretty severely about the wisdom of the bailouts and the stimulus plans, i would say that here we are six years later and we are doing exactly the same thing. i was just looking at the latest

mortgage statistics, and 90% of mortgages that are being issued by banks now are with virtual 100% taxpayer guarantees. that is what created the crisis in the first place with fannie and freddie and the fha. why are we doing that? why are we creating incentives to build up another housing bubble would we saw the crash that we saw in 2008? host: another tweet -- guest: let's hope not. the outer defenses of that -- consequences of that for everyday americans for their jobs, livelihoods, and providing for their families would take a terrible head. the critics cannot have both ways. they cannot realize this then -- criticized the stimulus and say that the economy is still too weak. the stimulus added over $1

trillion of demand and a time when demand was dropping at a rate greater than any time during the great depression if i remember right. whole --imulus build a filled a hole. i am not agreeing with every term of the stimulus and i am not agreeing with every term on the which freddie and fannie guarantee the mortgages, but if you did not have freddie and fannie standing behind mortgages in this country there would be no mortgages. we would not have had are ugly any purchases or sales of houses for the last five years. when i created the very calamity economically speaking that you were trying to avoid. we havethis custom is spent so much time talking about wall street and we forget about the real pain. so-called u6 number peaked

in january of 2010. in january 2010 it was 43.6 million americans were unemployed, underemployed, or discouraged workers. those are just the individuals. add the families, that is an economic crisis of a proportion we have not seen since the 1930's. if we do not take some of those measures, the stimulus, and a variety of the others, to try to soften the blow and put a forlorn do that, the economy now would be much worse. all due respect and i think you have historical and amnesia. that was a crisis for the stock market over 12 years had dropped by 67% in real terms. the inflation was over 20%. that was the greatest economic racism the great depression.

-- economic crisis since the great depression. barack obama came into office during a crisis. in whatook the office was a bigger crisis, and the two diametrically different approaches. the economy has grown at half the pace under barack obama's recovery as it did under ronald reagan. have $2 trillion more gdp, and we have 6 million more hadicans working if they the reagan expansion. you're going to have to explain to me why that did not happen. host: jonathan from georgia. caller: good morning. i remember what it was like in the late 70's as well. it took me two years to find a job after college. we had 10.8% unemployment in 1981.

i have a newsweek from then. 21% interest rate, 13.5% inflation, it was horrible. in 83, 1980 4, 1985 it created $10 million and -- 10 million jobs in 36 months. it dropped to 3.5%. what the fed is doing and has been doing the last 20 years has been contributing to the bubble s. it started to go through a correction, and shortly after clinton voted to

repeal the glass-steagall act, and the commodities future modernization act which weakens the cftc ability to regulate derivatives and credit default swaps. and then fannie mae and freddie mac helped to contribute to the massive bubble and irresponsibility and over leveraging the financial markets. let me talk about one question. host: a tweet -- guest: i do not know. about 90% of them are federally guaranteed. would say isg i that the good news for your viewers as we not going to arbitrate and decide how history will view the economic crisis of the last hundred years.

the history looks back, 70's, 1980's, and anything other than the 1930's will sadly not the comparable to what happened in 2008 in 2009. there was no threat of a shutdown of the payment system in this country and the 1970's. there was no threat of literally cascading dominoes were every financial institution would be bankrupt and laying off massive amounts of people. there is no analogy. it is true that the fed, everyone wants to bash the fed, but let's remember that president carter appointed paul vocal or which broke the back of the stagnation. history will decide that. the more boring thing is where we are now. -- the more important thing is where we are now. too big to fail means that they are to interconnected and to

leverage, and they are too big to manage and too big to regulate. they are also too big to prosecute and enforce the law. institutions have a democrat he stored -- damocles sword over the throats of the american people. we have to bring much more transparency and regulation to the derivatives markets. we have to get resolution steveity right so that stream of these banks going into bankruptcy can happen in a way that don't have systemic consequences. we have to get so many other parts of financial reform right. the problem right now is because of their lack of political confidence in the financial system arising from the bailouts, arising from the lack of accountability, it has made

the job of financial reform so much more difficult. that is where we are today. guest: we have had this discussion -- and dennis and i do agree on this issue of too big to fail and how do we unwind this. we have not mentioned the credit rating agencies. these are sanctioned by the government. they were pretty bad actors as well. toy were giving aaa ratings morgan securities the day before the corrupt -- they collapsed. host: an e-mail from the viewers -- the highest tax rate fell from 70% to 28%. host: a headline from 2010. something he says in his book

-- guest: he is partially right, there were more than five bombs, but the real problem we had at the time was that we had a crisis in the financial institutions in this country because they were loaded up with worthless securities, well over $1 trillion of all of which had been slapped with aaa ratings, because you're exactly right we have not done anything in. rating agencies -- credit rating agencies. the choices and the terms under were it was done -- there looking at what to do with basically dominoes. the problem is you cannot, and to give him some credit, he

defends to the last page of his fdic and the government should guarantee all liabilities, i'm sure that they are 100% whole, and eventually the arsonist would get away. i was actually a firefighter and are certain investigator -- and an arson investigator. firefighters do not investigate are sent. firefighters put the fire out, arson investigators figure out what happened, and the prosecutors prosecute them. timothy geithner and the treasury department put all of that into one. that is why we had -- where you havingey accused him of lehman syndrome. he had to pass judgment on many of the things he did at the fed. that caused incorrect prescriptions. host: another headline --

host: did efface any more pressure -- did he face any more pressure than previous secretaries in calling for his in the confirmation hearings in part because of issues with his taxes? himit any different for than previous secretaries? guest: people forget that this thepretty scandalous, that person who was put in charge of the treasury department in the i.r.s. had basically cheated on taxes. that's a pretty bad situation. host: he said -- guest: he didn't pay his taxes. if you're going to head up the should --u guest: i think -- everybody pure. be democrats and republicans. that's not what happens. but there's no evidence or indication that he cheated on his taxes. guest: he didn't pay the amount he was owed. pay.: he didn't there was an extensive investigation that showed that

there were mistakes made. do hisan accountant taxes. guest: still, you're saying headdy in the country can the treasury secretary -- gets to an important point. this is something i think is a great service of the book. unremitting unified thislity of republicans to president from the day he walked in. now, some of that was going to happen because of partisan politics. some of that was going to happen anyway because of the nature of consequential massive actions happening in the economy, in the financial markets, and by the government. was nonetheless this opposition -- and it was different for timothy geithner, different for president obama. i believe when history looks back, one of the most shameful episodes which even secretary paulson hinted at sometimes, bush's treasury secretary, that the mindless opposition to some of the most important things that had to be a second great

depression -- guest: like what? come on., host: not a single republican voted for the plan. a single one.not guest: that's not true. it wouldn't have gotten through the senate. four.were three if not host: not a single republican in the house voted for it. obama never reached out to the republicans. care.me thing with obama this toxic partisan environment, that on theame republicans. never reached across the aisle to the republicans on a single issue. guest: single leadership staff in the united states senate -- host: for the democrats. guest: that's right. senate.he i work with republicans every day. for five years until i left in 2010.ber of the history will show, for example, whether you call it thea care and you look at finance committee, chairman baucus and how much time he spent trying to get republicans onboard, including judd gregg and others. i could go through the list. you can do the same in the house. history will show -- you can

been should there have more reaching across the aisle. the but nobody can say what you factuallyse it's wrong. guest: they never did i was there. the end of we had at the day, and your quote gets to it, steve, you had this mindless down the partyt lines. guest: wait a minute. how is it mindless opposition to an $830 billion debt bomb that created virtually no jobs? is factual. here is the factual truth. the government can only spend a takes the dollar from the private sector. there's no stimulus to the economy from the government money.g host: let me jump in with the words of timothy geithner on the political crisis in washington politicale calls dysfunction. he says, quote, it's been a drag on our growth, the debt limit showdown that brought the u.s. to the brink of default in the summer of 2011. another example of how it was for business and consumer confidence, super powers aren't aroundsupposed to bumble like that. let's get to jerry from

baltimore, maryland. waiting.r caller: good morning, steve. thank you for c-span. your gentleman there from the sir, i gotundation, to say, you are rude. speaking over the gentleman there from the side -- guest: i wasn't the one who my policy mindless and so on. caller: you see, you're talking over me now. time to speak. guest: go ahead. caller: you are rid rude. irnot a true conservative. you are a libertarian which is a clothing.eep's you represent linden, those brothers with economic dysfunction. we were looking at the nuclear our economy, not some abyss during that time. tell you, there were a lot of mistakes to be made, a made. be we are very, very fortunate to

be getting out by the skin of teeth at this point. yes, there are not enough jobs created. but guess what, even during the good times there's never enough jobs created. ofstill had a level unemployment during the heydays of clinton. ok? made then?es yes. all right? has been the bane of our economy. host: thanks for the call. response.a guest: there was a poll that came out a few weeks ago, steve, summarizesk really where we are today. 52% of americans, americans say the u.s. economy is still in recession. incredible an statistic. because officially this recession ended in june of 2009. fifth year ofe what is supposed to be a recovery and you are talking everything is going. and for the american people, they're not feeling it. they don't feel that there's at all. recovery i'll give you one statistic.

to indicate just how poorly this has performed in the aftermath of all of these that dennis says has worked so well. you did. you've been saying we did all the right things. the average middle class family, dennis, has lost $2,000 of recovery.ing this $2,000 of income. how can you say for the middle have these policies worked? guest: steve, you foe know, i housing projects of worcester, massachusetts. no one's going to lecture me on class.dle and certainly not -- well, let .e leave it there the economy today is in bad shape. that.'s questioning the real issue is how much worse been.ld have the counterfactual that we can't prove but history will prove right. i did not sayt -- everything that was done was great and things are fine. normally portrayed as a very big critic.

haveconomy's bad it would been worse it would have been much, much worse without the stimulus. muchuld have been much, worse without fan any and fred -- fannie and freddie backstopping the mortgages. could it have been done better? of course. view that president clinton and secretary geithner this economyle for is just a gross -- it's just irresponsible. dennis, you have to explain why this is the worst recovery from a recession since depression. it's not worse -- guest: because -- guest: it's not worse than the reagan years. worse. guest: i don't get as offended as the caller, but one of the the best ways to have a to finish and then let the other person talk. it's expected that would have a economy when you have an economic shock of the level that this country had just as we in the great depression. comparing apples and oranges to other times is not helpful. but other problem we had -- and this is where i disagree with

secretary geithner -- is they failed miserably in my view to mitigate the foreclosure and this country. in he defends it bravely and aggressively in the book. i disagree. creative in half as p fighting that crisis as they one in fighting the crisis wall street, then the economy would be much better now and we'd all be better off. not be back to where it should be because when you have a shock of this scale, to repair the damage even if you do everything right. didn't doy, they everything right. they could have done things better. an to say that there was indifference by this administration to the economic middletances to the class or the 43.6 million of 2010 who january couldn't find a job, that is just flat not true. geithner in his book makes it clear how much they worried about it. i wish they did some things differently. but you cannot question anybody's commitment or their

done.t to get it guest: i think they thought they were doing right thing. it turned out to be the wrong thing. knoweep saying we don't what the counter factual would be if we hadn't done this. we have a good indication in january of 2009 when obama took office, as you a counterfactual. they said this is what's going to happen to the economy if we stimulus and so on. and you know what? the economy's worse today than been ifd it would have we hampton done all of these things to help the economy. that's the counterfactual. me just say-- let this again. we are doing worse than barack obama said we would have done if we hadn't done all of these interventions. host: i'm going to jump in to reintroduce both of you and remind our radio audience that we are talking about the new book out by timothy geithner called "stress test: reflections on finanical crises." kelleher,ests, dennis graduate of harvard law school, and stephen moore, graduate of of illinois. and george mason university.

one of our viewers saying that reached out time after time to republicans but because of that inauguration pact, reference to the then former speaker newt gingrich, and the hand was away. being slapped guest: look, i actually think one of the critical mistakes made right outma of the gates is he actually could have gotten, in my couldn, dennis, probably have gotten 100 house republicans. here' ad said, look, here's $800 billion. we want to spend $600 billion for our green energy program and we're going to giv give $200 billion for you to cut tax rates or something. couldhad done that actually have divided the republican party and basically thed have crushed republican party. instead they basically said we tot $800 billion and want spend it on all the things we want to, more government programs, and the republicans said no. that's what we don't stand for. the same with healthcare reform. they never asked for republican .deas on healthcare reform guest: that's factually inaccurate.

across the board. in fact, the ultimate contours content of the stimulus proved that wrong. i'm sorry, i can't remember or four republican senators who voted for this, extracted massive conditions in includingus about $200 billion, if i remember right of the $800 billion, being in tax cuts. guest: those were marginal rate reductions. that's what stimulates the economy not give away tax cuts. guest: it's like -- you're like mole.a you respond to one and then you come up with something else when i'm responding to your last whack. this administration reached out endlessly. criticized the administration for reaching out too long and too much and not taking decisive action. the problem on both healthcare and on financial reform is so much time was spent wasted trying to get republicans to come onboard under almost any conditions that they got to actually move legislative on those, much of the public was already lost. i think it's just not

factually correct. left.only a minute or two jody has probably the best tweet of the morning. host: let's go to robert in missouri. thanks for waiting. good morning. caller: good morning. i just find it fascinating that mr. moore can't help himself but hejump on everything that doesn't like. i would like to talk to the lack -- iuation, the thought.rain of the people putting the proper ratings on these mortgages. it'sjust seems to me like a no-brainer that somebody -- i jail,know about going to but certainly should have lost their job.

host: robert, thanks for the call. guest: robert gets back to a fundamental issue. so many people in washington want to fight about what or didn't do, blame washington for causing the sincet financial crash 1929 and the worst economy since the 1930's. to gos plenty of blame around. but in any hierarchy of blame, wall street is at the core of it the too big to fail banks and activities and their ratings, be they credit agencies or others, are they core of causing this crisis and making it worse. createdthe ones who trillions of worthless securities and distributed them throughout the world. in fact, they stuffed their pockets with tens of billions of dollars if not hundreds of of dollars in bonuses both before the crisis, during the crisis, and, frankly, after the crisis. and there's been an utter lack not just of accountability on has street but what surprised me, steve, is the black of statesmanship. single head of a major bank has stood up and said

wrong, we need to fix them, we need to get on the side of financial reform. better markets existed because there's this huge vacuum where you had this huge pressure from wall street and washington. on the campaign finance side and on the lobby side. had really nothing on the other side except some very brave and strong people in andgovernment, regulators policyholders. but that is one of the biggest issues, that people have turned street tofrom wall washington. what we need to do is still theront and deal with fundamentally bad incentives and the structure of wall street change.s to host: gregory is the last call from pennsylvania. good morning. you, gentlemen, , to turning me to talk to the geithner legacy. i like to think that timothy, no intended, throw the light switch on and raisedded the

mirror. theirerybody just ran for holes. and needless to say some of them didn't make it through because their huge bump like lehman etc.ers, a.i.g., who's standing? well, we have obama standing mirror.oking into the and why? i like to think that it's because he bit off more than he could chew. the proof of that is in the confully graduation we're witnessing between the sterling theer and the johnson in sports arena, which is not .nlike politics or business so where do we go from here? to fillto find a person the leadership gap because the huge national debt is nothing a reflection of the good faith and credit in the united states that's held by the are buying huge sums of american treasury at no

interest! host: thanks for the call. let me take just part of his question to conclude with both you. where do go from here? guest: well, i think the big face is that because of these bailouts we have essentially rewarded people who a lot of the bad decisions and even criminal behavior that dennis is talking about. it could take decades for us to unwind from that. i guess my concluding comment would be, you know, for the last five years we've used all of interventions.t why don't we get back to the old idea of the free enterprise and letting the free enterprise system work without all of these government interventions, whether it's the taxes, the bailouts, the stimulus plans. if we do that, i'm very u.s -- ic that the think we could see a 1980's and boom again. host: one of the arguments is that the banks failed in large part because there were no restrictions, there was no government watch dog over these

organizations. fundamentally disagree with that i. think the reason we had the failure was because pushingnt policy was banks through things like we didn't even talk about, the community reinvestment act, banks, as you know, dennis to make loans to people who couldn't repay them. guest: again, factually wrong. i won't talk about it because the record on that is so clear. thet: you don't think community reimbursement act incentivized the banks? guest: not at all. facts prove you wrong. guest: amazing. wow. guest: one of the things tim geithner talks about a lot is his disdain for washington. and one of the problems is that i think -- look, everybody's opinion.to their but you're not entitled to facts. there's not enough attention paid to facts. or in thes morning larger world. that's one of the problems that drives good people out of public life. and the name calling -- it's easy to say, oh, you should do and do that. the outside critics are everywhere when you're in the government. when you're in the government, decisions thate effect tens of millions of

american lives. right,y may not get them but their goal is to try and get them right. book shows the most important thing in my view is how important it is that no have to face the abyss as george w. bush's administration had to face and barack obama's administration had to face. got toans everybody's give back to the business of making sure that wall street is reigned in. steve, because we had unregulated, unsupervised reckless,at became high-risk and criminal. we know how to do that. thead about 70 years after great depression where there was not another huge crash, after of 1929. yet we had one in 2008 which was preceded by about seven to 10 just complete deregulation, no regulation, no law enforcement. we need to get back to the right balance where the government is properly regulating the big banks are notgest too big to fail. they could all fail individually

collectively without taking down the entire financial system. that means getting -- it gets good point ofher geithner, which is that you've got to win back the american people. andcan't win the battle lose the war of public opinion you know because you hear it lostevery day that they the american people. they're still gone. they don't understand. made.se was never that's job one and two for future administrations, whoever they are. agree.i guest: get the system right. fix the system. win the american people back. that point?ree on guest: no more bailouts. they don't work well of the they reward those who got us in the crisis in the first place. guest: better markets exist for makeurpose of fighting to sure that the system is secure and safe that both supports our taxpayers --he guest: support our policies like the community investment act crisis. us into the guest: steve -- guest: you support fannie and freddie. were the principal partners in this crime.

guest: watch the tape and listen better. host: the greenroom is right next door. you two can continue this conversation. stephen moore, chief economist the heritage foundation, dennis kelleher, president and markets, inc.er thank you for a lively discussion on the tim geithner book. it.ppreciate just a reminder, we thank you for watching or spending your c-span'srning here on "washington journal." you can listen to those other sunday shows on c-span radio. with that, nancy is keeping track of the guests and topics. preview. a >> on today's sunday television talk shows some of the topics 60th anniversary of the supreme court decision in brown v. board of education. also, veterans' healthcare, n.s.a. surveillance, and politics. rebroadcasts of the programs on c-span radio beginning at noon eastern time "meet the press." guests today include the chair of the republican national committee, also democratic

and themccass keel, author of "no place to hide." later, 1:00 p.m. eastern time, week with barbara walters" and eliza gray, reporter for "time." 2:00 p.m. it's "fox news sunday" with former vice president dick cheney, scott reid, strategist at the u.s. chamber of commerce, dr. sam foote, v.a. hospital whistleblower. then cnn's state of the union 3:00 with a discussion on the 60th anniversary of brown v. board of education. appearance,an massachusetts democratic governor deval patrick. nation"p.m., "face the with without chief of staff dennis mcdonough, daniel dellinger, michael bloomberg, former new york city mayor, and former geithner, treasury secretary. the sunday network tv talk shows are on c-span radio. as are brought to you public service by the networks and c-span. again, those rebroadcasts of the at noon eastern with

nbc's "meet the press," "this "fox news sunday," "state of the union" and "face the nation" at 4:00. listen to them all on c-span 90.1fm here in the washington, d.c. area. across the country on xm channel 120. download our free app for your smartphone or listen online at c-span.org. host: elections in syria that many are calling a farce. latest on what's happening in that country and the u.s. response. c-span 2'sinder on "book tv" and c-span 3's thisican history tv" weekend we are focusing on mobile, alabama, part of our ies tour as we look at the life and history of mobile, a look at theding south during the civil war captain, a back ground object his story and a preview that you

on our later today c-span networks. >> i read something one time. the south he was looked at as a hero. time of crisis y crisis, your people are always looking for someone that they to.d look up the fetes that sims did on the high seas, he captures the of people in england, france, everywhere. and people were constantly writing about him. if you were from up north, you hated him. just like anybody, you're going him, if you hate him, the lowest names that you can think of, which they did. host: the story of captain semmes and his role during the civil war. you can check it out as we focus on mobile, alabama, part of our c-span2's "book tv" and american history tv weekend as we focus cities.ca's mid-sized also you can check it out anytime at

c-span.org/localcontent. joining us from houston, texas, from the campus of rice university is edward djerejian, a were toker u.s. embassy to former u.s. bar ambassador to syria. forbass back, thank you being with -- mr. ambassador, thank you for being with us. you.: good to be with host: one of the big questions as we hear from secretary state kerry a new u.s. response to allegations. first of all, what do you know? guest: well, i'm not privy to the intelligence but obviously both the american secretary of state and now the french foreign statedr have publicly that there is evidence that the chlorine gas in in recent weeks. obviously it's a chemical agent. it's not one of the chemical

in, i --at are listed i believe that are listed in the of the syrianal military, that the agreement was dismantle and destroy. but, still, it is use of a agent.l host: in fact, 14 different chemical weapons according to u.s. intelligence. and here is what secretary of state kerry said just last week .n paris the c.w. andct to , it the consequences are has been made clear by president use wouldothers that result in consequences. we're not going to pin ourselves precise time, date, manner of action. but there will be consequences were to be proven, including, i might say, things that are way beyond our control, nothing to do with us but the international criminal court

are free to hold him accountable. as you know, we have a resolution that will be in front the united nations with respect to cull pact for crimes humanity, atrocities and, of course, of this conflict. or the other there will be accountability. host: ambassador, as you hear that comment, it's almost reminiscent of the so-called red line that we heard from the president. will there be consequences? are they?t guest: that's a good question, steve. when the most extensive use of deployed bypons was the regime and over 1,000, i believe 400, people were killed, activate.ne was not you know we went to that very complex scenario where by with intervention an agreement was made with the

his chemicalmantle arsenal. now, the good news in all of this is that reportedly over 93-odd percent of his chemical arsenal has been identified and taken out of the country. there's still work, obviously, to be done. these wordsear again, again one has to be very precise. use of these reportedly weapons a cause for not?n to be taken or that's not very clear in the statements i've heard. host: our guest served as us us ambassador to syria from 1988 to 1991. he is currently the public baker director of the institute on the campus of rice university. in some news this morning from irish times -- i just want to read to you what it's writing today. base, the president can

contemplate a broad sweep of syria clawing back from the who once threatened to drive him out. the cam tall which they targeted is now plastered with posters inviting syrians to re-elect him as president. powerful foreign allies have president assad hold or retake a chain of cities which formed the north-south backbone country and the cul culmination will lead to the election that many dismiss as a saying that, yes, he will be re-elect the as president but .his is no campaign the sheer decision that he's made to have elections, to rerun for the presidenty -- pressie for -- for another seven-year term, this has been his goal from the very beginning. years.back three he is always focused on presidential elections where he re-elected and extend his regime. the fact that these elections held in a country that is devastated by civil and

warfare, where the government itself does not control all of its sovereign belies the whole credibility of these elections. so he's making a political point he's here. he needs to be dealt with, that leavingo intention of power. he will do everything to destabilize the opposition groups. host: did we do enough to try to help those trying to topple president assad? baker well, here at the institute approximately a year and a half two years ago we does a report onwe did what the u.s. administration doing inntemplate order to support the opposition the way for political transitional talks between the opposition and the regime of assad to lead to

constitutional reforms, parliamentary elections, and eventually a post-assad era. we argued then -- and, again, this is a year and a half, two ago -- that the united states should be more muscular in supporting the syrian opposition, identifying those elements, individuals and groups in the opposition, that were basically secular, moderate, and obviously not the islamic radicals. felt that this was a very realistic objective. be done. those people exist, existed today, and that the united states assistance shuck only -- should be not only humanitarian, economic assistance, but limited military assistance. words, providing weapons to the syrian opposition. advocated going far

toward any scenario which would american boots on the ground. that is not a realistic objective for all the reasons we after iraq and afghanistan. orderught then that in for the so-called geneva on kofieneneva 1 anon--- kofi annan, and then geneva 2 under the mediator who just stepped down, that the whole policy supported by the united states, europeans, and international community was to obtain the ceasefire on the ground between the opposition the regime, to start on a political transition between the regime and the opposition groups leading to a scenario whereby there could be elections in the be relativelyould free and fair. era.ing into a post-assad

the problem with, i believe, our to giveas that in order those geneva initiatives any chance of success, the playing field between the opposition groups and the regime had to be leveled. the syrian regime enjoys support from russia, and from hezballah. this is materiel support, intelligence support, troops on in termsd especially the syrianh, and mostly -- receives humanitarian assistance which is very important but does not enjoy the same type of support whereby it could help level the playing field, especially the military playing field. the syrian regime enjoy a monopoly of air power, as we've

seen. skies.rols the it has used these barrel bombs destroy rebel and civilian areas with devastating impact. the city, aat len, it of the rebel looks akin to dresden after the world war ii bombing. feel that we, the united states, should have been more two years ago. i cannot sit here and claim that a significantly better place but we certainly would not be in a place where of syria now with impunity is proceeding with elections.l host: there is a related storedy on this sunday morning from times."the new york is the u.n. seeking more ways to distribute aid throughout syria in light of what you were talking about, ambassador, the situation throughout the country? guest is with the baker institute, a veteran of the u.s.

serving dating, back to the kennedy administration, through the clinton administration in a number of positions around the world. a former army lieutenant, a graduate of georgetown university. from is joining us rockford, illinois, democrats line. good morning. caller: hello. host: go ahead. you're on the air. caller: hey. how are you doing? ifas just trying to find out white phosphorous was a chemical agent. mistaken, israel used gaza.-- in guest: i don't know if white c.w.horous is part of the agreement that the u.s. and russia brokered with the syrian regime. i think the key objectives of agreementcal warfare and back tear gas

and raid logical weapons racin and chemical agents like that which are in the syrian inventory. currenter of the president assad, he was the man dealt with when i was the american ambassador in syria to 1991. he built up this chemical as, if you will, a poor man's deterrent to conflict with israel under the assumption that israel militaryy powerful capability, including nuclear weapons. that hiss the arsenal son bashir inherited. -- unfortunate flatley unfortunately it's part of that arsenal that he used against rebel and civilian forces which caused those 1,400-odd deaths

ont caused the crisis chemical weapons in syria. host: there's a follow-up to that from one of our viewers. is comingnterference from the border with iraq? do you know? guest: a great deal because one factors --abilizing first of all, to but this into perspective, steve, syria has a of approximately .2.5 million people because of this civil and sectarian war that's into its year now, nine million syrians have been displaced in way or another, internally, externally. latest u.n. high commission for refugee figures put the in external refugee status at something like 2.7 million people. they are largely in lebanon are a million syrian

thatees in lebanon constitutes 1/4, 25%, of the .opulation of lebanon in jordan in turkey, and in countries -- some that have been able to get to europe and else where. so if you look at the magnitude the problem, you have nine million people displaced, 2.7 refugees, 6.5 million estimated internally.ced so it's a huge humanitarian crisis. getting aid to these people through u.n. agencies and a massive problem. and "the new york times" article mentioned indicates that something like 85% of the food assistance goes to areas that are controlled by the and 70-oddrnment

percent of the medicine and pharmaceuticals go to areas government.y the so the u.n. aid agencies are getly challenged on how do this aid effectively to the itple who need it and how is not filtered only through government-controlled areas take the government can credit? host: as we look at these pictures, and this is one from today's "new york times" and you mentioned the utter devastation syria,out much of reminiscent of what we saw after world war ii in berlin, germany, how is the country able to survive economically? guest: well, it's a good question. you have to ask yourself the nottion -- how that imploded completely? syria, before this chaotic starting incurred 2011, had various economic

assets. agricultural sector, an important one. and gas reserves. traditional, ancient business entrepreneurial class, a very vibrant merchant a very educated and people.ious so all of that has not been broken over the last three years. there are remnants of it that remain. but it's a losing battle. goes by and the thel war continues, economic social circumstances are going to deteriorate to a tont where by it's going become a massive humanitarian crisis. host: john is next, joining us from union city, california. good morning. welcome to the "washington journal." caller: thanks. my question is, why should

anyone seriously believe government says about the country when it still the public clean to about what really brought down 9/11?ng seven on host: let me move on. we're talking about a different topic on this sunday morning. get a tweet from one of our viewers why haven't the syrian natives themselves risen eliminated assad? guest: well, the syrian natives rise risen up. a good proportion of syria's up againsthas risen bashir al-assad's regime. problem with the opposition, what i mentioned enjoy a veryegime militarynt monopoly of police and intelligence power. enjoys the support of certain of the minorities, certain elements in a christian community and other minority

syria because these islamicear the rise of radical groups amongst the opposition, especially the .hristians so the regime has these things favor.ts the opposition, unfortunately, despite making valiant efforts, has been very disorganized. amongstcoordination various groups. effectivef external external spots, a mentioned before -- external support, as i mentioned before. but what has happened is a self-fulfilling prophecy that bashir al-assad, the president, .tated early on islamic radical terrorist groups infiltrated the syria. situation in these islamic radical groups

thrive on instability and chaos. they infiltrate and they build their basis. that is what's happening now in syria. opposition is fighting not only the regime but is also fighting these islamic radical groups. so the people, a good portion of the syrian people, have risen against bashir al-assad's regime. but their situation is conflicted. steve, i go back and give a which historical context i think will be very important for the listeners? host: absolutely. yes. guest: if you go back to the thatawakening, the spring started, spread to egypt, yemen, world,t of the arab libbia, etc., when it came to syria, it started in the southern town. peacefully began to protest. they were largely high school students. they targeted two buildings to

to paintiti on, graffiti on with various .nti-regime slogans one was the administrative of interior police station, which know, political repression, lack of political participation, lack of free elections, anti-regime. but the other building they went waso spread graffiti syria-tel, which was the cell company of syria. now, this is very interesting. why did these kids, these young kids, target that building? the cellia-tel is phone monopoly in syria. owned by the m aclu ,bashir's in-laws family, knew.ese kids one of the great challenges they faced in syrian society was not

repression but and a rulinguption and itsnd its in-laws faithful were controlling the stifling the growth of the syrian economy to produce jobs and opportunities for the general population. this is very significant. up.tarted from the bottom there was no political leadership, no single leader, no groups. demonstrations took on a life of their own. it got to the point where his they wouldded that fire on these protests. bloodywhen the confrontation began. a downward spiral began where so bad now tha that 160,000 syrians have lost their lives. i mentioned how many have been displaced internally and

externally. how islamicibed radical groups have come into the country from iraq, from afghanistan, from other parts of world and even islamic radicals from europe have come fray and their goal an islamic state in syria. they even controlled this group ofs, controls a chunk territory in northern syria fieldsome of the oil are. and there even have been allegations that they, this isis the regime are in cahoots and that they've been selling oil to the regime. host: just to close the loop on that because as we said earlier, the" require times" is report -- "reich times" -- reports

that -- abc news is reporting that syrian rebels have captured one small village syria afterern killing some of assad's supporters. but no indication on what the death toll is in that attack. course, as france and the u.s. confirming that syria and othersed chlorine chemical weapons in 14 recent attacks. our guest is edward djerejian, the former u.s. ambassador of syria, now with rice university. bakerthe director of the institute for public policy. ron is joining us from bayside, new york. morning. caller: good morning. ambassador, thank you for your service. yeah, this is an incredibly difficult situation. what thedon't know west, vis-a-vis, the united states can do. absolutelyare horrible. the regime, the assad regime is a terrible, brutal regime backed by our economy, iran. and the other side are a bunch

mixed groups fighting amongst themselves if we give them weapons such as antiaircraft weapons, we don't know where that's going to end up. maybe shooting down the american orel-al plan. i think we dropped the ball. obama dropped the ball when this started. we could have helped the opposition which was a little more clear on who we were dealing with. and now it's too late. when we had the opportunity to attack, which i really wasn't for, when we say we're it.g to do it we should do that's the only thing they respect in that part of the world, power and force. my question is, aren't we better off as bad as assad is to in power because we know what we have there and he does stick to agreements -- what's your response? host: thanks for the call. on that-up from randy same note saying is the guest suggesting that the u.s. matter then syria no economic costs to this country?

these points youre response response? guest: i think the -- by the i'm glad to get a call from bayside. i come from queens. a callways good to get from someone from queens. it's a very good question. i agree with your general comments. again, i think that we had a better opportunity approximately make ans ago to important difference in the situation on the ground in syria. we missed that opportunity. . think we were too risk averse secondly, i think the original of the geneva process was to get bashir al-assad's regime to negotiate with the opposition.he and as you know, meetings were

two in istanbul between the to negotiateorder towardional process elections -- well, constitutional reform, a post assadd regime. one of the key assumptions was that we had to al-assad'sashir regime. but one of the problems we had beginning --e very and i'm no fan of bashir especially after his decision to brutally fire on his thepeople and all consequences. but the original assumption was that we had to work with the the internationality community and the opposition had to work with the regime, in this political transition process going. rhetoricashington's andahead of the policy

demonized bashir al-assad in person in saying he was illegitimate and he had to step down. all right, that's fair. everyone would like to have him step down. but, again, if your policy is to get the opposition to deal with regime, there's a .ontradiction there so from the very beginning we've policyonfusion in our approach towards syria. there many people, especially prefer, asoups who our caller from bayside mentioned, they would rather devil they know than the devil they don't know. but that's -- it's a sad commentary when the situation is options areand the so few. think that what should be there's any if

prospect of bolstering the opposition now, getting assad's attention that he can't win this militarily, inducing the regime to come back to talks with the and inducing the opposition to come back to talks with the regime, then i think only hope for a survive. process to opting for not favor embracing bashir al-assad and do regime that washington that because of what he's done, what he represents. mistake.hat would be a host: one of the photographers from "usa today" just to give you a sense of the devastation on the fighting still going throughout much of syria. and another photograph from that gives you a sense of the buildings. if you want to check out the photographs and the stories a.ilable online

viewer follow-up from a saying what is the name of the rebel group you speak of or are they groups? guest: a good question. it's called the syrian .pposition coalition b.is headed by a man syrian national council will and then the military arm is the free syrian army. organizedhere are groups that are identifiable that have known people. fact, the head of the syrian opposition coalition in the head of the free syrian army has been in washington. be there.ll i don't know. and there have been negotiations on the requests of the opposition for more robust military assistance from washington'sd from allies, especially the saudis,

the u.a.e. and other countries in the arab world that are very much involved in the syrian crisis. oppositionrian leaders are asking washington, , isrding to news reports they certainly want to obtain equipment.t break theto try to monopoly of air power that soad's regime has effectively and brutally used against the rebel groups and syrian civilians. the dilemma that washington has on that, is that if washington does provide weaponry -- and i don't think they're considering missiles but something short of that. if this equipment falls into the the islamic radical groups in syria, they can be

terrorist groups ininst all sorts of targets the region and against us, against israel. therefore, this is a very complex issue. opposition isn saying, according to these reports, is that being furnished, if they had indeed been furnished with antitank and anti-armor equipment, weapons, groups use rebel these effectively and under controlled circumstances that that could be a precedent to go the next step and provide them weaponry.ircraft talksat seems to be where are now. again, if you look at the initary political landscape syria, if assad's air power is limited or at best

neutralized, ellen joy a monopoly -- he will enjoy a monopoly of power. think that he can win militarily. when that judgment on the part of the regime in damascus is altered that i think seriously negotiate or his regime will seriously negotiate with the rebels. host: and another view from the city which was viewed as a rebel strong hold but now according to those rebels have moved out. had ward is he djerejian, the director of the baker institute at rice university. this from victor who says no such thing as being too risk syria after two big foot decade long wars not paid recession.a great alabama,to mobile, independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. the americanlow government with these different

wars and overthrowing of government, it almost gives the whiplash.eople ukraine. we just got involved in ukraine. the government there. they're fighting, killing people there. egypt, ok, go back to libya, you go to iraq and everyone who really watches stuff knew that after ukraine the government was towards syriaback because this gentleman mentioned or someone mentioned who syria.s but russia also has warm water in syria. so i knew that once they ukraine -- and anyone who follows this stuff knows that the american was involved in the overthrowing. toyou go to youtube victoria -- just google and go

victoria nuland. it's saying that we're spending so much money overthrowing government. but why don't we look at saudi arabia? host: thanks for the call. response.a larger historic picture, what the caller is is rightfully so the american public's absolute fatigue with u.s. military involvement in the arab and muslim world. after 9/11 the first we invadedwhen afghanistan to overthrow the taliban who was giving safe to owe jam bin laden -- ok'd bin laden and ok'd who attacked us in our homeland on 9/11, that was a just war. question overthrowing the taliban regime that gave safe

haven to the terrorists who americans was a just war. what happened, unfortunately, in that instead of staying the course in and keeping the focus on doing everything afghanistanmake and on the path elected governance where moderate forces, not extremist forces, would prevail, was made in march .003 to invade iraq and to overthrow saddam hussein. war of choiceas a and not necessity. because if you think of where states was in 2003 after a -- a couple of years 9/11 when -- the whole world was with us. daly had a french

, "wer-to-banner headline are all americans." everyone is with america after 9/11. a pre-eminent diplomatic position to get the community to put strangleally sealed hold sanctions on saddam hussein and his regime. pathould have taken that if there was real concern over weapons of mass destruction and the other reasons for going to war, which, of course, weapons of mass destruction were never found. the certainly understand public opinion in our country america's involvements in these wars in the middle east. of i am not an advocate sending american troops on the .round in syria at all for example, the end game in after spilling so much blood and treasure is

unknown. hopefully, one can hope, that struggle towill some sort of electoral democracy own way. but the jury is out. dismal situation today where radical islamic we fought, where our marines and our soldiers fought, reappeared. so putting it in a larger u.s. military engagements in the middle east, we don't want to over extend ourselves again. a proponent ofe that. host: mr. ambassador -- i've got in.ump we're very short on time, about 10 seconds left. guest: ok. i think what we need to do is to and our our position policy towards syria. exactly how we can provide more effec