systems on u.s. airplanes. you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. "washington journal" is next. ♪ host: john kerry is in paris meeting with foreign ministers. ap --re discussing we willre in gaza discuss that and other foreign-policy challenges for the obama administration starting at 7:45 a.m. arizona's execution process is underway. it took him about two hours to die from lethal injection. but -- similar

situation in arizona. we want your thoughts on the death penalty. here is how you can call and give your thoughts this morning. you can post to our social media channels. you can post on our facebook page. you can send this e-mail. we shouldn't headline of the arizona republic and. execution of the joseph wood. the process took about two hours. this is the headline on thursday. john mccain, and about the

situation this morning. his thoughts are provided by the associated press. the headline those are the words of senator john mccain. it will talk more about the case and your thoughts on the death emily overall in light of this case and others.

we will talk for a little bit with the executive director of the death emily information center. his join us on the phone. talk about arizona's case and others that have dealt with lethal injections and situations and problems that have arisen from that. what is the track record so far? been three're prolonged executions this year all involving the same drug. the first was in ohio and in a very upsetting one in oklahoma with a man did not died from a lethal injection but from a heart attack from the side effects of what the state did. that provoked outcry and even presidential comments. now there is a third one. this problem is not going away. damages there a pattern

graded about this drug? the same is not always combination of drugs. the pattern is that states are having to experiment and try new drugs. these drugs it used to be used have been pulled off the market and the manufacturers who don't want them used in executions. the states are now using third and fourth choices. the side effects or unexpected results that we saw in arizona are part of that. this is the first time arizona had ever used that drug. it was only the second time in the drug that combination had been used. theirarizona is reviewing process. has anything come out of the reviews of the executions in ohio and oklahoma? not in a final way. ohio says that part of the problem was the dosage.

that is under review by a federal court now whether that was the problem. oklahoma's report is not out. nor has the president's review come out. independent doctor in oklahoma says they missed the vein that the jugs were to be injected in. into the muscles and did not go straight to the heart and that is why it took so long. this is all unresolved. it is not 100% clear. no these finals -- studies are final yet rated has this caused other states to reconsider their use? guest: tennessee said that if they can't find a drug for lethal injection, they are going to use the electric chair. other states are scrambling.

some are saying they're going to use the same drug that is causing these problems. a they cannot find of the drugs. this is in turmoil right now. they are doing it in secret for the fear that if they revere -- reveal where the drugs come from, they will be pulled off the shells by the companies and they won't have those options. host: aside from lethal injections, other types of execution processes, can you give us a survey of how others administer it? use lethalthe states injection. a few states have an and make and choose another method like the electric chair or the gas chamber. said that if they can't find the drugs they will

use the electric chair. other state forces anybody into a method except lethal injection. there are threats to change what tennessee has done. a federal judge in california says we should consider the guillotine. there are a lot of postals out their creative it is really lethal injection. that is the only method being used in the united states today. a judge advocates a firing squad execution. guest: that was the judge i referred to. he said the people might not be accepting of the guillotine. i don't know if that is acceptable by the public. those things can go wrong. a firing squad can go wrong. it can take longer than expected as well. people want the executions to be swift and quiet and putting to

sleep. that sort of thing. becomes ans isabel cliffhanger. it is uncertain how they will be taking or will they be groaning and moving around? that is not what is anticipated. is we shoulde said get out of that model. it is a medical model and they are not experts in medicine. ast: we say that -- we have person on twitter saying that we are the only countries that use it. 200 catches ofe the world and about 145 of them don't use it anymore. is by far the leader in carrying out executions. we are up there with them.

it is not an enviable position. our death penalty is declining in use, even as these controversies around its world. host: where going to talk to people about their thoughts. have you had situations like the story you heard of? have they swayed public opinion about the death penalty? guest: the public is not been highly engaged in what drug and how long it takes. what i think they are concerned about is an aptitude or having confidence. -- ineptitude or having confidence. they don't like the fact the government can't carry out an execution in 20 years. of it takes even longer. that adds to the sense that this is not working.

the government might not be trusted. is the go toparole punishment and about 99% of the cases anyway. maybe that should become our standard and we would be in line with most of our allies around the world and avoiding these problems. this is always composed of unfairness and bias. lethal injection is sort of a side issue. we are talking about the death penalty. thank you. we started this about the execution of a murderer in arizona, joseph would. for the larger issue you can use this latest story to talk about other instances.

we start in boston, massachusetts in the oppose line. caller: how are you this morning? this is getting out of hand. immediately the press goes to the victims and tries to get sympathy from the victims. it is just not working well at all. say change the death penalty altogether or change the sentencing? to change theave lethal injection. it has to go. i think he gets a marksman and shoot people and you have less problems. host: jerry is in rhode island. basically, i am thinking

with the death penalty it has to be a cut and dry situation where somebody has an eyewitness to her murder or it is a sure thing. i problem with that is if an innocent person ends up getting executed. the other part of the process of using lethal injection, that has been very poorly administered. they should come up with a better solution. that is an inhumane way of putting somebody to death. we should take a longer look at it and have discussions. congress and maybe

even the supreme court should come up with a decision whether we should have a death penalty or not. host: it should go beyond the states? should be annk it issue. either member discussing this in a political science class at umass. i was younger. there was a case where a person had murdered an old woman. i said right away as a gut reaction that we should execute them. i think more in terms of what about constitutional rights? they have a right to a fair trial. there is a possibility that they could miss out on that. we have a supporter from orlando, florida. caller: thank you for taking my call. are thosed ironic

pro-life that support the death penalty. and those people who are pro-choice who oppose the death penalty. these reports are that these executions were botched. at the end of the day they theyy weren't there in just did not go according to plan. mr.ve to disagree with dieter. i think people may find the firing squad more palpable. in fronto was executed of a firing squad never caught fire like with the electric chair. they did not linger on. i wish mr. dieter would have provided more proof or evidence when he said that the firing squads don't go according to

plan. caller, i amst sure we could find marksman who would put the bullet where it needs to go. would go astrator quickly and as painlessly as possible. i do have to take exception with the second caller. what is wrong with the media going to the victims and the victims families? it seems we have more concern at the end of life for the criminal then those innocent victims. have a good weekend. host: the los angeles times have compiled other executions in the united states. the use of the firing squad has been used in three executions.

hanging by a neck in washington state. three executions. a gas chamber was used in the four states. that totals 11 executions. there are others. that is in the los angeles times. bobby from arizona is up next. the death penalty has never made sense in a sense that we use it to kill a murderer but family wants to see that person dead. i see that is a double-edged sword in a sense. they have the same hate or anger or rage that a killer had toward the victim. it doesn't make sense. they choose to have that type of hatred for another person. it is completely wrong to me. from aaron is joining us

portland, oregon. he is undecided. caller: good morning. a different view of this. this quickly turns into an emotional topic. people are dying and all of this. let's dof it more as punishment andal just give people life sentences. then the question becomes what our prisoners rights? we need to have that discussion. what are the financial prisonerss to keep incarcerated for life. , how muche, education solitary confinement?

if there istance is an overall push to do away with capital punishment, the corresponding discussion needs to be what our prisoners rights? that needs to be spearheaded at the national level. that is my stance of things. your thoughts on the death penalty. the lines are on the screen. calm is in california. caller: one of the things i want to point out is life is precious. .'ve also had people i think when someone takes a life, they forfeit their own life. of whetherhe concern

it is humane or inhumane, they have taken a life. they should be put to death immediately. round to the back of the head is very quick and concise. it is a deterrent. that is primarily it. thise that complain about man who killed three people did not die quickly enough. his body reacted poorly. this is all out of proportion and ridiculous. thank you for your time. alabama whoobert in opposes the death penalty, you're up next. haser: i don't think man

the power to take another man's life. i am against the death penalty. i don't think man has the authority to take another man's life. they don't give life. this is what they should do. they should have a place we could send them out into space and not kill them. let them die out there. that should go for all people. only by thebe taken one that is the giver. it is a different thing when it is self-defense. it is so contradictory. they are for life but they want the electric chair. against there electric chair want to kill.

this is a contradictory world in my opinion. attracted the european union. they put out a tweet saying we recognize the suffering of the victims but capital punishment can never be justified. andrta is in massachusetts is a supporter of the death penalty. ,aller: i certainly unequivocally support the death penalty. things.iscussion about anybody ist harms wrong. people like the man from arizona, why is there such a discussion. who cares? look what he did.

nobody should get a second chance that takes anybody's life. it is valid to be put to death because you know what it is all about if you choose that route in life. you should die in a way that is -- i woulde public like those collars what they would do if somebody that they unbelievably, so what would they think? dave is up next. he is undecided. caller: my concern with the death penalty is the justice system. many people have been wrongly convicted of murder. once they are put to death, it

is too late to fix it. that's it. host: how do you fix that? know if there is a way to fix the criminal justice system. there will always be people wrongly convicted. 100% correct,get how do you continue to put people to death when there is the possibility of someone being put to death who did not commit the crime? this is what is going on at the southern border. the president is floating a limited refugee plan and on honduras -- in honduras. story areghts of the

if you go to the new york times this morning, it looks at where migrant children are staying, most of the time they are staying with family and friends. texas and california and new york are key places. florida is also a place. children who are not able to find sponsors are placed in long-term shelters or foster care. have been placed in such care. the washington post talks about the efforts to find a deal with

the house and senate. the $4 billion, what is being done with it? this is charly from new york with thoughts on the death penalty. he labels himself a supporter. caller: you have got to love the media. education.tched i have a money idea for the states. you have a lottery. you pay $10 to buy a lottery ticket and the winner gets to pull it in the scumbags head.

this is from twitter. and he is from houston, texas. my phone does not cut off. i am against the death penalty. i am against it. i don't know what is wrong with .eople i think it is utterly evil. no other countries except third world countries and america. here.ome over

country. from that they come over here to support the people that have been killed in we are not saying that criminals should have more rights. it is evil to want to kill. i am in the medical field. that is why they are having so much suffering. how tonot figure out kill the people. we would have it. people play like they are christian. you are satanic if you want to kill somebody.

people -- we have killed a lot of people in texas and later on we find out they did not do the crime. i am sorry. i think people are just evil. host: let's hear next from jimmy. think all of those who -- against the death penalty everybody should see the pictures of the people who die needlessly from these evil people. they do these crimes to these people. then people stand behind them and say they should not be put

to death. that is evil walking this earth. you want to get rid of that. theybody should see pictures before they start condemning those who are in support of the death penalty. journal takes a look. host: some are saying that these up in state operated.

host: you can read more in the "washington journal." caller: how are you? host: fine, thank you.

caller: i recently had to put a family pet down the. a 13-year-old lab. i suggest the states that can't seem to get this done call a veterinarian. this was a painless process. the dog was deceased in about 20 minutes. once it was determined that was the best course of action. it's just beginning of entity of it. even a dog that can't be reclaimed after being taken from , dog fight club or something they don't suffer like this. my dog two hours to die, i would probably looking for a lawyer to sue that. vet.e the they sedated the dog, he was lying there is call missy could be. they gave him the second injection.

one small shutter. we are talking about a 65 pound dog. prisoner, adjust the dosage, and all of it goes away. if you have to do this stupid stuff, if we are going to be doing this, for god sakes -- there are better ways to do it. we're just not paying attention. if you dig your dog in, and had it put down, and it took two hours -- and the dog he did -- heaved, and foam, and looked like it was a more payment than it was when he brought it to the vet, this would be over in a week. host: we could make a better decision if these were not performed in relative secret. and --ed from richard richmond, virginia. caller: i'm a lot like this last caller.

they need to use in heroin or morphine, something proven. like you says, by the weight. and they need to clean up the court system. there is a lot of ego in these courts. these police and prosecutors, a want these convictions. the other thing is, in the king james -- am not sure on that, for my belief. but god does say that kidnapping, rape, and murder is much different than killing. he said if you have child rapists, you send them to me. and we play around with these people, with brains, and pills and stuff. we don't need those kinds of people running around hurting kids. host: there is a picture in the new york times this morning of rand paul addressing the

national urban league conference in cincinnati. that picture, according to the caption, says he drew a small crowd on friday. pauleadline says rand stands out in courting black voters. host: another story in the washington post this morning talks a little bit about the other topics we discussed herein .

host: he suggests that more .ouchers are needed caller: hello, and thanks for having me on. i'm a supporter of the death penalty in tennessee. we have a beautiful seven-year-old girl, who was raped and murdered. as a grandfather and a father, i think about my children, and what i would expect to see. i expect to see justice done.

and that is the death penalty. this guy is scheduled to be put to death. that's in october, in tennessee. stonework, then the electric -- if the thections don't work, electric chair will. i think it's time we put these people to rest. host: up next to cynthia, from new york, on our opposed line. caller: thank you for having me on. i wanted to address a couple of things other callers said. i understand the death penalty than a lot more per case giving someone imprisoned. like millions more. i think it's about our humanity. not about being humane to them, but our humanity. as is supposedly a christian company -- country. jews are supposed to follow the old covenant, christians are

supposed to follow the new covenant. it says turn the other cheek. i think as a society we have to ask ourselves if that is who we are as people. host: john mccain, as you probably remember talking about when we started the segment, politico has a story that expands on his thoughts. says i believe in the death penalty for certain crimes. but that is not the acceptable way of carrying them out. people should be held responsible, but lethal rejection -- and jackson -- -- that situation was torture. caller: i'm in support of the death penalty, and i wish they would start to enforce it. i think all of these people on death row -- i have a family number who was murdered by a serial killer in pennsylvania.

this was over 30 years ago, and the guys are still on death row. they killed a state cop, they killed two other people. says someone couldn't -- shouldn't suffer, i would watch these to suffer for days on end. they just annihilated these people for no reason. it was called jill for thrill murders. i would shoot them myself if i could. host: dolores, in tennessee. the opposed line. caller: i'm just calling to tell you that i don't believe in the death penalty. as a christian, we shouldn't be killing anybody. says that shall not kill. i believe we should lock up these people for the rest of their lives. that's just as much punishment

as being put to death. tot: other people have said that idea that locking up a person for life ultimately cost the state a lot of money. ultimately, that the long-term cost. caller: do we kill people because of the cost? no, i don't think we should kill. of the new york times this morning talk about the long-term unemployed.

host: tommy is up next. a supporter of the death healthy. caller: i support the death healthy. i -- penalty. you have people who have been on death row for 30 years. when they know they are guilty, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the even confess to it. i think they ought to waste no time, they ought to just take them out in a firing squad. of it immediately.

don't drag it out. --y spend all of this money the taxpayers do. to keep these people in prison, they drag it out in court. sure thatknow for they are guilty, they should take them immediately write out -- right out and take care of it. host: robert from brooklyn, new york. opposes the death penalty. caller: i oppose it but not for the usual reasons. if a policeman or someone closely connected -- host: robert, are you there? [no audio] let me put robert on hold, i can't hear him. let's try mel from birmingham, alabama. what i'm saying is, when

you know a person is guilty, you have with the dead rights. i think you should be put away. keep going. undecided on are whether they are guilty or not, i oppose the death penalty. but if you have a person that you know, and everybody knows, pulled the trigger, or whatever -- i think you should be put away. thank you. host: the headlines reflect recent news when it comes to foreign affairs. the cease-fire in gaza -- to sides agreeing in a short pause.

if you turn to the new york times asher russia. help for rebels in ukraine war. we will take a look at not only be specific instances, but the foreign-policy challenges that faces the administration in dealing with these challenges. we are taking your calls on the death penalty. this execution that took place in arizona, where to two hours or the convicted murderer to die. you can comment on that, or the death penalty overall. allen, a supporter of the death penalty. caller: i am very pro-death penalty. i am also a christian. i believe that the old testament was an excellent way to take care of murderers. personally, i think the best way to do it would be to have the victims executed exactly -- have

the murderer executed exactly the way they did the victims. i'm sure you could find plenty of volunteers to do the job. host: one more call. as will be from dave, in fort myers, florida. he is undecided. guess this is obama's fault too?\ host: we will have a discussion taking a look at issues of foreign-policy, especially in light of recent events. herman pirchner from the n policy foreig later,, and it -- 17 ignitesu.s. -- mh a debate on whether commercial flight should have defense systems. on-air newsmakers program, which

it is he tomorrow, right after our program -- our death -- guest is the customs and border protection commissioner. he is talking about what will happen to the agency's ability to function at the border if congress can't agree on a budget increase before the break. [video clip] >> we have concerns about that. we have expended quite a bit of money. we have surged border patrol resources. they come in at a temporary cost. we have to pay for all of that. we have been paying contract services for transportation for food, etc.. for the rest of the part of homeland security, they have had off, have the department of human services. we need the money to continue operating the way we are. >> if the department doesn't get the supplemental budget request, what happens?

what kicks into gear? do border patrol agent go home, do we see a dramatic shift in letting folks roam about as they want? what are the real technical implications? >> when we begin to run out of money, we have to do reprogramming. in the event that the , welemental is not passed will have to reprogram some very important positions. we have a lot of things going on in customs and border protection. and of course, the issues are not just about the protection of the southwest border. and cargo.rade we have huge investments in technology to speed up people traveling. technology advancements, cargo advancements, there is money in those programs. we would need to reprogram to keep the protection that is going on right now on the

southwest border. >> can you be more specific of what the impact would be if they run out of money before congress acts? narrower than the larger supplemental request. it's around $4 million. we are in the process of examining the program where we would actually have to take money from them in order to continue and to pay the cost that we have already incurred. >> $400 million will have to come out of screening trust? ofit has to come out different places. important programs that congress has already approved, that are valuable not only to protection but the nations economy. >> washington journal continues. next hour,he discussion of foreign-policy challenges for the obama administration. we will take a look at several specific instances. advisor with is an the national security project. also joining us is herman pirchner.

thanks for coming in. we have specific instances we will look at and talk about. currently, what's going on in the middle east with gaza and ukraine. ultimately, with all these things combining in the last couple of weeks, what does this say that only about the foreign-policy challenges, but how the demonstration handles these challenges? guest: i think the problems the administration faces now has their roots over a. ofyears -- over a period years. i threatened guarantees are not believed. signed an agreement with ukraine guaranteeing their borders. we have not done that. we had a redline in syria. we didn't enforce it. there are many other instances along this line. have an administration whose friends don't believe it, whose enemies don't believe it, diplomacy, and our

ability to maneuver is reduced. host: because we haven't engaged in our promises -- haven't kept our guarantees, we haven't kept our threats. host: mr. jacobson. guest: i have a different view. i think if you take a look at what the united states has been able to do since 2008. let's just look at this administration. we have been able to prosecute a war in afghanistan that was extreme a complex. the afghans are now starting to take responsibility for their own security. in terms of the nato alliance in europe, not only have we seen that action in afghanistan, but you also saw successful prosecution of the war in libya. you still have continuing problems. i think libya is a great example of this. it demonstrates that the challenges you face today cannot just be handled by a short, sharp, shock to the system.

it has to be longer term approaches to some of these problems. theink u.s. credibility in world remains a strong as it has been in the past. i think there are some challenges, when it comes to working with our allies in order to get conference of approaches to some of these challenges. the number of problems you have going on in the world that impact regional and global stability. ukraine, gaza, steer your, a rock -- iraq. that's challenging not to just the united states, but the overall ability of united system as a whole. guest: recently, the foreign minister of poland said that u.s. guarantees aren't worth anything. and maybe they are dangerous because we believe that the u.s. will do something we are not prepared to do. this is an attitude that many of our allies have worldwide.

remove gaddafi from power. he made a deal to get rid of his weapons of mass destruction. everybody that wants to cut a deal with the u.s. now will look at how he ended up, and want to avoid a similar situation. the cap control over the weapons details. are spread out. i'm not sure if it was a successful operation in terms of achieving a better outcome for stability in the world. host: to pick up on this work or see comments. guest: i heard those as well. i just got back from poland. we can't just rely on the united states. we have to make sure that our own polish defense of the structure is there. we are dealing with a future

where european nation can't simply arrest on the u.s. underwriting security. this is something that former secretary gates has said. there's a burden that europe must share in their own defense. especially given the situation in ukraine over the last several months. many european nations are starting to pick up on this. they have to enhance their own capabilities for collective defense as well. host: is it fair to say they will look to the u.s. or leadership? guest: they certainly look to the u.s. for how to go forward. there are some days that we feel like the u.s. is dragging the europeans kicking and screaming towards further investment in defense, especially when you look at long-term research and development, and acquisition to replace aging equipment. in the european defense budget,

they simply haven't covered that over the last 15 to 20 years. host: as far as the ability of leadership, you suggest reading everybody else in to help engage the world? guest: we certainly need to do that. the u.s. can't solve all the problems in the world by itself. we need allies. we have to find ways to look after their interests. resolve, to of u.s. my mind, remains number one. there was a washington post editorial on thursday that talked about democratic heads of national security committee is of the senate. saying that more had to be done in ukraine. of the the inability obama administration to match its words with deeds is dangerous. that is being fought by democrats as well as republicans.

host: archer guest joining us to talk about specifics, they will join us. if you want to comment or ask them questions about foreign affairs, here's a chance to do so. ,emocrats, call (202) 585-3880 republicans, call (202) 585-3881 , independents, call (202) 585-3882. if you want to make your thoughts known on twitter, feel free to do that. @cspanwj. the truman national security project was founded back in 2005. it helps demonstrate the idea that it's possible to be progressive and a patriot. there's been a myth -- if you go to harry truman being attacked for being soft on

communism. there is been a myth that democrats can't be strong on national defense. the truman project has helped ande a progressive proactive defense policy platform. it has also been able to attract a number of veterans and tackle such as greenes energy and security. it's very important to have sustainable energy resources in this nation. it's a national security issue. veterans issues as well. making sure there is appropriate levels of funding for our veterans. and making sure that the next generation stays engaged in international security issues. that's really the raison d'être of the project. host: a little bit about your organization. guest: it was founded in 1982. our main areas of interest are former soviet union, china, ofia, the broad question islam the schism worldwide, and the intersection of high-tech and national security.

our mission statement is to bring primary source information to those who make or influence foreign policy in the u.s.. to that end, we spend a lot of time -- you can't learn the world from press releases. host: your questions coming in. we will start from ed, in jacksonville. mr.er: my question is for herman. it seems the republicans tend to view ofave a very vague what they think obama should do. i want to know from his perspective -- it appears they just find a way to be against. they never really put a perspective out there as far as what they would actually do. they think in very broad terms. i believe obama came out and

sayd cancer, and they would he never did anything for heart patients. what does he think, as an american, what does he think that obama should do about the issues he has a problem with? guest: i will start out by inherited a big mess in the world when he came in. having said that, if you want a list of things you should have done differently -- if you draw that redline, you have to enforce it. if you draw it, you have to enforce it. when he first came in office, he gave up missile defenses in poland without getting anything back from the russians. away the works and nafta trade. i think he hasn't been especially good on the bargaining table. i think it's awful response a tougher ukraine --

response earlier in ukraine may have had an effect on the russians. david, schenectady, new york. independents line. theer: i would like to make comment that evil and tyrants rule by fear. if the world is in fear is, i think that's a good thing. democracies and brave people lead by example. they take the risk that comes in the world today. host: mr. jacobson. guest: i think absolutely, it is possible to be feared in the world. but you need to be feared and respected. i think that is the strength of the united states. respected for our values, we are respected for what we do around the world. you've seen the u.s. military, over the course of our history, go in and defend people around the globe. and never four inch of territory. an inch ofr territory.

that includes when you take a look at the situations we are currently involved in. i would also add, diplomatic action can be equally as effective. in discussing ukraine, i think the obama administration has shown it that targeted and sectoral sanctions can be particularly effective. vladimir putin is on his back feet right now. you see him lashing out. we see reports of russian artillery sells -- shells being washed across the border. as is how effective diplomatic action can be. the europeans will jump on board with larger sectoral sanctions. host: the targeting of sanctions that russia was part of the meeting at the white house. here are some of his thoughts, we will get your reaction. [video clip] what we have seen is that there were heavy weapons moved from russia to ukraine. they have moved into the hands of separatist leaders.

the separatists, and were backed by the russians, were trained by the russians use those systems. the systems include antiaircraft weapons systems. according to social media reports, those weapons include the essay 11 system. we also know the malaysian airlines jet was brought down by a missile that was fired from the ground. it was fired from the ground in an area that was controlled by separatists. in an area that the ukrainians themselves were not actually operating antiaircraft weapons at that time. why we have concluded that vladimir putin and the russians are culpable for this tragedy. when he uses the word culpable, what does that mean to you? guest: there is no doubt that with the russians have done in terms of farming the separatists

with advanced weaponry, especially the ground air systems, is utterly irresponsible. situation that was created i the resulted in the downing of mh 17 is something that the russians will have to pay for for a long time. i think this will require not just an investigation, but agreement between the united states and its european allies that there needs to be another targetednot just sanctions on individuals, but sectoral sanctions on the energy sector, and on the aerospace and defense industry in particular. host: would you agree? guest: i would agree with everything the mark said. there is equipment that has not gone as quickly to ukraine as it should has. that the of weaponry

u.s. sends should be upgraded, the letter ofs of feinstein amendment does. we're not giving them enough, and what we have promised to give, we are giving slowly. it is dangerous to be so slow. host: henry, from michigan. go ahead. caller: good morning. i think that mr. herman pirchner forgets that the world sat up we had and while administration that lied us into a war, to invade a country that did nothing to us, and a rack -- have the enemy that we 24-7, asch is 20 47 -- we call our president weak and

feckless, into every manner of treason to our country and our president. and wethere is a people, do not support our president. the enemy sees this. the right wing has boosted vladimir putin, elevated him to heights as some strong leader. he actually support this tyrants. the right wing republicans are responsible for the mess that we are in as far as credibility on the world stage. they voted twice for george w. bush, who plunged us into the depths of depravity, poverty. our country is broke. everybody knows we're broke. host: caller, thanks. -- thethe chris it criticism of president obama is not coming just from republican sources. i read last thursday's editorial in the "washington post." senators, inc

addition to ones that i have mentioned, you will understand that obamas foreign policy is being judged as ineffectual. it is being judged as weak. it is being judged as dangerous. it's not just republicans. mr. jacobson, a lot of people will say iraq caused a lot of tension. will that be the scale in which we are judged? guest: i think it will be engaged in that way. the same as the vietnam war was for generation or two. that's something we have to live with. not everything about that war is necessarily a bad thing. i wonder if we could have been as successful in terms of prosecuting the counterinsurgency tempe in afghanistan is now -- if not for the unfortunate lessons we learned. we will have to deal with the negative aspects of that legacy. we talked about credibility.

i think the going into war in iraq in 2003 was done in such a way that there is a credibility deficit that we still had overcome. if i could, just one point on congress as well. there is nothing wrong with congress objecting to a present foreign policy. you can't make foreign policy in the executive branch alone. i think what is disturbing is the dysfunction in the relationship between the white house and congress. that makes it much harder to do things like take sure that their programs that enable us to arm and develop the ukrainian military. programs that the immigration an enhancedup counterterrorism assistance program run the world. you need congress to support on that as well. without that, it will be very difficult to have a coherent and effective program to deal with the challenges we have in the world. host: your response? guest: when i was still on

senate staff, there was good bipartisan cooperation. that necessitates hands going both ways. when i look at the first obama administration, not a single democratic senator was invited to the living quarters of the white house. much less republican senators. it takes a great amount of back-and-forth to make the bipartisanship work. bill clinton and newt gingrich spent hundreds of hours talking. they fought, they disagree, but at least they understood where the common ground was when the deal needed to be cut. that isn't happening now. independentson line. ofler: i have a couple comments. what we have going on in this country today goes back 40 to 50 not doingongress

their jobs, and the president not doing their jobs. been for great presidents, and that's washington, lincoln, roosevelt, and eisenhower. i have some questions here. would think a third party come close to straightening this thing out? also, tax code needs to be changed. you think we will get rate change on that? campaign reform, do you think we will ever see that? sticking to the subject, what would you like art guest to address on foreign policy? i have not too much to say today about that. there's so much going on that i really can't keep up with it. up.ll hang another thing, our congress is working like 13 weeks out of the year. marylan,'s go to

dallas, texas. caller: my comment is directed towards mr. herman pirchner. regarding his comment of criticism from democratic leaders. we could just take that with a grain of salt. we know this is reelection time. it's hard for me to understand it why some people criticize president obama for his trying to clean up all the policies and problems that we're having now. from the bush ministry should. -- administration. it is evident that the republicans don't want to work with president obama. it was clear from day one. when they had the meeting that they decided to block everything he wanted to do. so it's not just on the obama list ration -- administration. him into aut

position where he is really having to clean up everything that was already put into place. guest: i think i already said that the obama administration inherited a lot of difficult problems in the world. the question of libya, the question of ukraine, the question of chinese claims on islands in the east and south china sea. these are all problems that have largely developed under obamas watch. he gets full credit for some of the problems, only partial credit for others. host: thoughts on the past couple of callers? caller: i think there is one area that i would like to see the demonstration kind of push a little bit more. guest: let's look at a more holistic way. it's not just the individual problems. we do have instability in the world. there has been some the system from former officials for need for a grand strategy.

we're still awaiting a new national security strategy to be released. i think the dissertation is dealing with a world that is much different from any other present administration has had to deal with. it's not just the level of instability in the number of problems. the world is changing in terms of the internet revolution. the flow of information. you have competition in cyberspace now. i think they have done a decent job grasping those challenges. what i would like to see kind of a more holistic view, or statement of grand strategy. something that helps the administration explained to the american public what it is trying to do. that could help with the perception problems. a column this week taking a look at foreign policy says obama must match his clarity about the limits on what the .nited states can do

perception problems get back to one of the problems that caller did raise. generation,r next our elementary and high school students, our college students, in terms of their understanding of america's role in the world. and understanding history. where is it that our nation came from? i think this is a challenge that goes beyond the traditional foreign policy once. without proper education, it will be very difficult for the next generations to compete in the world. host: how does the president look in these types of situations? he has always been described as cool, no drama obama. president has been very effective at showing that he is calm, cool, and elected. i like no drama obama. i think that is what it world leader needs to do.

see these rare times where maybe he raises his tone a little bit, or looks a bit more argumentative, we understand the seriousness of the situation he is talking about. i think we have seen this in regards to syria last year. i think we saw with regards ukraine. i think we have seen it with regards to the current situation in israel and gaza. what i also think is that the perception that you have from abroad they sometimes be different than the perception you have in the united states, outside the beltway. these are three very different environments. the biggest challenges the perception of the president actions outside the beltway, and in the rest of the united states. i think that is the biggest challenge for the white house. guest: i agree that is the biggest challenge. you have a gallup poll that shows 33% of democrats thought the obama administration is not competent. independentsy of and republicans holding the same view.

i think the gap between words and deeds is starting to place a heavy toll on this administration's credibility. host: from carlisle, pennsylvania on the republican line. caller: good morning. i just wanted to call and say it is getting so old to hear from all the democrats the blame the bush thing. been in office for six years and did nothing but lame bush. -- blame bush. bush inherited problems too. clinton had the opportunity to take him out, he didn't do it. nobody talks about that much. blaming bush isn't going to solve things. mark just said a lot of things, but most of it was wrong. obama needs to explain his foreign-policy. the problem with that is, he doesn't have one.

he has no foreign-policy. how can you explain something you don't understand. guest: i think the president has been very clear. we're going to transfer control of security to the afghan people. we have seen two successful rounds of elections. in iraq, just in the last couple of weeks, we've seen a return to the dull roar that we had previously. you know how the kurdish president lays -- you now have a kurdish president in place. there are still challenges ahead, but the president has been clear on that. getting our european allies to come on board, although not as quickly as we need them to do in regards to sanctions in ukraine. the news thein last couple of weeks is that the chemical weapons in syria are continuing to come out. secretary john kerry has spent -- he is basically living in the

middle east right now, doing exactly what the president expects the secretary of state to do and try to bring some resolution to conflict there. has beenhe president clear on what united states needs to do, and fairly successful in accomplishing that. host: what about the blame bush thing? guest: i think there is no doubt that the decision to go toward iraq was the greatest urge egypt area -- greatest strategic error we have made. i think the impact of that is still being felt today. i don't get the sense, even walking around on capitol hill, is all about blaming bush. it does put some problems in the context. i think we are well beyond that. we shouldn't forget where we came from. host: dan, from pennsylvania. caller: good morning. it's dan, for massachusetts. host: i'm sorry.

caller: for outside of the beltway, i think a lot of the reason why the numbers are so country,think our left by they, has wayside the rule of law. very basically. there is no jurisprudence anymore. we have this thing happen in boston, where now thought crime -- you can be guilty of thought crime and look at 25 years. our president has the ability to invade foreign countries at his discretion. by law. the president of the united states is allowed to detain them , torture, and put away forever an american citizen without revisitation. i think the frustration for the american people is pretty basic. it goes right on the

constitution, and the violations we have seen of the constitution. just like we have let wall street run amok and do what they want with our money, our government has run amok. want to make a quick comment on mark's statements. the situation in iraq is worse than it was when obama came into office. the situation with russia's worst. the situation in syria is worse, and in other places. he may have clear statement of what he wants to do, but he hasn't delivered. question ofto the lawlessness -- 1.i would like to make is the role of congress in the declaring the war. we have gotten away from the votes in congress to declare

war. beasley, if the u.s. is attacked, the u.s. president has to to have the of billy to react. using're going to be drones in libya, if you are going to go in at a time of your choosing in iraq, to my mind, we should have a congressional vote on it. not just because of the constitution, but because you 's supportve a nation to use armed force abroad. if you can make the case to congress, maybe it's not strong enough to go to war. host: the state department has evacuated the embassy in libya. this gets to something harman just said. the way wars are fought today, it's different than they were fought previously. talking aboutst

situations where tanks roll across borders and wars declared. you were talking about insurgencies, you are talking about transnational threats such as terrorism. libya represents a situation where you had a short-term in 2010. back but what you also had were these long-term stability challenges. if there is to be criticism of what the united states and europeans have tried to do in libya, it is again a lack of a long-term stabilization strategy. i think the violence we are seeing there is reflective of the fact that you can't just go in short term without the long-term plans. now, to be demonstrations credit, there has been discussion on how to enhance libyan security forces. expect continued libyanlity until

security pressures can help establish the rule of law. first you will have to see security sector reform -- were providing training and programming, making sure that they understand civilian control of the military. perhaps more important, to visual sector reform. governance reform. blames -- theow libyans to develop dispute resolution. development program sponsored not just by the united states, but perhaps even more importantly, due to their proximity, the european organizations. the eu development agencies. those from the individual european nations. guest: gaddafi was a horrible guy. what has come after him was worse. for you intervene in a country, you should have thought through the end game. i don't think we did that in

libya. we are paying the price for it now. host: what should be done going forward? guest: there's not a good answer anymore. we're between bad answers and good answers -- bad answers and worse answers. we have to wait for someone to rise in libya who can restore within broad acceptability in human rights terms. i don't see that person on the scene now. host: two guest joining us to talk about foreign policy, you heard from herman pirchner, also joining us this morning mark jacobson. wisconsin next, here's tracy. caller: good morning. i distinctly remember when the president was ready to strike syria, the outcry from congress. it prevented him from doing so. a lot of republicans also. all the problems that are going on now, people still

don't like republicans anymore. he's still pulling twice as good as republicans in congress. we were speaking before about the percentage of americans who favor or don't approve of the obama foreign-policy. 66% being ink favors a number i would be happy with. surprised, even how complex the situations are the world, if you had 80 or 90% approval. there was a poll done in the last year where american said they didn't want to be as engaged in the world, but wanted the president to do more. i think that is reflective of the schizophrenia that we have in our nation. we know that we have to stay involved in the world, we're just concerned about the problems we have at home. i think this tension back and forth you see played out not just within the halls of congress, but within the media.

we are constantly trying to find that balance. guest: the question of serious could can argue that you draw the red line, or not draw the red line. but when you draw it, you have to enforce it. when you don't, your diplomacy is insignificant. reflectst one instance any foreign-policy decision going forward? guest: it's part of a pattern. incident, an isolated maybe you could skate. the when you have five or six incidents that are related like that, everyone looks at them. everyone who is a transnational actor or another country that they thinkica ill, maybe i can act against u.s. interests and nothing will happen to me. host: is that a concern? guest: i think there is a specific concern in terms of how the syrian opposition view the united states after that

situation. i think we did take a hit in terms of the syrian opposition's belief that they had the support of the united states. however, if you take a look at the bigger picture, the ability -- by not attacking the united positionhey are in a where they were able to get rid of the chemical weapons in syria. that's the bigger issue. i think that is the more important challenge for right now. it doesn't mean the civil war is over in syria. but i think this ended up in the long term being a better course of action, despite a short-term hit. guest: there is some doubt that all of the chemical weapons have all left. ones that are declared, we sure declared everything? guest: i think having individuals on the ground, being able to work with opcw will be important.

i would rather have people and then watching it from the outside we have limited access. guest: we are getting as much out as we can, but i doubt that assad give him everything. host: jim, on the republican line. think one of the places that obama has dropped theyall is the fact that have given up on the whole concept of educating women in the third world. do getting their men not to the circumcision's on them, and things like that. this new crew that is running things in the middle east seems to be more from the fourth century that is from the current day. the bush administration had programs in afghanistan to try and educate girls. they tried to push this all across the middle east. you don't hear anything about it. wasfirst lady who, laura, quite involved in that program. all michelle is involved with is

trying to get kids to throw their lunch in the trash at school. sad that this guy just has no clue. it seems like all the people in washington just might as well be trained seals balancing a ball on their nose, the way they worship this guy. the country sees this guy is a total of and an incompetent. it just doesn't crack through that mentality of the beltway. host: women's programs, and education, things like that. guest: i think he is spot on. the one country a have hope for big is tunisia. i think the majority of graduates in tunisia are women. they have 80% homeownership. they are very much in the of establishing what looks like a real democracy in that country. guest: i actually think the

caller is unfair, if you take a look at hillary rodham clinton. this was an extremely important part of her platform. i think the president supported that as well. not just in the middle east, but if you take a look at africa and central america as well. womening girls and actually can have very positive effect on security and stability in countries. host: diego, california. democrat line. caller: good morning. i don't know where to begin. one of the first callers made a comment that -- something to the if president obama said the sky was blue, the republicans would say it is red. nothing thate that president obama does they agree with. even though they might agree with it.

they have fought him tooth and nail. president obama has reached out his hand to get along with them, and to find compromise. and it is always no, no, no from republicans. i wanted to bring up osama bin laden. i remember when they decided it was going to be a kill mission. they got on president obama's case, said they didn't keep him alive to get more intel from him. they would've kept him alive, they would have asked president obama for killing him. -- one last thing. host: you have put out a lot of things. overwhelmingk the amount of republicans in this country congratulated him on successfully killing bin laden.

there are other instances where republicans have been -- have praised obama. but we don't agree with him that much on most things. guest: i'm concerned about the lack of a bipartisan approach, particularly on foreign affairs and national defense issues. there was an excellent article written last year by gary schmitt. congress's lack of depth when it comes to foreign-policy. this is on both sides of the aisle. i find it particularly concerning on the republican side in the house. membersou need more like ted deutch from florida. ed royce from california. a democrat and republicans effectively. we need to build the next generation in the senate. when people retire, who'll you have takeover? you see senators like mccain and graham very engaged on the republican side, but i worry these are the the exceptions

rather than the rule in congress. without a congress that understands the world, there is again, no way we're going guest: there was an bipartisan tradition in congress. 1970's therelate was a bipartisan foreign relations committee. you had very good cross relations. these are broken down to the detriment of cooperation and foreign affairs as well as other questions. i can remember a democrat chairman of the senate services we have but one president. when he leaves the country you're not going to hear criticism. that tradition is gone. it is not good for the country. host: how do we get it back?

i think herman is right. that has eroded over decades. i think what you see now is a tendance that when you leave the waters edge to attack this president. he has been attacked members who are overseas. i think what you have to do is give members of congress a chance to gather off the hill and quietly and with experts to have time for the sorts of discussions that promote a free exchange of ideas and a frank discussion without them being in the newspaper the next day. a lot of people are scared that any sort of discussion that they have where they may throw out an idea or wonder why things happen the way they do is going to end up being blasted all over the media is some indication of

their views. i think that is a problem in this town. guest: absolutely. a time to funde raise. they socialized with each other. they talked informally. that social interaction that permits friendships to develop that have an understanding of where you can compromise and makes it harder for somebody to say something that can't be taken back, that is gone and needs to be created. host: this is dan from north carolina. caller: hello. i have a question that does pertain to foreign policy more than political victory. u.n.estion is about the countries and the financial support that we give to foreign governments. i hear a lot of this outside.

the millions and billions that we give to foreign they downgrade western civilization. voting on various things in the u.n., they vote against us 80 percent of the time. we still fund these governments. we are funding people who are going to be our future enemies. what is our benefit in this? don't think the administration can be blamed. believes, the public we spend 25% of our budget on foreign aid. they would be satisfied with about 10%. the reality is we spent about 1.5% of our budget on foreign aid. it is not a great deal of money

that can have a tremendous impact overseas. there could be criticism of where you spend the aid and how much should be spent on judicial sector reform. it is a very modest amount of is being used in terms of foreign aid. we have tohat understand the united nations is the only international forum we have in the world. we can get together and discuss issues. it is our u.n. in a lot of ways. the unitedeated by states. we take a look at our role in the security council. while it is not always effective, we have problems with the chinese and russians blocking things, there are more times when it works.

it can be a very effective political tool for the united states to accomplish its foreign-policy objections -- objectives. guest: it can be effective and there is no alternative to it. , going back to and jeanne kirkpatrick was there she had a scorecard for how many times a country voted with the u.s. and against. i think that should be a factor in determining how much aid goes to a country. i would also think that foreign more closely tied more poll togive our ambassadors. john kerry isy, in paris to talk about what is going on in gaza. what does he face and what is the resolve? he faces the situation of

less influence on the diplomatic table than it did. being ableviewed as to carry through on threats or two stand behind guarantees. kerry's think that john challenge remains israel and hamas. it is not so much the europeans in this case. needed. leadership is i think it has been demonstrated. the secretary has been in the region for as long as he has, we will see how this will lower cease-fire holds. there are efforts for a cease-fire of several weeks. this is going to require restraint on the part of israel and is going to require hamas to stop firing rockets. this is something that needs to be resolved without u.s. involvement? guest: i don't think they do it

without u.s. involvement. tohink unite states has remain actively engaged. guest: it is not solvable in the long run without a change in hamas's ideology. it is an islamicist movement. they have critical master problems. a bunch ofbout buddhists overrun in thailand. we know it they have done in egypt against christians. thereve a country where are no muslim populations to minority muslim sects are targeted. it they are of that ideology. as long as that remains intact, israel has a problem. host: this was brought up this week and hearing at the state

department. they were talking about what is going on in iraq and iran. this is some of the comment. >> should there be any question about the intention of this group, read what the leader says. it is important to pay attention to what he says because we cannot risk underestimating the goals and reach of this organization. he eulogized the death of osama bin laden and asked a violent response. there are training camps named after osama bin laden. he has failed threats against united states promising a direct confrontation. he clearly is seeking to lead the global jihad. a terroristger organization, it is a full-blown army seeking a self-governing

state. if this is the case, one of the challenges going forward. we spoke about them being the greatest homeland security threat because this is no longer just an iraq phenomenon. you're talking about a transnational problem. they are in syria as well. whoern passport holders joined this movement can transit more easily back into europe and north america than in iterations of al qaeda have been able to do. the challenge here is understanding that we are not going to be able to deal with or syriaraq alone alone. there has to be a regional

approach to this extremism. host: will there be more of the u.s. presence going forward? guest: i do get means more u.s. activity going forward. it is more important to strengthen the security institutions of the host nation or of the nations in the region than it is to put our own boots on the ground. advocate ofe as an a security forces system, it is more effective in the long term. guest: it is not just a regional problem. edison international problem. until we deal with the phenomenon of islamism worldwide we are not going to come to grips with the problem. a main transiten point for foreign fighters during the fight with isis. host: this is al from minnesota.

caller: thank you for having me on this morning. independent thinker, i can clearly see what is going on. the facts are we have a policy that has been a disaster for us. we can start from the facts. we had an ambassador who was tortured and beaten along with several marines under the obama administration. system of hamas that is growing in power and control over regions in that area. we can clearly see the weapons they are gaining in the area of control they are taking over. you can clearly see that we have broken promises by this

president. other democrat presidents have held on to those promises. this president decided he is not going to do that. we can look at our own borders, where obama is allowing millions to stream across our borders and collect our benefits so that he can get them to be democratic voters in the next election campaign. guest: i would like to take issue with this president doing a great deal and been exceptional in terms of taking care of our men and women in union -- uniform and our diplomats. one of the changes in the 21st-century world is it is inherently dangerous for civilians to be overseas.

they don't necessarily have a veterans administration to fall back on. oh diplomats like christopher stevens gave their lives in the service of their nation much in the same way that our men and women in uniform do. i think to respect that service and understand that it is inherently dangerous and people are going to be killed in the line of duty no matter what uniform they wear is something we have to understand as a nation. oregon, victoria, you are on. registered nurse. my husband has a purple heart. when we talk about wars and credibility gaps, the last justified war was world war ii. in vietnam he had 60,000 young men and women killed. to walmart andgo

buy cheap shirts that are made in vietnam. my dad was a cheap of security when they were building the pipeline. he was in saudi arabia. host: what would you like for our guests to address? we were never loved in the middle east. the less we do their i think the better. host: let's take one more call. caller: good morning. one of the college before me touched on what i have the say. when you look at foreign policy, when we can't even control our southern border i don't know it at the authority to make care of the rest of the world. these countries that are pouring these people into us. and at had a president conference with leaders of those

countries and they come away criticizing us when we give them money. it is our money that we work for. they give it to him and they criticize us. we need to wrap up. thiso we gauge if administration is successful and laying the challenges of foreign policy? specifically in ukraine of the middle east. itst: you have to take country by country. if you have russian tanks rolling into kiev, that would be a failure. if ukraine is restored that is a success. isis, have defeats of that's a success. if they create an islamic state that launches international terror, that's a failure.

benchmarks that can be set up worldwide. guest: i would add that we have to get beyond looking for solutions within a election cycles. on the house side they are looking what can be done in two years and in the senate in six years and the white house than four and eight. you can have short term metrics for success. these are going to be challenges over the long term and we have to understand that to deal with the situation in the middle east and develop our situation in asia and on the u.s. border requires many years of involvement. we have to learn as an engaged public to be more patient about those long-term solutions. host: we are talking about foreign-policy issues. thank you. of thee downing

malaysian airliner, there is a debate over whether u.s. commercial planes should be equipped with antimissile systems. tim starks will be here. "washington journal" continues after this. ♪ >> she is our guest on q&a. with thee dealing daily tyranny of the inbox. you are focused on the crisis of the day. part of my responsibility was representing the secretary of defense on the deputies committee. it is the senior level group that works on the issues and develops options for the president. there is a lot of crisis management focus.

your real utility is not trying to second-guess the policymaker on the issues of the day. it helps to do work to raise their gate and see them look over the horizon. how do i think more strategically about america's role? sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span. month, former congressman ron paul. he has written more than one dozen books. his latest is on the education system. he will take your calls and e-mails for three hours on sunday, august 3 at noon eastern.

a supreme court expert will look at court sessions. american enterprise institute arthur brooks in december. this is television for serious readers. 40 years ago the watergate scandal led to the only resignation of an american president. revisitshistory tv 1974 in the final weeks of the nixon administration. chargesciary committee abuse of power. what the framers had in mind. he of questions about what the activities that had been found out by the committee and by the senate were indeed impeachable. can we prove that richard nixon knew about them and even

authorize them? , 40 years later on american history tv on c-span three. washington journal continues. our next guest is tim starks. he is a writer for roll call. he covers the intelligence and defense industries. thank you so much for joining us us morning. you're here to talk about the debate over whether or not commercial airlines should have ini-missile defense systems the wake of the downing of the malaysian airline. no one wants something like this to happen. update us from the state of play in washington. something ofs been

a dormant issue. for the last several years, congress has cut off major funding for these kinds of defenses. it is been revised because of those concerns you just cited. you saw senator mark kirk say we need to do something to prevent these kinds of attacks. you've seen people who were pushing it shortly after 9/11 and then revised their calls. not gotten to the point of major momentum yet. it is starting to percolate again on capitol hill. host: we have a quote from senator kirk. we can't hide. we need to think about how to defeat this threat technically.

we should let them make the decision as they are booking. that would restore a lot of confidence in the system. faa toushing the encourage airlines to do this. how much power does the faa have? how much would have to move through congress for any change in defense systems to occur? the question of who would fund it is an issue that has to be resolved by congress. regulations, i do think the faa could do it on its own and mandate that the airlines do this. to intervene on the money and the regulatory side. host: let's explain how these antimissile systems work. can you explain to us the technology? guest: there are a variety of

different technologies. that are not even on the planes. how do you counter these kinds of attacks? we havercial airliners examples of them being used on air force one. infraredirectional countermeasure. it is a laser that jams the guidance system of an incoming missile. it would send it would send of course. there are heated flares that would distract the heatseeking guidance system of the muscle. those are examples of ones that would defend against against shoulder fired missiles which are not the ones that shot down and make 17.

-- the malaysian airline. we have aluminum foil pieces that you dropped from a plane in a cloud. it distracts the radar guided missiles. there is a coded decoy hitched to a wire the distracts the radar guided missile systems. depending on what kind you are talking about, different systems work than other kinds of systems. there is a different kind of shoulder fired missile that doesn't use radar or doesn't use heatseeking as its guidance system. there are laser beam writers. they's are the harder to defeat. they are the less common out there.

the defenses against those are harder. when we are looking at the kinds tothings that would respond radar guided missiles, you he put some of those in place and would be difficult for a commercial airliner to do the next thing to avoid those kinds of missiles. you need to maneuver. in the military are quite capable of defending against that kind of attack. it is not easy. they are able to outrun the missiles more or less. a commercial airliner cannot do that. that is the major problems. a shoulder fired missile attack is easy to defend against. there are downsides to all of these technologies. host: it sounds like there are

multiple threats and systems to defend against them. this is all insanely complicated. how much training with the commercial pilots need in order deployge or deploring -- these? guest: some of them are fairly automatic. it is active and detecting the threat by itself. there are other kinds of systems you would need to have something on board alerting the pilot what was happening. then they can act by dropping flares. that might be relatively easy. it is not something the airlines are eager to add to their list of responsibilities for pilots. it would be something that would require additional effort them to get up to speed on.

all of these systems might affect the maneuverability of the plane. you're adding some into the outside of it. that is another issue as well. host: do these technologies by time? or do some of them the flex the missile altogether? guest: the laser system which you do missile off course. question what happens to the missile after it does at the plane. that is a legitimate safety concern. it the flares would distract away. there would be a what happens after in some cases. it would not be as much of what the pilot does. and jamssystem reacts the missile or distracts the missile for a shoulder fired missile, there's not much more the pilot has to do. if you're talking about the kind of missile that shot down the pilotian airliner, the

would have to maneuver the plane like a fighter jet and a commercial plane cannot do that. host: you can join the conversation. we are going to go for it our first color. that is catherine from ohio on the democratic line. caller: good morning. my question is how would you pay for it? we refuse to pay for everything. how would we pay? with the taxpayer pay for it. i am sure a rich man would never pay for it. he would want a poor person who makes minimum wage to pay for it. it all sounds good. i think we are way ahead of ourselves. if we would as a world leader

column down and stop saying that war is the answer, war is not always the answer. sometimes it is best to have a civil conversation. guest: that is the question actually of what we have not done this yet. there are a number of related questions. the biggest one is cost. there was an estimate by the government that doing this would cost $43 billion over 20 years. the cost would eventually go down as we got the technology better. not decided or put the focus on the budget. funding endedthe for the program. there was a real focus on the cost. some of the companies were

saying it sounds like an awful lot of money. you are talking about one dollar extra per ticket. the airlines did not like that idea. they tend to not like the idea of costs they're not impose themselves. that was a real hold. the taxpayer issue would be a big win. it isgress funded this, not funding a lot of programs at $43 billion. that was a huge issue. there are a lot of issues as to why this did not happen. there are issues of life -- reliability. if you edit the reliability and the cost and the nature of the threat and some say she -- safety issues, that is where it got derailed. not getting into the war issue is much, one of the things people talk about and the best

way to not have this situation like this happen is to not have fights -- flights in war zones. there was some backlash when there was a temporary ban on flights to israel. there are some other ways to address this other than technology on airplanes. these are related to policy. we can get rid of them in the field. there are other policy ways besides the technology question. host: you wrote a story for roll call this week. that the department of homeland security that 60 billion dollars. in 2005.illion

there has already been efforts to put a lot of effort toward these defense systems. in terms ofthis go coming up with something usable in a commercial space? guest: they were field tested. there was some progress. a lot of the systems came over from military applications. the technology has been out there for a long time. the issue was trying to figure out how to get them on commercial airliners in a way that was least distracting and

difficult. is not worried about what happens to the missile after it is derailed or what happens to flares that drop or the chaff. systems have been -- in israel they have a system called sky shield. it is very similar to what i just described with the laser jamming. they also have been using the flares for a while. there was a protest over the safety of that. they've been switching over to this laser guided system since. there are systems like this being used. in terms of what happens to the ones that we were developing,

that is basically where they were. host: our next caller is lisa from las vegas, nevada. caller: hi. that we'renteresting still talking about putting missiles on airplanes. are goingoubt there to be as sensational as they were in 9/11. i am more it about what is going on all over the world. look at iraq. they have chemical weapons. they're going to come over here and do whatever they want. , $43ntimissile systems billion over 20 years? would that be appropriated through the senate or what? in the process of

reporting on this, people said are we talking about putting missiles on planes to shoot down other missiles? that is not what is happening. in israel there is the iron dome system that has been in the news. it is a ground-based system that intercepts incoming rockets. it shoots a missile at a missile and destroys it that way. be outfitting the planes with missiles. that is part one. part two, this is something of a related worry. when you look at how some of these shoulder fired missile systems proliferated in his been because of four. to the these systems

rebels and afghanistan who are fighting the soviet union. they stayed up there in the field. have ended up being mixed around and ended up in the hands of bad guys. 2003, there was an attempt to shoot down a civilian aircraft in iraq. overall threats, i think most everyone would say yes. the likelihood of these kinds of attacks is lower. there have been approximately 40 attempts to shoot down airliners using these kinds of missiles. sorry.i'm there have been 40 hits. there been more attempts. we're not talking about a major number of these attacks happening or being successful.

none of those a been successful hits on u.s. airliners. there is a legitimate question about the threat posed by these been severe. the people advocating for them would say you need to look at the damage that has been done to an economy by any kind of plane crash. especially one that was caused by terrorists. economicgive the damage and the $43 billion we would be spending, it is a worthwhile expenditure. the question about how it would be paid for we talked about earlier. that is not been determined. we are at the idea stage in this. no one has said it would be paid for this way. it might be by the passengers and airline fee. it might be paid for by the taxpayers. aboutwe have a tweet

armed airlines are admission that safety is a myth. how concerned should we be about the safety of air travel right now? this is where we have done the most work since 9/11. there are so may ways in which air travel is a significant lycée for them it was after 9/11. you can see it at the airport. everything is going through bomb detection systems. the cockpit doors are harder to hijack. a creative bomb maker would probably still be able to get an attack through. they have not been able to so far. it is easier to talk about the vulnerabilities, which are real, and to imagine ways that you to a commercial

airliner that is to actually pull it off. attempts we have had since 9/11 have failed. don't have to be innovative to the point of bizarre things like an underwear bomb. you can get anywhere. -- as peopleis make fun of that, it was close to successful. air travel is safer but it is not fully safe. this is an example of a way where you could imagine a terrorist attacking the united states and being successful. it is not easy. planes withese these kinds of missiles, you are talking about landing a very narrow window in which these

planes could be edible. that is difficult. it is difficult to get these weapons into the united states. it is difficult to get them near airports. there are other systems out there that might defend against even that threat. maybe they're not use that much. just getting into the vicinity of an airport with one of these missiles would not be the easiest thing. is much harder to attack a plane that was before. host: ronald is only independent line. caller: what we do this. instead of spending all this money to equip a commercial jet, it is not going to out run a missile. it would cost a fraction of what

it would cost to equip a person -- commercial jet. they are causing the pilots more problems. you have to draw a line somewhere. they cut the snakes head off and that would and the problem. terroristssed these with these weapons. guest: that is a very good point. it is something that we are trying to do. it's another one of those things that is hard. the state department and defense department all have programs aimed at helping countries secure these weapons.

once they get out into the field, the numbers are difficult to depend on how many may be out there. between 500,000 to 700,000 that are unsecured. if you look at the number that we are gotten back, talking about thousands that we have been able to take out of the field. these things are very cheap relative to other kinds of estimates of terror. they're on the black market. it is certainly the kind of thing that everyone agrees they should be doing. they should be keeping them out of the field. as of right a valid policy point. i would've enough of it?

frank is from illinois. caller: i am wondering if i am going nuts. you are talking about equipping defensive airlines. i think you are crazy. worry.uld we our satellites will tell where they came from into seconds and then you level the whole area with 26 bombs and that is the whole problem. does that make sense to anybody? guest: not a whole lot. finding out who is firing them off and whether we can detect them. we are generally able to find them. in terms of dropping 26 bombs on the area where it is shot from, these are areas near airports

where there might be people. that would be the real concern with that kind of approach. hard and that makes it make a targeted are you are talking about one person. what makes this an effective you canl weapon is that fire the missile and begun. it is not easy to find you after that. these things are happening in the war zones. we have some a lot of visibility where we are aiming our satellites and amy our surveillance distance on them. things that is being , there is a project that would have drones hovering

overhead and monitoring with a laser the potential for attack around an airport and then jamming them from high up in the sky. be purposelywould reasonable. it is not easy to just say we're going to bomb that area betrayed it might be near where there are civilians. about not talking commercial airliners in the united states. placese going to obscure that might not have as much security as we do. that would be another real issue. seewe going to be able to from a satellite someone fire one of these and be able to do silly respond. person would already be gone and we would be bomb in an area where they are no longer at. host: this was not a new idea.

there were calls for this after 9/11. the anniversary of the 9/11 report. there were several lawmakers resting for this back in 2003. they held a new conference in which they showed one. outdid this effort die really asleep? -- previously? how will it move forward this time?

effort ande was an the 9/11 commission was worried. in 2004 passed a law the took on a wide variety of recommendations. this is one of them. congress and we're going to do something about these shoulder fired missiles and this bill. issue that talked a little that cost was the big impediment. this is not something that and decided itt wasn't worth the cost. there were issues of muirfield testing the systems.

you had to replace the systems every 300 hours. that was other problem. the reliability never got to a level where people wanted them to be. we are mored, concerned about the budget in 2014 than we were in 2010 or 2003. we are not going to be any more inclined than we were then. the threat then was much more real. there was an attempt in 2002 on the an israeli airliner in kenya. it raised a lot of attention to the subject. fromaw a big push senators. that was when the big push happened. that is when everybody was really thinking about it and worried about it. --colin powell said it

was a threat to commercial airliners. we have had more concerned about the budget. congress in the house has moved more toward an anti-regulatory stance. they don't want to them pose new rules on businesses. likely -- unless are aing happens -- we reactive culture. likely toe much more mandate this kind of thing you if there was a successful attack on a u.s. airline. the other issue is even if we do put commercial airline defenses on these planes, you're not going to be able to address the kind of thing that happened with the malaysian airliner.

that makes it even more unlikely. your only addressing part of the threat. maybe it is most likely, nationstates usually have these types of systems unless they wind up in the hands of separatists. you're not talking about that kind of threat happening to these commercial airliners. you're talking more about the lower-level threats. host: who gets the contracts? what companies work in the space? guest: it is almost entirely the traditional defense contractors. as the department of homeland

theyity moved ahead, solicited five bids. they took it down to two. there were others involved. one of the companies that bid and made it further along was united airlines teaming with a more traditional defense company. it's not like they were all defense contractors. the vast majority were. yes. they do want to expand their business in this area. there was a gold after 9/11 where people thought homeland security was going to have an enormous budget.

it has got to be a pretty big budget. it it never quite materialized. host: carl is calling from colorado. you say complex safety issues. the european airlines used to prevent people from tampering with their airliners. if a good offense is the best solution all the way around. i wasn't aware of what you were talking about. airlines have said we think the best way to deal with this is to go out in the field.

we need to keep them of the hands of people who can use them against us. destiny is coming from texas. i think that is true. i can gradually the decision on sending these aircraft. we should attack the perpetrators were shooting down airplanes and being a threat. own the attack people. ishink prioritizing defense

very important. --hink the perpetrators interested with the pilot knew he was targeted. i understand that he wasn't aware, or was he? don't think we know that for sure yet. it might be something that they would know. unless we are talking about an israeli airliner. we don't have a good strong sense about what happened in this incident entirely. most lanes are not equipped with that candidate action system. they might've been able to visually spot that there was a missile fired from the ground. they might have seen it coming.

they would not have received a warning by any kind of mechanism on board. most planes are not equipped with that kind of missile warning system. are there any pushes to adopt a commercial missile defense system that would prevent against the type of attack that brought down the malaysian airliner? that is what senator kirk was talking about. .he chaff would help it would be more of a buying time. the problem becomes what do you do after. stages ofthe early starting to talk about this. we are a week after this attack. typically, you don't get the best ideas at the moment of the crisis. there might be some technologies

out that we have not heard about so much. there might be ideas that we have not heard about much. obscure kind of threat we can face. the best idea would be to not fly over a war or one that might want to shoot us down. think that is the more obscure of the kinds of threats we are talking about. thereht not know how much is to deal with it. host: we will hear now from charles on the independent line. caller: i was wondering about of a missiled attack happening here in the united states versus going

overseas. ob the likelihood of flying over the united states and there being a missile attack? it would seem to me less likely than there be an attack on u.s. soil. over whatre control happens with our airliners. less control overseas. that doesn't mean that it is not theoretically a possibility. it means that somebody would have to figure out how to get this kind of technology into the united states. neither of those things are particularly easy. they will need to learn how to get in the proximity.

some kindhave to have of training. aboutis some concern passport holders becoming trained fighters in syria. that is not outside the realm of possibility. the could smuggle technology and or steal it and be good enough to use it. they would deal with a lot of problems. likely that this would happen in the united states. it is unlikely that it would happen to a u.s. flight overseas. liz is in florida on the republican line. i flew a lot of admirals and foreign dignitaries. we did not have any kind of defense system. what does air force one? have some sort of inboard radar they can tell you

are alerted and about to get hit , they would not let us carry guns. what does the president do. they are not all military. guest: air force one has a laser jamming system. there were some details that leaked out back in 2006. they had this kind of laser system. said arprised what she

significant host: we're going to open the phone lines for you. we'll be right back after this short break.

>> next month, ron paul. he has written more than a dozen .ooks join the conversation. for maryext month frances berry. american enterprise institute is december. this is television for serious readers. >> if you're in government you are dealing with the tyranny of

the inbox. responsibility was representing the deputies committee. this is the senior level group that is working through the crisisand developing management focus. youryou're in a think tank utility is not to second-guess the policymaker on the issues of the day. them look overe the horizon and see what they will confront a year from now or five years from now. the creation of see nas sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's q&a. >> washington journal continues.

up the phoneopen lines to you. some of the top news stories are the conflict in israel. the a bills are running their way through congress. immigration reform is a hot topic. emergency funding to address the southern border. i want to start by reading a story in the washington post the came out this morning.

we mentioned as the a bills that are moving through congress. ineral have been proposed both the house and senate side. here is a story from the associated press.

if you're living outside united states you can call us. caller: if we get rid of religion there will be no fighting. god would put up with us killing each other? will hear from david in

michigan. caller: good morning. somebody said that we should just go after where those weapons come from. whereoth those referring they are manufactured or who is shooting them off. u.s. weapons manufacturers have been supplying weapons to both sides of many conflicts over time. lucia how dean in afghanistan. if saddam hussein had weapons of mass distraction we gave them to him. to manyy weapons conflicts. host: what do you think should be done? think by going after where they are coming from is logical.

host: we are also hearing from lou in florida. caller: good morning. this occupation and both sides have to come together. the gaza people in the west bank and we have to have peace in the middle east. that is the linchpin. sit down and talk to each other. next is virgil in alabama.

caller: we can give jobs to a lot of people replanting trees. poor people cannot get in their car and go drive across the country. there used to be busting is in every city. now you have to go to a major city just to catch a bus. that was a lot of jobs driving buses. you could visit a lot of the country. host: do you have a job? caller: i am a disabled veteran. v.a. yearsg to the ago.

it was a nightmare to go to the v.a. because of the waiting time. you had to travel back and forth. your employer did not want to pay you. the v.a. has got to hopefully do something. that is my comment for today. host: thank you for calling in. this is gregory in pennsylvania. is pertinentmment to a term coined recently which is interesting. the term is in version. me that it is an excellent opportunity to turn the tables on our national debt.

i see nothing wrong with the idea of converting this debt to a resource as opposed to an obligation. our credit has been abused over the years. in 1933, an ounce of gold was $20 and now it is 1300. host: this has been a major issue in the news. resident obama discussed efforts to close corporate tax loopholes. he hopes more republicans will join his efforts. the vast majority of businesses pay their taxes in the united states. when some companies cherry picks their taxes, it adds to the deficits it makes it harder to invest the things it will keep america strong. forticks you with the tab

what they stash of sure. a loophole in our tax love makes this totally legal. i think that is totally wrong. you don't get to pick which rules you play by her which taxes you pay. neither should these companies. the best way to level the playing field is to get tax reform that lowers the rate amick closes loopholes. stopping companies from renouncing their citizenship just to get out of paying their fair share of taxes is something that cannot wait. this year i earlier proposed closing this unpatriotic tax loophole for good. in congress of advanced proposals to do the same thing. some republicans have indicated they want to address this as well. i hope more will join us. the president talking about corporate tax in versions. from you. hear

what do you think the president should do? you can call us. caller: good morning. lost us withobs the technology to let people vote on the issues of the house. when our house failed us and is gridlocked, why not let the american people decide through their votes on their computers and play a part in history by

voting on the things that pass and the direction that our nation goes in? caller: what do you think is causing the gridlock? can't disagree or agree on anything. host: we heard your comments. next up is thomas on the republican line. good morning. i would like to look back a little bit. when taxes were a little but , the debt jumped from to $17 trillion. there is an increase in taxes because the government is so broke and let's move forward

little. we will understand where we are spendbecause they want to money on programs. they are so broke they can't even see the bottom of the hole. when america wakes up and we start saying give us accountability, that is what we should mean. thank you very much. have a great day. one of those budget decisions that is coming up is to doch to appropriate with the flow of migrant children across the border. the our times reports that obama met with leaders this weekend.

president obama spoke about this with reporters. a we have to the term continuing influx of children and putting themselves a great risk. legalasized that within a

framework in humanitarian , children who do not should ber claims subject to repatriation to their home country. >> i say that not because we lack compassion. we are a nation of laws. disorderly a migration process, that puts the children themselves at risk and

calls to question the legal of those who are properly applied and entering the country. the washington post also addressed this. newly are your thoughts now. we are turning to north carolina. i have two comments.

i am going to try to be as brief as possible. to the question about gridlock in washington. the gridlock is that people with ornt to agree disagree and work things out. i don't know why people sit back i harken back to the 90's. especially the 1990's. the president raise taxes and

congress raised taxes. america was driving. we were thriving. people could be as disagreeable as they would like to be, but that is exactly what happened. i am a veteran. i am watching everything that is unfolding. does not want to work with the president. why we are in this debacle that we are in today. host: thank you for your comments. larry from michigan on the republican line. concerning the individual who is talking about aircraft, if on

on radar an engineer acquisitions which those missiles would also have to have . i could cancel chaff. i saw it drop by in aircraft 45 miles out from our location. i moved the range gauge over the chaff and canceled out. host: what do you mean by canceling it out? caller: the radar was designed to cancel out certain doppler frequencies.

like ground clutter. ground radars and aircraft radar. what i was working on in the lab. display in aircraft 45 miles away was dropping chaff. anything on flares. i was not looking for that. host: do you believe that we should be equipping airlines with? this caller: flares are not going to be of any good to you and neither is chaff. have are optics that certain doppler frequency.

we can cancel out those doppler's. the military radars, if they have the same receivers that we were working on. i won't tell you the company i was working for. i don't want to be involved in lawsuits. i am 88 years old now. i just heard them talking. i don't think he has got a legitimate approach. it picks up those things.

host: we will go to lyle in a minnesota. about them calling palestinian conflict. i come down on the side of the palestinians. i'm not going to work for any jewish politicians until the itse of her israel changes attitude about peace. host: we have a tweet. theyweek on newsmakers, discussed about being caught off guard.

>> there is no question of the numbers increased last year. there were also a huge amount of work and planning that was going on involving the department of theland security and colleagues of health and human services about what to do and how to do this. i think there was great expectation that the government of mexico would be doing more along that border with quad amal -- guatemala.a i had been doing my best to look forward to how we would deal with the situation. we are glad there is a lull right now. after thecerned about

weather cools. how we have enough detention space and enough resources to treat people not just you mainly but with compassion. that was the customs and border commissioner being interviewed on newsmakers. we have open phone lines for this last segment. you can call us. we want to year -- hear your thoughts. we will go now to any in massachusetts. caller: good morning. i'm glad the president acknowledges that we need to lower our corporate tax.

it has been years since halliburton left the country. we have to offset that with sales tax. we import more than 50% now. one way to stop $3 billion going to israel to supply munitions to kill the palestinians, that could be a starter. to floridall now go on the independent line. caller: hello. i wanted to just make a couple of comments on the palestinian situation. this is concerning the gaza strip, which is basically a concentration camp.

i am 66 years old. 67s is been going on for years or so. they have been trapped in this terrible situation with great power and weaponry against them. there have been women and children killed. silence of our leaders is such a tragedy. american supplied weapons where people will go out. this is totally against our values and our believe systems. amazed at the lack of

political will on the part of our president and the congress. of israel, i saw president obama be of the country women prime minister that yahoo! came over here. ovationsed standing and raise as a great leader. while our president was out of the country, he was being disrespected as a leader. that the lack of .alues and sincerity this is a terrible concentration camp. host: we will have to leave it there. you are our final caller.

we will return on monday at 7:00 for more. ♪