with the president of honduras, el salvador, and guatemala. monday morning, july 21, an ultimatum to resident who. join in on the conversation. the lines are open. host: you can join us on social media -- host: good monday morning to you. , "bodies headline piled onto a train amid grim farce." from "the canadian globe and mail," "anger over rebel control of crash site." expert onmeranz is an

the region, senior fellow for the wilkins center. thank you very much for being here. guest: my pleasure. host: what is motivating vladimir putin and his response? he has committed russia to direct and indirect support of these groups. clearly evidence is mounting that these rebel groups are responsible for the downing of this plane. i don't think that he wants to abandon his rebels, the rebel groups, but at the same time he can't admit to any kind of direct support of these groups. so, he is walking a very thin line. one anticipates that his current strategy of denying involvement is the one that he will pursue until the time that this crisis begins host: to die down in the headlines. host:the headline this morning from "the wall street journal," "pressure on vladimir putin." europe, departing

from their initial reactions as anger grew across the continent over the attack -- guest: right. i think that the reaction on the ground has further anger the europeans and world opinion as to what is going on in eastern ukraine and the failure of any certain obtain a responsibility or control over this crash site. i think that the anger is simply growing towards the rebels and therefore towards prudent. putinovernight vladimir issued a statement on the situation. this is the headline from russia today, as he talked about the investigation not being enough, saying more needs to be done. let's listen to what he said and get your reaction. [video clip] [speaking russian]

we have repeatedly called for all boring parties to sit down at the negotiating table. if the june 28 fighting was not renewed, this tragedy would not have happened. for sure. no one should, and no one has the right to use this tragedy to achieve their own selfish political goals. these events should not divide, but unite people. it is necessary that all people increase their responsibility before their own people and for the people of the countries whose representatives of the victims are in the catastrophe. it is essential that a full team of experts, under the auspices of the international aviation organization, corresponding international commission, is at the crash site.

we must do everything to ensure full and absolute security to ensure humanitarian corridor is necessary for its work. for its part, russia will do everything that they can so -- to see that the conflict moves through the military phase into lucidlysion phase by peaceful and diplomatic means. >> william pomerantz --host: do his wordsanz, matches action? >> he has --guest: he has called for what has been stated, international observance meeting to occur. has he backed up his words with actions? the problem really is -- to what extent are these negotiations that he is talking about going to take place? there have been negotiations. what does russia want? what does ukraine one? russia want to ukraine within its sphere of influence with

significant powers devolved in the regions. becoming less and the unified space. this is not what ukraine wants. we have this fundamental disconnect at the negotiating table. i want to come back to that point, but this is from inside usa today -- "usa today," "severely compromised." "at least 48 hours went by before there was any in-depth investigation and 424 hours the bodies were on the crash site, just lying there. >> exactly. the crash site and --guest: exactly. it has been deplorable at the crash site. it is rebounding in that sense against vladimir putin, changing public perception of the crisis and of russia and international affairs. this isen he says --

his quote -- we have called for all sides to stop the bloodshed immediately and sit down at the negotiating table beer go should he not look at the mirror? is russia not responsible for this? guest: they are responsible in the sense that they have continued to provide direct and indirect support for these troops and his continued action in eastern ukraine makes a peaceful settlement to the problems and possible. in order to have a negotiated settlement, there must be some sort of consensus as to what ukraine is going to look like going forward as a country and the ability of ukrainians to solve their own problems. this is something that vladimir putin has not been able to let months.er the next few host: going back to your earlier point. guest: exactly, he stills insists that ukraine should be

part of the russian influence but ukraine gets to decide who it wants to align itself with. in many ways, this dispute gets back to a very distinct trade a problem that triggered this crisis several months ago. ukraine wants to pursue and has signed the eu agreement that allows for free trade with europe. this is something that they have opposed the entire time. unionanted ukraine in the and he has continued to put pressure on ukraine in order to make sure that ukraine does not enjoy the benefits. u.s. and the specifically the president's response been appropriate? guest: i think so. we are not in a position to engage in this part of the world . ukraine is not a member of nato and despite protestations,

ukraine is not about to become a member anytime soon. ,hat president obama has done sanctions are beginning to bite within the russian economy. the russian economy is vulnerable, and recession are on the verge of recession. sanctions have created uncertainty and risk heard in the russian economy, which is part of the reason russia is responding the way that it did. host: this is from "the huffington post." cartoonsial teams -- editorial cartoons. one shows vladimir putin with the nose of his -- of the aircraft above his fireplace. above that, blood on his hands. both of these pictures just show that russia has lost control of this story

and is perceived as the country responsible for this action. fairly or unfairly, that is how the world is responding. it is hard to remember, but three or four months ago they were busy hosting the winter olympics, which was supposed to be there kind of coming-out party, showing a revived russia, a resurgent russia. obviously, these types of cartoons are showing a very different russia, not the one they wanted to portray. host: this is from "the boston herald." "this one is on vladimir putin. those 298 souls are on him. it doesn't matter who shot the missiles, or even from which side of the border it initiated. it does not matter if it was some fool too stupid to tell a transport plane or fighter jet from a passenger plane.

what matters is -- who put that weapon in the hands of those separatists? all in an effort to return chunks of ukrainian land to mother russia? the world knows the answer. the generalt: perception is as the cartoon suggests, russia is responsible for the conditions that created the tragedy. denials,arious including ukraine itself, the world is essentially saying that russia is responsible for this action. the: the u.s. and europe, headline of "usa today." pushing for new sanctions. one of the things we learned over the weekend is that the russia, 4% trade with but europe has 50% trade. it comes to sanctions, europe needs to be the leader, not the u.s.. guest: but in many ways the u.s.

has decided to lead. just the day before this tragedy they introduced a new round of sanctions that hinted that further sanctions were on the way from the u.s. side. it is these sanctions, the energy sector that would potentially exclude russia from international finance that russia fears the most. will europe take the lead? europe has a very different relationship, as you mentioned. they are largely dependent for its energy resources. that being the case, the downing of this malaysian airliner will most likely serve as a catalyst for tougher response from the ee you against russia. you have seen that in their anticipates a one new round of sanctions being introduced at the end of the month. one anticipates that this will have more in it than the previous rounds. two years ago mitt romney

said that russia poses the greatest geopolitical threat to the u.s.. was he right? i don't he was necessarily right in that sense. they obviously pose a huge threat in terms of europe. russia is not powerful enough internationally to pose a geostrategic threat to the united states. they clearly still have nuclear weapons and the ability to influence international affairs, but russia really doesn't have the economic power or the influence abroad to really be the number one geostrategic enemy of the united states. that was a statement that was too far and i still think so. host: our guest was a graduate studyingord college, in scotland and at the university of london. one of the will -- woodrow wilson center. we welcome your calls and participations. or send us an e-mail or a tweet.

john from spring, texas, good morning. john, are you with us? caller: [inaudible] i apologize, we can hear you. i am going to put you on hold and see if we can fix the audio. connecticut, good morning. you are on the air. caller: i am on the air right now? host: yes, go ahead. the russia and that, if you go back to woodrow wilson, when he went and formed the league of nations, that was a farce, europe did not do anything. they went ahead and just did not do anything. europe did not do anything when hitler took over. europe will never do anything. they just sit in the backseat. the u.s. always puts their blood and money into it. host: we will get a response.

guest: unfortunately, the united states was a country that decided not to join the league of nations. obviously, europeans participated significantly, including the soviet union, it should be emphasized, and the defeat of germany in world war ii. it is an exaggeration to say that europeans don't get involved in their own affairs. the question, really, is to what extent europe is willing to danger their trade relationship that it has with russia today. as i mentioned, that is upwards of 400 billion dollars. it is a significant relationship . in many ways europe is dependent on russia for its energy needs. europe has different sorts of obstacles when dealing with russia and has to weigh different issues when formulating strategies. that, i think, gets to the heart of that question. host: inglewood, marvin is next,

good morning. morning, sir. there are a lot of things i have issues with that you are saying this morning. first of all, we all know that vladimir putin has been saber rattling since george was left office. come on, now. this guy is a big geopolitical threat. he sees a vacuum in leadership and is taking advantage of it. what is more disconcerting is that you have john kerry on " meet the press," in one breath , butatulating him on syria dancing around and calling him a thug on this issue. guest: again, this issue, the problem in eastern ukraine calls out for a diplomatic response. even after this tragedy they're still has to be some room for diplomatic maneuvering in order to a dress the problems on the ground. i think that in terms of the

statement from the secretary of state and the u.s. response, there has been significant condemnation of what has occurred. yes, this has been an ongoing problem since before 2008. questions about what the president's -- what president putin's intentions are in the post-soviet space. but this is still a situation that requires a diplomatic solution. a military solution would only increase the amount of bloodshed. host: a comment from one of our viewers -- us fromhn, joining texas. hopefully we can hear you better now. good morning, john. john, are you with us? about: i had a question knot this issue. host: your question, john? apologize, we will have to move on. carol, ohio, good morning.

good morning. putin is a thug. that is the best word to give to him. his way or no way. no negotiations, no compromise, it is all his way. we have a republican party that does the same thing. it is their way or no way. the last caller that was talking about that, that is how the republican party thinks. they don't have a sense that this is america and we should be americans first. they just want to be what they are, which are bugs. thank you. host: thank you. in a related note on sanctions, only 4% of russian trade is with the u.s.. sanctions must be enforced by europe to be effective. guest: that is true, but nevertheless some of our sanctions have extraterritorial reach. that was particularly true in the most recent round of sanctions that went after certain prominent oil companies,

energy companies, and banks in russia. all of those sanctions from the u.s. alone have led to a significant outflow of money over the last few days and a decline in the russian stock market and so forth. even though the europeans have to step in at some point and introduce significant sanctions if they want to put restaurant do haveu.s. sanctions an impact and i don't think they should be underestimated. host: another comment from edwin -- -- theyes, i don't think u.s. has specifically said, on several occasions now, that it is not about to intervene militarily into ukraine. that is clearly understandable. as i mentioned earlier, ukraine is not a member of nato. there is no immediate requirement under nato to intervene. also, it is quite clear that intervening in ukraine would be

to intervene directly on the course border, of causing significant uncertainty as well. the u.s. has decided to pursue sanctions and hopefully that will push russia towards getting to the negotiating table and at least recognizing that ukraine has a right to pursue its own economic policies as a sovereign nation. is reporting this morning that dutch investigators have now arrived at the crash site. do you sense that today will be any different from the weekend? if actual international investigators get onto the site we will finally have the investigation that has been being delayed. that will ideally begin to answer some of the questions and secure the crash site so that we can get answers in terms of how and maybe finded out more information as to what actually down the plane. what was your take from

the sunday shows? the secretary of state said that there were images of a missile launcher being moved back into russia and missing a missile? producing a.s. is convincing case that it was a russian supplied missile that took down the plane. it has been done through the evidence of the missiles leaving ukraine. it has been done through the social media comments of the rebel leaders after they shot the plane down. a significant circumstantial case has already been made that it was a russian supplied missile that brought this down. again, the strategy of the russian federation is simply to deny that and point fingers at other places. rocky, hello, good morning. caller: am i on? host: you sure are. go ahead. caller: i think that russian coc ks big cocks --

host: ok. this is from lauren -- guest: an interesting question. thisne has no agreed to association agreement that allows for free trade, essentially, between the european union and ukraine. the problem is that ukraine also has a free trade agreement with russia. russia has introduced all sorts of protectionist measures, which is it's right, against russian goods. from a pure trade standpoint, goods is concerned that will come in duty free from ukraine and then enter russia duty-free and therefore russia will suffer the consequences, economically. at the very core this is an economic dispute, a trade dispute. from the russian perspective, the association agreement creates a hole in the system of tariffs.

so, therefore russia wants to, within its rights, addressed that issue. the problem is that both russia and ukraine are fellow wto members and russia could only introduce those members -- those numbers in light of the existing status. host: if you are just joining in, our guest is william are focusing on the downing of malaysian airlines flight 17 last thursday. dutch investigators are now on the ground. dawn is joining us from ohio. good morning. caller: good morning, steve. good morning to your guest, two. as far as the situation with russia, the best thing we can do is it sounds hokey, but a republican senate in there in november. i like president obama. i call and talk to the white and supportt line the president, but the democratic policies that they

have, you cannot go around and about to the russians. we beat them with propaganda. the cartoons was great. that's where you need to hit vladimir putin. cartoons and voting. get out here on the campaign trail. take part in the system. go at it. that is the best i can tell you. for us to vote for our elected officials and stand strong. but i am a republican and i will be voting republican, and i like president obama, he will get out there and fire back and call names, but you have got this loss. god bless you, thank you for being there. i like the would row centered, two. you have really good policies and philosophies there. thanks for calling. in a related comment -- to both of these points,

the politics behind this and sanctions. the republicans --guest: republicans in opposition can demand a more forceful response. frankly, i don't think that the republicans in this position would have pursued a more aggressive policy that would have brought troops directly towards the russian border. we have learned certain lessons from the iraqi war and so forth. so, i do not think the u.s. is really looking to engage in another major military confrontation. therefore, i don't think the republicans would be willing to pay the economic and military price for a directing agent in ukraine. they foundikely, if themselves in that position of power. as for sanctions, sanctions have a complicated history. in some sanctions -- in some cases they have worked. i would point to south africa. they take a long time to work.

the impact is not immediate in any way. but in light of the alternative -- do we want to engage militarily in ukraine? do we want to find an alternative way to put significant pressure on russia? sanctions are the tool that exist in our toolbox for that policy. a fairly strongly worded editorial in "the new york times." this morning, from "the guardian ," "time for brutish prudent to be held accountable. their behavior should be challenged. those who blew the plane out of the sky need to be brought to justice and for this to happen there needs to be a full, credible, and unimpeded investigation into the circumstances of the disaster and russia needs to cooperate. they must allow access to international investigators and black boxes should be held -- and it over to the commission

that is international. so far it seems their priority is to obstruct the investigation. guest: that has been the perception and so far that has been the case, that the russian troops on the ground have not allow these inspectors to arrive. they have clearly gone through the wreckage site. there are various reports of people stealing things from the wreckage site. clearly, as long as that continues, the perception of russia as interfering in what should be an open investigation will continue. host: we are do you think the black boxes are? guest: hard to say. my best guess is that they have been recovered and, according to initial press accounts, they were brought to moscow. as to whether they are still there, i don't know, but at some point they will have to be they will play an informative role as to what occurred on this flight. host: chicago, karen is on the

phone, good morning. caller: what i can't understand -- at the beginning we were talking about the different statesthat the united had in terms of spyware over the area. if it was done by russia, if it sympathizersussian in russian speaking areas that they control, they would come out with the exact longitude and latitude. but if it was done by the ukrainians, it will be gone. we will go -- maybe it is this, we have to find out that, so forth and so on.

there is no advantage for the separatistsfor the -- you don't think the russians have that much control over them in some cases -- to have done this. the only people it is really helping is the ukrainian government. if you read in the latest ," they have the 400 civilians that have been killed in the eastern ukraine. but even when we were trying to overthrow the previous government, we had everybody it, the cia to -- what was 255 american ngos? the previous president was not killing civilians. is basicallythis

the same thing as the weapons of mass destruction was for bush. host: we will get a response. thank you for the call. guest: there were a lot of different topics raised in that point, not sure if i can cover the mall, but clearly if you look at the last days of the younger echo which regime before he was ousted, he had resorted to the use of the security services to clear the [indiscernible] and people were killed there as the president of ukraine attempted to end the protest. it is incorrect to say that there were no killings and no violence associated with the collapse of the previous ukrainian regime. there were. in terms of -- did the ukrainians do this? did the americans do this? it only serves ukrainian government at the present time. evidence so far does not suggest that. the u.s. does have the ability

to pinpoint where the missile was launched from. the u.s. has been very clear, so far, in insisting that the missile was launched in rebel controlled territory. until the russians or the rebels can propose genuine alternative evidence suggesting otherwise, then this is where the evidence is pointing and this is where the investigation will proceed. join in on the conversation on our facebook page. already many of you waiting in, including noah, who says -- host: jesse is joining us from muskegon, michigan. good morning. guest: good morning -- caller:

good morning, gentlemen. i listen to c-span quite often. when you talk about over 500 people being killed -- america is more committed to world peace than any nation on this earth. why couldn't we put a sanction unjust israel? going to a rack and killing those innocent people? this black president we got is nothing but a joke. host: the headline this morning from "the washington post." "collocating the foreign policy picture. guest: clearly. president obama is going to want to try to have diplomacy in the middle east as well.

the juxtaposition of these events are interesting. at the same time, there are different issues involved in terms of how israel understands its security interests and how russia understands its security interests in this case. in russia -- ukraine has not made any sorts of attempts to interfere or intervene anyways in the domestic affairs of russia. nor has it engaged in any sort of military or terrorist activities vis-à-vis russia. in ukraine you have a country that simply wants to assert its sovereignty, as all countries want to do. i think you have a very different set of facts in ukraine that are guiding the current issues. out thatshould point the secretary of state is en route to egypt to try to broker a cease-fire between hamas and the israeli government. he also made appearances on the

sunday morning programs yesterday, focusing on the situation in russia. the headline this morning from "the new york times," indicating that russia and ukraine separatists are linked. here is more from his comments. host: -- [video clip] is a clear that this system that was transferred from russia in the hands of separatist. we know, with confidence, that the ukrainians did not have such a system anywhere near the vicinity at that point in time. it obviously point to clear finger at the separatist. that is why president obama and the international community are demanding a full-fledged investigation that russia said they would do. the: comments from secretary of state on "the state of the union yuriko an ultimatum to vladimir putin with prussia -- pressure coming from european president the russian

being warned that he faces further sanctions unless he is sure that they had full access to the site in the eastern ukraine. carl, oxford, massachusetts, good morning. good morning. good morning. thank you for correcting a previous caller about "the league of nations -- about the league of nations. i would like your reaction. the united states doesn't care people, anything like that, what they want is the market that russia is supplying western europe with, gas, america wants the market. your reaction? guest: i don't think that the u.s. is engaged in this dispute because they want a market in ukraine. indeed, ukraine is in such difficult financial straits, in many ways no one wants to be the country responsible for bailing them out. many ways, ukraine requires

something on the scale of the marshall plan in order to revive its economy and political system and neither the u.s. nor the ee plan.e providing such a indeed, the association agreement with europe requires that ukraine introduce very difficult, structural and economic reforms in order to imf andess to international funding. i don't think that this is all about trying to capture a market . indeed, the united states is engaged more broadly in defending what i think were the impulses in the my done and the desire for ukraine to move more able toeurope and to be exercise the sovereignty of any nation. host: one of our viewers makes a reference on our facebook page, the u.s. shooting down that iranian airline jetliner with 56 children on board and says -- who do we think we are? examplesll, there are

of a variety of nations that have mistakenly shot down commercial planes or have engaged in these types of act. obviously, the united states assisted in the investigation and admitted culpability, ultimately, in this action and paid compensation. a small price to pay in light of the loss of life. i don't want to say that the u.s. cleared its conscience by simply paying off the people who died because of this accident. but ultimately the u.s. did at least admit responsibility for this action. in many ways this crisis would move to a different stage of russia were to assert a similar level of responsibility, directly or indirectly over what occurred in the eastern ukraine. renée is next. mississippi, buckled to the conversation. good morning. would like to point

out that months ago the united states supported not seas against the democratically elected government there. russia gave ukraine a choice here you go with the west in the lesser agreement, or with russia, who presented a better deal. jan echo which chose russia. that is when the state department activated her nazis on the street. $5 million in taxpayer money to overthrow the democratically elected government. now you have the state department and the pentagon in the ukraine trying to bring russia into a war of their choosing in order to protect their reserve currency. this is all so that the united states will have a constant for thef currency

entire planet to rely on. that is the dollar. host: let's get a response. guest: i don't think that this is about the role of the dollar in international commerce, although some sanctions against russia show what an important role the dollar still plays in conducting international business. it is interesting that the caller mentioned the $15 billion in support that russia initially proposed to keep that government in power. the u.s. and european allies in many ways it up to that as a choice that d'amico which had made. i think that, although we would have been opposed to the kind of growing ties between russia and ukraine, i don't think the u.s. made any efforts at that point to stop russia from providing $15 billion to essentially bailout jan echo which. theas the reaction in streets that ultimately brought mr. d'amico which down. a small percentage of those

protesters have been linked to right-wing causes. that is true. but if you look at the level of support of these right wing parties in ukraine, they are very small, as confirmed in the presidential elections. host: this tweet from michael -- guest: we are taking the lead and it is our fight because the stability of europe and the sanctity of the borders of europe are something we have been engaged in for the better part of the 20th century. this is an important part of our foreign policy. the notion of territorial sovereignty is an important principle that the u.s. has supported in international affairs. of the worldt where we have participated in the past and therefore this is something we should be concerned about. as well as the potential threat posed by russia, particularly in

the near abroad. host: the next caller is from georgia. james is on the phone. good morning. guest: good morning. when will the world wake up and realize that the majority of our wars have oil around somewhere. dependent on not russia's oil, with a join us in the sanctions against russia? guest: energy is an important part of international policy today. part ofst a fundamental international trade and the sustainability of different economies. yes, oil and energy play a critical role. not surprisingly there is an important energy dimension to this dispute. host: marlon, good morning, welcome to the conversation. caller: i have a question i would like to ask. to what extent did the ditch --

did the treatment of russia after the fall of the soviet union include the views of vladimir putin regarding tension towards russia on the borders? host: hold that point. we will follow up. guest: i think the collapse of the soviet union had a profound impact on vladimir putin. on various occasions he has said that it was one of the great tragedies of the end of the 20th century. that being the case, he has also spoken at the same time about the problems of going back to a soviet mindset. for the first two terms he was president, at least, he did pursue a more modern economic policy that called on russia to be integrated into the global economy. i think that since he has returned to office in 2012 he is pursuing a different policy, a more nationalist policy, a more xenophobic policy, consistently

pointing to the west as being at the root of many of russia's current difficulties. host: your follow-up? , should i say,h u.s. action is ultimately designed or calibrated to draw china's attention from the south china sea to take on russia as a means to show that there are consequences if they pursued a more aggressive policy in the south china sea? third, how much of the reliance upon the brick countries is seen as a challenge on the economic u.s. border? of china, irms don't think that china is taking the actions in ukraine as a direct response to the development in the south china sea. i think the balance of power is different. i think that china views its relationship with the west in a

different framework than does russia. i think china might be watching developments to see how strong the u.s. in the you respond to these developments, but i think that china will make its own calculations independent of what occurs in russia. as for the bricks meeting, it just concluded in brazil. there have been talks about creating a new world bank, the equivalent of, as well as a reserve fund. there are clear economic reasons that unite the different nations. brazil, russia, india, china, south africa. at the same time, it is a very new and untested institution, primarily looking towards economic cooperation and not looking at making major international political statements. not surprisingly, so far despite the fact that president putin has asked his fellow brick

nations to rally around russia and objective these sanctions, i don't think that those nations will feel the need or the desire to insert themselves into this crisis. host: to clarify, that is an acronym for which nations? brazil, russia, india, china, started as an investor banking acronym, but it has truly morphed into a general institution. it is anays institution that russia believes in and is actively engaged in and can help to provide russia with an international platform that they might not necessarily have acting by themselves. host: the news for the weekend, the u.s. is charging moscow not only with sabotaging and contaminating the crash investigation site, but also hiding evidence, including the suspicion that the black boxes, as we heard from our guest moments ago, are now in russian

hands. carl, chicago, good morning. good morning. mr. prime minister, i would like for you to comment on the observations i have around this situation. over the last few decades it power in thethe world has been in the hands of business. sovereign countries no longer have the leverage of power to affect the kinds of things that are happening in the world. i think that vladimir putin realized this in the beginning. i've got oil. i got injured -- energy. some businesses will do whatever they need to to make money. average peoplehe understand this shift in power. it is no longer about sovereign countries. germany? the europeans? to do these want sanctions because it would impact their economies.

guest: yes, the ability to get around sovereign nations that has really ain't -- is something that has really engage russia in the last few years. before russia was removed or kicked out of the g8, the issue that russia wanted to discuss was the problem of offshore banking and the ability of so much money to leave countries and escape into the shadow banking system. offshore money is a big issue in russia. it is essentially russia has huge capital outflows every year of the resources that they need and required to rebuild the nation. so, the power of banking is an important issue for russia. in light of all the capital flights that occur from the russian federation. us fromed joins virginia. good morning. -- caller: i am concerned

that we are spending a lot of effort, money, everything else we don't have to secure borders and we can even approach our own border situation. that's all i have to say. time: yes, but at the same , at least in terms of ukraine, the borders were agreed upon after the collapse of the soviet union. russia signed onto recognizing crimea.rders, including this is an international security issues -- issue in terms of the recognition of borders. i appreciate the comment that border issues are difficult in many countries, but this one ukraine is particularly relevant today. host: this is from karen --

the: i saw a poll over weekend that his ratings are high, but you need to question the source. polls.those are high i think in times of crisis people rally around their political leaders. until now he has been successful in the sense that he has returned from crimea, which many russians believed never should have been included in the ukraine. he has turned that back over to the russian federation. president clinton is very much -- his ratings are very high. it is understandable. at the same time he faces a difficult choice right now, which is if he were to decide to pursue a diplomatic solution, if he were to decide to withdraw support from the separatist, this whole crisis would essentially be russia having but having lost ukraine. for vladimir putin that is a major political loss. springfield, tennessee,

good morning. caller: good morning. i have a question regarding the sanctions that were imposed. how is that affected by the international space station and nasa? host: my understanding is that it has not been affected by sanctions. at some point if indeed the u.s. were to put technology sanctions on russia, theoretically that could have an impact. from the russia today website, they call it breaking news. the full-scale investigation into the causes of the collapse, complicated by the lack of the agreement on the size of the .afety guarantees the dutch team of experts has arrived at the crash site. there have been problems

with osce observers trying to get in who have been essentially taken hostage or captured by the ukrainians, by the separatist. there have been very long negotiations to get them released. so, if the rebel separatists are not willing to guarantee the safety of these inspectors, then that is a real problem and that has been a real problem with going intovers eastern ukraine. tj makes this point -- vladimir putin hiding evidence well, i think there are significant differences in terms of how the u.s. is able to identify different pieces of information, even when there are attempts to hide them or not be immediately transparent about them.

the ability of the united states to get to the bottom of those is very different from the russian situation. host: but that has been a propaganda war, from the russian perspective? yes, with the continued propaganda effort on russian television to tax the crisis. let me conclude with this question. what happens next? guest: president clinton will continue to deny any sort of responsibility, direct or indirect, to the shooting down of this airline. he will consistently do so. at some point from his perspective he hopes that this crisis will leave the headlines and that he will be able to pursue the relationships with europe more directly and not be bound by the current crisis. i do not anticipate russia and

with any sort of her thoughts ability, direct or indirect, in this crisis. host: will we get the information and the materials from the black boxes on site to do a full and completely credible investigation? host: we will get access to the crash --guest: we will get access to the crash site, but it has already been contaminated in a number of ways. the investigation is as revealing as it would have been if we had had immediate access is a question. thank you for your expertise this morning, william pomeranz, we appreciate it. as we said at the top of the program, a back to work week for congress, full agenda with hearings that we will be covering on the tax code system. the senate finance committee holding a hearing on that. iraq, joining us live on the phone, ed o'keefe, who covers

all things congress for the washington post. thank you for being with us. "the washington post." thank you for being with us. let's begin with the status of the immigration bill. john boehner raised doubts that congress would be able to meet the president's funding request. has anything changed in the last four or five days? short, no. if anything, it may have got more complicated. there continues to be disagreement as to what exactly caused the influx of immigrants over the last few. i don't know if people saw this, but we detailed it pretty clearly, what it was the administration was being told in the lead up and what they were doing. many believe that it was totally done in a way that was unprepared for this massive influx. we stillf all that, don't know exactly what republicans in the house will want to do. there is this so-called working

group on the border being led by a republican from texas. she is supposed to develop policy recommendations for john have yet to they produce that set of recommendations. that is believed in part because just like everything else in the republican caucus, there is no real sense of agreement and to do one thing might upset one group of people or the possibility of getting other work on. we will see if that materializes. if it does, the appropriators have to accept the price tags and come up with numbers quickly to get it over to the senate. but in the senate there is almost a near unanimous agreement amongst democrats that they don't want to necessarily make changes to current immigration policy, they just want to give the president the money he says that he needs in order to accomplish what needs to be done on the border. there is just this continuing impasse with no sense of resolution aside from two to go

on the calendar before congress gets out of town. if congress fails to provide even partial funding, what happens to the immigrants in detention facilities or military camps? our understanding is that they would stay in those facilities but the various agencies that deal with them would run out of money. they need the funding in order to pay for the employees who are manning these places. they need to be able to feed, shelter, and clothed the illegal immigrants. they need the money to reunify these people if they have relatives in the country to get them processed. that is why there is disbelief that something will materialize that allows them to pay for this. it may not be what the president requested, but it will be something and it will not the slapdash -- and it will be

slapdash. host: walk us through the senate and the house. caller: you will see -- you know, i don't have my list of hearings in front of me. host: well, i have a hearing schedule, so -- caller: i know the big one this week is the veterans committee, where they will be having a confirmation hearing for the new secretary. that will be closely watched in order to give an indication of how well the new leadership team might carry out various recommendations that have been made by congress and others in the wake of the ongoing scandal there. that is another issue to watch, certainly, this week, but that will be a closely watched hearing. you said you had the list in front of you? host: let me just pull this up, i know that we will be looking at the u.s. tax code tomorrow. the veterans affairs committee confirmation is taking place in the house and senate. barak, of course,

continuing to be a big concern. if only because that situation continues, like others with concerns over the weekend, with and is going on in jordan the iraqi relationship with them. another globald conflict, but that is a possibility. hearings, nowyond that i have the list in front of me here, beyond the hearings -- again the veterans one with the new v.a. secretary, probably one of the marquee ones of the week, we will have to keep watching for reaction to what is going on in russia and ukraine and of course what is going on in the middle east as we talk about it all morning. i think, at some point we are going to see calls for the u.s. to do more to help ukraine intensify if there is not some sense in the next 48 hours that the vladimir putin

regime is not stepping up and making it easier for investigators to begin working through the details of the crash of. this hearingi scan list, there is at least one other in the senate that speaks to a broader problem when we talk about the lack of progress in congress, the appropriations committee marking up one of the ones regarding homeland security funding and flood insurance issues. appropriations is one of those things that was supposed to be the big success. that there was going to be a debate on bills and some of them would get done before the august recess and that has simply not happened. we may just get a sense this week of whether or not those are going to move at all or if congress will be passing some sort of interior resolution by the start of the fiscal year. want to get your reaction to the paul kane story. one quote from this article,

senators say that they are increasingly feeling like ponds caught between harry reid and whose deepnell, personal and political antagonisms have almost immobilized the senate. they went for three months this spring without voting a single amendment. i can i have -- caller: tell you my own independent reporting verifying that. this is not even a partisan issue anymore. it ecosystem investment cannot seem to get anything agreed to on progress on moving legislation, that that now has caused a tie up in the senate more than anything else. mcconnell as republican leader doing everything he can to stand in the way of democrats making any progress in an election year. the fact that these two men cannot sit in a room together to

talk to each other, the fact that they tell a colleague, why don't you ask, because they cannot sit in a room, and the others are acting like children in a broken marriage. a side note, the congressman from pennsylvania put on unpaid leave, being a gun inside congressional offices, what happened? the press secretary's name is ryan, who i have spoken to before. he walked into the office building on friday. he had his weapon and ammunition clip and they were apart from each other. it was the ammunition clip police officers spotted first.

they did what they are supposed to do, pulled him aside and arrested him. it is against federal law to have a weapon of that sort on capitol hill. thattold by officials essentially it was a mistake and he did not mean to bring it with him and there was no malicious intent. this kind of thing happens all the time not only in the capital, and as far as we know, he spent one night in the d.c. jail and remains on unpaid leave indefinitely. , thank you forfe being with us. moment, wen just a will take a look at the republican field. yesterday, we focus on a democrat field. david drucker with "the

washington times." your money segment looking at u.s. training of armed forces. we are back in a moment. ♪ >> we are track ubiquitous e, and all the time. it is easy to assume there are very few times we are not tracked. a lot of times, they will say, i have read a lot for technology they will say, it

does not affect me because i am not unfazed that were my grandmother is not unfazed again isay, first of all, there something like 45 million people whose photos are on facebook and can be facially identified through tagging and they may not even be on facebook. to say my activity at my meansor that i know about i am not being tracked, is in general not true. on how your personal data is being tracked and used tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. >> for over 35 years, c-span to you,ublic events offering complete gavel to gavel all as aof u.s. house, public service of private industry.

we are created 35 years ago and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. >> washington journal continues. back we want to welcome andd drucker of "the washed -- "washington examiner." to talk about presidential politics and specifically republican presidential politics paired with talked a lot about where the democrats are. this is a gallop poll that said paul ryan, rick terry, mike huckabee, well-liked of long -- among republicans. is so early. every time i go home, whatever i do, it is, who will run? i tell them honestly it is .eally too early to tell

i enjoy speculating and that is what we will do, but it is very difficult to say who the top candidates will be. this began to heat up. let me share with you a portion of what they said. "in the face of the advancement of the islamic state --

guest: this is a very interesting debate because it is one the republican party is having internally all over the place. a more, should they have , a moreforeign-policy active in international foreign-policy in the tradition reagan second in that presidential race. or should they take a more liberal approach? interesting, regardless of her -- of what republicans debated, this is a settled issue. senator rand paul represents

that because of the iraq and afghanistan wars. soot of americans were weary you have this debate going on. aboutk they're fighting what they are flaming reagan was for. that was interesting listening to rand paul. his -- claims his foreign-policy views are in the reagan tradition. t's going to be up to the .oters to decide is the republican party ready for a more hands-off salvation wallace the? that will be one of and -- one of the interesting parts of the 2016 campaign. host: ronald reagan has been out of office for 25 years and still

affects the party. need top -- republicans stop talking about what reagan would do. happened with democrats 20 or 30 years ago, constantly trying to grab john f. kennedy's mantle and always looking or that next, inspirational, all-encompassing leader. you have to move past the past. foras been a problem republicans that they spend their primary campaign arguing over who is more like reagan. start arguing who can lead the party into the future and deal with what voters care about today, not 30 or 40 years ago. >> here is a response from senator rand paul. --

guest: what i find most interesting about those remarks is you will go on air and say, i want to read you something from a democratic presidential candidate and you read those remarks, everyone says that sounds a democrat. this shows you what rand paul is trying to do. he is a very potentially formidable and appealing candidate. he is shrewd and not like his father in that he understands he knows hisnd approach to foreign policy generally, his libertarianism, is not necessarily an easy sell. he works hard to couch it in a that appeals to voters.

it is still a big question as to whether he could accomplish that. host: you make the point he is trying to thread the needle to placate conservatives, some who want impeachment, and also they deal with an issue they want to ding the president. >> yes. banner understands forging ahead would be a political disaster and cost receipts. it would probably cost them any chance they have winning the senate majority. it is a loser. the government shutdown was likely a loser. to dohe speaker is trying is hold the people off on that point. there is something to understand for john boehner. he reallys rhetoric, believes in the house of representatives as an institution. believes in the separations

of powers as a lifelong career and as itshe house leader. he started preparing for this lawsuit in january, long before he mentioned it, because he wants to try to do something about the legislative branch's loss of power.- congress has been willingly giving away its power by not challenging the executive branch. wants to do a something about that. -- him, their chosen a fair very narrow subject matter that has to do with the affordable care act and the employer mandate for companies to purchase health care for their employers. for boehner, it is not so much that it will have a negative effect on the president's policies, but the court would rule in such a way that the legislative ranch would get its power back. republicans have a house in the senate, how would that

set them up for 2014? guest: it could go well or that. could end up looking more like a governing party because the house and senate , you get intone negotiations with the president because he no longer can rely on a democratic senate to squash any republican initiative coming out of congress. on the other hand, it potentially make the party look weak going into 2016. i ultimately believe 2016 will probably only be about the candidates running and they will define their parties for good or ill. governor chris christie, who spent his days in iowa, a third of republicans dislike him. earlier today, he traveled to and was asked by reporters

whether he would run in 2016. >> these kinds of questions are questions you guys are interested with. people get to know you and judge you. the pot -- the box people put you in are yes and no. all others are meaningless in that context. every election i've ever run in, i present myself as who i am. people make a judgment here and sometimes i have one and sometimes i have lost. for anythingo run else again in my life, i will come out and present myself very the gentleman asked me a direct question and i give him a direct answer. i do not not -- i do not know if he liked it or did not. i just tell him what i think. everyone else gets to decide. they do not go in and say, are you conservative or liberal or moderate enough. that is not what they say. they say, do i trust him and can

i count on him to tell me the truth. is he someone who can be a competent steward of our company's is future. that is the way people judge who they will vote for for president or governor or any other job. i will be happy to be judged the same way i have been judged in new jersey. bother --tions do not bother or matter to me at all. vote voters on likability. let me go back to the nbc news poll. a third of violence dislike him, i went republicans, where does that put him? in new hampshire. for christie, the issue is whether he can delay -- avoid death by 1000 cuts. the british issue, there have been state budget issues in new jersey, and if he is running for

president, it will be a matter of his record as governor, but also his record as a leader, which has always been his strongest component to any potential candidacy. he probably has as much if not more natural political skill than any republican presidential candidate. for him, coming from a blue state, it will be whether that quality of leadership can overcome some of the early problems he has had over the past six or seven months. and whether or not he can win iowa is not that relevant. the issue is when you are looking at iowa, new hampshire, south carolina, and maybe you .hrow in nevada how does he do in two out of three and not necessarily three out of three. host: yesterday, our focus on hillary clinton, governor martin o'malley, another -- other potential democrats running in

2016. we are turning our attention to the gop field and how it is taking shape two years before the election. here with hisor, perspective. ben carson gets a grassroots boost for a run in 2016. a lot of buzz out there. people like him. i talk to people and they asked me about him. ist republicans need somebody who has done this before. they need a professional politician, who has gone through the political wars of running, big -- big campaigns, and get elected. they do not need someone who is getting his name on cable television. is accomplished physician, neurosurgeon, and can intellection run circles around a lot of able. when it comes to running for president, you need a professional, you do not need somebody who has come up i

speaking as freely as he has. and without the experience put together a national campaign, it does something to you and it is not as simple as just people liking you are just having particular positions. is about all of those things and knowing how to play the game of politics. than a reallyrent good athlete. you cannot just throw him on a football field and tell him to play quarterback if he has not been trained and knows how to play the ball. you can join us on facebook at facebook.com/c-span or send us a tweet. this is the comforter -- the cover story this week. if you google his name and go to youtube, his many gaffes, the oaks moment will pop up.

can he make a second impression? guest: anybody can. tend to be successful the second time around. reagan was. bob dole was successful the second time around. romney was successful at winning the nomination. anybody can do well the second time around. the issue for rick perry in some his is, what will be national appeal, coming from texas, given that the last republican president came from texas and there will still be political hangover about, here we go again. if he really wants to do, you learn from last time, do not do it on the fly. prepare early even if you announce later. he prepared late and announce led to loops.

he is probably a lot better doing this than the loops moment suggests if you look at the leadership in texas. it will be interesting to see, does he jump in early next year or really lay the cloud -- the groundwork laid this year knowing it has prep work. people talk about that all the time. chris christie lost weight, rick perry has glasses, whatever. and do you believe in, you present voters in the country with what they're looking for at the time there looking for it. , servingid drucker with c -- as senior correspondent. our look at the roadhouse in 2016, the republican field. donna, good morning. caller: good morning. i want to ask the question.

everybody running for president should have background. obama [indiscernible] the second time, two or three people at a time. i do not think it has anything to do -- with this. i respectfully disagree. if you look at people running races, it takes some level of political skill. especially in the modern media environment when you're running for president, you need to have been through the war before any need to have an understanding of the fundamentals of running a campaign. you can be an outsider, but you need to find your way in at a lower level than running for president. otherwise, you run into a lot of problems in your campaign and can cause your party problems because you say and do things that may seem normal in the real

play well they do not presidentially, especially in the age of twitter and facebook, where every extended quote becomes a one sentence crop gas, fair or not. we have seen this with experienced candidates. ago in newars hampshire, mitt romney gave a discussion with the chamber of commerce about an idea of being able to change health care providers if you want to them the freedom to beale to do that. beales, i would like to to fire people who provide services to make. in context of, i do not want to get stuck with a health-care company that is not doing a good job because her health is the most important thing. at a time when people are struggling economically, the whole discussion gets truncated into, i like to be able to fire people. there is a guy who is actually run for president before. this is the kind of thing that happens. we saw some of this with herman cain, had not run, he had run

for senate once, but had never been a major political figure, and he ended up with campaign problems. republicans, and you have not won a race for the in 2004, and you have issues on the battleground now, you want experience, political experience, at least. >> mitt romney insists he has no intention of running. that has not stopped speculation. part of that is the unsettled nature of the field, the republicans have not found somebody they can latch onto. it was supposed to be chris christie but then the bridge issue happened. maybe jeb bush will run, but they do not know. they're looking for somebody. the thing about romney, the andy needs to turn a page be forward thinking.

romney probably has the skill to be president, if you take political and policy decisions, he has the executive skill to execute the job but has not proven that he can be a good candidate. be betters would served going to somebody with more political and personal appeal. there is a lot of good about romney the person. he was neville -- never able to andg that out to the voters communicate that. he left himself open to being caricatured. the party would be much better served taking a chance on somebody else, rather than going for a third time. pointed to nixon. he took time off running for president. he did not just go 1, 2, 3. the republican party, in its effort to find new leadership at the top and somebody to help the party redefine itself and move it the future, would be better off as somebody who has not won a race

and only one race for governor since i believe 2002. our viewers saying rick perry is a caricature of an ignorant and bigoted redneck. ryan from new mexico, good morning. caller: good morning, thank you for taking my call. you for correcting that. he has a nice tie. i appreciate that. looks good on him. my comment is this. we have paul ryan, vice president candidate. do you give any credence to the fact that he was in the spotlight, -- guest: he is an interesting figure. probably the most influential congressional republican over the last half dozen years at least. almostgets have become

an afterthought, that he has become the leader for the republican party on fiscal issues. he got a taste of being a national figure and had a chance to observe wider influence over the party's direction and he liked it. i do not tend to think he will run for president in 2016, but i know he is considering doing so in a way he would not have e4. leading up to 2012, he said i will think about it but he was never going to do it, just because, i think, given his family life, he has young kids, he goes home to wisconsin every going to run for president was just not something he was real -- will and to do. influence tax policy, a dream job for him. even from a wider vantage point, i know that appeals to him a great deal. but i think he is probably to running thought

for president now than he did before in the sense that he got think whatit and i he can do with the job appeals to him and now he has the name and notoriety you get from being a vice president shall nominee. he does not have to look at it as though he has to start running to build the kind of profile that would be required from some house member from wisconsin to have a chance to win the nomination. he is a different sort of figure. possibilities are great for him. he is considering it in a way he did not couple of years ago. phone.rancis is on the good morning. i wish to input this idea into the thought paradigm of things. both parties are guilty as accused.

the republicans are guilty as accused of being the party of the rich. but the democrats are guilty as being the party of the republican employee unions. my viewpoint is we need to start thinking in terms of a universal income safety net for all citizens of the country. , monetizing the national debt, we are basically postponing an apocalypse. host: thank you for the call can let me take a final point. how big will the debt be in 2016? on howguest: it depends americans feel at that time. the debt became a huge issue as it fit into the economic crash. the debt was at levels people had never seen before. income has stagnated, property values were in the tank.

it scared people the government looked unable to obtain everything going on. without of options. it cannot matter how much they spent. he looked at the debt and what it means for the future, and the social -- social safety net, it was a bigger issue than i had ever seen. debt, historically, necessarily, was not a big issue, except for those who did not control the purse. if you are the party not in charge, you do not care about the debt. so let's see where the economy is in 2016, where the job market is, let's see what the debt looks like two years from now and now tell you how much of an issue it will be. nancy forst: minnesota, good morning. i am upset at the person, not that i would vote for kerry, but the comment he made that he was a redneck, bigoted whatever. let me ask that person and

everyone else if they remember who hillary clinton really is and bill clinton. they were rednecks. i remember all of that. moved intowhen they the white house today they thought hells angels moved in with all their relatives. but the fight begin. get someone in there with some morals,with higher someone who can run the country. host: who is that candidate? caller: let that candidate stand up here and we are ready and watching. host: thanks for the call. he makes reference to hillary clinton and a new survey, it is early, showing that she has a lead over the likely gop eels. you can get the information online. somebody we have not mentioned from this tweet, jeb bush.

>> i do not think he will run. i could be wrong. usually, when you want to run for president, it is something for and yoully plan do not have preconditions. the nowook back at former indiana governor, mitch daniels, he was thinking about it but he wanted a true space -- between fiscal and social conservatives in the republican party. jeb bush talked about wanting to be engaged in a civil campaign. i think he is as qualified as a republican out there to run for president. two terms as governor of florida and was well received. florida is one of the bigger more diverse populations. he brings a lot of policy heft and from a policy standpoint, to push into the future, even though his name echoes that of the past, with bush, you're

dealing with family issues, whether or not his immediate family, wife and two kids wanted to run for president, how it would affect them. i do not know bush himself wants to do it himself. i think he wants to be influential and i think he wants to push the policies he believes forward. i think he also has a bush hangover issue, as much as perry had the texas issue, for bush, it was the issue that his is still-- his brother not thought of as one of the better presidents we have had by the american public broadly. if bush wants to run, he will be formidable and he will wrap up just about every major republican donor you can think of and he will probably be very but does he party

really want to run? does he have a ruthless desire and ambition to be president of the united states today? i do not know. host: our guest is david drucker , a graduate of ucla and he began his career in california. he came to washington to work for roll call and now is senior correspondent. caller: i believe republicans should limit themselves on the candidates they have someone come i have to disagree in your opinion on that. i think if they got to make candidates flooding the market, that people do not see a

president, it will hurt him. guest: i cannot really disagree with him other than the jeb bush ,, the party can be broadly defined by who runs for president. it will be a wild field. there is nothing wrong with having a good half-dozen or a little bit more here you of broadlynt a field well received smart and professional candidates not known to say outrageous things, things that will rub voters the wrong way. the republican national committee, the national republican party put rules in place to type -- to try to bring order to the debate process so unlike the 2012 campaign, you do not have 20 presidential primary where anybody can get in and get 15 minutes of fame and drive the nomination process into late spring and early summer. there will be order brought into

this thing. ae presidential campaign is big guilt for the republican party right now because whole numbers are down both before -- both because of their own grassroots and a lot of rank-and-file voters look at how they believe the party has behaved and they had a much lower opinion of the party that made it in the 1990's and 1980's. it is important. winning solves everything but it is important in the sense that it is possible to put the party 's best foot forward and they might look at candidates and say, those guys and ladies are pretty good, i think that party might militant is doing. deal forbably a bigger republicans to do that than democrats. host: it will be earlier than previous cycles. this is a tweet from one of our viewers saying, paul ryan has a habit of dreaming up budgets that costs thousands of dollars.

rep from louisiana is next on the republican line with david, good morning. i would like to say the republican party should do a better job of talking to the people and not over the people. i cannot reiterate that strongly enough. i've been watching election cycle after election cycle. republicans ashes of the people know they are talking about and they do not. look at our media and where the media has gone. tediously citgo, nancy pelosi has a big meeting and she states the supreme court decided what to control a woman could have and cannot have. it is a lie. an outright lie. not one person in an entire room questioned her. a sad statetell you of our media. john had a show last night and it is survey that said almost socialismlege kids,

or capitalism, the kids show -- shows socialism. host: thank you for the call. guest: i think republicans do, in a sense, have to look at the world as it is today and determine how the policies and principles apply and not just keep having the same argument, things that worked well in the 1980's and 1990's, but no longer have residents with voters. 1980's andn the 1990's are voting for the first time now and do not necessarily to aa direct line republicans are saying to any problems they are experiencing. the other thing they have to do, obviously in a primary campaign, you focus on your face and grassroots on winning the trust of your party. republicans have to remember the only way to win a national election is to appeal to voters inclined to vote for republicans

but do not necessarily feel a strong arty affiliation. people who do not necessarily vote for republicans were like republicans. they have to find a way to communicate principles in a way that appeals to people who do not think they are conservative, and that means avoiding words like "principles." phrases like the quote first principles." -- like "first principles." look, how will it help me raise my kids better. for republicans, that is something they have not been good at recently. they do notd to, anymore, but jan says, -- florida, good morning. caller: good morning. i am not hearing a lot about scott walker at all. i love what he did.

you talked about having experience and going through the ringer. you have got a republican governor who has done well turning the skate around and he has had a recall. semi-what he is doing and do you think he will run? run.: i do think he will i think attitude is 12 republican national convention, he gave a decent -- a decent speech that was well received. at a time people think washington is this dysfunctional, you would think that a republican governor should have a leg up in the race. scott walker is somebody who understands how to win a campaign and also understand that not every voter he needs support from is a republican. one race in wisconsin, where

republicans do not tend to win. well in 2010, but it was an anomaly. it is battle tested and he remains one of my car courses and i think he wants to run is planning to run, and he has to get through his reelection before he can set aside some precedents is. go to william from massachusetts. good morning. caller: i am a registered independent in massachusetts, but i usually vote republican. i want to ask his opinion on the republican nominee for 2016. selections with obama winning the last two, the republicans had mccain and of course had romney, which i am more familiar with as i'm from massachusetts. those men both of leading in september.

look at what the democrats did. everyone thought hillary would win. obama comes out of the blue from nowhere and swedes everything away. he with two terms. leave it to the democrats to come up with someone on the left of hillary clinton. host: which is what we talked about yesterday. think the democratic party has a lot of the same internal divisions but the democrats are more cohesive. they are poised to run for president on the democratic side that tend to be, if you look at haveon and warren, probably a lot more support within the wings of the party

than the republicans do and the republican field is a little more unsettled. really near the end of his second term, and i mean in the final year as the up, the issue is does hillary run or not. if she does not, it is probably a wide-open yield on their spot. and you the presidency, have a political figure that at least appears to be a consensus candidate at this time. it is different for republicans are now. they have been out of power for a while. they have not had immediate power since right after george w. bush was elected and after his poll numbers went down. the republicans not getting the majority of the vote . not winning the popular vote. guest: that will have to be dealt with. if you look at the map, democrats have a lot more room

for error than republicans. it is something the party has to recognize. until republicans get back to a place where does not all rested ohio board can rest on three or four or five states, as a dozen democrats, it will be difficult for them. paul from moorestown, new jersey. republican line. you think of chris christie? caller: good morning. i am very happy he is our governor. if you will run for president. we will have to wait and see. i was wondering what mr. drucker thought of south carolina. i believe she would be an excellent candidate as well as an accident -- excellent candidate if she makes it far. political gaffes. i know she likes doing it.

tell you about making is that she has not gone over well in south carolina. reelectionobably win and that is not the issue, but republicans in the south carolina legislature by and large cannot stand her. she has not come off as very likable and appealing in south carolina. a lot of it is a leadership style. it will be interesting to see if she will be better received around the country as she has been at home. despite the fact she is probably ander way to a second term, she has political gets out there to use, it is interesting her carolina,rs in south her personal approval ratings have never been that good and she has always fought with other in colombia, the state capital. another tweak --

-- tweet -- let's go to tommy from georgia, good morning. i just have a comment. is, i do not think republicans will take anymore because of policies -- guest: i think every election is different and the party has is all aboutut it who they nominate and how the country feels after eight years of a democratic administration. republicans actually have a good opportunity, if you look at it, depending on how the country feels about obama.

our country's place in the world at the end of the obama ministration, the challenge could be for clinton and democrats. whoever the nominee is, they may have to explain to voters why the next four years of a third democratic administration will ofdifferent than last years this democratic administration. this can be a big problem for democrats. jindal is interesting because he brings a lot of intellectual heft to the field and is you look atng, if books market understanding health care policy, education policy, a lot of the domestic important inan be a presidential race, he probably ,nows as much or more about it and he is smart in that he understands the party has had problems appealing to voters,

that do not necessarily like publicans, that do not necessarily look like your typical republican voter. for all of that, he could be a very good candidate. the problem for jindal is one of appeal. people do not necessarily like him or take to him personally. he gives a speech, he tends to talk a little fast, and he does not really have a conversation with evil within the speech. it is more of a lecture. that is a problem. in a sense of being somebody who inspires people and makes them ofl like they are part something, he is not necessarily good eating a part of that. he just rubs people the wrong way. he just 12 terms, and that is not chump change. a lot of people in louisiana are not -- are angry at him. he has done a lot to turn around the economy erie it people are mad at him for all sorts of things.

education policy, where he started getting the state out of common core, people are angry. bobby jindal, his big challenge is to take all the books marks hisas about policy and all ideas about moving the party forward and fixing the country, and getting people to listen to him and leave -- leaving him as a leader pier chris christie, for instance, has leadership qualities that may not exist in any other candidate in terms of .hat emotional appeal jindal is going to run, he wants to run, he is positioning imself to run, and i think, would not count anybody out at this stage i will not count him out. host: when do you think we will see the first announcement after the election? do not know if you will see the first announcement this calendar year but you will see the first staff hired. a lot of clinical campaign staff on.tegists start to sign

you will start to see announcements in january, february, march, and a lot in the spring. you have to announce, if you're serious, and you want to do the travel,and be able to you just want to be in it, i think really the time to announce, most likely, is the middle of the spring or late spring. some candidates like paul ryan have the luxury of waiting until mid-summer because the name is , but you will start to see a lot of movement in terms of creating campaign apparatus is. fea -- right after the election. host: thank you for being with us. we appreciate it. we want to turn our attention back to russian relations. one of the things that came up on the state of union program, asking about whether or not we are back to cold war.

we want to ask you about that. are we back to the cold war era? if you're watching outside the u.s., that number is -- we will get to your calls and comments in the moment and we will first get the latest news. with that, nancy. good morning. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> good morning. more on presidential politics this our. former president bill clinton in a cnn interview from earlier today. he says he does not know if his and will run for president he said, she has not asked me yet. he added whatever she does is she and he went on to say is the ablest public servant i have ever worked with. he said determining whether to defeat the nomination is a decision only he can make.

the republican national committee also talking about hillary clinton. they're releasing a new website later today name, forhillaryclinton.com. it will document what they say are her lavish speaking fees. this from evan writing about her recent interview with president obama in new yorker, she closed -- quote president obama talking about the possibility joe biden will make a presidential run, saying he would be a superb president, but you have to have that fire in the belly, which is only a question joe can answer. twice we are trapped ubiquitously, intimately, and all the time. it is easier to assume there are

very few times we are not tracked. most people will say to me a lot of times, i read a lot for and theyy magazines will say, it does not affect me because i am not on facebook, or my grandmother is not on facebook. i say to them, i think the number is something like, there are 45 million people whose photos are on a spoke and who can be facially identified through tagging and they may not even be on facebook. the fact, to say, my activity in my behavior that i know about means i'm not being tracked is in general just not true. havens on your personal information tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span two. "washington journal is quote continues. host: for the next half-hour, your calls and comments on u.s.

russia relations spirit our russian, back to the old work? this is a headline. -- asking this to senator feinstein, the chair of the intelligence committee. has thisk the ukraine ground to air missile system, but it is not in the area and they are not using it. here is the thing -- >> the rebels do not have [indiscernible] glass i do not think you can win this that way. you can only win it diplomatically. >> shouldn't the ukraine needs?ent have what it

>> cc trees stripped by bullets. i am opposed to giving this kind of equipment to anybody because we have now seen a major misuse. if this is a senator mccain is talking about, i am not for this kind of thing. >> i just need a yes or a no. do you believe the u.s. russian relations are now at old were evel? host: first, let's go to damon michigan. your take on that question? media is find that the telling that story from the middle of the story and not the beginning of the story. when our government interceded in the ukrainian politics and health engineer that too, the people in the us were not happy with that and they wanted their force, --nd has

henceforth, the fight started. host: let's go to frank in florida. caller: on the cold war, it is an economic award. economic's, we had the power to do it because we had most of the world and nato and the world bank and all of that. now that the russians have gone with brazil,em india, china, and south africa, ,nd they started their own bank that our economics will change because they have the power and the backing of the major powers in the world, where we are losing it. let's go next to west virginia. caller: i have cheetahs questions.

how will we get anywhere if we keep drawing down our troops and russian -- russia will come at us with we do not know what, and how will we defend ourselves in that situation? second off, i do not understand how someone can be called a look servant when they make way more than we do and they do not do what we tell them to do. dohought a servant was to what you told them to do. for the call.u this is from "the wall street journal." a central question for aviation experts now is if the ukraine ofe weapons in the hands rebels --

we will go eileen and parkville, maryland. good morning. as soon as croatia was entering into the news, i had i saw a rush of performing, just as things happen at the end of world war , if we do not watch it, we may just be at the same thing again. pearl harbor him i was six years old or days clear to me. ira ebbert clearly what d-day is like. i feel a lot of memories coming back with this stuff. we will go to kevin in new

hampshire, good morning. my father fought in vietnam. anybody ever heard about the when at is not like plane is flying over an area that there is a do not fly over. it is obvious it is set up. pay attentionld to george soros and maybe you will know what is going on. for the call.u our phones are open. this is from the financial times. -- roundsrry making the asking about all of this. >> basically, it is pretty clear this is a system transferred from russia, in the hands of separatist.

thenow with confidence ukrainians did not have such a system anywhere near the vicinity at that point in time. it points a clear finger at the separatists. that is why president obama and the international community are demanding a full-fledged -- whichtion, with russia said it would do. all of these programs can be heard on c-span radio beginning at noon eastern time. darrell is joining us, good morning. are you with us? the front page of the new york times today, nation unraveled in the deadliest a so far. -- world leaders continue to call for both sides to step back.

with criticism of israel rising within hours, the president called the israeli prime minister the second time in three days. next is stand from houston, texas. good morning. caller: i have a comment. i was republican for many years. i am so disenchanted with our party. i am looking at europe and the way they are looking at us, and i don't see much difference between putin and obama anymore. where are the ideals and principles this country was founded on? they are gone. we have lost our press except for c-span. is the only thing i can watch.

that is my comment. that is what i am telling you. he is also making his rounds on the sunday morning programs. here is what the texas republican had to say. [video clip] >> i think this is a game changer, the downing of the flight by separatists tied to vladimir putin. i think he is complicit in what happened. why is that important to americans? i believe mr. putin is returning to a cold war mentality. when i was over there, you could see this nationalistic pride, a sort of resurgence to regain the glory of the old days of the soviet empire. we are seeing that happen with crimea being annexed. we are seeing that with the russian speaking peoples of ukraine and the baltic states. i think his long-term strategy is to bring back into the fold the glory days of the empire these baltic nations with the

russian speaking people. in addition to that, it is a different threat. it is not the al qaeda threat. but it is a threat of brute force. it is a threat that could involve submarine warfare. we know rush is fully engaged in every aspect of that type of warfare. that concerns me from a homeland security standpoint. the question we are asking, are we back to the cold war? says russia trying to slowly re-create the old soviet union. way, we are covering foreign policy this afternoon on the c-span network. of form will be live on c-span and www.c-span.org looking at u.s. foreign policy. former conference with officials from the bush and clinton administrations

sponsored by the middle east policy council live at 2:00 eastern. allen is joining us, rochester, michigan. good morning. caller: good morning. every time i hear about ukraine or russia, i go back to brazil. when i was in brazil, is a small community of what you call ukrainian. they lived in a small neighborhood. asked them what nationality they are, they tell you they are russians could i know they come from ukraine. there is a close relationship between those nations, you know. host: we go next to eric in new york. caller: i have to say there has been a real attempt by the american media and foreign-policy establishment to miss guide the public on this.

over the past 20 years, the united states has attempted to expand nato to the borders of russia. they are attempting to put a missile defense system at russia's doorstep which would essentially disarmed their nuclear deterrents. they have engaged in shenanigans regarding the stabilizing, putting in friendly governments around the russian periphery, destabilizing pro-russian government's. tin justifiably annexed crimea because thugs had taken over the government. crimea is essential for russian security. that is what they need for self defense. wenn from birmingham, alabama. caller: you are one of my favorites. i was tell you that.

i think president obama is doing the best job. no one knows, none of us, the public, what goes on. president obama made statements about president bush when he was in office. we don't know. nobody knows but the president when he gets in the oval office and sees things a different way. he had to change some of his statements about what president bush was doing. i am a proud democrat. but we don't know. i think he is doing a good job. all of this could have come from the republicans. "he is not a leader, he is weak." we need to stop. we need to let the president do what he is doing. we don't know what is going on. hem not one to criticize if is a republican or democratic president because we don't know. it is time for america to come together. host: mike from dallas, texas.

thanks for the call. caller: i believe the cold war is coming back. i heard president barack obama on jay leno. he said every time he talks to putin and the russian dignitaries that they have the cold war mentality, and he has to constantly remind them the cold war is over, that we are no longer fighting the cold war. they still have that mindset. they have enough money with the oil revenues to fight the cold war. i believe the cold war is coming back. host: ok. that is our question. we will go next to susan in fort myers, florida. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i cannot help wondering if back in world war ii when churchill sat with stalin and

hitler all of eastern europe over to russia if that is not when some of these things started. they got used to the territory. now they want to do another landgrab. a lot ofelieve fighting is going to solve anything. my heart goes out to all of the civilian population. i am a victim of that from world war ii myself, even though i was very young. host: john is next from scarsdale, new york. good morning. caller: my comments would be this is not a change in the cold war. it is a change and globalization. globalization policies were put in place from nixon on. everyone in the world hates us for this. if you travel, you realize this. all of these things are going on, the arab spring.

they are all changing to globalization being changed. that is a big problem in the united states we should focus on. host: danny makes this point on the twitter page. "it is us, not them." this from the front page. over toy kerry heads help broker that. in gazah toll climbing is the front-page story of "the boston globe." runoff tomorrow in the georgia senate republican race. earl is joining us from st. louis. good morning. caller: good morning. thanks for c-span. i served in the american military armed forces from november of 1955 up until 1998. i put in a couple more years and the retired reserves.

be american public and politicians are making statements about how they like how they putin or prefer what he's doing over our president. the americanhow public has turned around. it is not the america i grew up with. we were in a cold war with russia the majority of my life. of us seem to forget we were in a cold war with russia. today is notoblems really a problem but america was for 50ustrial power years with the winning of the second world war. a lot of those countries are now back on their feet. they are industrialized. we are not the superpower a lot of people think we are. host: tim from asheville, north carolina. your take on all this? caller: i think maybe the event

is not as consequential as the media coverage would have us believe. buts a terrible tragedy, look how many people are dying in iraq and the gaza strip right now. mediaworried when the repeats the same narrative over and over and does not ask questions that would challenge that. there are a lot of questions we do not have answers to do right now. we have not even begun the investigation. within a couple of hours, they knew it was this missile and we know the rebels have that. if you had that information, couldn't you have prevented it? i think if you're going to blame russia for what the rebels are doing, couldn't you blame the u.s. for what isis is doing? are they doing our taxpayer-funded weapons? host: ok.

we will go to paul from loki, california. i am completely loyal to president obama. but how can president obama hold the russians responsible when they will not hold the bush when they were clearly war criminals? ok? what gives us the moral authority to criticize any country? host: carry from wisconsin. good morning. are we back to the cold war? >> my belief is this. whatever happened to the white battleships and the big stick? host: ok. that is your point? caller: that is it. politico has a piece.

also this morning, inside the "washington post." here is how it unfolded with chris wallace on the fox news sunday program. [video clip] >> the limits on time have been put on by your people. we would talk to you all day. you are doing interviews with all the networks. while you were on camera and microphone, you spoke to one of your top aides between interviews about the situation in israel and the fact that 14 israelis have either been shot or killed in an operation. we want to play a clip of that conversation because it is an extraordinary moment of diplomacy. take a look at this. a pinpointhell of a operation. >> underscores the need for [indiscernible] >> we have got to get over there. thank you, john. i think we ought to go tonight.

i think it is crazy to be sitting around. a you said it is a hell of a pinpoint operation. do you think the israelis are going to far? do you intend going back to the middle east tonight? thesedifficult in situations. you have people who come out of tunnels. you have a right to take out those tunnels probably support that. we support israel's right to defend itself against rockets continuing to come in. hamas has started this process of rocketing after israel was trying to find the people who young israeli citizens and one american kid. it is disgraceful. it is tough to have this kind of operation. in a way anybody does with respect to young children and civilians.

but war is tough. i said that publicly and will say it again. we defend israel's right to do what it is doing to get at those tunnels. israel has accepted a unilateral cease-fire. it has accepted the egyptian plan, which we also support. it is important for hamas to step up and be reasonable and understand that you accept the cease-fire, you save lives. that is the way we can proceed to have a discussion about the underlying issues which president obama has clearly indicated in willingness to do. host: kerry's, scott on camera between interviews -- caught on cam is between interviews on the sunday morning a rims -- programs. that to your calls and comments on u.s.-russia relations. are we back to the cold war?

we from bristol, tennessee. good morning. like to say that hamas is dangerous to fool with. why they let hamas get away with such stuff. united states ought to help the israelites get rid of the hamas terrorist people so we can be friends with them. we should help them out there and stuff, you know. host: john from north carolina. caller: i have one quick question for you. how someone in my position would be affected by ukraine being taken over by russia, just a normal average citizen. how would it affect my daily life? host: i suspect he would say would have no impact. caller: thank you.

host: to reset has this final point on our twitter page -- to heresa has this final point on our twitter page. thanks for your calls and comments as we continue with the sunday morning programs. you can listen to all five sunday shows beginning at noon eastern time on c-span radio. in a moment, we will turn our attention to you th -- the u.s. helping the mexican army. david shirk will be joining us. speaking of c-span radio, nancy calla with an update. forensicfor inject -- specialists are saying the train must be allowed to leave within hours. experts from the dutch national investigation team which

specializes in victim recovery and identification also pressed for the train cars to be sealed. the experts headed for the crash site itself about nine miles away accompanied by monitors from the organization for security and cooperation in europe. of the victims, 192 were dutch. another was dutch american. ukrainian prime minister says power temporarily went out in the refrigeration train holding more than 200 of the dead as fighting flared again today between the separatists and government troops in nearby donetsk. turning to the violence in the middle east, a palestinian health official says israeli tank shells have struck a hospital in the central gaza strip killing four people and wounding 60. he says 30 of the 60 wounded our medical staff. is really military says it is checking the report. death toll among palestinians has now passed 500. we will hear more about the

middle east later today when the middle east policy council holds a conference on president obama's foreign-policy and the future of the middle east live at 2:00 eastern on c-span radio or watch live on c-span. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. tracked ubiquitously, intimately, and all the time. i think it is easier to assume there are very few times we are not tracked. i read ale will say, magazines,nology they will say it does not affect me because i am not on facebook or my grandmother is not on facebook. i think theof all, number is like 45 million people whose photos are on facebook and who can be facially identified through tagging. they may not even be on facebook. to say my activity and behavior

i know about means i am not being tracked is factually untrue. >> john havens on how your personal data is tracked and used and tips on how to secure your digital footprint tonight at 8:00 eastern. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we want to introduce you to david shirk, who is with the wilson center, mexico institute. also a professor at the university of san diego, joining us from california. thanks for being with us. this headline caught our attention as the pentagon spends more on training for the mexican military in 2013. about $15 million. can you explain? guest: yes. we have been working closely with mexico on security matters the last several years, particularly since the initiative was started in 2007

under presidents bush and calderon in mexico. these funds are intended to assist with counter drug efforts in mexico fighting against organized crime groups, taking down kingpins, leaders of the mexican cartels. host: let's go through the summary. you mentioned one disrupting organized crime groups linked closely to drugs in this country. also encouraging reforms inside mexico's criminal justice system and strengthening the border. let's talk about the final two, especially the border issue and reforming the criminal justice system inside mexico. guest: those components of the context.e are not d&d they are four pillars of the initiative. the first is disrupting or

fighting against organized crime. the second being judicial reform and feeling the rush including police reform -- including police reform. the next is building a 21st-century border between the countries. there is a focus on social and community development programs intended to prevent gang activity, promote economic development in some communities. on the two you mentioned on judicial reform and border first we seethe u.s. cooperation through usaid lawthe state department's enforcement bureau intended to provide training and bootstrap mexican judges, lawyers, in operatingetc., the new criminal justice system in mexico modeled after our own and other systems we see in

latin america. on the second point, the strengthening of border security, what we have seen in san diego and other border communities are increased and enhanced efforts by mexican authorities to detect southbound flows of cash and weapons into mexico. new border facilities, new detection equipment. these efforts by the mexican authorities are unprecedented in terms of trying to detect southbound flows that contribute to the strength of organized crime groups in mexico. host: our topic, the u.s. military training mexican armed forces. our phone lines are open. the numbers will continue to be on the bottom of the screen. you can also join in on our facebook page or send us a tweet.

i want to go back to the chart that gives you a sense of how much money we are sending. about7-2000 eight, it was $4.2 million. a significant increase over the last five years. why? u.s. authorities have seen cooperation with the mexican military taking down major drug cartels have yielded fruit in so far as mexico has done a tremendous job in the last five years of taking out the leaders of major mexican criminal organizations. really, every single major mexican cartel has been hit at the highest levels. we saw in the last six months the takedown of guzman, who was probably the world's most notorious drug trafficker from mexico, if not the world's most

notorious drug trafficker. authorities have been betting on increased cooperation with the mexican military as an important element of counter drug strategy in mexico. the mexican navy has been an important partner for the u.s. military. they have been responsible for several of the most important, most difficult, and delicate operations targeting mexican drug cartels. host: whom on the u.s. side is leading the training? fort: responsibility interactions with canada and mexico in the united states military lies with northcom, the northern command. southern command is also interested in what is happening in mexico because of the spillover effect in the americas from the activity of mexican

criminal organizations. northcom is primarily responsible for the contact, the exchanges that constitute most of this $15 million of spending on cooperation with the mexican military. host: from long island, new york, patrick is on the phone. good morning. caller: hello. good morning. thank you, mr. shirk, and c-span. i have a question about what is going on on the border. it seems there might be a possibility the criminal organizations in latin america might be funding and assisting young people to come up to create a distraction so other drugs might more easily flow into the country while so many resources are being diverted. host: your take on that, david shirk? of thesethink a lot children currently coming into

the country from central america have their own motivations and plenty of reason to want to come to the united states to get away from those criminal organizations. i doubt it would be cost-effective to most drug and drug trafficking organizations or gangs to give tens of thousands of children wads of cash to come harass american authorities at the border. i am doubtful it is a conspiracy. but i think the conditions organized crime groups create in these communities are what is leave, these children to so there is definitely some relationship between the problems of organized crime and the problems we are facing on the border. i think u.s.-mexico cooperation, u.s. cooperation with central america, is designed to try to address the problem of organized crime.

whether it does so effectively is another question. pennsylvania, of david shirk is joining us from san diego. he is affiliated as a global fellow with the wilson center for mexico institute. he is a professor of political science at the university of san diego. timothy is joining us from laconia, tennessee. good morning. caller: yes, hello. texas,tually in laredo, just to clarify. host: i apologize. go ahead with your question. caller: i appreciate your guest. he is providing a great deal of rational discourse on this area that has been populated by a lot of crazy talk. instructorted as an with undocumented immigrants in

hawaii in 1987, the last time we had immigration reform. the so-called illegal immigrant group there were canadians, which no one seems to have a problem with, as well as pacific islanders and western samoans. they happen to pass from locals so nobody has a problem with them. i think weoint is are beating a dead red herring by pouring so many resources on the border to interdict illegal immigrants in the sense that what we are really doing is a war on the poor illegal immigrants. host: thank you. let me take his point and move it one step further. david shirk, you are looking along the border and inside the country itself, correct? guest: you mean inside the country of mexico? host: correct. guest: yes.

particularly the military funding supporting exchanges and interactions between u.s. and mexico military is often far from the border. where you haves mexican military personnel and high-level leadership coming to washington or colorado to visit northcom to learn about u.s. techniques, to have contacts and exchanges, to facilitate cooperation between our two militaries. we are not seeing so much effort through the military along the us-mexico border to promote cooperation. ares at the border we seeing u.s. authorities assist mexican authorities with better interdiction methods. i don't want to say better necessarily, but different

interdiction methods than they used in the past. host: you can get more information by logging onto wilsoncenter.org. connie is on the republican line. good morning. i don't know the percentage from central american countries. i don't know why they don't ask the mexican government. i am a latina living in oxnard where we have a lot of children housed in our local base. i have heard there are a lot of gang members. this worries me what why they do not call mexico to have this meeting at the white house. i think they should be patrolling their borders. thanks for the call. i think what the color is referring to is that on friday, the president will sit down with latin american presidents to talk about the immigration issue which is somewhat separate from

what we are talking about this morning. but certainly we welcome your comments on that. guest: i would say the united states and mexico have been cooperating closely. i would agree with the caller the relationship between central american migration and the recent crisis we have had any problems we are seeing in mexico is quite close. it makes sense to think about dealing with these issues together. i think there is probably some interest in the white house looking at targeted programs that would assist central american migrants because they represent a special group right now. in reality, i think a more competence of approach to looking at mexico's role in and treatment of migrants in mexico coming up from central america would make sense. this is a regional problem. it affects all of the countries from central america through

mexico into the united states, and we should be thinking together regionally. host: every monday, we focus on your money. today we are looking at $15 million spent in 2013 to train mexican forces. here is this from one of our viewers. should mexico be spending $15 million to train mexico's armed forces? let's go to carl in kansas city. caller: hello. i am glad to have an opportunity to ask a question. i am 70 years old. i am a vietnam veteran. i was involved in the cuban missile crisis. there has been militarization of the world. he didagan was in power, a lot of good things. but his misguided policy in central america, i would like to ask whether the arming of the region and sending all the ammunition and guns to the

contras had anything to do with the gangs in central america today. thank you. guest: i think it is a germane question to the issue of assisting mexico's military. and increasing firepower military capacity get at the root causes of the problems we are trying to get thank you trying to address -- trying to address? i would say the answer is no. it is fairly clear in mexico and central america the problems of crime and violence are related to the fact there are few educational and economic opportunities for people on the lowest rungs of the ladder. in mexico where you have approximately 40% of the population living in poverty, less the $5 a day per household, and with certain countries in central america you're looking

at rates of poverty and about 60% of the population living below poverty levels, it is clear we are not going to shoot our way out of that problem. fori think there is a role mexico's military and other militaries to play. in my view, it should be secondary to the social and economic issues. it has not been our primary approach for addressing most problems. around the world, it is to focus on military strength. we need to focus more on diplomacy and economic assistance. i agree with the sentiment of the collar in that regard. kroll is right to say we should be thinking of creative ways to make it safe for people coming from central america or mexico in their own communities to stay, live, and prosper, find jobs, etc.

today"ere is how "usa frames the story. "the u.s. is quietly expanding its training of mexico's armed forces helping to reverse decades of mistrust." offered is joining us from north carolina -- how fred -- alfred is doing is from north carolina with david shirk. caller: i'm wondering why the federal government is spending $15 million to help the mexican government train their troops when the mexican government should be training their own troops. host: that seems to be the number one question this morning, david shirk. guest: it is important to make it clear the mexican government has its own training facilities, its own budget for training its troops, and it is significantly more than $15 million. they spend probably hundreds of

millions of dollars each year on training for their own military. the point here is not so much the training as to improve cooperation and contacts. $15 million from the united states goes to joint sessions and workshops, the kind of high-level contact that helps make mexico a better security partner. i think that is in our interest. we don't want mexico to think of itself as an enemy of the united states. we want mexico to be a partner. frankly, i think top officials in the military in the previous administration under bush and the current administration under barack obama recognize we have a stake in mexico. we have a shared responsibility in what happens when it comes to drug trafficking, crime, and

violence along our border. it is important for the united states to be a good partner to mexico in assisting and addressing those problems. the key issue of, his $15 million of u.s. taxpayer money well spent by trying to work with mexico? i think it probably is. it is important to recognize we exchange about $500 billion in trade with mexico. it is our second largest destination for u.s. exports. from an economic perspective, mexico is a very important country to the united states. it is also important to note secondly we have a special relationship with mexico. we have a large number of people living in the united states who have family ties and historical ties to mexico. there are more americans living

in mexico, about one million americans living in mexico, than and the other country in the world. about half of all people living abroad live in mexico. there are significant u.s. interests in mexico and finding ways for our militaries to cooperate, and more importantly, civilian agencies, police agencies and aid agencies to work with their mexican partners. is a very important issue for u.s. foreign policy. host: in addition to his work at the university of san diego, david shirk has been disaffiliated -- affiliated with -mexicaner for u.s. studies. he is now a global fellow at the wilson center mexico institute. this is mexico is among the fastest-growing economies and their prospect for the future is rapidly improving. let's go to robert from ashland, wisconsin. caller: i fully support this

program. i think $15 million is a pittance. it should be 10 times that much. the program should be expanded into central america. when central america, honduras, and guatemala is the reason all ,hese kids are coming up here why would anyone want to integrate this far? is because of such chaos in central america. joiningt's go to javier us from bradenton, florida. go ahead. caller: i want to say something. columbiaeds to be like escobar.ia, like pablo david shirk, did you want

to respond? guest: this is a controversial issue. should mexico follow the path of colombia? the countries are not comparable in terms of the security situation they face. colombia had a decades long conflict and civil war on top of which drug trafficking became a major problem for the country and a serious threat to the state. mexico has not suffered that kind of internal conflict, so what we are dealing with in mexico is focusing on powerful criminal organizations and a state that is largely functional throughout most of the country. we don't see insurgents taking over significant territory. places inin several problem where

ordinary people cannot live their lives, where they are extorted and kidnapped. mexico faces a serious problem. their response, by working with the united states, in some ways people have pointed to plan colo mbia an said the initiative is a major u.s. assistance package to beef up the power of the mexican state. it is difficult to make a becauseon to colombia we spent so much more on a smaller country. the roughly $2.5 billion of assistance we have given over the last five years is comparably quite small. mexico does have a lot of capacity to do its own internal security efforts.

it has made the effort. one way in which i would like to see u.s. assistance to mexico be more like our work with lombia is we had a substantial amount of effort that went into revitalizing communities in colombia and finding ways to get kids into school and finding people jobs. we have been reluctant to spend that money on a system packages the mesh assistance packages. it is an up-and-coming developing country. i think it would benefit from some effort by the united states in greater economic and educational opportunities around the country. host: we welcome our radio listeners. shirk talkingavid about $15 million spent by the

u.s. government to help train mexico's armed forces. lawrence is joining us from the hall, considering it -- mil lhall, pennsylvania. caller: did i hear you graduated from rockhaven university? guest: i did. caller: was nelson your professor? guest: he was my first political science professor. caller: i thought so. don't you think it is a situation that as long as the gs, thistates wants dru war will go on because no matter how much money the united states gives mexico it is not going to do the job? when we talkhink about the war on drugs or drug trafficking from mexico, i do think u.s. demand is the obvious

driver of the problem. itwe did not use drugs, would not matter how many they tried to smuggle into the country. they would be worthless to us. the reality is we are the world's number one drug consuming country. we have an enormous appetite for drugs. mexico is an important conduit and producer for the drugs would consume. the question is how we want to do with that. we are engaged in a great experiment in this country trying to determine whether the legalization of certain substances will help to diminish the negative externalities because in countries like texaco and at home. i think we have become the mesh begun to see some effect from the legalization efforts in colorado and washington trade i think it is affecting the business and bottom line of drug in mexico causing them to diversify to other

activities, increasing heroin production, kidnapping, and extortion. the elimination of u.s. demand for mexican products would have immediate and significant consequences for organized crime in mexico. the most proximate consequences would be those organize auctions -- the people working in those organizations would not go get a job at mcdonald's. they would probably find other illicit ways of obtaining revenue. in if we could eliminate all u.s. demand tomorrow, mexico would have to find a way to address the serious problems of insecurity, rampant organized crime, and violent activity plaguing the country right now. to me, that means strengthening the rule of law in mexico. improving the quality of law

enforcement. helping to improve, reduce corruption on police forces, increase professionalism. those are things we are trying to help mexico do. we have a lot of experience addressing those problems in the united states. mexico will have to find its own path. will have to pull the vast majority of the weight. but this is of critical importance to mexico and i think of critical importance to the united states as well. host: this tweet summarizes the sentiment of some of our viewers and listeners saying money does not grow on trees. from south carolina, we go to dan next. caller: good morning. a couple of comments. david referred to the money going to help people in the

lower -- on the lower rungs of the economic ladder achieve a better living. i suggest we do it here first and then somewhere else. the notion of doing anything in mexico with our tax dollars is more corporate american beneficiary than american citizens themselves. host: thank you. let's go to lily from sioux city, iowa. caller: i heard the lady talking about mexican children. i know the american people have big hearts. but i want to not be naïve about what is going on. i have direct involvement where i found out information. they were using the children, the cartels were using the children to smuggle drugs in their suitcases, and counterfeit money sometimes, on bus trips. these children were supposed to

be heading into mexico to spend a couple of weeks with their fathers. they were supposedly from broken families. they were lying about it all. host: david shirk? guest: this goes back to an earlier comment from a caller, are these children being used as decoys or distractions for u.s. law enforcement? i do think children are used by cartels and gains in a number of ways, unfortunately. reference to in what the earlier caller was describing as a vast conspiracy to distract u.s. authorities, i don't think that is the case. but i agree with the sentiment of this caller that children are used by organized crime groups in unfortunate ways. i want to back up to the comment dan made.

pittance tois not a any average american. i want to recognize that. think about it this way. $50 million compared to probably $20 billion we spend on border investmenthat if our in educational opportunities and workforce development in mexico was a cheaper solution that prevented people from coming here for jobs than putting up fences and more border patrol agents? i think that is what we should be thinking about. not only how much we are spending on particular programs but which programs are more effective at addressing the problem. i think there is a strong argument to be made that if you prevent people from having dire conditions of poverty and hopelessness in their communities, they will be far less likely to try to come across the line. host: jody is making that point

as well. today."line from "usa cary is joining us from new york, republican line. caller: for some reason, it seems when people take a stance that we should always get involved and help everybody, we really need to worry about ourselves. this country has a host of problems itself. but we seem to always look and say we could help, we need to do this and spend more money. the taxpayers don't have any more money. we keep raising this and that. where are you going to get the money from? host: did you want to respond? go ahead, david. guest: probably the american government -- the majority of american taxpayers feel we spend too much of our income assisting other countries.

the reality is we spend less than 1% of gdp helping other countries around the world. most advanced european countries spend significantly more on a percentage -- as a percentage of their income hoping other countries than we do. we give more money than any other country around the world in aid because we have such a large economy. as a fraction of our disposable income, it is quite small. we did keep most of our dollars at home. we do try to keep -- assist folks at home. to think wenaïve can ignore problems in other countries. if we don't help to address problems in mexico or central america, those problems come to us. i think that is what we are seeing with the current crisis along the border. host: let's go to robin in chula vista, california.

former city a council candidate, did not make it past the primaries. why do not -- we not target the manufacturers of these drugs? host: has that been a target, david shirk? guest: it has. mexico is a major producer country for three types of drugs. heroin, marijuana, and methamphetamine and other synthetics. the only place we can get coca leaves and produce cocaine in mass scale is from bolivia, peru, and colombia. in those places, eradication of supply is a major component of counter drug efforts. in mexico recently, we have seen a significant increase in beingphetamine labs

dismantled by mexican authorities. we did go after production. supply is only part of the problem. we don't do as good a job of curbing demand in the united states. solution tofound a despite that americans, the many advantages we have in our society, americans seem to like to use drugs more than any other place on earth. i am not sure what makes that -- theut it is a problem issue essential to the problem. host: david shirk is an associate professor of political science at the university of san diego. that he is joining us from tty is oregon -- be

joining us from salem, oregon. caller: thank you for taking my call. i support dual citizenship instantly between mexicans and americans. this could be declared by president obama as an executive order, our wonderful president, and the president of mexico. we are essentially the same country. we are both christian nations. mexico is a wonderful place to retire. america certainly needs the hard-working mexicans to do the work caucasians have refused to do. host: thanks for the call. david shirk, what about that idea? guest: i think most americans would disagree with your suggestion. i doubt obama would gain any points among voters by advancing that idea. i also don't know that is an agenda that would be favorable to most mexicans.

one of the things that motivated this story about u.s. cooperation with the mexican military is that it is novel and new. it is a relatively new because mexico has historically been resistant to working with the united states. we have to keep in mind the united states took over about half of mexico's territory in the 19th century in our first major foreign war. there is a lot of resentment in mexico to the united states. for mexicans, the idea of becoming part of the united states would be unfavorable. i think it would also be unfavorable to many u.s. citizens. the point is we are very interdependent. we are much better neighbors than many of us realize. we have a lot of things to contribute to either side of the

border. one of the most recent examples, in the last decade, one of the most fascinating examples of cooperation is the fact mexico's military sent assistance to the united states during hurricane katrina. our consul general in san diego helped coordinator those efforts on the part of the mexican government. we have benefited from improvement in our relationship with mexico and mexico's military over the years in ways that are perhaps surprising to a lot of americans. we have to begin to think of and a as our neighbor good neighbor we can benefit from as well as benefit through programs like the $15 million in military assistance we are currently discussing. host: which is what we are talking about in our remaining minutes with david shirk joining

us on this monday from san diego. let's go to gloria for a quick comment from kitty hawk. caller: good morning. a couple of things i would like to mention. don't know why mexico needs our money when they have an oil industry of their own. they must be making a lot of money. note is one word you have used in any connection with what you are talking about. that is corruption, which is rampant as far as i know. host: david shirk? to be fair to me, i did use the word corruption once when i was talking about the need to improve the rule of law in mexico and the problem of corruption and mexico's police force. i do believe corruption is a major problem for mexico. the index rating has gotten worse in the last couple of years.

yes, corruption is a huge problem. that is exactly why we should be working with mexico. as to whether or not u.s. money should go to working with mexico, it depends on how much we think mexico is important to our interests and how much we value improving the situation in mexico. as i have said before, i think is critical to u.s. interests that mexico be a better partner. in mexico were a less corrupt place, safer place, more prosperous, we would be among the best the flesh first beneficiaries of those changes. the average mexican earns $15,000 per household every year. the average canadian earns roughly three or four times that amount. canada is currently our number one buyer of u.s. goods. if conditions changed in mexico to make the average mexican twice as prosperous, they would

rapidly become our first trading partner. it would be a huge market for u.s. goods. from a self-interested point of view, we have a lot to gain from mexico's advances. i also think we have a responsibility, a social responsibility, a neighborly responsibility, to assist our neighbor and think of our neighbor as a neighbor. i believe personally we have a lot to gain from cooperating with mexico. i think there is a social or moral imperative to working with of the other- some countries around the world, including mexico. how do we address the problem of corruption? i think in part by being a good example. one to bring this mexican authorities to the united states to learn how we do things better in a more

professional manner helps address the problem of corruption i encouraging mexico's military to want to professionalize. encouraging people to think about the united states and not having as much of a problem with corruption as in mexico. that is what these exchanges may hey less corrupt mexico is a more prosperous mexico. host: we will conclude on that point. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] host: this is a tweet from jack in mexico -- hst: