and it's tough to see what has happened and what has happened over the last few years. i've been to iraq many times over the last year since i left active duty. but the isf was built to handle a low level insurgency and our goal was to get them to where they were good enough. frankly, when i was there in 2009 and 2010 and part of 2011, there would be advisers to continue the training. we knew -- i did an assessment in 2010 for then for the general and this is where the forces will be in 2011. we wanted to convince them and show them the capabilities and

shortfalls of their forces. some were very obvious. they couldn't control their own air space nor defend it. but we said, you have a sustainment problem. your military readiness is in a death spiral. your command control structure is not workable. this peace time for a command and control of the population directly to the prime minister has to change. you do not have an nco core. most fundamentally, we told iraqis, you must invest in training. good armies train continuously. we didn't see that before we left and i don't see any evidence of that since then. so, you know, the short answer is that the development that needs to take place with the iraqi security forces from december 2011 to july 2014 hasn't taken place.

we can go back and forth about advisers and trainers but they have not -- >> and so if that is the case, what will advisers now be able to do at this stage that will make a difference on the ground with iraqi forces? >> well, when we were on the ground with them and advising and training, it did make a d s difference. first, we can stop the bleeding. they are under severe duress. isis did not let up. if this is a -- in our interests, then we need to get something in there to, a, stop the bleeding, and then start building the forces. this is not going to take weeks or months. this is going to take a while to get them to a state. as i said in my comments, unless we have an iraqi government

that's willing to accept these changes and willing to place these changes into their structure and the way they do business, then i would question whether we should do it. >> two last questions. can air strikes alone -- i think you alluded to this in your answer to senator corker's questions. but can air strikes alone make a difference in pushing back isis or would doing them now just be, in essence, giving the iraqis a boost? >> air strikes can make a difference, a tactical difference. they can help enable iraqi forces. they can help relieve pressure. they can help degrade isis' capabilities. my point is, we cannot think

that just through air strikes and drone strikes we can solve this problem. or i would even hold it in advance. it could -- they would make a difference. it would not be a divisive difference. >> and so the flip -- the other side of this, then, is the training and assist so that the -- but the iraqi forces, can they possibly recover the country even with the training and assisting? >> i think they could. >> you think they could? >> i think they could. >> we're talking about what period of time? >> months. that's not going to happen overnight. >> senator, if i could support general barbero, i've seen it myself, i was in vietnam as an army officer in '72. the vietnamese army invaded for the first time and started

melting mosul. billions of dollars of u.s. equipment was lost within days. then when we started air strikes, it changed the psychology of those forces almost overnight and within three months they had recovered almost the entire country. we saw in libya, kosovo and bosnia where air strikes can provide lightly equipped, sometimes not too well trained forces. the difference in taking on better equipped forces as brett mcgurk i think three times described earlier today, dealing with the tribe up near mosul, dealing with the people and governor they are outgunned. they have volunteers to go into northern falluja but they are out numbered. not boots on the ground can make a huge difference, sir. >> one last question for you,

general. are you surprised by the alarming reports of iraqi security forces, abuses, infiltration by shia militia and lack of accountability and how do we engage with the iraqi forces to deal with those challenges? >> senator, i was in irbil, baghdad, in late may. the developments of mosul since then was a shock. i was shocked by it. but as i drive around baghdad or basra or other places over the last year, it's a checkpoint army. and i've said that. and you cannot take on an isis if you've been in static position on the defense and not trained for offensive operations. what is troubling, as you ride up to these army checkpoints, there are shia religious banners

almost at every one, across baghdad and certainly in basra. there must be a fundamental change in the nature of these forces, not only in the government but in the forces to allow participation by a sunni and kurds in this unified effort that it would require. >> well, i appreciate your insights. i'm not a military guy, but i will say that when an american soldier volunteers, joins, he fights for a cause, for a principle, for a set of values. he fights for his nation. he or she fights for their nation. if the job is just a job, then it doesn't turn out the same way. and if it's difficult to get an iraqi army if you don't feel you are fighting for the totality of a country, shia, sunny, and

kurd. and that's a real problem and that's a real problem. anyhow, i appreciate all of your insights as we grapple with the choices we have to make. this record will >> last week, iraqis elected a palestinian. the role of the speaker of the parliament will be reserved or sunni and the parameters are shiite. lawmakers at two weeks to name a prime minister. a look at the u.s. congress with one final week before heading to august break. one bill would eliminate a requirement that airlines include taxes and fees in the advertised price of airfares and another that would strengthen sanctions against north korea. eastern with confirmation votes.

with the congressional reporter for more in the week ahead. >> congress has one week left before its august recess. they left friday morning to undertake the look of the request. board funding here is what john boehner tweeted out. he said democrats want a blank check to spend more. joining us is a political reporter for "the washington post." out of that meeting, what did we hear from republicans in terms of their plan? >> we heard from the republicans this morning that they are likely to pursue a bill that is much smaller. the president requested $3.7 billion. this bill would be less than $1 billion. this is something that would have specific controls on how the money could be spent and how it could be used. what we are seeing a lot of space between republicans and democrats on this issue,

republicans want to see the money used to speed up deportations of many of these children. democrats has been adverse to anything that they described is inhumane, anything that ships these children back. we want more due process to figure out whether they should be figured out to sent out are not. >> what are some of the politics behind the much smaller number by republicans? >> the president requested money larger than what he was going to get, which was a political play to begin with. on top of that, boehner and the other leadership has to try to

craft some type of bill where they can keep the republican votes in line, so there are members in the house that will not support any kind of appropriation to the president. by limiting the amount of money they will give this the president or appropriate to the president and adding controls to it, i think the speaker and the leadership think they might be able to keep their republicans in line, because some believe that additional appropriations are needed, but the issue is many republican lawmakers feel uneasy about giving that much money to the president that they distrust. >> you tweeted after pelosi's briefing that she said it would be a mistake to do immigration law and an appropriations bill.

seems like no chance to deal a tweak to the 2008 law. >> a lot of this has dependent on the issue of the 2008 law, which says that children coming from central american countries are treated differently than those coming from mexico or canada. what republicans are arguing is we should immediately ship these children to south america, and eliminate the question to the southern border. democrats have called this inhumane. they said we should not package a change of law into an appropriations bill. two weeks ago, leader pelosi had made it seem like she would be open to a change in now, but that idea, the cold water was

dumped on that day, and she said that would be a mistake to pack up that type of change into an appropriations bill. what i took that to mean was any little semblance of a chance of then passing something soon on this i thought kind of went out the window. democratic votes are not going to be there on a package that changes the law. it is unlikely we will see the senate agreed to anything the republicans in the house passed. >> and other issues, they are likely to vote on the confirmation of the new v.a. secretary. how do the two bills stand? >> they are very likely to be passed very easily. there has never been a secretary that has not been confirmed unanimously. we all thought it was then moving on a little bit, but yesterday mr. sanders came out upset. it seemed there was a lot of discord there. the theme on the hill has been do not expect anything to get

done. on issues, v.a., highway trust fund, so right now we see these versions of their bills working their way through committee, but there's so much distance on how exactly you address these issues that no one seems optimistic that we will see them, and we will certainly not see this done before the recess, and there are questions when you get back in september whether anything will get them. >> let's go back to the house. on the lawsuit republicans and the house speaker want to bring against obama, where does that stand? >> it could very likely get a vote next week. it has moved on out of committee. it could very well get a vote next week. the question will be how well the president -- how the republicans want to set it on the calendar. it is a question of whether they

want to do it before the recess or after. we are not sure exactly when we will see the vote. boehner's caucus is in line on this. >> are they doing this because they have no vote on impeachment effort? >> there's no indication. there have not been serious calls from many serious politicians about this. most of the ideas and discussion of impeachment have come from former lawmakers or other conservative talking heads and not members of the gop congressional allegation. that is worth noting. i do not believe the speaker is interested in pursuing impeachment for the president of the united states, at least not right now. there's an argument in the debate about whether this lawsuit is a stand-in. republicans in the leadership

would argue it is not and it is something that have legitimate concern about the use of authority, and thought this was the right way to do it. one interesting to note it is both impeachment and the lawsuit are mobilizing tools for democrats. they've been raising money and had been polling battleground states that the lawsuit encourages voters that are likely to vote and that turnout. democrats are very happy to talk about these because they think it will help them in 2014. >> thanks for the update. >> thank you. >> our guest is david willman, investigative reporter for the l.a. times. "washington journal" is live at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on seas and. coming up this afternoon on newsmakers, borders protection the problem of

immigrant children crossing the u.s. border. that is today at 6:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. >> michelle is our guest on this week's "q&a." theou are dealing with daily tierney of the in box, focused on the crisis of the day. part of my responsibility was representing the secretary of defense on the so-called deputies committee, the senior-level group that is working through the issues and developing options for the principles and the president. a lot of crisis management focus. when you are in a think tank, your real utility is not trying to second-guess the policymaker on the issues of the day, but it to help do some work them look over the horizon to see, what are the issues i will confront a year from now, five years from now, 10 years from now, and how do i think more strategically about america's his role in the world.

cofounder for the center of national american security on creation -- its mission, and current defense policy issues. tonight at 8:00 eastern pacific on c-span's q&a. >> 40 years ago, the watergate scandal led to the only resignation of an american president. american history tv revisits 1974 and the final weeks of the nixon administration. this weekend, the house judiciary committee considers impeachment of the president and the charge of abuse of power. >> you have questions about what the framers had in mind, whether theout activities that had been found out by the committee and by the weree watergate committee, indeed impeachable, and thirdly, can we prove richard nixon knew about them and even authorize them? >> watergate, 40 years later, tonight at 8:00 eastern on

american history tv on c-span three. host: joining us this morning to talk about foreign-policy challenges, a couple of foreign reporters based in washington. gentlemen thanks for being here this morning. we are talking about the reaction and the role of europe in terms of ukraine. let's talk about ukraine first grade reports say there is an agreement that the site can be seen investigated at last. as the story unfolds, you are both based in washington. what are you looking for in terms of the u.s. government? to prod europe into issuing more sanctions? caller: germany is going along. merkel has been a supporter of

tougher sanctions. they may harm the country's economies. there is no alternative to suffer -- tougher sanctions. i think europe is going along. it is a tough job to keep 28 countries together. to keep them on the same page when you go forward with sanctions. host: there is a balancing act between the eu and the united states. guest: that is right. it has been quite an interesting and colorful argument between the british and the french this week. there has been tough rhetoric from david cameron saying we need really tough sanctions and europe needs to do more. the british are taking the lead.

they were looking at the french trying to sell warships to russia. the french came back and said this is the debate led by hypocrites. they pointed to all of the russian oligarchs who live in london. there is russian money in the city. cameron was embarrassed by the revelation of an auction item that was won by a russian oligarchs wife. it was a tennis match with david cameron and the mayor of london. host: does the u.k. have less at stake? there was a graphic about how much natural gas and energy the u.k. gets from russia. if you look at the graphic, countries like germany get 40%. 18% for france.

20% for italy. how much of those considerations is going into the making of foreign-policy? guest: it is part of the foreign-policy. it won't cause much trouble going into the next winter. germany has a lot in storage. italy is very worried about those sanctions. especially because of the energy supplies. the europeans have agreed on tougher sanctions. this includes sanctions on electronic equipment for oil production in russia. they are targeting high-tech equipment from russia. this is despite the military equipment. it is important to hit the oligarchs. the financial sector in russia

is important to put pressure on vladimir putin. there will it be any pressure unless you hit them. , when you look at russia there is lot of pressure on food and -- putin from the right wing. they think that he is not harsh enough. they believe he is not standing up to the west and he is too weak. host: it is not to say that the u.k. does not have financial interests. guest: they are very strong indeed. it is much less about energy and the rhetoric of other countries hitting the energy sector.

it is deeply embedded in the city. a number of oligarchs including some of the soccer clubs in britain. it is tied up in party donations and the fabric of the domestic economy. host: we want to make sure that our viewers and listeners are part of the conversation. we welcome our international callers. you can join us on facebook or twitter. our guests are washington bureau

chiefs. does europe need or want a stronger u.s. presence? or is somebody like david cameron or angela merkel enough in terms of response to the russians? guest: it depends on germany. obama has been very keen on aligning with europe on the sanction issue. he knows that if you want to hit russia, you have to have germany on your side. there are strong economic relations between germany and russia. germany is the economic powerhouse of europe at the moment. in the question of sanctions, it is up to mrs. merkel. guest: i think that is a key

question. i think europe traditionally looks to the netted states for world leadership. there is a degree of sense that there is a vacuum of u.s. leadership. president obama is not known for his robust leadership. i thought that was quite striking on the political spectrum. in washington you have a strong message from the administration trade hillary clinton expressed it most directly. they are looking for europe to take the lead on this. it feels to be like a political tennis match. everybody is saying you first.

host: i want to get your reaction how this story might be played in europe. there is a new york times story. is there general support in your countries without? guest: the germans are very hesitant when it comes to military action. according to the data, germans are for tougher sanctions. 52% back cover sanctions. a considerable amount say germany should go forward on its own. when it comes to military action or aid, they are very hesitant. germany is very war wary as the united states is. i am sure that president obama will give more military aid. he is saying in his meetings

with his staff to be very cautious. that happens when people get this kind of stuff and don't know how to use it or it gets into the wrong hands. that is why he is so cautious with serious to deliver more sophisticated weapons. host: you mentioned that syria. the you think europe was pleased with the way the syrian situation was resolved in terms of the chemical weapons? guest: from the british point of view that was when it was a turning point about president obama.

there was a real shock that president obama abdicates for abstracts and then withdraw from that.

click the germans view differently. they're happy with the outcome. about 100% are removed. .. how the whole thing was done done, they were not very happy then. suddenly, obama was asking the apartment -- the parliament. then you needed russia help to get the settlement done, to , -- chemicalarm

weapons. >> from the british point of view, i get the sense the outcome is not yet known. one big theory is that the a side machine has -- assad regime is in place. cross-border whole is when the state there -- a big systematic central the master -- domestic terrorist act. >> a lot to talk about on foreign policy and challenges. , martin klingst >> do you just cover washington? >> that's an easy question because it's just me. the problem is -- you know, the work is condusive.

>> i'm the only one here and then we have someone in new york and then the west coast. >> let's hear from our callers. steve, thanks for waiting. >> good morning, gentlemen. i just want to run this by you. i'll start off with a book i was rereading richard nixon's the real world and he mentions an old saying about lenin that you probe and with steel jaws, you kind of mush one of the others. the budapest agreement is shocking to those who constantly trust -- maybe in his mind, it

was a de facto agreement that the eastern countries would always be under his orbit. >> well, that's a very good question and i think, you know, when you look at -- through russian eyes, they feel, you know, humiliated. they lost their empire. and then they withdraw from their eastern part of their empire. so i think, you know, for them, it's a big loss and there have always been a lot of russians who said we went, you know, too quickly ahead and we just should have, you know, been tougher, you know, with the united states and the west. but, you know, there was also this -- this nato

russia founding act in the '90s and part of this founding act guaranteed to russia that there would be no permanent deployment of nato troops in the frontier states, the border states, the ones on the russian border, poland. and now they feel somehow betrayed because of so many countries wanting to not only join the eu but also nato. so it is a tough issue and the west i think has not always been on a very, you know, how would you say it diplomatic side and the negotiations did not always go well saying we won the cold car and some of the rhetoric was never very good. obama told

putin that russia was only a regional power and i think that made him furious. you need russia to negotiate and so they are on the world stage. >> do you think the issue with crimea is more important to russia than either the europeans or the americans? >> i think most certainly. i think the question which gets that is the cold war mentality of putin, you know, a former kgb colonel. and i think certainly the obama administration to the united states and to the less extent in europe is a failure to understand this. i often feel that u.s. foreign policy treats putin as sort of a reasonable,

western-minded individual with whom one can do business and i think it's more complicated than that. >> quite the opposite, more weapons going into the ukraine, more support for russian separatists. we need to realize we're dealing with somebody with a different world view than the west. >> i'll show you a tweet from elliot langel. this is the tweet. russian weapons brought down mh-17, our allies shouldn't be bolstering putin's might. let's go to sterling, virginia. good morning. >> good morning, sir. thanks for taking my call. i just want to say i think that the

president of the united states, he really damages himself when he mentioned about syria's issue, when he says that there's a red line and we're going to do something about it and he has not done anything about it. america is divided right now. every time the russians -- they done it before when they attacked in georgia. nothing has been done. they attacked ukraine, nothing's going to be done. and they see that every time this president tries to put things together, always, john mccaine or lindsey graham they attack this president. if people were speaking one voice, putin would understand and i don't think he cares what the international community thinks about him. all he cares about

is as long as i can use my time and do what i need to do, i'm going to keep doing what i need to be doing. putin will not accept anything but his way. thank you for taking my call. >> all right. in terms of the war weariness in this country, does that enter into president obama's addition decision and also those in europe. >> absolutely. rightly so. no one wants to go to war over ukraine because war over ukraine means, you know, a war in all of europe and without, you know, with devastating consequences. so i would slightly disagree because i don't think obama is just doing nothing. i think

he's doing quite a lot. and it's not true to say he's retreating from the world. and america just wants to be in isolation again but that's not true. you see this government being involved in so many different crisis all over the world in africa, ukraine, the middle east, john kerry was just there negotiating a cease fire. he's always around when it comes to ukraine, united states, went forward and asked for sanctions against russia. so you can't say that they're not doing anything. and the red line in syria, i agree that it was handled very badly, but at the end of the day, they got what they wanted. the red line meant that syria should not have chemical weapons and it did not mean that you were going to

interfere in the civil war. it meant that chemical weapons and the use of them crossed the red line. so now many are thinking now he's going to send missals missles. but that did not happen. what happened badly, but the outcome is okay. >> i actually think there is a degree of the united states withdrawing from it will world in foreign policy. certainly i don't think these decisions are easy ones. look at syria, the cliche, there were no good options. but i think i disagree with martin on the chemical weapons deal. the other way of looking at it is has any world

leader ever gotten a bigger boost from using chemical weapons? it's now guaranteed that the u.s. demanded that the leader be removed is perhaps now in place is a party to that deal. so i think that -- and i agree with the caller that broadly speaking, putin and other u.s. western adverse -- adversaries in the world are museing about what is happening. >> quickly, martin. >> yeah, i would like to respond

because i disagree because i think it was handled badly, no doubt about that. and to let you know, some neighboring countries of syria and arab states question whether obama will stand up and actually has a backbone. but sending an missle would make it worse. you needed the russians to participate because they have the biggest influence on assad. so if you just bomb and don't have the outcome that chemical weapons are removed, it doesn't lead anywhere and it would not have changed the civil war at all nor would it have changed issis or anything. so if you don't get rid of them all, what is the outcome? nothing. >> all right. this is george in

texas on our independents line. >> i have a comment regarding the policy of the united states and some european countries, mainly united kingdom. and i want to make a clear separation between the policy of germany compared with one of the united kingdom. it is not concerning energy. it's concerning the mentality of the u.k. who have become a little bit of a dog following the policy, the aggressive policies sometimes of the united states. i can give an example concerning ukraine. ukraine is made of the five provinces. it's eastern poland

taken by stalin and then the russian part of crimea and the eastern part. >> george, where are you from originally? >> i am from eastern europe, romania for example. >> appreciate your question. let's hear from our guests. >> well, from '99 to 2003 and 2006 until now, i was here in washington. so i was here at the start of the iraq war. so the notion of britain -- i do think that's to a large extent the -- that to a large extent, the british government is always in awe of the white house. last

week, we had the leader of the oppositi opposition party coming to washington getting heavily criticized for being here for a photo op while what was going on in the ukraine was going on. and in the 2012 campaign, david cameron going with president obama to ohio for a basketball game and lavishing praise on him. so i think to a large extent is the default policy which is to get as close to americans as possible and stay there. >> i want to play for you david cameron last week critical of europe turning a blind eye. >> mr. speaker, this is a

defining moment for russia. the world is watching and president putin places a clear choice for how to respond to this appalling tragedy. i encourage him to end russia's support of the separatists. if he does not change this, europe and the west must fundmently change our approach to russia. we should not turn a blind eye when big countries bully smaller companies. for too long there's been a reluctance on the on the part of too many european countries to face what is happening in ukraine. it is time to make our power, time, and resources to be felt. we should push our partners in the eu to consider a new range of

hard-hitting economic sanctions against russia. >> right after the prime minister speak last week, they were considering additional sanctions. >> yeah, but that's not because the prime minister spoke. >> britain is not taking the lead on that to be frank. it's good that he's supporting it but britain is not the point on these issues. >> that was a good, old-fashioned sort of europe bashing by the prime minister and somewhat persuasive of the -- tennis match with the wife of the russian oligarch.

also, it's very tough rhetoric on the part of russia as well but there is reluctance as well on the part of the british government to actually have sanctions which would pay a price in the city of london. >> quickly to the previous question because the gentleman was asking about having an artificial state, ukraine. it's always debated what kind of state is ukraine and historically, crimea is a tough question. i think after world war ii, you are going to change borders again. you've seen that in the balkan wars and i think the biggest advantage of the european union is to peacefully

settle those conflicts because once you're a member, you don't have those conflicts. so i think there's no right that changing the borders that putin is trying. but it is a respected state, it is an internationally recognized state and you can't just change the borders. >> here's paul who is in indianapolis, indiana. good morning. >> good morning. here on the fly overs, there are a couple of issues we discuss constantly this issue at the old coffee get togethers. the first one is europe spends very little on defense compared to the united states but benefits greatly from the united states' defense spending. and since the fall of the soviet union we don't really have a threat to the united

states so why are we spending the money in europe? secondly, since the advent of fracking, the united states is no longer subject to the same threat of cutoff of energy from the sources of supply in europe. especially oil. we really don't need eastern hemisphere oil anymore so does that give us far less of an interest in sort of the stability of the middle east? so really why are we getting involved in what's essentially a european problem? the ukraine is a european problem, not an american problem. why are the europeans spending little and then blaming the united states for not showing up and carrying their cloak for them. i don't know

whether they're asking that in washington or on the left coast, but certainly they're asked here in the flyover zone. >> good question. >> martin klingst. >> i do agree that europe has not spent enough on their defense budget. it's less than two percent. it's between 1.4 and 1.6 depending how you cut it. you also see the united states reducing. nevertheless, i do think europe needs to do more. it's not only a question of money, it's also a question of -- i think there's a lot of waistbanding going on with different armies in europe not cooperating and funding joint weapons systems and so on and so forth. i totally also agree with what you say that ukraine

is actually a european problem and it needs europe to act. i think europe is acting but at the same time, the baltic states and others are members of nato and the united states being the only remaining superpower is the backbone of nato. i think they have to do more. i think right now it's tough because of the euro crisis and the economic hardship, a lot of countries can't do as much but i think europe needs to do more than they have done in the past. so i agree but i would still say ukraine is also a u.s. issue because of nato and because of the reassurance of nato partners in the frontier states to russia. and when you talk about oil and gas and the fracking, surely the united states is not only becoming self-sufficient,

it's becoming an expert power, you know, when it comes to oil and gas and i think it's less dependent. but still on legal terms, the united states needs europe and even more than you thought in the past. there was a lot of talk about europe is not important anymore but it is so important on the global issues when it comes to iran and syria and europe is a pivotal and the closest partner the united states can have to handle international affairs. >> let's go to jay in florida. good morning. jay, hello, are you there? >> i'm sorry. there's jay in florida. go ahead. >> can you hear me? >> we can. go ahead. >> okay. good morning. >> good morning. >> i just have a comment and i'm not trying to offend anybody

with this comment. it's just an observation basically. let me go in the other room. we seem to make a lot of statements about not wanting big notionings not wanting to bull -- nations to bully smaller nationings but it seems to be only when it serves our purposes because the united states has done a lot of funding rebel groups that we now call terrorists and overthrowing governments and it seems we look at other countries and say do what i say, not what i do. thanks for taking my call. >> toby harnden. >> yeah, that's a very widespread view in british public opinion. again, i'm not really -- i think american public opinion on ukraine is much more critical of russia and

putin. i was struck by the father of one of the victims from new castle in britain who was killed in malaysian airlines flight 17. he said i don't know whose fault it is so i think all of you should stop. so there is a bit of a sense of moral eh -- wanting to stay out of everything. so i think the caller certainly expressed something that is not only in european opinion, but also american opinion as well. >> now, reports of the u.s. eves dropping on germany. they say it has not harmed the united states. they say the documents

produced by edward snowden have identified many as targets of eves dropping but despite that in europe many still have a positive view of mr. obama. >> obama has support of over 90 percent of the germans, that he's doing a good job. and now it's roughly 70 percent. so he would be happy to have that support in the united states. but, nevertheless, i think that the support is declining and the overall public view is very critical when it comes to the united states because of that. not only the monitoring of merkel's cellphone, but also the double agents revealed so i think at the moment, the trans-atlantic relations are not

in the best state. >> let's hear from potomac, maryland. hello? >> my question is why does the u.s. and europe bow down to israel and constantly talk of maintaining israel's safety? are we not aware of what netanyahu is doing regarding gaza, that the country is being complete complete completely stifled? they are freedom fighters that are desperate and they want a way out. they want freedom but -- well, i don't understand why the world doesn't -- the world

leaders, the world -- people in the world are all fighting israel. >> that's an issue we haven't talked on yet, the israeli, palestinian conflict. >> this is a huge foreign policy issue in britain at the moment. it's the preeminent one if you like and it's gotten much more coverage in the last week or ten days than the situation ukraine has. in terms of the british public, the sentiments expressed by the caller are being reflected by a large portion of the british public which is much more sympathetic toward cause.

been some anti-semitic acts, defacing of a grave stone. i'm certainly not suggesting that people who express -- or that is the toxic rhetoric that is being thrown around. from a government perspective, certainly on the british side, not too much difference between the cameron government and the obama administration. if you looked to his left, you saw william hague who seems to be

much more even handed sitting on the fence heavily criticized by israel. car length car length ask p ask i would say that the general public is still supportive of israel and even though public opinion is shifting, i think the public becomes more and more critical and i think when you see the pictures of gaza, it is hard to win this war of

pictures. you know, also for israel. but i would still say that no country can accept, you know, being bombarded with missles and has to take action. is it proportionate? no. what has happened in the last days is devastating. but hamas, they are not freedom fighters. they deny israel's right of existence. this is difficult. it is a very complicated issue and as we have seen over the decades, you think you have some kind of a settlement and the last day, it falls all to pot because, you know, one of the two sides is creating some hostile act again. and this is a very, very sad thing and i think, you know, we have to come to terms because -- israel has

to come to terms. must also negotiate this piece and stop this settlement because otherwise we don't see a good future there. >> again, hamas declares a gaza cease fire. today, we have toby klingst from die zeit is here and toby harnden. this is mike from minnesota. >> good morning. first of all, i want to say thanks for c-span. this may be only the second time i've called in 13 years. this may be the last time i'm ever able to call live because of the changes i get my internet through comcast. >> we don't want to lose you.

>> i don't have any cable. so i just have the internet so i think because of tv everywhere i'm going to lose you live. but i enjoy all the video. >> yes, you will be able to get that. okay? >> and i want to ask the two guys if they're aware of a certain reporter manamed matthe lee who goes to the state department in briefings. do you have a matthew lee in your country? >> i'm aware of matthew lee and i admire some of his skeptical questions and briefings. certainly in britain we have a tradition of very adversarial press and a strong -- bush

administration -- when the president entered the room and i know president bush used to get irritated by some of the very che cheeky sort of questioning from british reporters. but i think that adversarial then the less wiggle room they have to answer the sort of second part of or third part of

your question which is the only one they want to answer and avoid answering sort of the first part of the first question which was the thing that really needed to be answered. >> let me just make a quick response because mike asked about it. we are making a number of enhancements to our websites in 2014 at c-span.org. if you go to c-span.org, you can learn about your ability to continue to get c-span coverage. that's c-span.org/tveverywhere. >> hi. how you doing? >> good morning. >> just want to take a minute to first of all thank both your guests for being here today. we don't often get to hear point of

views from outside of america and we appreciate your being here today. and i would like to extend tend that to all the guests who come in through the year. and c-span is really the best place to get the news and i look forward to this coming year to see the experts we don't usually get to see. >> how much are both of you keeping an eye on the congressional elections happening this year? how do you report back on those? >> obviously british campaigns tend to be six or eight weeks and this is the land of the permanent campaign. i mean, there are a lot of residents, u.k, independent party in

britain that have a lot of parallels with the tea party. this week there was a story about laura ingram, conservative talk radio host in tennessee supporting the tea party antiestablishment and ousting lamar alexander in the primary there and she was talking about the u.k. independent party so a lot of resonance. people are aware or i hope they are because of i've been writing about it that the democrats will get hammered in the midterm. >> and martin klingst?

>> i would say the germans are not too interested in the races. they will be interested in the outcome and how it's going to affect the last two years of the obama presidency and the germans are more interested in the issues, like how are you going to settle this surveillance issues, come to terms, and how obama is going to appease the germans. it's a tough time at the moment. it's a tense relation. >> i may be wrong but i've always felt within britain, popular culture always has a big impact like the west wing. >> scandal, don't forget. >> there's a fascination with

the scandal of american politics and the personalities as well as the issues. >> we have about five more minutes. clifton, new jersey, jeff. >> how are you? >> fine, thanks. >> i just want to talk about the u.s. relationship with its neighbors and how it pertains to upcoming presidential elections. i was in switzerland and just got back a few weeks ago. i just want to ask our guests what they think about senator rand paul. i think his father ron was very good. was very important to american ideals and what the founding fathers believed in. and i think rand wants to make the u.s. what it was like switzerland and not a land with alliances and involved

in free trade. >> jeff, appreciate the perspective. we'll get a response. martin klingst. >> it might be the front runner. i'm still doubtful at the end. but when it comes to europeans, you know, you will see that probably a majority would agree with his opinion on intelligence issues, you know, that they pri to have a stronger or has to play a stronger role. you know, that intelligence services should be limited or agencies should be limited and, you know, freedom is of high value and should be safeguarded. i think europeans would be very skeptical which it comes to his foreign policy. he wants to withdraw. he wants to stop living in a world with so many

crisis so you need to be involved. and the europeans are involved, obama is involved. i think the trans-atlantic relations whien it comes to foreign policy is there. so i think they would be frightened to see rand paul as a front runner. >> i think he's a very fascinating candidate because i think he's potentially carving out a new position for the republican party. he was at the national urban league on saturday and talked about poverty and actually doing something for poor people in the united states. i mean, i think he's sort of pop yulist. i think he's something quite significant. i interviewed him for the sunday times last year and we're following him very closely indeed. >> all right, naomi in norman,

oklahoma. all right. before we go to our lost caller, i want to ask you, we were talking about presidents. the headline was my country needs help in facing the threat of russia and the president of ukraine said the west should be thinking about a larger response to what has happened. as always, the united states should take the lead working together with the eu, washington can shape a world coalition of nations to ensure these terrorists are not able to strike again. >> what's the purpose of an opinion piece like this in the washington paper and how will this resonate in european countries? >> i think he detects maybe some

division between europe and the united states. i mean, there's a piece in the new york times about potential military action and it's very interesting. it was mentiond that there be an agreement that there be no nato troops stationed in eastern european countries. and what you have in ukraine and other countries is a constant desire for the united states and europe to do more. >> i would also say that he is facing the american people saying that ukraine is important and, you know, because you hear often the opinion of why should we care about ukraine so i think it's also addressed at the american public and addressed at the world public because we are facing the nato summit which will deal with the question of how to assure the eastern

european partners are allies of nato. >> and that's coming up in september. >> the beginning of september, the nato summit in wales. >> all right. are you with us? >> first thing i have to say is is thanks for the cable companies for c-span and i would like to suggest that u.s. foreign policy be changed to that 50 percent of the money spent on any country is impeaching english. >> is in doing what? >> he wants 50 percent of what is spent on defense to be spent on teaching english. >> all right. martin klingst

here with die zeit. can people read this online as well? >> yes, but it's in german. >> and toby harnden with the sunday times, the bureau chief. it is a subscription sight so anybody than wants to read that wants to read the sunday times need to subscribe to it.

>> tomorrow, secretary of state john kerry will talk about u.s. and india relations. we'll have it live on c-span three. and then leaders of the jewish community will gather in washington d.c. to show support for the people of israel. speakers included susan rice, john boehner, kevin mccarthy and ron durmer. you can watch that tomorrow on c-span three.

>> to see what are those issues that i'm going to confront a year from now, five years from now, ten years from now and how do i think more strategically about america's role in the world.

>> this past week, president obama signed an executive order that would prohibit federal contractors from discriminating on the basis of gender identity. the action came after the employment nondiscrimination act which passed the senate but stalled in the house. >> a group of ladies and

gentlemen, the president of the united states. [applause] [applause] [applause] >> all right, everybody. thank you. thank you. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. [applause] >> thank you, everybody. [applause] >> thank you. thank you. all right, everybody, have a seat. have a seat. [applause] >> welcome to the white house, everybody. i know i'm a little late. [laughter] >> but that's okay, because we got some big business to do here. many of you have worked for a long time to see this day coming. you organized, you spoke up, you signed petitions, you sent letters. i know

because i got a lot of them. [laughter] >> and now thanks to your passionate advocacy and the rightness of your cause, our government, the government of the people, by the people, and for the people, will become just a little bit fairer. >> amen. [applause] >> it is -- [applause] >> doesn't make much sense, but today in america, millions of our fellow citizens wake up and go to work with the awareness that they could lose their job and not because of how they do their job, but because of who they are. lesbian, gay,

transgender, bisexual. whatever. and that's not fair. and we're doing what we can to make that right. to bend that ark of justice in a better direction. in a few moments, i will sign a federal order that will do two things. it will be explicitly true for gender identity. [applause] >> and, second, we're going to prohibit all companies that receive a contract from the federal government from discriminating against their lgbt employees.

[applause] >> america's federal contractors should not subsidize discrimination of the american people. president roosevelt -- johnson expanded it. today, i'm going to expand it again. currently, 18 states have already banned work place discrimination on this. governor terry mccauliff is here and he was one of the first to declare it unlawful to discriminate against lgbt

employees. [applause] >> i've appointed a record number of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender public servants across my administration, they are ambassadored, federal judges, special assistants, senior advisors from the pentagon to the labor department. every day their talent is put to work on behalf of the american people. the quality in the work place is not only the right thing to do. it is good business. that's why a majority of future 500 companies already have this policy in place. >> yet web despite all that, in -- and, yet, despite all that, in some places, just being gay or lesbian or transgender

can be a fireable offense. this is not speculative, this is not a matter of political correctness, people lose their jobs because of this. their lively hoods are threatened, their families are threatened. so i firmly believe that it's time to address this injustice for every american. now, congress has spent 40 years considering legislation to help solve the problem. that's a long time. [laughter] >> and, yet, they still haven't gotten it done. >> terry baldwin is here. they have been champions of this issue for a long, long time. we are very proud of them and i know they will not stop fighting until fair treatment for all workers is the federal law of the land. [applaus

[applause] >> i know what i'm going to do, to act. the rest of you need to keep putting pressure on congress to pass this once and for all. >> amen. [applause] >> amen. amen. got the amen corner right here. well -- you don't want to hear me preaching now. >> we have strived for centuries to form a more perfect union. many of us are only here because many fought for the rights and opportunities for us. we have an obligation to make sure for

the future that the country we love means that no matter what, you can make it in this country. that's the story of america. that's the story of this movement. i want to thank all of you for doing your part. we've got a long way to go, but i hope as everybody looks around this room, you are reminded of the extraordinary progress that we have made. not just in our lifetimes, but in the last five years. [applause] >> in the last two years. in the last one year. [applause] >> we're on the right side of history. i'm going to sign this executive order. thank you, everybody. [applause] >> so many pens. [laughter]

>> we're all good. we made it. thank you. [applause] [applause]

inwith the rise unaccompanied minors from central america arriving in the united states, the foreign ministers of el salvador, water molecule and honduras talked about the roots of the crisis and how their governments are responding. this is hosted by the wilson center, and is about an hour. >> i'm speaking with three anplomats, but i am asking i undiplomatic question. who's problem is it? [laughter] would you like to begin?

>> thank you. i think this is, can i speak in spanish? i'm going to speak in spanish. it is more comfortable for me. this question doesn't get to the point. this isn't a matter of finding guilty parties or finger-pointing. it is a matter of sharing responsibility. we have been speaking to central america from the standpoint of challenges. citizens challenges. we have this responsibility that we see as a shared one. that is differentiated. we have to, in the case of drug trafficking, we have to look at it from the stannt