-nehisi coats on "the case for reparations." "washington journal" is next. host: should the u.s. intervene in iraq? that's our discussion item this morning on the "washington journal." you can see the numbers there on the screen. area code is 202. 558-3818 for republicans. 3880 for democrats. 3882 for independents. if you served in iraq and are an iraq vet, we'd like to hear from you, whether or not the u.s. should intervene. 202-585-3883 is that number. you can also contact us via , ial media, at twitter, facebook, and finally you can send an email to journal

journal @c-span.org. front page of the "los angeles times" this morning, obama weighs direct action on iraq militants is the headline. here's the president from yesterday. >> but what we've seen over the last couple of days indicates the degree to which iraq is going to need more help is going to need more help from us and going to need more help from the international community. my team is working around the clock to identify how we can provide the most effective assistance to them. i don't rule out anything because we do have a stake in making sure that these jihadists are not getting a permanent foothold in either iraq or syria for that matter. host: and the "new york times" says u.s. scramble to help iraq fight off militants. you can see this picture on the front page here, some shiite

muslim iraqis volunteering for military service. , obama weighs air strikes. the white house confronted by an unexpected crisis on a battlefield it thought it had left behind, scrambled thursday to reassure iraq that it would help its beleaguered army fend off militants who have overrun much of the country and now threaten baghdad -- host: after that briefing on

capitol hill, some senators took to the floor to talk about the situation. here's john mccain. >> the president needs to replace his entire national security team which have been a total failure. they're the ones that described our departure from iraq as a great success. it can have many quotes that would attest to that. the president has got to learn that just because he dechairs a conflict over is not because it's over, and the president needs to get a reliable team around him to provide him with the options that are available and the course of actions that ould be able to reverse this disaster that's unfolding before our eyes. >> you said air strikes aren't enough -- >> no, i am not saying it's not enough. i am saying that we need to get the smartest guys. that's general petraeus, the people that won the war with the surge and get their advice

and counsel. air strikes may be part of it. air strikes may not be part of it. i would rely on their judgment. i am not calling for air strikes. i am calling for the advice and counsel are the smartest people who won the war in iraq before the president of the united states lost it. host: a little bit more from the "new york times" on iraq, u.s. scramble to help iraq fight off militants as baghdad is threatened is the headline -

ost: 202 is the area code. 585-3881 for republicans. iraq veterans, 202-585-3883. should the u.s. intervene in iraq is our question. we're going to begin with a call from jessica in l.a. on our independent line. jessica, you're on the air. caller: hi, good morning. i just to want say, i have more of a statement. i am just disgusted by this. i am so tired of being in all of these wars. we were over there, we're spending billions of dollars over in iraq and afghanistan. we have a crisis at our borders right now. we have all these children coming in. nothing is being done about that. the taxpayers are going to be stuck with that. i think america needs to wake up. we need to start hitting the streets. we need to start protesting. this needs to stop. i'm just totally disgusted. when is it going to end? all of our money is going over

there. people can't even get unemployment. this has to stop. i'm totally disgusted. host: the state department sent out a tweet yesterday saying that they can confirm that u.s. citizens under contract to iraq government are being temporarily relocated due to security concerns in the area. tyrone in north carolina, democrats line. tyrone, what do you think, u.s. intervene in iraq at this point? caller: no, sir. good morning. she shouldn't go over there, and john mccain shouldn't have said what he said, because he's the reason so many people are dead by sending them into iraq under false -- promising there was weapons of mass destruction, and there was none. we can't police the whole world. if they want to send somebody, let them send their sons and grandsons and daughters. this stuff need to stop. host: is there a solution to what's going on in iraq right now? >> yeah, prayer. put god first instead of man. that's the solution to all the

problems in this world, pray. pray to god first and not man, and you'll see things change. host: thank you, sir. diane f.b.i. stine is the chair of the intel committee in the senate, and she also spoke yesterday about this issue. >> i'm very concerned. i think it clearly shows that maliki was unable to make any accommodations with sunnis, and now the most violent of sunni extremist groups have grabbed hold of the situation and are on a march to baghdad. and this could be devastating. you know, i'd like an opportunity, assuming i'm asked, to give my views personally, but this is a very dangerous situation. host: and katherine is calling from north conway, new hampshire. hi, katherine. caller: hi, good morning. there is an adage, the pen is mightier than the sword.

therefore, in like iraq and all arab countries, syria and afghanistan, so forth, perhaps the solution to the terrorist threat and to reach the hearts and minds of the people would be to drop millions and millions of leaf lets, twitter, ut on computer, tv, radio, the following very brief and strong message. if mom mad was living today -- if mohammed was living today, would he condone terrorist violence? would he condone jihad? would he consider anonymous limbs infidels? i think not. being a spiritual prophet to many people, he would have grown and had new spiritual processes, just like other religions have. they've changed over women and gay rights in religion.

they've changed about polygmy. they've changed about who can go to heaven. and people can follow and have faith in a religion, all the while the religion is changing for the better. host: all right, katherine, going to show you the front page of the "wall street journal," iraq scramble to defend baghdad is the header. the story right below that, militants aim to redraw mideast map. at an annual security conference in israel this week, the head of the military showed pictures of two long-dead diplomats, an englishman and a frenchman, secured their place in history by cutting a deal that drew the borders of the modern middle east --

host: tone any fort worth on our democrats line. what do you think? should the u.s. do something? caller: well, i think we should go in in a very limited capacity, you know, because we done so much already. people saying we lost 4,400

soldiers or whatever the case may be, that we're one of those 4,400 more by going in again. they've been fighting since the beginning of time, you know? iran stopped fighting iraq so iraq could fight us when we first went over there. there's always been wars in that region. we can't get involved in everything in that region. you know, if we go to war, he's wrong f. we don't go to wrong, he's wrong. if he gets on bergdahl in exchange for prisoners, he's wrong, and if he doesn't he's wrong. the president is in a no-wayne situation in this case. for john mccain to come on and make those statements he's made about the president losing the war, we never should have been in the war in the first place. i don't know what happened to john mccain. i think losing the presidency to president obama really changed his whole outlook on life or something. but i think we should go in, but where is nato?

i think nato forces would be berti quipped for this instead of the united states going in. they talking about the budget, we won't spend another trillion dollars on another war. i really don't know what the republicans want from the president. host: thank you, sir. the army statement on sergeant bergdahl, sergeant bergdahl was returned to the u.s. on june 13. he arrived at the san antonio military medical facility on fort sam houston early this morning, where he will undergo phase three reintegration. that's the army statement this orning on sergeant bergdahl, and shawna is calling from california on our republican line. shawna, what do you think? shawna, you with us? caller: korean war veteran, and we don't need to put any more money into any country that hates us. my husband is one of those

veterans that's now sitting in a nursing home dying in a wheelchair permanently in diapers because the v.a. broke their own policy in san francisco and sat -- host: do you know what? that's not quite what we're talking about this morning, but we got your point. i think we got your point on iraq. "usa today," lead story as well, islamist fighters set their sights on baghdad is their headline. and politte co-has this article -- politico has this article, "g.o.p. on iraq, we told you so." and from the "wall street journal," u.s. secretly flying drones over iraq. the u.s. since last year has been secretly flying unmanned surveillance aircraft in small numbers over iraq to collect intelligence on insurgents, according to u.s. officials. the program was limited in size and proved little use to u.s. and iraqi officials when

islamist fighters moved swiftly this week to seize two major iraqi cities. before the islamist offensive, the program was expanded based on growing u.s. and iraqi concerns about the expanded military activities of al qaeda -linked fighters. anna, texas, democrat. good morning. caller: yes, good morning. may 19, 2005, my nephew was one of those 4,400 soldiers who lost his life in iraq. for all those people who want to spend our money and our young men's lives, young men and young women's lives, you take your children or your grandchildren down to the army, navy, marine base, and you let them fight the wars. we have lost so much of our young people's lives.

general president eisenhower always spoke, and nobody speaks about president eisenhower, because he said old men will start wars, and young men will have to give their lives for those wars. so for everybody out there, it's been devastating for our 25-year-old nephew to have -- he was the oldest person in the tank who was trying to save one of his soldier's lives and several other people. he was a gold star resilient. he has every medal, but that doesn't do anything for his child now. so if you think that fighting wars all the time will save anyone, those people are going to fight forever, and maliki should never have been put in place. this is not president obama's war. he inherited the war. we shouldn't inherit all of this mess. we should clean up our own country.

and make sure that our young people are educated. the shiites, they don't include anybody. saddam hussein kept all of those people out of iraq, but we went in and killed him because he knew so much on us. so for all those people out there who want it, you go down, and you sign up at the recruiting office, and also, on that young man who just came back, we should -- no, we don't leave him, and all of us who are piling on him, we should be ashamed. this is america. host: that was texas. national journal this morning, congress' iraq vets helplessly watch their gains lost. this article says that there are 17 members of congress who served in iraq, and our next call comes from an iraq vet. lee in sterling, virginia, here in the suburbs. hi, lee. caller: hi. good morning. thanks, sir, for taking my

call. you know, it's with a heavy heart to see all this going on. i was there five times. i was a navy corpsman with the marines, and i did search and rescues. i did a lot of pain and suffering. i lost a lot of my brothers and sisters, and i hope today i still have that guilt that why am i alive and they're not? but i got to say, i agree with the previous callers, one of the callers mentioned about her husband, about korean, vietnam veteran, suffering now, dealing with the v.a. i think that, first off, we do not have an obligation to go back. that's number one. we've been there. we've sacrificed so much, and to our own demise. so an obligation, we do not. i think it was extended up to

2011 so we had to get all our troops out. the iraqis, they are the ones that didn't want us there. they're the ones that -- obama tried to keep troops there, but that agreement wasn't signed. for us to keep troops there without that agreement signed is essentially, you know, it's like we're committing suicide for our soldiers out there, and marines, sailors, etc. we just could not stay there. to me, iraq, they chose their own destiny. we do not have an obligation to go back. i'm very disturbed that senator mccain made those statements, made those comments, because that's shaping the public perception, but we do not have an obligation. i got to say, what we need to do is have an intelligent footprint because we still have to -- we have to protect our borders, and we know that our borders have definitely widened, and we know we have assets all over the world, and

we have to take care of them. i think we do need to have the intelligence. and that's all. that's the type of footprint we need to have. host: what about drones? what about the use of drones? caller: i think it has to be done very strategically. it nk, again, you know, has bob ton very strategically, like if we have to target the leaders, i'm ok with that. but i think it will have to be based on very hard intelligence, and i think that should be the focus. host: lee, what happens if maliki falls if iraq is overrun by the isis? caller: well, i think that's where intelligence has to come in, and we have to try to contain, but i think the reality is there's going to be a civil war there. just from being there, it's destiny. it's destiny.

i know there's a lot of people with faith in the scriptures, but just seeing how they interact with each other, you know, this goes back, you know, hundreds of thousands of years. and i think we have to respect that. i think we have to allow them to deal with it. i think the very fact -- to go back to the fact, the fact the agreement wasn't signed is a testament to that. we have to allow them to deal with it. i think for to us shed any more -- to provide any more resources, you know, our most valuable resources, i think we can't. we have so much -- look at this. the v.a. was on the front page, and we were still focused on fixing the v.a., and now we don't see it on the front page. that's the focus right now. we have an obligation to take care of those who have given it all. host: all right, that's lee in sterling, virginia. this tweet from jack said the u.s. should go in, train the army for two more years, and then watch the same thing happen again?

senator lindsey graham also spoke about this issue yesterday. >> to the american people, i know you're world-weary and tired of dealing with the mideast, but the people that are moving into iraq and holetting ground in syria have as part of their agenda not only to drive us out of the mideast, but hit our homeland. the head of the f.b.i. said that the pipeline for the next 9/11 attack is likely to come rom syria. there are numerous american citizens who have gone to the jihad in syria. european jihadists are now in syria. they're coordinating in syria and iraq. they hold terrain. it is my worst fear come true. host: editorial, "usa today," u.s. policy failures leave few good options in iraq. that newspaper writes that. the most telling aspect of the isis success was what it said

about president al-maliki, who has stubbornly resist the u.s. pressure to bring's sunni minority into his government -- host: next call is terry, dayton, ohio, democrat. you're on the "washington journal." should the u.s. get involved in iraq? terry? caller: yes, i'm here.

thank you for taking my call. no, we shouldn't get involved, and i'm actually offended that the newspapers, the media is trying to push us back into another war. we can't even take care of our own people here. we've been fighting this war for years for no reason, and now you got people like john mccain, lindsey graham talking nonsense, and it's just so disrespectful. it's disheartening that we are being tried and being pushed back into another war over there. wary done. we're out. take care of our veterans. take care of our homeless people here. feed our children. educate our children here. that's what we need to be thinking about. thank you for taking my call. host: here very quickly, iraq by the numbers. when the u.s. invaded iraq, that was march 19, 2003, eight years, nine months, and 12 days. 1.5 million americans served in

that war. u.s. military deaths, about 4,500. u.s. troops injured, about 32,000. we've set aside our fourth line this morning for iraq vets, 202-585-3883 if you want to share your experience in iraq and tell us what you think about whether the u.s. should intervene in iraq at this point, given what's happening. here's a headline, iraq disintegrating as insurgents advance toward the capital. kurds are now seizing kirkuk. we will be talking with michael gordon of the "new york times" about that a little bit later when he comes out here. "wall street journal," lead editorial this morning, the iraq debacle is the headline. here's the conclusion -- mr. obama now faces the choice of intervening anew with u.s. military force or doing nothing. the second option means risking the fall of baghdad or a full-scale iranian intervention to save mr. maliki's government, either of which would be a terrible strategic

defeat -- host: james, arlington, texas,

independent line. what's your view? caller: yeah, i can't believe people want to intervene in that, because the sunnis and the shiites, they're headed for civil war. i mean, the sunnis regard the shiites as infidels basically. and basically, as long as you're right there battling each other, they don't have any time to concentrate on us. i mean, we should be more worried about it than united, all right? they're over there battling each other, and it's the best thing we can have happen for us, because i mean, granted, we got to keep our eye on them. we don't want them to come to our country, but they're over there battling each other, it ain't none of our business. that's a civil war between them. to get involved in it would be stupid. host: john, michigan, republican line. john, you're on. caller: good morning. host: hi. caller: i guess i have quite a

few things that i'd like to express on this. first of all, i think that this what's , a lot of going on, with the world economy. if we let this region collapse, it will dramatically affect the world. in saying that, though, this area has been, you know, battling for centuries. in the recent history, you take iraq, which we went in to take out, you know, a guy that, you know, was killing people in there. then we went into egypt, took out mubarak. then we went into -- and took out gaddafi. how are all those areas looking to you right now? now we're in afghanistan.

that's falling apart. you got syria. hat's falling apart. what we need to do is find a way to get out of there. we need to come back to our country. we need to develop the resources here so we're not dependent on that area of the world for our energy, and the way this country is going right respect ave lost the of the world, and until we get that back, we're in dire straits. i mean, i'm 70 years old. host: yes, sir. go ahead and conclude. caller: i'm 70 years old, and i see this country going down the tubes. host: all right. we're going to leave it there. in other news, this is from "the hill." congressman pete sessions, a republican of texas, is out of the majority leader race, and

mccarthy rises. that's their headline. kevin mccarthy is the only declared candidate right now for the majority leader position in the house of representatives. also from "the hill," cantor campaign manager blames the democrats. outgoing house majority leader eric cantor's campaign manager is pinning the blame on democrats for his loss. ray allen, in his first interview, told "the hill" said he believes cantor was a victim of meddling from democrats who crossed over in the primary to "we had nst him, probably 15,000 card-carrying democrats come into this primary. there's just no way to anticipate something like that." some allies are quietly furious that and he his team had no idea what was coming and blame a weak campaign for not recognizing he was in trouble. it goes on to say in this article that turnout was much higher in this primary than it was in 2012, but outside

observers are highly skeptical that allen's analysis about the democrats is correct. george mason university professor michael mcdonald, a voting model expert, has crunched the precinct level data on what happened and said it was highly unlike that will enough democrats turned out to swing the election, noting that turnout increased more in heavily republican precincts than heavily democratic precincts this year. that's from "the hill" newspaper. and also, one floor "the hill," this is the majority whip. if kevin mccarthy becomes ma jort leader, his majority whip position is opened up. that's the number three position essentially with the speakership being number one, majority leader, then majority whip. the two folks running right now, peter rossco of illinois, who's one of the current -- he's chief deputy whip right ow, and steve scalise, the

head of a conservative group of lawmakers, those are the two declared candidates for majority whip. harry, port roberts, washington, democrats line. should the u.s. intervene in iraq? caller: well, we should definitely keep our eye on what's going on there, and we need to let the president make the decisions he needs to make by including the countries that are in that area, and they should work together. i've come up with some solution or whatever they can do. as far as mccain and screaming like -- i don't know what they're screaming like, but it's pretty obscene what they're doing. it's up to the president. he's the commander in chief. he needs to go in there, see what he can do, see if he can fix it. if he can't, we shouldn't there in the first place, because iraq has always been a problem. when saddam hussein was in there, everything was somewhat calm, and now they've thrown an a bomb in there and they're

trying to make it work, and it's not going to work. it's just impossible. they're going to have to try to do the best they can to fix it. but not send troops in or send missiles in to start blowing everybody up. host: tracy on our facebook page, when we asked the question, should the u.s. intervene in iraq? no. how can we go back to iraq when we are in such a debt and supposedly pulling out of afghanistan? why would we go back to a country and spend billions of dollars again only to leave and it go back the way it is now? this is not going to end. i served over there flying missions, tracy says. i served in the first gulf war. it is not going to change. the best thing we can do is send drones to help and that is it. we cannot afford the money it would cost, and we certainly do not need to lose any more of our fine men and women serving. if you want to make a comment and participate in the conversation on facebook, facebook.com/cspan. here are some of the tweets hat we've been receiving --

host: from politico this morning, jill abe rack son to teach at harvard. she will be teaching a narrative, nonfiction course in he fall at harvard university. and from "the hill" newspaper, mcdaniel is up in a new mississippi senate poll. chris mcdaniel, 49 to 41 over thad cochran. that happened, that second primary in that race happens on june 24. frederick is calling in from west lafayette, indiana. frederick, you're on the air. caller: yes, good morning. i was motive ate to call

because of what i car inflammatory nature of the headline there. the term intervention is a very emotion-laden term. the callers that have come in before me have been, i think, pretty much emotionally involved, which is understandable. but what i would recommend is that when you talk about the u.s. government policy, to use a term like participation, going back to the second world war, the united states joined allies in that war, and that was followed by a korean situation where we joined the united nations in what was called the police action. people don't like that. they're emotional about it. they're thinking the united states is a big interventionist. well, when you go to the vietnam situation, that was a case where we set up a group of countries that were trying to

work collectively, and we had a bunch of allies. when you hear people talking about vietnam, they make it act like the allies that died alongside of us weren't there. then when you get back to -- host: can you bring this -- caller: the point is, the point is that, for your discussions to really be very beneficial, you should -- you should think these people, when they're waving emotional terms around, what is it we're really talking about? everything is for the benefit of the united states. if up to the make people get upset about stuff, we were in afghanistan because it was in our interests. if we were in iraq, it was because it was in our interests. we were in vietnam, it was because it was our interest. host: all right. we appreciate you calling in. bill tweets in, we lose iraq, we lose the ability to flank iran when we have to go in there, this is terrible. dean is an iraqi vet, calling

in from pennsylvania. dean, you're on the "washington journal." what do you think? caller: well, i just know one thing. if they're going to use missiles or if they're going to do air strikes, that i know they need ground troops on the ground to guide them in. what t fair, but that's happens. host: where did you serve and when did you serve in iraq? caller: i served in the early i got hurt, 3, and so did a lot of my buddies, and we came out, but we're still fighting our war at home with the v.a. but we do know that when you do missile strikes, you do need people on the ground to guide them in there. eople aren't thinking of that.

i do believe that all three branches of the government need to work together in order to figure this one out. the people that are incompetent incident need to just stay out of it and put the professionals in there that know how to solve this problem. right now it seems like everybody's fighting everybody, and they need to come together and work as one. thank you for your time. host: jose, new mexico, republican line. jose, what do you think? caller: yes, hi, good morning. yes, first of all, i agree with senator mccain that the president needs a new team of advisors. we need retired generals, people that really know what they're talking about, people that know what's going on in the middle east. i think the president is not being served very well right now with who he's being advised by. and america is not being served

well. i also think that, you know, we need to open up the keystone pipeline and things like that, so we're not dependent on the middle east anymore. and as far as military action in iraq, well, i don't want to see ground troops there, i don't think they can do any more. but we can't let these terrorists take over either, and i don't know, they just said we would need ground troops for air strikes, and i don't know if that's really the case. i trust he knows more than i do, but, you know, i thought perhaps air strikes would be a good idea, but that's why we need experts. we need military generals and so forth. but we do need to obviously look at the big picture. we need to protect israel, our friend, our ally, and we need to protect jordan, the king there, because these are people

that are america's friends. and i agree with the previous caller, we definitely need to pray. host: a couple of polls that have come out, americans like hillary clinton a lot less now than when she was secretary of state. this is from the national journal. she's been voted most fired woman 18 times, and her favorability rating, which has dropped five points since february, remains positive, but americans like clinton a lot better when she was secretary of state before she became a speech-giving civilian who's toying with the idea of running for president. 54%, current favorability rating. obama as unpopular as george w. bush in a new poll. this is a new poll out by cnn. just over half of those polls, 51%, have an unfavorable view of obama, and 51% currently

feel the same about bush, according to a new poll. 47% of the public has a favorable rating of obama, which cnn said is a new low for him and roughly identical to ush's favorable rating of 46%. finally, from "the washington post," a poll finds in a polarized u.s., we live as we vote. political polarization is now deeply embedded in the u.s., more so than at any time in recent history, according to the study, and it's intensified in recent years. the percentage of americans who hold either consistently conservative or consistently liberal positions on major issues has doubled over the past decade and now accounts for 1/5 of all americans --

host: that's a little bit from "the washington post" report on the pew poll. laura tweets in that joe biden's idea that iraq should have been divided in thirds not sounding so wacky anymore. joe, should the u.s. intervene in iraq? joe is calling on our democrats line from baltimore. hi, joe. caller: how you doing this morning? how you doing, america? the last caller got me a little bit fired up, and this is off topic a little bit. you talking about israel being our friend. israel is not our friend. the jews are friends, but israelis, they're not so crazy about us. now, should we intervene into iraq? we're already in iraq. let's tell the truth about it. remember, the reason why we pulled out of iraq was because

we wanted to leave a residual force there. they agreed to leave a force in iraq from 3,000 to 6,000 troops. these no doubt are those ones who are taking over mosul, and the all the way into baghdad, they really work for us, so we really can't intervene. we can't drop bombs on people who already working for us. the weapons that they're talking about sending in there to help the baghdad troops, to help the troops in baghdad to defend themselves, these weapons aren't really going to baghdad troops. in fact, if you look at the news, been reading the news, you'll see the baghdad troops have been leaving the towns and cities themselves. the reason why they're leaving because their weaponry cannot stand up to the weaponry that the foreign fighters have. remember, these foreign fighters worked for the united ates, military groups that band together to take over iraq y.? all because. oil.

people, don't worry about it. the president will not attack iraq, would not drop a bomb on any one of those terrorists over there, because they work for us. bottom line. that's the truth. host: joe in baltimore, and this is janine in columbia, missouri. caller: hello. yes, i really basically -- my daughter, like i said, she went to iraq 10 days after high school. they pulled her in into the military, and not long after the things started in baghdad, they were there. let me tell you, listening to everything, like my daughter said, if we don't -- if we don't keep them over there, if we don't keep them over there, they're come here. and you know what? they were already here, like i told my daughter. the thing that disturbs me the most, i'm listening to all the conversations over the tv, and i'm just listening to a gentleman, and i ado agree about the oil and everything, but the thing that bothers me the most about united states is

we are united states. democrats, republicans, independents, we are all united states, and i hate to see this division between us. i hate to see parties, like people saying, oh, i'm a democrat, i'm a republican. no, we're all united states citizens. and together we stand and divided we fall. you know, the thing that's keeping us with problems, even within our own country, within our own boundaries, is we have a division amongst ourselves. and until we can get that division amongst ourselves, we don't have to like each other. we don't have to like race or whatever, just get together, get the job done, then go your separate ways. host: all right, we're going to leave it there and go to john in michigan. john, you're on the "washington journal." john? caller: hello? host: we're listening. caller: yeah. i want to say a couple of things, and i don't want to be cut off every time that i say

something -- host: john, you're going to have to be kind of quick here. we're almost out of time. caller: yeah, ok. 9/11 was an inside job -- host: all right. we get the point. thank you so much. we appreciate it. a couple of tweets to finish it out. here's jan. you know, when they were mulling going into iraq, i had that sick feeling in my stomach. it hasn't gone away. and terry says, didn't we learn suffer enough already in blood and dollars? and jim says, only if they want quickly to go in, then get out, not like before. those are a couple more tweets. if you want to participate in this conversation, you can continue calling in, because michael gordon of the "new york times" is coming out here in just a minute. you can also go to facebook and continue this conversation. pretty lively right now going on there. after michael gordon comes on, matt kibbe will be here,

talking about some of the issues facing the republican party at this point. you're watching the "washington journal." >> one of the things people don't always views during the war of 1812, it was fought from 1812 until after 1814, early 1815, and it was really about the america re-establishing its independence against the british. this was sort of our second american revolution, and this flag is the object for which francis scott key penned the words which became our national anthem. this is the image in 1995 that the flag was made to look whole and restored, and there was a whole bottom section that was reconstructed.

when the flag was moved into the new exhibition space, there was a deliberate decision by the curators not to do that again. what we wanted was that the flag becomes a metaphor for the country. it's tattered, it's torn, but it still survives, and the message is really the survival of both the country and the flag, and we're not trying to make it look pretty. we're trying to make it look like it's endured its history and it still can celebrate its history. >> this year marks the 200th anniversary of the british naval bombardment of fort mchenry during the war of 1812. learn more about the flag francis scott key wrote about while we tour the smithsonian's star spangled banner exhibit, sunday night at 6:00 and 10:00 p.m. eastern, part of american history tv this weekend on c-span3. >> when i started covering congress, you had people like nator russell long, wilbur

mills, danny rostenkowski, howard baker, people who were giants in their own way. now, a couple of those guys got themselves into trouble, but overall, these were people who knew how -- they were all very intelligent. they knew how to craft legislation. they knew how to do a deal, and they all worked with whoever the president was, whether it was their party, the other people. yes, there was politics, but at the end of the day, they usually found a way to come together and make decisions for the good of the country. today, you just see that anymore. first of all, i think the quality of members of congress, the house and senate, in terms of their intelligence and their work ethic, has diminished. i mean, there's still great people, and i shouldn't malign -- there are wonderful members on both sides, but i think that they're a minority. i think increasingly people are driven by the politics and by their own self-survival, and,

you know, i think the hardest work they do is raising money. it's not learning the issues. it's not crafting deals. it's making speeches and, you know, positioning themselves to get re-elected. >> emmy award-winning journalist lisa myers is leaving washington, d.c., behind. find out why, sunday night at 8:00 on c-span's "q&a." "washington journal" continues. host: michael gordon, is the u.s. going to intervene mill tailor in iraq? in your view? guest: well, it depends what you mean by intervention. if you're talking about sending more advisors, i think that's very possible. we already have some there, although in extremely limited capacity. if you're talking about air strikes, the iraqi government has been really asking for that for months and hasn't gotten it, and president obama said yesterday that all options are on the table. i would say it cannot be excluded, but i don't think it's likely immediately, in the

immediate future. host: why not? guest: because the white house, when president obama took office, in his eyes, one of his signature foreign policy accomplishments is ending the war in iraq, and i think from a political standpoint, he's reluctant to acknowledge, really, that the war never really ended. what ended was the american presence, military presence in iraq, but not the war, and we're seeing that now. host: looking at your article in this morning's "new york times," the iraqi army was crumbling long before its collapse, u.s. officials say. is there time to ponder and to look at the situation for a while? guest: the time to have done this was a year or two ago. immediately after american forces left iraq, anthony blinkin, now president obama's national security advisor, gave a speech in which he boasted really that violence was at historic low, and the message from the administration was everything was in good shape.

but in reality, all of these factors were at work. if there's going to be a solution for iraq, it can't just be one thing. it can't be air strikes or advisors. it has to be kind of a holistic solution, as the administration likes to say. it has to involve political reform t. has to fwolve a more inclusive iraqi government. it's going require the iraqi armed forces, better commanders, and i think from the military standpoint, it's logical to think that if the situation deteriorates, the iraq has no air force, might knead some additional help from the united states. host: is baghdad in danger at this point? guest: i don't think so. i think as sweeping as the insurgent advances have been with the fall of mosul, and they control fallujah, now they're in tikrit, moving where the oil refinery is, i don't think they're going to topple the city per se, but i think there's a very good chance that

they're going to infiltrate the areas, the so-called belt around baghdad, and use them as sanctuaries to launch suicide and car bomb attacks into baghdad. there's already some of that going on now. this is precisely the tactic they used against the united states, and so they were pushed out by the american surgery and general petraeus in 2007 and 2008, and i think it's likely they'll return to that. host: michael gordon, were you surprised at how fast this seems to have come on, or have you been monitoring this for a stpwhile est: well, these days, i'm though i covered the iraq war, covering the state department, got a whole big world to track, i'm not surprised that al qaeda in iraq, which is basically the group that's come back under a w moniker, al qaeda for iraq and the levant, sometimes known as isis, i'm not surprised

they've come back, because we've taken the heat off. and this is a group that doesn't respect borders, so they're in syria, and they're in iraq. nobody is really putting the heat on them in syria, and nobody has been putting the heat on them in iraq. this is a problem of american intelligence. you can go back and read the testimony to congress six, nine moss ago. and also, mosul, which fell last week, has been under siege . an article i did with my colleague in december, we noticed that at night, the insurgents controlled mosul. hat said, yes, i'm surprised at the speed of the iraqi military collapsed. host: wasn't al-maliki just re-elected? guest: this have a parliamentary system, and his party did better than expected in the voting, and so he's on track to serve another term, and he exploited the unrest in iraq politically to present himself as the strong shia

figure who would stand up against sunni insurgents. the tragedy is that he hasn't been the sort of mandela-like figure who could bring people in iraq together, so while he benefited politically in the narrow sense, he's endangered his country in the process. host: 202 is the area code if you want to talk about iraq and the situation there with michael gordon, chief military correspondent for the "new york times," 585-3881 for republicans. 585-3880 for democrats. 585-3882 for independents. twitter and you can send an email as well, journal ath an.org, or twitter cspanwj. where does iran fit into this? guest: iran is a big part of this. they're not behind these insurgent attacks at all. but they have extensive influence in iraq. they've contributed millions of

dollars under the table to all of the shia parties, and they've basically told the senior iraqi leadership that if they need iran's help, iran will intervene not so much by sending their own operatives, but by training and mobilizing iraqi shia groups and putting them at the government's beck and call. they trained militants to attack troops and furnish them with the weapons to attack american troops, including a very deadly type of i.e.d. throughout the iraq war. iran did. so they were sort of involved in a proxy war against the united states throughout the whole iraq war. but they're in a position to do that again. so i don't think, if that happens, i think it won't be for the good. if the shia militias begin to enter the fray, and there are already indications of that, then you have the makings of a sectarian war in iraq, in

syria, really across the whole kind of greater middle east area with all sorts of very serious consequences for turkey, jordan, saudi arabia, all of the states in the region. host: the "financial times" talked about the kurds, kurds see chance as fighters head to kirkuk. how does this affect the kurds up in the north? guest: the kurds, the kurds are part of iraq, but they've always had a semiautonomous status. they have their own military force who are quite capable, but basically light infantry. o you don't see these al qaeda insurgents. after mosul, they went south toward baghdad. they didn't go north or east into kurdistan, because the kurds have a defense capability. but what they're likely to do, to secure their own interests and also maybe to expand their realm of control, to move more

into the disputed area of kirkuk, which is an oil-rich area, which has long been an area of contention, they may see this as a chance not only to protect themselves, but also to grab some territory, which has been disputed, which will add to the kind of fractious sectarian situation. host: how much time have you spent in iraq? guest: well, i wrote three books about it, and i covered the first american war, the desert storm war, and then i was there for the invasion as an embedded correspondent in baghdad and fallujah and all these places. and i wrote two more books about it. but i probably spent sort of on the ground in an embedded, physically on the ground with the soldiers type situation a couple of years, and, you know, i've been there as a visitor, you know, i've covered the invasion, i covered the terrible sectarian violence. i covered the surge. it did work as a military

operation. and then i covered the post-surge and withdrawal of the troops. i was last there with secretary kerry, who visited iraq early on, but unfortunately, the administration has not been that engaged with iraq. when kerry was there, who has all sorts of energy, he was there once for several hours. i believe hillary clinton was there once as secretary of state. vice president biden has been there more often, but really, he's been trying to deal with it by telephone primarily, periodically. so the level of political engagement by the ministration has not been as intensive as it might have been, and this isn't lost on the iraqis, unfortunately. host: in your last book about iraq, it was called "the end game." who was your co-author? guest: a retired marine, three star. what i did then, by the way, i took it through the withdrawal of american troops and the failed negotiation, because we

did try to -- kind of tried to keep troops in iraq, pretty much like they're planning to do temporarily in afghanistan, and that negotiation failed. but what the book did was it identified, i think, some of the factors that are now leading to iraq's unraveling, which is limited american engagement and attention, limited attention, and also sectarian and authoritarian behavior by maliki, which we were not so much in the position to curb as we had before, because we didn't have a presence there, and we weren't that engaged. host: could drones and air strikes slow down isis? guest: well, that's an excellent question, and a more complicated question than some people think. the iraqi foreign minister suggested on the record last august in washington that drones be considered, almost a year ago. nothing happened.

and at the time, the administration said, well, it's just the foreign ministry, it's not maliki, but then by march, maliki himself was signaling an openness to drones and air strikes, becausealiki, but theyd see their position was desperate, and iraq does not have a significant air force. he cannot reach out and bombed these camps. if the goal is to hit these camps or hit guys as they are coming across this area where they are coming from, air power can be effective at doing that for sure. we do it for ourselves in afghanistan, so i presume we think it is effective. but where it is very collocated is now. combing goldforces with each other. you have insurgents who have captured american weapons, prisoners who wear iraqi uniforms, and telling the combatants apart without the people on the ground is quite difficult, so it is not at this

stage from a purely military perspective, they could play a role, but they are not, you know, you require good intelligence, and it is not a very -- how would you use them in mosul? but i think yes, they could contribute. the point i would make is again the holistic approach. before the united states offers to use its forces i think from an analytical perspective, it should continue the -- condition this as they number of experts commitment to reform the armed forces, to not take commanders based on narrow political considerations, otherwise we are just adding another military tool into a

conflagration, but if it was part of a package in which political steps were taken, i could see how it could be a benefit. host: michael gordon does the "new york times" have reporters on the ground in baghdad? guest: yeah. host: one of the last time you talk to them? what is the feeling over there yo? times" in an age of constricting coverage, we have been bringing around the bureau treats, i just teeth, i just saw him, we have people in baghdad, we have an in networkoo, of iraqi correspondence around the country who by the way cannot always be identified by name due to fear of retribution, "times" has a

presence there. i'm not sure i can say that about the television networks. -- can twitter question someone explain to me how the u.s. supports sunnis fighting assad/shia in theory and support ki/sunni in iraq? good question.a what the questioner is raising is there is a group, this isis group respects no borders. they have established their throughd caliphate western and northern iraq, and they are interested in controlling this territory, and it is a sunni group. formed out of al qaeda and iraq.

is a problem that spans borders, but when the american government looks at these ourlems, unfortunately national security bureaucracy looks at these problems in isolation. we have a team that works in syria, we have a team that works iraq, we have a team that works lebanon, but all these factors are colliding and interacting, and what you need is a strategy for the two. i would say our support for the syrian opposition is extremely modest, and our ambassador -- i wrote a story about this -- and our ambassador to syria left, and he said he could not support modulated,, a very career guide who served everywhere, a careful, methodical person, not little partisan. he said he could not support the policy because we were not

supporting the opposition in a significant way. they talked about supporting them in a sieve and way, but they have not so far. but the challenge is to craft a works in syria and iraq, and one way in which it thenot be so difficult if opposition were in theory supporting in syria was also opposed to this al qaeda-led group, there are sunnis opposed to this sunni group because they are more moderate. so it is possible to support them because they also oppose the same group maliki opposes, but i do think we need i -- therege malik need to be significant sunnis in the maliki coalition so does

the government of iraq versus the insurgents, not shia versus sunni insurgents. doesn't this throw us back into the assad group too? guest: how so? host: we do not want to develop, iraq does not want it developed. so -- guest: no, i think it is more sinister than that. assad presents himself as the bulwark against extremists, and there is some evidence that there is a bit of a tacit understanding between the assad government and this al qaeda-linked group. when he carried out bombing raids, he sometimes existed -- exempted i.s.i.s. targets. to assadp is useful because as long as they are around, he can say hey, it is

either me or al qaeda, and that is the argument indeed he made to the world. so it is a complex situation, ad i think this group is danger to america because they have created a kind of an extremist say swearing from which attacks can be launched against western interests, but i do not think backing assad is the solution. host: michael gordon, chief military correspondent for the "new york times" is our gu ests. iraqve a fourth line for veterans as well, we want to hear from you, [no audio] (202) 585-3883. we want to hear from you. our first call is an independent, jane. what has do believe all got in me, we must stay

out of that war. they have had civil wars before, and if they have a civil war, they must take care of themselves. we should not intervene, not one bit. it is none of our business anymore than we are their business. if they tried to intervene on us here, then we intervene. jane, just to play devils advocate for a minute, what if the current government in iraq falls, and there is some chaos over there, does that affect us? not affect it should us at all. what is going to affect us if we intervene in any way at all, that is going to affect us. it is going to get us in their civil war, and then there will war, and open world that is not worth it one bit. host: mr. gordon. i am not here to advocate

a position, but i think you need to keep two things in mind -- first off, according to the fbi, homeland security, the american intelligence experts, senior american officials, on the record -- i am sure you have covered these things on c-span has now got a sanctuary in northeast syria. they control a great swath of territory in iraq, and jihadists from all over the world have fought to join up. including americans. there was recently a case, as you know, in syria where an american citizen carried out a suicide bombing attack. in syria. the great fear of american intelligence community is that some of these jihadists who have joined this group, which now has toanctuary, may return

western europe, to the united states and present a terrorist threat here. indeed president obama addressed this concern in his speech just two weeks ago at west point. it is very concerning. so it does affect us. securityan american stake here. if this group maintains the iraq,ary in theory a and -- in syria and iraq, it could prevent a terrorist threat against western interests. second point -- iraq is a major oil producer, i wrote it down, 2.5 million barrels laid a day. and they picked up the slack for the chaos in libya and also the affect the sanctions have had on the world's oil supply. most of the iraqi oil is in the southern part of the country, not in the north, but there is some in the north. if you were to have a total

collapse of iraq and the iraqi state, this would affect the world oil supplies will stop indeed in the financial pages today, you will see oil prices going up. this will have an affect on economic growth. this is happening today. at a time when the iraqi stake te is still intact and the oil insecure in the south. from those economic and security standpoint, i think the united states does have a stake in what happens in iraq. host: do you have any idea how many americans are currently in iraq? they fall into two categories. there is the embassy personnel, which is probably any -- i do not know the precise figure, but you know, probably in the thousands. and then there is the office of security cooperation, maybe 100 or 200 people, which basically concerns itself with foreign military sales and some

mentoring of iraqi forces, but it is very limited. but there is a contractor presence because iraq has been purchasing with its own money billions of dollars of its own money american weapons systems including f-16's. and yesterday, the state department spokeswoman put out a statement that these contractors were being pulled back. i do not know if they are leaving the country to go back to the moc compound, but being moved as a precaution. presenceis an american here, but obviously nothing like what used to be. host: southern iraq, bosnia, pretty serene, safe? guest: safe is not a word i but basara but bos

is pretty well removed. it is so far removed from these operations in the west and north. sea of tranquility tweets into you -- where did the i.s.i.s. militants in iraq get their weapons? who supports them? guest: it is a good question. first off, i.s.i.s. militants are in syria and iraq, and the leader is physically in syria to the best of our knowledge, so they do not respect this border. they moved back and forth. support.a lot of fromhave a lot of weapons that congregation. plus, even more ominous, suicide bombers. get of these jihadist repurposed for the fight in

iraq, and the rate was 30, 40, or 50 a month of suicide bombers . if you had 30 or 40 suicide bombings in this country every month, you can imagine the effect it would have on us because they can be and evenically militarily -- and now he unfortunately, they captured a lot of weapons. when they took mosul, they captured iraqi weapons, american weapons, some significant weapons. the prison and liberated some of the worst of the worst who cannot join their cause. and where to get their money echo they are mostly selfless any because -- what al qaeda and iraq did, and i covered them before the surge, they were self-sustaining financially. they had kidnapping, they had extortion, kind of like a criminal syndicate. now they have the oil refinery or at least they might. estate, they would

be control over homes in mosul and go to the government say we are selling this and demanded the rockets. they had intimidation, they were going to businesses and shaking them down. al qaeda and iraq was actually self-sustaining financially during the american war in iraq. it did not rely on outside flows of cash from al qaeda central, and i suspect even more so because they control more territory. host: thomas from texas, you were on with michael gordon of the "new york times." to movet, we're going to mike and or word, massachusetts, democrats line -- in norwood, massachusetts, democrats line. caller: good morning. i will say no, we do not go back into iraq. it is like history repeating itself. i make an analogy with the vietnam war.

we had to the country for know, theasons, you domino purée. we fought the war, and then we withdrew, handing the war over to the local troops. .he local troops could not hold they abandoned their uniforms, they gave up, and we just looked on helplessly as the population abandoned the country. exactly what happened in vietnam 40 years ago is happening today. i say no. we cannot get involved in iraq at all. with ground troops, planes, anything. is that a fair comparison to you, vietnam comparison? guest: no one is proposing sending in ground troops.

present obama is regarded as a hawkish figures. he said air tricks -- he said air strikes are an option, but he has not talked about ground troops. you don't want to get in on the way we were before. they are talking about limited airstrikes and a stepped-up advisory effort. i think you would have to consider the airstrikes in seriousoo, if you are about this militarily because they are on both sides of the border. i think the their analysis is to use afghanistan in this sense. what happened was we got out of iraq at the end of 2011, pretty much lock, stock, and barrel. the iraqim with military as they were well known. and from a purely military standpoint, i think the iraqi military and the american

literary would agree they need more advice, and american advisers, more kind of -- very limited american presence just to help them stay steady on their feet and maintain our influence there. now we have a plan to get out of afghanistan at the end of 2016, and it is pretty much on the iraq model. there are going to be no advisors in the field with the afghan troops after 2015. there is is going to be the small office at the embassy as there is currently in baghdad. i think the cautionary message , and iflooking at iraq you are concerned about the current situation in iraq, is that what we're going to be looking forward to in afghanistan after 2016? samese we are using the template. all troops out, and we are going to run a very limited and almost certainly inadequate advisory effort out of the embassy, and

if we do not like what we are seeing in iraq, we should adjust the plan in afghanistan, not to fight their war but play more of an advisory role for their forces. host: ron tweet sent to you -- mr. gordon, every intervention in the middle east has resulted islamic jihad gaining ground. guest: i think the reason this islamic group has been so and iraq has syria been because the united states created a bit of a military and security and political vacuum with this withdrawal that they have exploited. of a presence that has created the space for this group to grow, and not the presence. host: how much do we know about the leader, baghdadi?

he is a known figure because he fight against the americans, but there are others that joined this fray and commanders, there is a chechen -- a lot of jihadists have sort of flocks to this cause. once they get a cause, people kind of rotten to the sound of suicide bombers, and so they have grown in strength. this is a group that has been on the american intelligence community's radar for some time. barbara, new jersey, independent line. michael gordon of the "new york times" is our guest. caller: good morning, mr. gordon. real fast question. i believe fear demands request. based on the current presidency 's decision to advertise and prematurely withdrawal our troops, has this contributed to what is going on today, and how important is it now for us to

secure our borders? i will hang up and take my answer off the air, thank you for taking my call. guest: the reason we do not have troops in iraq is a cop located one and i try to untangle it all in the book. there are a lot of iraqi blame to go around on this, too. president obama engage in negotiation with the iraqi government and offered them the chance to maintain a small .merican presence only with maybe a squadron and a half of air craft. maliki wanted an american presence. he told me so in an interview i did with him in 2011, but he did not think he could get the approval of the iraqi parliament, and in the end, there were some -- a lot of -- the iraqis did not request the,

did not get it through their think there'st i also some response ability on the american side because the current administration imposed a pretty hard bar for keeping american troops there, which was not only that the iraqi government requested and approved it, but that they approved by the iraqi parliament, and is in fact was not a requirement that the bush administration imposed. so i would say there is a lot of ambivalence in the white house about keeping troops there, but they did offer to do it if the iraqi's could meet their high standards, but i think there is really probably responsibility on both sides for why the negotiations did not pan out, and certainly not just on the american side, although i do think the american ambivalence was apparent to the iraqis, the american government ambivalence. i do not have a perspective on the border issue. host: michael ward up of book about iraq is called "the

theame: the inside story of struggle for iraq, from george w. bush to barack obama." general bernard trainor is the co-author. john is on our iraq vets line. good morning. caller: good morning. i was there in 2003. i am concerned about this. they really open a can of worms there. those people are wonderful people. i have been on the ground with them. they are a good people. there is a void left by saddam hussein, they had no identity. they never had a chance to get their feet on the ground. it takes much, much more time.

they are very motivated -- al , you know, and i am not sure about this administration and our motivation, so they know that there is not motivation on our part, so they will keep the dancing. -- it will be an effect on the world much more than people really think. i think we need to be -- have at least an air base there and maybe somehow special forces, embassies there. we never should have gotten fully out of there. people have a country to be a part of this world and move on, and these radical islamics are just taking over and without regard, and they have no conscience, believe me. these people -- they do not care. host: john, thank you. michael gordon. guest: i think that is a perspective that a lot of people

, not all, but a lot of people, especially senior levels in the u.s. military share that from a , ifly military perspective the politics could have been worked out between the american white house and prime minister maliki, and a greater effort would have made to work them out, the negotiations were very brief. i think on the whole, the negotiations over keeping american troops in iraq, president obama only spoke with maliki twice -- at the beginning and at the end. anwas not as intensive made ins is being afghanistan right now. i would say most american military people and on the iraqi side, we would have preferred to see a limited american presence, not to fight the war, but to train iraqi forces and maybe give them some intelligence and air support and just maintain a greater degree of influence with

the iraqi prime minister. i think that is a military perspective. host: a tweet -- the so-called democrats that we prop up over there alienated their populations by their greed and corruption. has there been evidence that the current government is corrupt? guest: well, i think it is corrupt when it comes to power. and this is my point, that while somebody can make a case for airstrikes, and indeed the iraqis would have liked them months ago, and they might have made more of a difference months obama think president himself has considered, it can only be a part of it. the bigger problem is the way premature maliki have kind of conducted himself -- the bigger problem is the way prime minister maliki has kind of conducted himself. but he does not

share power. he has chased some of his sunni officials in his government out of power, threatened to arrest them. inclusive been an figure who has built in ties and share power with the sunni community. he has abused some of his power. their procedures for how to be commander in chief in iraq, you who reports directly to him, he does not need parliament's approval. does not create a more inclusive government unity, i think one reason this and surging group at some basis support of population is fear, but the other group as much of the sunni community has been alienated, and alienated from government.

maliki and the people around him need to think that, either by getting a new premise or by i to change his ways. that has got to be part of any coherent american strategy. that is something the united states should have pursued a year or two ago and set up waiting for the crisis to arrive on its doorstep. from what you know but the pentagon, would they be ready right now is something military were to happen? the pentagon can do what needs to be done, but as i pointed out, you can't just carry out airstrikes unless you you have a scorecard and you can tell the good guys from the bad guys, and that takes a little would've doing. we would have to gather intelligence, we would have to put at least a teams of people to help plant some of the stuff, drums have to be within range -- drones have to be within range of the targets. on the other hand, we occupied

the country for many years. it was the most important war much of the pentagon ever fought in. almost all of the pentagon leadership, general odeirno, general dempsey, this is a country that people in the pentagon know where he well, politically and militarily, they probably know better than the white house. anne, reading, pennsylvania. caller: hello, mr. gordon, my -- why is the border closed in view of the events going on in syria? why is it so difficult to contain them close to the border? guest: that is a good question.

i mean, even when the americans 150,000, one hundred 60 thousand troops there, we do not control the border. that is a long border. far away. it is next to a country where there is a raging civil war. the iraqi forces have had some forces up and along the border. they have not been very effective at controlling it. to controlhing is -- a long border, it is really important to have air assets. you cannot just depend on a guy driveehicle who can maybe 50 kilometers this way or that way. you need air assets. they do not have them. they did not have a real air force. they are now just building in the fall some f-16's. they do not have their own drones. the drones we have given them only recently -- a very short range. i mean, this would have been --

to really do something like an effective way, this would have been an area where american and iraqi cooperation might have been fruitful. not to put our own people on the border, but to help them keep an eye on their border through our air. that has not really happened in any significant way. host: from what you know, michael gordon, lynn holly hanson asks -- how to the iraqi people feel about the u.s.? well, it is a cop located question because the iraqi sunnis, theyy are are shia, they are kurds, so they all have their own separate perspective on the united states, and within the shia, there are many different varieties, and some are close to iran, some are religious, some are more secular, so each

community is kind of atomized and broken up. i would say the kurds traditionally have been very strong supporters of the united states and would welcome a greater american involvement. the vice president biden has good relationships with them. they're disappointed the united states is not focus more on iraq, but they still enjoy very strong ties with the united states. the sunni community the used to be very positive for the united states, ironically because during the search, we were the protectors of the sunni against some of the shia militias, but i would say they are very alienated from the current -- yes,nt, and i don't the sunni leaders american government talks to, but the absence -- i cannot even begin to tell you what sunnis think about america today. i think within the shia community -- i think the fact that america is only episodically been engaged in

, diplomatically at the senior levels, i think has had an effect, and i had shared an e-mail with a very -- i had an e-mail exchange with a very senior iraqi official just yesterday, and i said -- what do you want? ,nd e-mail the came back said had a kind of a bitter undertones and it was something like at this point, we do not think there is anything you will really do for us. and we are not counting on you. i think reflects some sentiment within the iraqi leadership that the united littlemoved out just a quickly, even though granted the iraqis were part of that decision process, but you know, there are others. thingsis asking for from the united states. i do not think the iraqis want

american troops on the ground than i do not think we want our troops on the ground, so i think there is agreement on that, but i think within the iraqi leadership, they want a greater american role but kind of in a supporting capacity, not doing the fight for them. host: is there panic in baghdad? guest: yesterday in a closed hearing, the senate armed services committee, the senior american general who trains iraqi forces, i was told by a congressional member who attended, related to these congressmen that some of the iraqi soldiers to protect the green zone where the iraqi readership is wear thei civilian clothes under their military uniforms, the message being if the situation get out of control, they could just throw off their uniforms and blend into the population and run away. so i would say no, there is not panic in baghdad, and i do not think baghdad is going to fall in the near future, but there is sufficient need that the

military there has given some thought to going awol if it comes to that. so i would say yeah, there is probably a lot of unease, and it permeates the security structure, which is unfortunate. host: michael gordon with the "new york times," thank you for being on the "washington journal . " one hour and a half left on our program. we will turn our attention to politics. matt kibbe of freedomworks will be with us, and then we will look at this month's "the atlantic." ta-nehisi coates has written a story about reparation. this is the "washington journal ." ♪ >> we will need to learn again how to work together, how to compromise, how to make pragmatic decisions. upcoming midterm

elections, americans will have choices to make about which path they want to go down and weather will make the investments we in our people. i will leave that discussion to others. but for a lot of us in the private and nonprofit sectors, we have work to do, too. government does not have a monopoly on good idea, obviously, and even if it wanted, it could not and should thetry to stosolve all problems by itself. we have response abilities to do what we can. write hillary clinton's latest book is called "hard choices," about her time as secretary of state and how her experience as shaped her views of the future. today on c-span two, watch coverage of secretary clinton starting at 6:00 p.m. eastern, followed by a book signing in arlington, virginia live at 11:00 a.m. eastern. both events will re-air saturday night starting at 8:30. booktv -- television for serious readers every week and on c-span2.

c-span's new book "sundays at includes huffington post senior military correspondent david wood. >> there is something that drives them to this ideal of it is like so many ,eople i know who had served the intensity of the experience, the intensity of the relationships they have with their combat buddies are so true that so pure and they look back on those times with longing. i have always asked them -- do you wish this had never happened? and they are like -- i would do it again in a heartbeat. i think there's something else and ites on there, too,

is that going through a somehowth experience seems to give them so much strength and courage and -- i think that is one reason why they would do it again. >> read more of our conversation with david wood and other featured interviews from our book knows and "q&a" programs in nowan's "sundays at eight," available for a father's day gift at your favorite bookseller. "washington journal" continues. host: matt kibbe of freedomworks , it is looking like kevin mccarthy is going to be the majority leader. yeah, it is interesting, the republicans have a tendency to pick the next guy in line, particularly when it comes to leadership races. it is such an inside game that anybody within the web structure has a competitive advantage. i think labrador will give them

a run for it. i like competition, and i think it would be good for fiscal conservatives to get a seat at the table. i also think that the leadership should probably learn something from this about inclusiveness. i think they have been a little heavy-handed. eric cantor is certainly prove that in his district in virginia. they might think that this is a good time where we all sit down and say ok, how do we actually work together on some things that matter? what you think about kevin mccarthy? guest guest: i think he is a typical product of the eric cantor leadership model. i would not criticize him specifically, but i would suggest that the old, very top-down -- this is what we're going to do model of house leadership does not function in a distinct allies -- in a centralized world anymore. it used to be the case, this is not just john boehner, but new egrets before him, that -- but

newt gingrich before him would come down and say these are the priorities that we were going to ruled the house with a lot of that. today, with so many factions within the gop, i think a different type model is important, and i'm not sure the kevin mccarthy understands the new world, and i'm not sure eric cantor ditty, either. -- did, either. host: is eric cantor a conservative in your view? guest: he would be a conservative by the centers of the 1990's and 2000 gop. today the challenge for cantor -- areer republicans is they actually able to set out a clear line of ideas that separate themselves from the democrats? this is what hurt him. he was trying to split the difference on some of harry reid's really bad ideas, like

the immigration bill, instead of saying this is what the gop wants to do, not just on immigration but on other things. and they started with that. i am not suggesting that is easy to do, but republicans have won when they actually represent a set of ideas. it happened with ronald reagan, it happened in 1994, and it theened in 2010 with contract from america. host: matt kibbe, that is a lot of inside baseball that you gave us. were the people in the seventh district of virginia aware of all this inside baseball? guest: they were innocents because there is that same fight for control of the virginia gop, and i think this was eric cantor's achilles heel. he was viewed as a reagan fan top-down and out of touch not only with his district but with the people across the state of virginia. he tried to game the system of the convention process.

20/20 hindsight, we all should have seen this coming, but we did not of course. host: we are talking with matt kibbe of freedomworks. (202) 585-3881 for republicans, (202) 585-3880 for democrats, and (202) 585-3882 for independents. what is of freedomworks and what is your philosophy? guest: freedomworks is a grassroots educational the group to educate people about not just be political process but ideas based on economic freedom and individual responsibility and fiscal conservatism. a lot of people think that we are a political organization, and i would argue that that is just a small part of the services that we provide to our members. we are primarily about the link community. we are what barack obama would call community organizers but perhaps with a very different agenda. host: would you consider yourself a libertarian, a conservative? very: we lean

conservative, but the proper a phrase is probably classical liberal. we focus on economics. we do not get involved in a lot of social issues. but there is a clear trend is not just with the gop but public opinion particularly amongst young people trending more libertarian, and you are seeing this with civil liberties, you were seeing it with the popularity of senators like rand salience thes of this whole idea the withinent should live its means. we are talking about the fourth and fifth amendments at the equally important, and that cuts across the old conservative liberal model. you are on the air. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i have an issue with the fact that everybody is saying eric cantor is not conservative enough. today romney is not

in the white house because of folks like cantor, and we need to embrace the immigration issue and other factors. yesterday or the day before when eric cantor had the news conference, he started by saying something to the fact that he grew up in a hebrew home and cited something from the old testament. how much of this is due to the fact that he was overly ambitious to become speaker? he is the only male republican jew in the congress. all right, we got the point. mickey, that has been raised in a couple of different areas, the fact that eric cantor is jewish. guest: i think that had absolutely nothing to do with that, and i think he would be the first one to say it. he was a successful republican politician not only in virginia but right across the street here .

but the first point is important because i think a lot of people would go back and say you know what, he spent so much time trying to run for speaker that he forgot that he represented the people of virginia. there is a hubris there, and i think that is one of the factors that led to his defeat. a lot of people had said that this was a victory for the tea party. it is depending on how you define the tea party. if the tea party is an ecosystem as a grassroots matters and that people are showing up and getting more involved and more connected in the political process, yes, absolutely. and there are a lot of tea party leaders across this district that were very involved in this, but if it is about capital t, capital p tea party, that is not what this is about. this is about the empowerment and democratization of citizens. i think that is a very healthy process. it is not just happening in the gop -- it is happening with the democrats as well. host: where were you when you

found out that eric cantor lost and how shocked were you? guest: we were in our office, and we were surprised, even though some of the activists had told us that this was going to happen. of course we hear that and a lot of these races and it is not always work out that way. bratd spoken with david and work right -- and were white impressed with him. he is a conservative economist, but wow, that was something -- andow with obviously he made history. but it will not happen all the time. the advantages of incumbency are very important, and mitch mcconnell prove that. but i would go back to joe lieberman in 2006. people do not remember this, but the progressive left beat joe lieberman, a very powerful incumbent senator, and really disrupted the status quo, and

you were seeing this more and more. there is a trend line here. barack obama did the same thing as hillary clinton. that new poll out showing chris mcdaniel is about eight points over thad cochran. "new york times" says the mississippi senator has a plan for avoiding a cantor-like fate by saying we will expand our pool of voters. guest: certainly the cantor defeat what wins in the sales of the activists in mississippi. i was with them on election night, and the first thing they said is -- are you guys still going to be with us? and i said of course. i would suggest that it is wishful thinking on the part of the thad cochran's campaign that they can expand the voter pool at this point because democrats who of already voted are not eligible to vote in a runoff

runoff, so traditionally lower turnout affairs, and this race will be won on the ground. all of the energy, all of the machinery of put up the vote is on the side of mcdaniel. journal" hastreet a story about the oklahoma senate race. do you guys have a dog in this fight? twst: yes, we have endorsed shannon, and i think this will be a dip or type of test for our community because there is a third candidate as well that is betweeng the votes shannon, and i'm struggling to butk of the guy's name, langford is clearly be established toys, and i think the lesson coming out of north where we try to beat tom tiller, who was the establishment choice, is we split our votes, and if we split our vote two or three ways, it

is hard to win, and i think that will be the test here. it is not a perfect analogy .w. shannon is the speaker of the house there. he is not an economics with us or would be characterized as a complete outside insurgent. host: mike in kingston, you were on with matt kibbe of freedomworks. caller: thank you for taking my call. let me comment on something the previous caller said about the reason eric cantor lost or the reason that romney lost. romney was not a true conservative. romney was losing primaries. the people did not want him. he was next in line, and it has been said that had all the had all he people who voted for mccain voted for romney, romney would be president today, but the main theg i wanted to ask, but

tea party is not an actual party, it is a movement, a conservative movement. what if the republican establishment allow the liberal mainstream moderators -- i mean media to always moderate the debates when it comes time to be presidential debate? and when it comes up for supreme court nominees, what they always say elections have consequences? why don't we stand up and fight against these soto mayors and kagans? one of the bozo they can vote against the supreme court's they cannot get a -- why don't they get out and vote against the supreme court? part of it,ee with the gop has a responsibility to control the rules of debate as long as we do not cut out all of but they should limit the number and they should control who the moderator is

because they very much let other people do find the narrative and change the subject. the supremeion of court, i think we are learning this the hard way, the reality is that public opinion and grassroots pressure applied to the courts as much as they apply to congress. it is our job tas citizens to show up, get educated, and drive the opinions because the courts read the papers, too. judges look at public opinion polls. it may not be what we like to happen, but it happens. we need to step up to that challenge. host: matt kibbe, when you go to mississippi, what exactly does freedomworks do when you're down there? guest: we have been sitting down with the activists since december 2013. 35 grassroots leaders from across the state, representing their networks. the first thing we do is ask them -- what do you want to do? voteally it is get out the

efforts. and what typically insurgent campaigns do not have his basic materials like yard signs and door hangers and phone lists and walking maps. that is what we do. if you think about the service center model like to politics, we typically do not do mass shoe leatherdo politics because that is what the activists want to do. in this new world, the decentralized model of tapping into all of that local energy is the way that we get the upset victories that sometimes we see. host: so you get the money for that type of activity? we are a super pac, so we cannot coordinate with a campaign at all. we produce materials that say vote for chris mcdaniel, retire thad cochran. we come up with precinct walk on data and all the stuff that is simply done, and we split up the work. and i will be in five cities

across the state and this is basically our launch. we scramble to produce a whole new set of materials after primary night, and this is what they needed. this is what they asked for, and decidingnk, was one factor leading up to our victory that tuesday. host: isn't that a coordination when you say what you want -- guest: no, you are talking to citizens. you're not talking to members of mcdaniel's campaign. we are happy to report that citizens still have a first amendment rights to produce pagan politics, and we hope it stays that way, but no, it is very much outsource. i would also point out that quite often the opportunities that we pursue -- we do not get involved in every race, but quite often the opportunities that we do pursue are brought to us by our activists. we surveyed them, we ask them which races they think matter, and we keep pushing them to show us why they think that is true. that is how we discovered mike

leigh in utah i think before anybody else. that is how we knew ted cruz had .raction it is part of this model. there is a lot of local knowledge that all of us in d.c. do not have, and if you are humble enough to ask for, sometimes you can get it. host: why are you headquartered in d.c.? guest: that is probably part of the old model as well, although we happen to be based in this building, and it is quite convenient to either go upstairs or downstairs to talk to msnbc or fox news or c-span, but i think as we move forward, everything is driven over the internet and social media, and you can do that anywhere. we would still like to have an impact on what they do in the capital, and sometimes showing up matters, but we really think that our constituents, our support is what drives public policy. host: victor tweets -- if

conservative means "my way or the highway," than it is the highway for conservatives because the country is not theirs alone. guest: i do not think that is what conservative means at all. i think the bottom-line is that washington has gotten so out of control that a little bit of disruption, a little bit of challenging the status quo -- shaking things up a little but it's probably a good thing to do. we would argue that going into bailoutwall street -- there is been a lot of bipartisan collusion. nobody had actually stood in front of the train is thaand sad you know what, we cannot do this anymore. if that is why conservative means, willing to stand on principle when no one else represents real problems, that makes a lot of sense. host: paul, indiana on our republican line. you are on with matt kibbe of freedomworks. guest: kind of a personal

question, if matt kibbe voted for mitt romney or not. i voted the district of columbia, and i voted for ron paul because i did not have the ability to impact the outcome of the election. if i had lived in virginia, i would have voted for mitt romney without a second thought. host: barbara in lewisville, texas will sto. hi, barbara. caller: i'm here in dallas where they had the republican platform, and the first one on your was repeal the 17th amendment to the constitution so legislature selects u.s. senators. i want to get his opinion on cents tedhe think cruz is the darling of the tea party. thank you for taking my call. guest: i think there is an about theg debate

17th amendment. there was a time when senators were selected by state legislatures, and the babel would argue that moving to direct election of senators has somehow undermined the people's voice in washington. i'm not sure that is true anymore. i was never completely convinced by that argument. particularly today, and i would point to mississippi as an example of that, i think grassroots have very much a voice in this process and the ability to hold even entrenched governors, and our and state legislators going to solve a problem yo? it is not clear. meetingate legislators in indianapolis, what you think about that? there is a big push for an article five constitutional convention, and the idea would be to fix some of the corruptions we have seen in the

constitutional limits on big government. bulletsptical of silver and constitutional amendments and conventions and a perfect piece of legislation, and my answer to everybody is if you want to fix washington, build a community. if you want to pass a bill, build a community. if you want to fix the constitution, you want to repeal the amendment that allowed for the income tax, you had better build a community because if you open up that can of worms at a convention and you do not have the kind of organization and public opinion behind you, things could go wrong. kibbe is at graduate of george mason university. he has a new book out -- "hostile takeover: resisting centralized government's stranglehold on america." that will be featured on program infterwords" the coming weeks. speaker boehner, i want to get your reaction to this. [video clip]

a true cantor has been friend, and i want to thank him and think his staff for his service to our conference and thank them for the service to our country as well. there is no one around here who puts more thought into advancing our principles and the solutions for the american people. i look forward to him continuing to lead our efforts here over the summer. as for the future, let me share a little bit with you what i told the members yesterday. this is a time for unity. this is a time to focus on what we all know is true. the president's policies have told the american people. his administration cannot get ,ur economy back to real growth and he continues to endanger our troops and citizens with his failed foreign policies. at this point, the administration cannot even provide basic services to our veterans. we need to elect a congress that

only have the will to stop the president but the power to do so as well. everyday we are showing the american people that we have got better solutions. today, we will act on to more jobs bills that help small businesses invest and grow. fortunately, senate democrats continue to sit on their hands and failing to act on the dozens of jobs bills that are sitting over in the senate. guess what? so long as the american people continue to ask the question -- where are the jobs? we will continue to be focused on this one issue. kibbe.att thet: well, i think challenge for boehner and the republicans is to prove that they have a better set of ideas i am not sure they have done that yet, obviously. to keep doing what they have in doing may not be exactly the right solution. there is this internal fight

between the strategists of the gop. strategists,an establishment strategists, believe the best thing to do is to not run on issues. do not say much about health care. do not say much about the budget. times thestory, the republicans have one, is very contrary to that. and i do not know what that is. that is risk aversion inside the beltway. you saw that in mitt romney's campaign. you see that in leadership, versus bold ideas that really change the conversation. 2010, almost every republican the contracted from america, crowd sourced from the grassroots. the need to run on policy. i get the "where are the jobs" thing. issue.nomy is a big obamacare is a big issue. civil liberties will be a big issue.

but they need to set out a platform they are willing to defend. -- host: who is the leader of the republican party today? guest: the answer should be mitch mcconnell and john mainer. but i think the ideas wing, 2010-2012,lass of and i would suggest some numbers , are the 2014 election ones working to fix obamacare. let us say the rand pauls and --d cruzes and michael e -- a lot of the world of leadership is coming from the bottom up. from texas.ller is

good morning. you are on "the washington journal." i have a quick question. what does the constitution tell us? and forthrd back about going into other nations and doing what they are doing today. , who considers themselves to be conservative? we went into iraq. why didn't we track the money that was taken out of iraq? money,y tracked that where would we be today? host: we talked about iraq in our previous segment. any thoughts you would like to share? guest: i think the constitution is clear on this and james madison was adamant about this in the drafting process. congress's authority to

declare war. and we just had this fight when the president announced he would unilaterally go into syria, bomb grassrootsit was a uprising that insisted he go to congress instead. that is historical. it has not really happened. , particularlys the obama administration and bush administration, trampled that limit. i think if we did that, we would be a little more circumspect about where we would go to war and what the rules of engagement would be. a tweet -- how much did freedomworks donate to virginia seven? zero. we do not give directly to candidates, so that was never an option. if i had two things i do not have, for frick foresight and unlimited resources, we would

have been there. i would argue it is particularly awesome this did not happen with freedomworks support. our job is not to get involved in every race and change outcomes. our job is to support a community so they can do it. our strength is in decentralization. we are like to see that involved less and less and the activists take the future. host: the caller is on our republican line. caller: i can assure you goofballs, three goofball operations in veterans hospital. they could have a clean bill of health. i am trying since september of last year to get a pair of shoes that works on my feet. i got braces on both legs. washington is a

veterans party, somebody who knows how to get jobs done and straighten out these hospitals. host: matt? guest: i would love for you to join freedomworks, because you said it better than i did. somebody needs to come to washington and kick butt. wasn'teran scandal outrage. that we do not provide health care to the men and women who served this country so heroically is an affront to everything we are supposed to be about. that said, i wonder why we have healthize, single-payer care system for veterans. it does not work that well. it proves that people wait in line. care is rationed. people die. i would rather get every veteran into the same health care that is available to the rest of us, and we should pick up the debt for that. tim is calling from

damascus, virginia, on our democrats line. a couple moments left with our guest. caller: thank you so much for c-span. everybody is part of this politics thing. we are not getting anything done. i think we need term limits on these congressmen. we need to take the big money out of politics and put it back into normal people's hands. 90% of this country is middle-class at the best. the rest of the people is rich. we need term limits, and politicians today are working for money. i love my country. i would like to see it go back to the people who really care about our country. i hope the democrats will take it all. i hope we can take both houses. we have a democratic president. i do not want to see a standstill for two more years and not get nothing done. if we can do that and put the hands back into the poor people

and the middle class people of this country, we can run our country and get something done. and you for taking my call. -- thank you for taking my call. guest: i love permits, -- term limits come a especially the way they were imposed in virginia a couple days ago. he spent so much money. we favor some companies at the expense of others. we choose winners and losers in our economic system. as long as washington is so big and so interested, it is going to attract all the wrong types of interests into the political process. look at it in mississippi. all that money comes from d.c. lobbyists, and they have been explicit about it. this has been about getting special favors, about seniority. they are investing a lot of money in that. take away the ability to choose winners and losers, to rearrange

have spending is appropriated, and you will take away the big money in politics. what do you think about the fact that you have to compromise when you have divided government, like we currently do? think you do have to compromise, but compromise is not splitting the difference on somebody's bad ideas. it would be harry reid saying, this is my plan, public and saying, this is my plan, and sitting at the table and fighting it out. art of it is going to the american people and asking them to weigh in on that debate. you cannot do that unless you have two sets of ideas at the table. miami, independent. good morning. caller: i believe the sleeping giant has just been awoke. i do believe that all you have to do is look at what is going on in europe, with the eurosceptics. people in europe are getting frustrated.

i believe the people in this country are fed up with this immigration invasion. i honestly believe that if we do not stop what is happening in this country, we will become a third world. we have to stop what is happening in the united states of america. we have to enforce laws already on the books. i believe if we do not, we have a big problem ahead of us. the sleeping giant has just been awoke. i believe you are going to see a major change in this country in 2014 in november. i do not care if you are democrat, republican, or independent. people are going to say it enough is enough with immigration. look what we did in arizona to jan brewer. they are illegally shipping people into this state. when is this man who is supposed to be president of the united states going to enforce the laws on the books? agree with you that something is happening in america, and i think it is a healthy thing.

it makes me strangely optimistic about the future of this country. i would argue that america is a leader in the world, and if we do not defend freedom here, it is going to have a hard time driving anywhere else. part of it is frustration with the insider attitude and collusion of interests that have run this country in the wrong direction. the other part of it is the liberation of people. you have better information from multiple sources. you have the ability to connect with other people who think us like you and want to get involved in the process. i know moms that have bigger facebook pages than county gop's. that is one factor explaining eric cantor's loss. the other is arrogance and his dominance by insiders. but people have to step up. people have to get involved. this country was designed specifically, and george washington was quite clear about this. he said that it evil don't show

up, but people don't defend that sacred fire of liberty, it goes away. host: is money equivalent to speech? i think she is going for the corporations are people. believe thaten to people should be allowed to invest in politics, and we need more political speech, not less. the fact of the matter is, any investment init politics is typically pushed by incumbents, who have all of the advantages in the process. i do think in the future, and we proved this -- the activists proved this last tuesday -- that --ey -- i think cam for theor spent $5 million -- answer is to engage more political speech, engage more people in the process. even social media costs money.

we have four point 5 million people on our facebook page. billing that community was not cheap. engaging the community, at the margin, is near zero. i think that is the future. it used to cost millions of dollars to mail people or run tv ads. it is not freedomworks anymore. moms can do this. citizens can do this. that is the future. tot: laura says, i give it brat. barbara, in austin, texas, you are the last call for matt kibbe. have a really important question and then a secondary question, and i would like a direct, clear answer to this first question. why doesn't the tea party operate as a third party, not just writing on the coattails of the republican party? and then there is my other question. host: quickly. ofler: i have heard a lot

talk about fixing or replacing obamacare. as i see it, this combination party, republicans and tea party, only reacts to things. they never make original proposals. so i wonder why they never proposed any health care plan until the affordable care act was passed, and they reacted to it. host: thank you. separate party for the tea party? a fan i have never been of third parties for the simple reason they do not work. i think the libertarian party has proved that. that said, if the gop does not reform itself, it runs the risk of going the way of the whigs. i suspect it is not going to be about a third-party challenge, but about a repopulation of the gop hugeey do not accept this movement of libertarians and

fiscal conservatives that are newly empowered by the internet, they are going to miss the opportunity to be one of those two parties. the second question was -- host: that was about why republicans and tea party do not create their own legislation, just react. guest: i will plug a specific project we are working on right now, called prescription for america. we are asking citizens to weigh in on what they think the solutions to obamacare are. we did this in 2010 with the contract from america. we worked with the folks that pushed that. we think the future is all about crowd sourcing ideas from the bottom up, because we are not getting it from our leadership, they respond to incentives. if we create a constituency for a good idea, you will have politicians of all stripes glomming onto it. kibbe, president and ceo of freedomworks. thank you for being on "the

washington journal." it more segment to go, and is the cover story of "the issue.c," their monthly it is the case for reparations. we will be right back. ♪ ♪ >> for over 35 years, c-span brings public affairs events directly to you, but he knew in the room with white house events, briefings, and conferences, and offering complete gavel-to-gavel coverage of the u.s. house. we are c-span. watch us in hd, like us on facebook, and follow us on twitter. >> when i started covering congress, you had people like senator russell long, wilbur

rostenkowski, howard vapor, people who were giants in their own way. a couple of those guys got themselves into trouble. but overall, these were people who knew how -- they were all very intelligent. they knew how to craft legislation, they knew how to do a deal, and they worked with whoever the president was. there was politics, but at the end of the day, they usually found a way to come together and make decisions for the good of the country. you do not see that anymore. i think the quality of members of congress, in terms of their intelligence and work ethic, has diminished. a are still great people and i should not malign -- there are wonderful members on both sides. i think increasingly people

are driven by the politics and , andeir own cell survival the hardest work they do is raising money. it is not learning the issues. it is not crafting deals. it is making speeches and positioning themselves to get reelected. is livingr lisa myers washington behind. find out why on sunday night. >> "washington journal" continues. of "the-nehisi coates atlantic." how do you define reparations? guest: america coming to account with its own history, the bad part and the good part. host: what does that mean? guest: in the case of african-americans, it means accepting the relationship between american government,

american society, and african-americans has for most of our history not been a positive one. the fact that we decided about 50 years ago that we would have some politics in which we would stop doing some of the negative things we had been doing does not make the consequences of the past go away. they have to be directly addressed. host: you mean money. guest: i do, among other things. i do not mean literally mailing a check right now. that would not suffice. i do not mean hush money. so weot mean money given never have to talk about this again. money is part of the process. reparations, by which i mean the full acceptance of our collective biography and its consequences, is the price we must pay to see ourselves squarely. guest: that is exactly it. money is part of that. one of the things we try to theblish in the piece is

way people traditionally think about the african-american community relationship with the state is one in which we have segregation. we have collared only signs, colored only water fountains. we have the lunch table and black people sit over here. it is not simple. it is not wealth being extracted out of one community to benefit the other community. of america.history in youru indicated piece, about 16,000 words in this cover story, if you want to you it at atlantic.com -- have also indicated that federal policy has been discriminatory. i want to read a couple of examples. division,cs of racial the record is mixed.

guest: whenever you have a conversation about reparations, people say we are just talking about something that we can end right there. the 20th century, you can still trace a line of policies to disadvantage african-americans. that includes some of the folks who set the most progressive policy, the new deal, which was passed on the backs of white supremacy. it would not have been possible without white supremacy. social security was written in such a way that 65% of african-americans who would have been eligible, 80% in the south, were not eligible. welfare, what we call 10 of --- tanf, was written in much the same way. the g.i. bill, the housing , were designed in the

same way, to exclude african-americans. the mechanisms by which american families built wealth in this country have excluded the black community. african-american community and see social and economic indicators. it is not a mystery at all. it is explainable. host: the new jim crow, you ande, quoting a history political science professor at colombia. one collaborator america's democracy could not do without. guest: that is exactly right. people believed democracy was in doubt, the onset of world war ii. we see fascism rising in europe. his book is called "fear itself." there is great fear in this country. it passed policies to deal with this new era. of this country, the highest priority was white

supremacy. north --you in the this piece focuses on chicago, so i do not make it sound like a southern problem. but the democratic south, the solid south as they call it at the time -- its highest priority was white supremacy. they were not going to pass any social legislation that compromised that. host: we will get to chicago in a moment. i want to get these other facts, writings, on the table first. he said this quickly. i want to read it straight from your piece. the omnibus programs passed under the social security act in 1930 were crafted in such a way as to protect the southern way of life. old-age insurance and unemployment insurance excluded far more -- farmworkers and domestics, jobs heavily occupied by blacks. roosevelt signed social security into law, 1930

5, 65% of african-americans 70%-80%ly, and between in the south were ineligible. protested, calling the new american safety net a sieve with holes just big enough for african-americans to fall through. with --oming to terms that is what i am talking about. proud of social security, of the g.i. bill. the flipside of that is to come to terms with the fact that some cution of our populations out. what are the consequences? it is not like african-americans were emancipated in 1865 and the countryside, welcome. you are free to enjoy the same rights as everybody else.

one of the big things we talk about is housing policy, redlining. outlawed until 1968. living african-americans went through this process. host: who is clyde ross? i-91-year-old man living on the west side of chicago. i hope he is watching today. he might well be. mr. clyde ross was born in mississippi in the 1920's, when mississippi was majority african-american. but the majority of people living in message -- in mississippi could not vote, had no political power, his family being among them. his family had some means, some land. they had horses. they had mules. they had cows. a chicken. all of which was taken from them on a false tax bill. they were reduced to

sharecroppers. he spent his childhood in mississippi. his childhood there was people taking things from him and giving them to other people. separate but equal, when you see schools, a black and white university system, remember that african-americans in a state like mississippi were taxed, asked to pledge fealty to the law, to build facilities they could not attend. i am being asked for schools i cannotgo to, pools i visit, libraries i cannot borrow books out of. this is the systemic thunder that mr. ross into her for the first 18 or so years of his life. the senator in mississippi at the time, whose name i am forgetting -- theodore bilbo --

i remember. i am going to use the word he used. to keep the knee grow away from the voting booth, do it the night before. negro away from the voting booth, do it the night before. ross fought in world war ii, decided he could not return to mississippi, went to chicago, was able to get a job. did not have to deal with jim crow customs anymore. when he went to buy a house, he was cut out by the greatest wealth opportunity in american history, home ownership. african-americans around the country were cut out of that process. buying on contract was a particularly onerous rent to own scheme. you have all the disadvantages

of home ownership and all the disadvantages of renting. you owe somebody presumably a mortgage payment, but not really. you do not build equity. should you miss one payment, you are kicked out of the home and they keep all the money. mr. ross somehow managed to hold onto his house. but there are swathes, literally thousands of people, who bought their homes in that way in chicago. it is estimated that 85% of african-americans in chicago during this period both their home through a contract. host: this was -- guest: 1950's. , 1950's. it is made possible by a policy of the united states which did not believe african-americans to be responsible homeowners. host: like the home owners loan corporation, the federal housing

administration insisted on --trict the quotas restrictive quotas. the 1940's, chicago led the nation in the use of these restrictive covenants. neighborhoods were effectively off-limits to blacks. what is the neighborhood of north lawndale? now, it is one of the poorest neighborhoods in the city of chicago. 95% african-american. it was not when mr. clive ross and the people we profiled moved there, but quickly became that way. there was a tendency to look at the way people move throughout society, the way people relocate, and to think people are merely expressing their own preference. the policy like redlining, which meant that when african-americans move to your block, you were no longer eligible for fha-backed loans --

everything got harder. was government policy, bank policy at the time. it was toward the people moving -- white flight is a direct result of social planning. it is not an autonomous process by which white people looks down the block and said, i would rather be around my own. there might be some of that, some level of prejudice. what you had policies that basically buttressed prejudice, that made it very inconvenient if you were a white person and wanted to live in an integrated neighborhood. you had activists who were trying to create an integrated living environment. country, of of this the state of illinois, of chicago mitigated against that, and we have north lawndale. host: speculators in the 1950's and 1960's knew there was money

to be made off white panic. guest: again, this is private enterprise. some of the lowest private enterprise you can imagine. met clyde ross, the first thing he said -- i said, why did you leave mississippi? he said, i was seeking the protection of the law. i did not understand what he meant. he said, we had no black attorneys, no black police. we were outside of the law. that is a theme you see even has he moves -- as he moves up to

chicago. if you have a set of policies and exempt black people -- we are not talking about the criminal justice system, the educational system. just on housing. say, this is for everybody else, but not for this group over here. the predators are outside of the protection of the law. how would that happen? ist: ta-nehisi coates national correspondent for "the atlantic." he has the cover story this month. it is about reparations. there is the cover. charts of chicago as well, showing some of the redlining. we would like to get your views on what we have been reading so far.

with reparations, you are either for it or against it. let us go a little deeper and a little further out. how long did you spend on this story? the issueu feel about of reparations prior to your research? in 2010, i made a blog post saying i was not in favor of corporations, and i was at the time. in debates with other writers around issues, relating to some of the problems we had in the african-american community, is that there was something that was not being talked about. issue, for instance, about what schools african-americans go to, and why they go to those schools. i think beneath that is where african-americans lived.

an issue like gentrification. obviously beneath that is how much money african-americans have to remain in neighborhoods they want to remain in. why do african americans live in certain places and why do white people live in other places? i are african-americans the most segregated minority in the country? why is the wealth gap funny-one? what happened here? it is hard to avoid the fact -- you mentioned the restrictive covenants. people have deeds in this state and other places they can show you, and it says, this should not be given to jews, negroes, or other undesirable minorities. our policies have been very explicit, up into the 1960's, about how we were going to regard african-americans, what policies they were going to benefit from.

if the state has effectively said, we are endorsing african-americans, punishing african-american success -- the idea that it would be any me asent began to strike absurd. what should we do? conclude, as i have, that ,he policy has been to strict you have to believe that some of that wealth should be returned. wells fargo bank, in 2009, half the programs in baltimore whose owners have been granted loans between 2005 and 2008 were vacant. 71% were in predominantly black neighborhoods. it is really depressing to talk about this. -- notls fargo case is right now, but in the past few years -- if you go and you read

reporting,ts and the there is nothing particularly hard to see about what wells fargo is doing. it is very clear as to how they regarded the people who they were offering these loans to. wells fargo realized that the african-american community was a community in which people had traditionally, in the history of this country, then cut out of wealth building opportunities, and was desperate to build some well. they went with african-american churches, public figures. they went to black people and told them, here is your opportunity. what they gave them was subprime loans. it is very important to make here. we have looked at african-americans.

we have compared them for credit. everything you might think that would explain this, besides -- african-americans still got worse loans. it is the fact that these people are segregated and are sitting in this one particular area -- it makes explication very, very efficient. a barrel.ing ducks in they are all right here, in this contains space. you do not have to look for earmarks. they are right there, because of american policy. you keep saying we wrote the story, but your name is the only one on there. guest: this was a two-year process, and i think my great editor, how much we went back and forth -- if you want to put a case for reparations on the cover, there is going to be a lot of back and forth. checkers.out my fact

what they did to make sure that -- making was correct sure every sentence made sense. a teaml like it is effort. i did write it. we have the maps. as a full package -- i am sorry for everybody i did not mention from "the atlantic." that is why i keep saying "we." host: is there a book out of this? guest: i hope so. host: republican line, you are on with ta-nehisi coates of "the atlantic." caller: i did read your entire article. we have a subscription. i discussed it with my husband. a very basic, basic

question for you. oft is your interpretation collective guilt? to be able to have reparations, you are going to have to convince a majority of the white population that they have collective guilt. what is your definition of that? catholic, but i do not feel i have collective guilt for persecution of the jews in the early church. nor the spanish inquisition. german, but i do not carry collective guilt for hitler and his atrocities. white and i am a child of the 1960's that came of age in and i have always

felt like there was progress, idea thaturt by the all white people in america have collective guilt for what happened to african-americans. it hurts me to my core. i love people. i treat everybody with love. and that is what i have to say. on the case for reparations, yes or no? caller: it depends. first of all, you have to convince me i personally have collective guilt. and then there is going to have to be a structure similar to office, aurity, or an national office of reparations, where people would have to go to state their case, how they have

been harmed by white people. and i think it is going to be awfully, awfully hard to implement. host: mr. coates? guest: you obviously did have the article and even have some plans. you went further than i did. i appreciate that. i would like to shift the frame away from collective guilt to collective responsibility, which is more important. i try to make this case. we recognize ourselves as americans, as part of a larger state, art of a larger society. we understand the state outlives us, that it does think that we do and youy did not are responsible for. i was obviously not alive when world war i was fought. but i was one of those who pay pensions for the veterans who served in world war i. i was not alive at the time of the american revolution, but i

celebrate on july 4, like everybody else does. a state,are part of you assume responsibility for what the state does, and that outlives you. we have these conversations about the national debt. we have these conversations about climate change. we have any sort of conversation about what the future of america is going to be. we invoke our children, grandchildren, the world beyond us. somewhere within that is the notion that when you are part of a state, part of a nation, part of a society, that it is broader than you. a state in which you are only responsible for that which you actions you do, the individually take, is a failed state. it cannot be possible. the state would have to regenerate itself virtually every generation. we have dealt with reparations cases in the past. the state of north carolina is paying reparations to african

americans because, for many years, the state of north carolina had its hospitals sterilize african american women coming in to have babies or routine procedures. the state is paying out right now. that means every citizen in sterilizedina african-americans? of course it does not. did every north carolina and think it was a good idea? of course not. it has state realizes responsibility. in the 1980's, when we made a decision to give reparations to japanese-americans who were interned during world war ii -- is that mean that every person who was alive thought it was a good idea to in turn japanese-americans during world war ii? some of us were not even alive. what we recognize the idea that those were done in our name. we are american. patriotism means something beyond our self. it means we are responsible for things, both good and bad, that

we do not personally do. when you have a policy that was done, a policy that was executed , in our names as americans, there is responsibility for that. stand up and to talk about how great the g.i. bill -- every president lise to talk about how proud he is of the g.i. bill. if you want to talk about what was good about american policies, the beacon of democracy, all the great things we have done in our history, it is only fair that we talked about the responsibility we have for those things. you do not get to just open up your paycheck and not open your bills. you have to deal with both. that, to me, is an elevated form of patriotism. host: i am going to read a series of tweets. normally i would not ask you to respond to all of these, but it is all along the same thing.

i think you'll get the idea. guest: what can you do about that? if people want to read the article, i will have a discussion with them about the article. people who want to remain in their own ignorance, there is not much that can be done.

i am obviously very enthusiastic about having a conversation about people who take the issue seriously and stop you do not have to ultimately agree with me, but there is not too much i can do about that. host: where did you grow up? guest: baltimore, maryland. host: college? guest: i dropped out. i was never a good student. host: when did you become national correspondent for "the atlantic"? but i have recently, worked for "the atlantic" six years now. host: graduated from howard? started left howard and writing. i have been writing since i was 20 years old. almost 19 years now. riding for a while. i have been writing before that, from when i was about six years old. my mom had me right essays when i did anything wrong.

it has been a consistent thing through my life will stop i started writing when i was in college, and i loved it. i could not believe somebody questions,ou to ask to report, to go out to a city and ask questions of poor people that you were uniquely curious about, and then write it up. i have been doing it ever since. i am going to read more from "the case for reparations."

guest: that is a very, very important -- when you write this, you have to deaden yourself emotionally. it has an effect. it makes you feel a certain way. that is a very important paragraph. you see "a colored man of means," upwardly mobile, being equated with criminals. that was the policy of the trade groups in this country. that is what it was. during that time we had the greatest wealth building opportunities in our history, that was our attitude. we have some responsibility for that. host: you talked about similar suits pushed against corporations such as aetna, which insured slaves, and lehman

brothers, which was a founding -- whose cofounding partner owned them. host: the ivy league schools in the north, many of them, and how much, or wealth is built off slavery. brown university did a magnificent report some years ago on the brown brothers. one of the great educational institutions in this world. how much of their wealth and how much is built off of slavery and off of slave trading? you cannot get away from this. get out ofgoing to this. it is one of the great forces in american life. not arguably, i would say definitely, and you cannot isgine modern america as it without thinking about slavery and all the things that came out of it.

thanks for holding. caller: good morning and thank .ou, mr. coates i grew up in the jim crow south. i was pretty young then. i do not know how to explain this, because i saw it for what it was as a young boy. guilt -- you white are talking about justice. this is so important to me. robinson, when he was on, i wanted to thank him too. jim crow is so incredibly disgusting that a little child could see it. it is amazing to me that we have not done anything about this. you can here i am breaking up a little bit, because i saw this

in reality. and it is really disgusting. whatf we -- i don't know we can do, because it is very difficult. but i know what i would do. and everybody would be really mad. toould give free education every african american person in this country, and i would make sure it was a good education. and i would help them in every way i could think of. breaking up too much. thank you. you do not really go into the house. -- the how. guest: one of the reasons why i did that -- you are talking about 250 years of enslavement in this country. african americans were slaves in the colonies and in this country longer than african-americans have been free in this country. you are talking about 250 years labour, of theft.

after that, you are talking about the greatest wave of domestic terrorism we have ever seen in this country, directed that african-americans. you are talking about the blazek -- a sick pondering of the right to vote in the broad swath of this country. you are talking about nonenforcement of constitutional amendments, the plunder of tax dollars to put up institutions african-americans were excluded from. you are talking about property, body. one of the most heartbreaking stories -- this comes toward the end. when mr. ross talks about his brother, winter ross, who had an , was taken toure parchment. it was effectively slavery in the 20th century. it is a mississippi prison. esther ross and his family heard that his brother was there. they went to get him and were

told he was dead. you were shocked to hear this. they asked for his body and they said, what do you want his body for? body.er saw his brothers he effectively disappeared off the streets of america. that is an individual example. we have to deal with new deal legislation that it actively cut african-americans out of all these wealth building opportunities. the shape of our cities could not be what they are without white supremacy. it is impossible to imagine. we wonder why, in a city like d.c., where we live, why african-americans live on one side of the park for the most part, and not on the other side. we think this is magic. it just sort of happened out of nowhere. bill we cannot quite pay off. nothing to make this totally right. but what can we do? what is the best way?

once we have acknowledged our history, what is the best way? america begins in black plunder and why democracy, features that are not contradictory but complementary. 1860, the majority of people in south carolina and mississippi, and about half those in georgia, about 1/3 of also the dinners were black. the state with the largest number of enslaved americans was virginia, where in certain counties some 70% labored in chains. their backs, the economic basis of america and much of america was erected.

next call, jim, in midland, texas. how you doing? thanks for c-span. how you doing, mr. coates? guest: all right. how about yourself? caller: good. two questions. many -- the first question -- how many generations of --ple is a going to take to the like people are going to be basically racist for how long because of slavery?

how many generations is it going out?ke before that smooths is, what isestion your definition of racism? thank you very much. guest: i will take the last one first. at a root level, because of a basic belief that something genetic about you makes you superior to somebody else, superior to somebody else. and everything that follows from that -- the right to subjugate people because they are inferior to you, the right to take possession of people's bodies, property, families, because you feel superior to them. the second question is much more difficult. as a lot of people have pointed out, we have an african-american president. thatmust necessarily mean we are not quite as racist as we 1968, or certainly not

in 1948 or 1848. but we are making progress. i believe that reparations is part of that progress. not see it as, over the long term, a divisive process. i think it is a process by which , in this situation, we look at each other across the room. i have a feeling someone has taken something from me, and you have a feeling that something unfair that you cannot quite name happened. part of the reparative process. one of the examples we talk about in the piece is the example of germany paying reparations to israel. there is a strong argument that deal was as good for germany as it was for israel, and perhaps even better. is, we all have to imagine what if germany said nothing? what if it never apologize, or ,ave some sort of pro forma never paid anything to the folks of victimized during world war

ii? is that a world that we want? think we can look at ourselves and say, are we going to be better off or worse off for facing our history? what are we so afraid of? what are we scared of? what do we think we are going to lose by acknowledging what happened? host: the atlantic.com is the website. if you want to read, he see -- piece,a-nehisi coates' which he worked on for about two years, there it is. you can go online. 10 people contact you online? guest: twitter is the easiest way, probably. host: twitter is the easiest way? peter in alexandria, virginia. caller: please do not cut me off. i want your guests to understand that white people are not responsible for slavery in this country. you have several different

ethnic groups, people of european descent. they might fall under the category of white, that you shouldn't use white as a reason why these people are guilty of slavery. you have the english. accuse italians. you cannot accuse germans. ,ou cannot accuse irish polish so many groups of people who fall under the white category that you cannot accuse. so i think you need to correct in your book which ethnic groups are the people who caused this problem. i really think you need to correct that. host: we have to leave it there. guest: i encourage the caller to read the article. host: what are you working on now? are you still responding? has there been a lot of back and forth, a lot of conversation? isst: i think if there anything healthy that has come

out of this, people have viewed reparations for a long time as a radical idea that they do not need to take seriously. been radicals who advocated for it, in my view correctly. what i think the basic argument is not radical at all. host: thank you. weing up in just a minute, are going to take you over to the center for strategic and international studies. you can see that they are starting to get ready. customs and of the border protection unit is going to talk about his first 100 days in office, talk about some of the reforms he has instituted. .0,000 employees 12.4 billion dollar budget. if you have not heard already, we will be covering hillary clinton live tonight, 6:00 pm she is here in washington, speaking with the cofounder -- the co-owner of politics and prose, who