at 8:20 a.m., more about the fight on isis with public and center mike brown's of south dakota. he was not but his legislative agenda as a freshman senator. -- he will talk about his legitimate of agenda. >> good morning everyone. may 21st. phreut tow reports show whether his speech has any effect on the aspiring legislation. find out watch c-span two to watch the floor. he said the climate change poses

an immediate risk to the country's national security. we want to know what your thoughts on what the president had to say and is dealing with priority change means anything to you. and independent 202-748-8002 and send us a tweet @ c-span is our handle and e-mail at c-span.org. phone lines are open and start dialling in. "new york times" says it this way, obama's climate change with far reaching effects.

president obama: climate change constitutes a serious risk to national security and it will impact how our military defends our country. so we need to act and need to act now. after all, isn't that the true hallmark of leadership. when you're on deck standing your watch you stay sreupbl lent you and plan for every contingency. if you see storm clouds gathering or dangerous shoals ahead, you don't sit back and do nothing. you take action to protect your ship and keep your crew safe. anything else is negligence.

it is a dereliction of duty. so too with climate change. denying it or refusing to deal with it endangers our national security and undermines the readiness of our forces. >> president obama in new london, connecticut at a coast guard commencement address taking the opportunity that climate risk is the immediate risk to national security. do you agree or disagree what do you think should be done. we'll go to joe. caller: i don't think it's an issue. my big issue is the $18 trillion in debt that we have and 100 trillion in liability. i'm spending all tie time trying to elect people like ted cruz to do something about the fiscal crisis.

i don't think climate change is an important issue at all. >> do you deny climate change? caller: well, you know, i don't know -- i won't go quite that far, but on my radar and the people down here in georgia i'm talking to it's way down on the priority list. the number one priority. we got to cut spending. it's not a big issue with me at all. it would be about 450 on my list. >> that's joe in republican in georgia. appreciate the call. we're getting your thoughts on that this morning. do you think climate change is an immediate risk to national security, do you agree with the president's agenda. here is back to the "new york times". mr. obama repeated arguments he cites often to promote his effort including a litany of grim fact and figures.

missing skeptics of the femme no, ma'am nonare those who refuse to act on it . and he faces strong opposition on climate change and many republicans and coal industry officials would devastate the economy facing resistance the president is looking to build support including his focus on national defense. in a report issued on wednesday, the white house said climate changes would act as an excel rant aropd the world that could escalate white house said tensions and lead to overpopulation and rising temperatures would change the missions increasing the command for resources in the arctic and coastal regions that would

affected by higher sea levels and humanitarian crisises. john republican, what do you think? caller: yes, humanitarian i think climate change is not an issue. i think the biggest national security risk we currently have -- hello? >> yes. caller: i think the biggest national security problem the united states has is current leadership and i think that barack obama has been the worst president in my lifetime and i'm 63 years old and i think the quality of his appointment and

himself as a non-leader is a national security risk. >> all right. that's john a republican in new hampshire. this is the washington times this morning and this is how they frame the president's remarks yesterday. "president obama climate more dangerous than terror. the stance shows a reality disconnect. he largely ignored major advances by the islamic state and other threats and instead sounded an alarm on climate change. he says the warming planet is perhaps the most sweeping danger today. he painted an almost apocalyptic future scenario where the u.s. must follow up to global alarm on climate change. he says the warming planet is warming. it could include droughts, famines and national disasters. mr. obama also seemed to blame

climate change. and administration is under fire from lawmakers and other critics for lacking a comprehensive strategy to push back against the islamic state. senator john mc cain came to the floor, republican of arizona and talked about that very issue. senator mc cain: the secretary of state said that ra maddy was a target of opportunity. of we completely lost -- have we letly lost our sense of any moral caring and concern about thousands and thousands of people who are murdered who are made refugees who are dying as we speech and the saebg teurry of state says that we should not light our hair on fire. what does the president have to say today? the president of united states

says todayit's climate change we have to worry b i'm worried about climate change. do we give a dam about what's happening in the streets of row maddy and the thousands of refugees and the innocent men, women and children that are dying and being executed and their bodies burned in the street? i'm worried about climate change. do we give a dam about >> republican from arizona came to the floor for criticizing the president about talking about climate changes. days after the city of ra maddy had fallen to isis. many critics criticizing his strategy and some say he needs to rethink. and we'll talk about that with two members of congress adam submitted the democrat from washington who is the top democrat on the house of armed services committee and talk to a freshman senator who serves on

the armed services committee and former governor of south dakota. that's coming up. but west virginia an independent what do you think about what the president had to say? caller: it is it's nonsense. the ice age did not end because the climate is always changing and there's -- he talks about dereliction of duty, he's not doing too much about the immigration problem and too much about isis and he said that's a j.v.team. he might want to look in the mirror about dereliction of mirror. >> democrat, what do you think? caller: climate change is real. only thing all your callers are too old so they'll all be dead. this is for our grandchildren. but that's one thing. bush is the worst president. people call up and hate obama but bush let 9/11 happen that's why we're in this place. >> i'll stick to the climate of climate change and whether or not you think it's an immediate

risk to national security. john an independent what's your take on this issue? caller: good morning. i'd like to remind everybody that we have known for several decades when hand son testified before congress under oath 1988 the public and congress cannot deny the truth, the accuracy of climate change and second point and there's a book, "this changes everything" it's an excellent source of information of truth about what the world is actually facing. i would really recommend this read to everybody. be informed what you're hearing the back and forth between the right and the left is disinformation and a level of uninformed the facts that it's so scary. thank you for your time.

>> this is from slate.com. they feature a poll that was done by researchers at yale and utah state university. that americans overwhelmingly agree that global warming is happening. majorities of 39 counties disagree. nearly 99% of all counties believe in global warming. where they don't believe in global warming is in southern states and those counties. it's a poll on slate.com. good morning to you andre. caller: good morning. not to make fun of the situation, but climate change is serious and scenario concerning both our spiritual atmosphere as well as our physical atmosphere. the first climate we as americas

must change is the political environment because until we get these politicians out of our senate house of representatives, nothing else will matter because they're really and going to do anything to turn anything around. because all these problems stem from our government and politicians making these decisions over a stance of time. a lot of it in order to solve most of these problems have to get undone. john mc cain, respect the brother highly and i'm also republican. what about the people in america, the things that we need to get done here? and i always say this every time i call this, this is 92 more than foreign policy gone awry. they want to go rule the world but they can't run they're own house. and this is a very sad situation. so climate change yes must

occur in the political atmosphere as well as the environment because we are truly, truly in danger. thank you, c-span. you have done a fantastic job. have a good day. >> florida. caller: hi. i'm glad you accepted my call. okay. >> you're on. we're listening. caller: yeah, hello. i think it's a very important what the president just said, okay? and i don't agree with mc cain at all. what do they want to do, start another war? those people have been fighting for millions and millions of years or whatever, for so long, they do this to their selves. we have problems right here in

america that is large and very important. and i think he is right with his decision take care of our side first. >> fred in jacksonville, florida. fred you're on the air. caller: yes, greta. i just found that a big embarrassment to be bringing up the subject of climate change right in front of those coast guard cadets. has nothing to do with the military readiness that this country needs to be prepared for and the biggest issue with me, we need to find out whoing is in this country out all these refugees that have been crossing the mexican border and immigration. because it's been pointed out that pakistanis have come over the border and our main threat is this terrorism which is

getting out of hand and under control and not to mention the terrorism that is the crime on our streets. my goodness here in jacksonville, florida we have had a plethora of shootings off the record for the past several weeks. and this is happening also i know not just in baltimore, ferguson or cleveland or chicago, every city is suffering this. we need to face the domestic needs that we have here for security in the united states. and to make the right decisions taking care of middle east policy not appeasing our enemies. thank you very much. greta: rand paul republican of kentucky presidential hopeful came to the floor around 1:20 p.m. and stood and took control of the floor to appose the patriot act specifically

the ns a bulk data collection. he wants it dismantled and reform and he talked for 10.5 hours. shortly before midnight he gave up the floor and ended his opposition it renewing those parts of the patriot act. it's unclear whether or not this speech on the patriot act had any real effect on senate majority leader to deal with the provisions before the senate leaves town this week for their memorial leave reset. it expires june 1st and telling senators they need to act on this or they're going to have to quickly dismantleing this bulk.

>> they found nine of ten intercepted conversations were not the intended target. in the last year we had 89,000 targets. but if you multiply that and say that's 1-10th of what we take you're now looking at 900,000 records that had nothing to do with terrorism. it could be the terrorist called papa john and you called papa john and you're now on the same phone tree network. it shouldn't be stored because ultimately we're collecting so much information it's all of your information. one thing that should concern us about going from a system where the government collects all these records and stores them in utah to one where a phone company doing it, some people

are saying not so bad. that concerns me that the nsa saying not so bad. it concerns me that we'll still have bulk collection. the debate we really need to have is whether or not your records is someone else is holding them if you have any kind of privacy interest in your records. greta: extended remarks took him 10.5 hours. he stood there not alone he had help from democrats.

bob in carolina, independent caller. hi pwob. we're talking about president obama that climate change is an immediate risk. caller: god bless america for c-span and open conversation with common people. i believe that climate change -- i'm not a denier but if you look over the history of the -- ancient history of this world we've had ice ages. we've had desert ages where the climate has swung in cycles of long duration and i'm not

another thing is the disruption and turmoil in the middle east. i'm not saying put boots on the ground but let's try to make peace and not make war and another thing, the global economy and the international banks, they have taken over the world economy and they are for themselves and not for the common workers here. it's a

travesty with us older people who put money in the bank now and get 1% and a cd on it and we have actually funded the world banks and the world trade companies to further their businesses, about time for the government to take maybe have a special program for people over 55 worthless than a million dollars and pay them a reasonable amount of interest rate like 7, 8% on money. greta: he talked mentioned the middle east situation and isis taking over key city in iraq. they're strengthening their hold in syria. that will be the topic of today's senate armed services committee this morning. we'll be streaming it live on c-span.org and find out when we'll show that on our networks.

south dakota governor of the state we'll talk to him about the isis strategy. tkpweul, what do you think about president obama's remarks? caller: yes, good morning, greta. i totally conquer with the comments that president obama made and i agree with the previous democratic caller. i'd like to refute joe from georgia. number one carbon co2 levels are already 400 parts per million.

30 northern virginia where the u.s. fleet is housed, you're seeing rises in the ocean already flooding in norfolk and the damage and effects it will have with the u.s. navy. you you're seeing species of fish being wiped out and cost of fish at the supermarket are through the roof and increases in forest fires and severe storms like katrina and sandy and also and wars will be fought over water primarily in the

future. we did he emphasize the teaching of science in our schools and basic carbon cycle water cycle, things like that that are taught, that should be taught in our high schools and taught through our college. in our country we are not taught science that there's this ignorance about what is going on scientifically and lastly, 30 years ago, scientists, eminent scientists up until now the i.p.p.c. and looking at over 30,000 papers and scientists have looked at data saying this is coming and yet to bury our heads in the sand over this is

absolutely unimaginable. greta: for you and others take a look at slate.com. americans don't think climate change effects them personally. that's our topic for all of you this morning getting your thoughts on what the president had to say at the coast guard commencement address yesterday where he said that climate change represents an immediate risk to national security citing pentagon research saying that it's a threat multiplier. republican, hi, gordon. good morning. caller: good morning to c-span and good morning to the united states. i'm of the opinion that our national debt is our biggest threat to national security. gil in north carolina and the

president climate gate was something that should be discussed in this show. i'm not familiar with the details of it, but that kind of ruined some of the credibility of the global warming folks but you know, out here in the rockies, we could provide a lot of work for some of the out of work kids in the inner cities. we have some big problems all over the rocky mountains. greta: the homeland security chairman tweeted this out in response to what the president had to say yesterday -- and this

is from the "new york times" this morning. their editorial, second editorial, the high cost of dirty fuels. the arguments are not new but the ims research make the case stronger and more timely. by raising taxes on fossil fuels and eliminating the subsidies, they would risk premature deaths by 55% ask that would make a big dent. that today in the "new york times" editorial page and then also this morning in the papers you probably have heard about

this story in california, clean-up crews tackling california oil spill and investigation and clean-up efforts began in the aftermath of tuesday's spill near the shore. federal officials said the oil spread into two large patches covering an area of nine miles long. the epa along with the transportation department is taking over this investigation in california. as we continue to get your thoughts on president obama is immediate risk on national security. hi, joe, you're next. go ahead. caller: good morning and thank you. i don't think it's either/or. they're both catastrophic problems. i mean, we are broke. we're $18 trillion in debt and we'nt can afford the interest on the debt and the gold is on from our country and climate change

is very real. i was crushed by hurricane sandy. but no one addresses what's the number one problem. something we take an immediate effect in 24 hours if we ground all airplanes. they fly at 30,000 feet. they spew out not miles per gallon but thousands of pounds of spent jet fuel at 34, 40,000 feet. thousands of planes day and night are flying around the globe. i'd like to know what the temperature is of the exhaust coming out of the back of that plane? if you put your hand behind that engine is it 400, 6-or 800 and all that is going into our atmosphere, into our o-zone level. ground all air planes and watch how much cleaner and cooler the planet will be immediately.

thank you for c-span also. i'd like to comment on the fella who called about the people coming over our borders. you can imagine if mexico became totally uninhabitable because of climate change where they couldn't grow anything? climate change definitely makes people hungry and makes them angry. we must address it as soon as we can and secondly, it is addressing climate change could be very good for our economy because we to create new industries to produce energy. so for every ounce of coal that we stop taking out of the mountains of west virginia, we would then have to produce windmills and solar energy which is our new industries and it's

definitely a problem around the world and i thank you for c-span again. greta: yesterday on capitol hill during the house of administration hearing, the capital police chief was asked about whether they knew about the gyrocopter. here's his rundown of the timeline. >> that day at i believe 12:59 hours we received an e-mail from someone claiming to be a reporter asking questions did we have any knowledge about a gyrocopter landing. it was more aware this might be happening and does the person have permission to do that. that e-mail went to the public information officer lieutenant kimberly schneider. about a minute later we got a call in our command center apparently from the same individual asking generic type

questions did someone have a permit to land and did not give a date or time or indicate that a landing was eminent and that was forwarded to our investigations division. as those began to be looked into, minutes later frankly the gyrocopter landed. >> the police chief of the u.s. capital giving the timeline for when that gyrocouldn'ter landed on the grounds of the capital. the headline is that the gyrocopter pilot basking in notoriety. doug hughes is the pilot of it. they announced a six count indictment and two felonies and indicted on invading air space and improperly putting the u.s.

post office logo on his gyrocouldn'tter. he'll be our guest on the "washington journal" tomorrow morning. you can tune to see him at 8:00 a.m. eastern time here on the washington journal and he'll take your questions and comments. his protest over campaign finance and trying to draw attention to it. we'll talk to him while he's in washington. back to our phone calls with all of you. what do you think, harry in pittsburgh, pennsylvania a republican. give us your thoughts on khroeu mat change. caller: this is a joke. they put a book out with 3,000 scientists in it and questioned a few and only 56 of them would say it's a fact. but the books prove -- they're always using the 3,000.

i went to lasalaska three years ago. greenland is now frozen over and they caught al gore they were trying to put a ponzi scheme together and they exposed all this have. and only 3% of the american people believe this. and here's the question i'd like you to ask the next person who believes it. are you going to get rid of your refrigerator and go buy your stood your bicycle and get rid of your tv's and radios. if you really believe in this do your part. don't tell me to pay more money for my utilities on something that's a lie and garbage and

proved over and over again yet these people keep calling in and saying it's true. do your part. do all that because telling me i'm tired of paying utility bills when we have plenty of gas, oil and coal to use of the solar energy will work 30, 40 years from now. right now it don't work at all. greta: all right. president oh pwpl pha saying it's an immediate risk. paul in wisconsin independent, what do you think? caller: hi, good morning. i believe that whatever you wafrpbt to call it whether it be climate change or purely natural cycle or caused by man it's a serious problem and i believe that it's the variables of the

unexpected effects that are the biggest problem. aside from the basics that co2 and methane are creating warmth in the ocean and so on and ex set tra, the variable effects everybody sees across the world from -- there seems to be a lot of optical illusions with the sun that have been occurring at unpress dated rates and they say it's ice crystals in the air and aside from all the obvious increase in more powerful hurricanes and a lot more flooding and destructive weather that's going on across the globe and things that are verified as well across the globe such as extremely loud noises, booms in large communities here and

thousands of people have videotaped and a lot of unknowns that have never occurred before. and one more thing, it's clearly it may be part of a bigger cycle because our earth our atmosphere as well as electromagnetic field has changed by 15 to 20% over the past 15 years as well as the sun helios sphere has always had a decrease and fluctuation of 15%. greta: in 2016 political news washington times law prevents the group from coordinating with funding the candidates.

accused the group to providing illegal funds to mrs. clinton's campaign. then from the boston globe this morning about new hampshire the granite state g.o.p. slow to rally around jeb bush. the networks that propelled his father and brother are taking a wait and see approach. also this morning, fox news is streamlining the gop field for debate. hopefuls will be abruptly whittled down to as few as ten

at least for debate purposes. net worked decision to invite only candidates who hit a polling threshold is to curtail the sizing of the ballooning field. debates have proved down to as few as ten at least for debate purposes.crucial. back to our phone calls. kathy in middle town, new york, a democrat. what do you think about climate change, what the president had to say yesterday? caller: good morning greta. i definitely agree with climate change being a national threat. i think one of the primary problems is that once all the scientific data has been in and it's been in for decades that propaganda seems to be creating diversion of the americans who are watching conservative prp beganed da television.

what they're more con serpd is fear of isis and ebola. it a my take on it. the evidence is there. and greta: rachel an independent. good morning to you. caller: good morning. this is rachel white. i'm calling about the global climate changes. i find it very unusual this president would choose this call at this moment when it takes two air force ones that burn lots of fossil fuel to go on vacation in hawaii. all these so-called experts fuel

1700 jets to switzerland to have a conference. the biggest one of all, al gore who has made millions on this has how many houses and how many jets? and these are the proponents of climate change? and they want the people to believe in it and. and quit burning the fossil fuels. thank you. greta: "wall street journal" front page banks pay 5.6 billion to settle a u.s. investigation. they agreed to pay that amount and plead guilty to criminal charges to resolve a long running investigation whether traders colluded to move rates for their own financial benefit.

so that in the wall street journal and also on money federal reserve looking past june for the first rate hike. federal reserve officials at their april policy meeting said that they are unlikely to raise interest rates in june. it now looks like they're looking towards september or beyond for a fed rate increase. is that object the front page of the "wall street journal" and also reserve looking this story. many papers have it this morning. bin laden and bureaucrat, they released that along with more than 400 books and research reports were grabbed by navy seals the day that bin laden was shot to death. many taking a welcome at what

was in bin laden's compound. many books including obama wars by the "washington post" reporter, federal reserve. that in the papers this morning. also i want to show you a moment from the house floor yesterday. speaker of the house, john boehner came to the floor seeking answers from the administration about the veterans affair scandal and why it seems to remain. >> my colleagues next week mark the one year anniversary since general resigned as secretary. at the time he promised reform. he said, the number one priority is making sure that the problems get fixed. but instead of a new day at the v.a. the american people are still seeing more of the same.

last year congress gave the v.a. secretary new authority to fire employees. but while some 110 facilities kept secret lists of wait times just one person has been fired. what the hell happened to the rest of them? some got retired for their benefits, some got transferred and some got a slap on wrist. all of them still collected checks from taxpayers. if only they could take care of the bureaucrats as they do our veterans we'd be in better shape. congress gave more than $16 billion to improve care and shorten waiting times and yet the number of patience facing long waits is about the same. greta: talking about the state

of the nation's veterans ahead of this weekend's memorial day. jim, what do you think? caller: i think that we had to worry about the future. water and food is the main thing. if we don't have that, forget it. it's going to be wars breaking out all over the world. because people need that. thank you very much. greta: barbara in texas, democrat what do you think? caller: i think that i agree with the president because people if they start just looking at people falling through the grounds, all these sink holes. i'm on the border of mexico he oh i mean texas and all the drilling and california without

water and people are acting like obama's administration are the first one to get jets and fly places. it's so ignorant that they let money run their -- make them believers out of things. when a tsunami hits us like it did indonesia, when something like that really hits us then they'll understand and then they'll try to run to mexico and turn it around. host: we'll take a short break. when we come back, we'll talk with representative adam smith, the top democrat on the house armed services committee get his thoughts on the fight against isis and then later we'll go to the other side of the aisle and chamber and talk to freshman senator a republican from south

dakota who also serves on the armed services committee as well. we'll be right back. and hulu founding ceo and monday morning at 11 live coverage from arlington national cemetery and

9:00 p.m. eastern interviews with four freshman members of congress. on c-span two saturday night on 10:00 eastern, america's transportation infrastructure and her ideas for potential improvements in rail, air and ground transport. and monday evening at 8:00 in primetime books on first ladies including michelle obama and eleanor roosevelt. and on american history it t.v. erika leon asian immigration to angel island, california, from 1830 to 1930 and how their arrival compared to ellis island

in new york. the 1945 production of the true glory, which chronicles the events from d-day to the surrender of naturezi germany. find our complete schedule at c-span.org. >> "washington journal" continues. >> we are back with congressman adam smith, the top democrat on the house armed services committee here to talk about the isis strategy. let me begin with some of the headlines. here's the "washington post" from yesterday. it shows signs of unravelling and then you got the "wall street journal" editorial this morning, they're weighing in on this as well. saying losing in iraq again.

pentagon spin can't hide that the u.s. strategy is failing. is it failing? the strategy against isis in iraq? >> first of all, you have to understand that the situation is very difficult and i don't think there is a strategy right now that's going to win and solve the problem. we have to look at what's achievable and come up with a strategy that gets us this and in that sense i think we need a better strategy. it issed i think it's wrong to say it's failing. this is a long living struggle and you won't come up with strategy that you tphroeu for five years. you have to adjust. i will say right now the biggest problem with the strategy is that it relies on baghdad government being a true power sharing arrangement and sunnis being invested. i understand the implications of

that are very difficult. if you have the kurds being separate and the sunnis being separate and the shias being separate in iraq that leads to complications. the issue is, we're there now&sunnis are not willing to fight for this baghdad. the constituent thattal bad i did has are still primarily shia and the sunnis are not willing to fight for it. we need a new strategy. i don't know what it is. but to continue to insist the way to solve this problem is to just get the sunnis to buy into the baghdad government and doesn't seem like it's going to work. i think we'll have to come up with another way to try to persuade them to oppose isil.

greta: does it rely too heavily on the government that it needs to rely more than u.s. forces? >> no. absolutely not. greta: why not? >> we should learn from a western military force trying to fight and win in a muslim country is only going to empower groups like isis. the only solution to defeating isis is to get sunnis in the region to oppose isis. they have to lead the fight. if the u.s. shows up in force that just pushes more sunnis into the arms of isis because then they can portray themselves and u.s. force is not going to be the solution to this and i think it's dangerous. i know some republicans are calling for it as if u.s. military can solve any problem. any lesson we learned in

afghanistan and eyeiraqi would have hoped it would have been as the u.s. military. and there are some problems they can't solve. you can't go into a muslim country and "fix it." it's going have to to happen from local partners. greta: he poses these questions. are shiite troops ready to fight to protect sunnis or will their lines collapse? >> yes. well, we already had that generation. it's an interesting debate but look at the last ten years. look at the basic ethnic cleansing that went on during the course of the iraq war.

sunnis eliminating shia from those neighborhoods and versa. the killings have been rampant better than a decade now. that division is what is making our strategy so difficult to move forward. greta: if the u.s. does not step up the presence doesn't that void be filled by iran 90 and shiite militia. >> i think it is filled with them but i don't think there is anything we can do about that. yachts it's like, if u.s. forces showed up that they would just melt back. they'd start targeting america in addition to targeting sunnis. so i don't think u.s. forces are

the solution. i think it's very difficult to come up with. and it has to acknowledge a certain amount of instability and chaos in the short term. again that coalition we're not going to build them by showing up at the doorstep and saying you got to fight. greta: what is the implication of ra maddy to isis this key city? >> we're still at the point where the sunnis will not fight for the baghdad government. isis was outnumbered like 5-1 but the sunnis involved just didn't fight. just fell back. greta: does it have anything to

do with the amount of money that the united states and its allies have spent on training and equipping the sunnis? >> the problem there and i think a lot of people are critical of our training and i think that's the wrong approach. i don't know for sure but i do know that the reason that the sunnis have been unsuccessful in fighting in mosul is because they didn't want to fight. they may well have been incredibly well armed and trained but no matter how well trained and armed if you don't want to fight you're not going to be successful. without a doubt the reason that the sunnis in the iraqi army fell back in both of those cities was because they looked at the baghdad government as a shiite regime and you have stories about neighborhoods being wiped out by shiite

militia and baghdad doing nothing about it and precious few sunni members being marginized. so the training and equipment may well have been sufficient but wasn't was to get them to use it and fight on the behalf of the government that they see is hostile to them. greta: the new prime minister said he would do a better job. >> that's not a very high bar to jump over. greta: what do you think of his performance? >> the most important thing about his performance to remember we are all products of our constituent as elected representatives. but he is subject to his constituent as well. and what we have seen is the leading powers in baghdad tend

to be shiite and they view it as a zero sum game. now the shiite are in charge and they'll do the exact opposite. i wish there was some i wish there were evidence that that wasn't the case but it seems to be consistent. al-abadi may want to fix the problem, but the problem goes beyond him and the group in baghdad who don't see it as a problem. they see it as the shia exerting their rightful power. host: let's let our viewers ask you some questions. anthony in st. paul, minnesota democrat. hi, anthony. caller: i just have a few things to say. we should have thought about this before we took -- but i want to say about the isil deal, i live here in minnesota, we have the mall of america, the threat there.

if these people want to go, let them go. we don't need homegrown terrorism here. it doesn't make any sense. there are millions of arabs over there and they can handle it and eventually they will get their thing together. see, when you go into place and try to change things over to how you see it to be, those people need to elect their own leaders. we can't put people in. let them go -- put a tag in them so you know where they are and you can draw them later. if you keep them here and they can't fight over here, they will start fighting here. we don't need that. we didn't start all of that. it was congress and people wanting to start wars. the real american people don't need all this drama. host: all right, anthony. congressman? guest: the point he is trying to make is that there are some u.s. citizens you want to go fight and we are trying to stop them and then they are a threat here.

if you have people who are a threat they need to be arrested and contained and need to be watched. if you have credible evidence that they are in fact a threat domestically. the caller correctly identifies the biggest threat we face, and that is folks locally trying to do what was done in france and some other places just taking up -- what they tried to do in texas here. it will take law-enforcement and the fbi and intel folks -- they will have to work hard to keep track of who might be motivated to do these types of acts. host: tom in illinois republican. caller: hi, i was just wanting to talk to the congressman about representatives -- representative smith about, when we went to the second gulf war and i don't know why republican candidates don't say this more, it was because of the violations

that saddam hussein agreed upon in the first gulf war. he violated 13 or 15 of them did the other point i would like to make is why are we still in germany? why are we still in japan? we are there because we defeated them and people's minds don't change for generations. when you pulled out of iraq, you let the chaos continue, and we wasted our blood and resources. my question is why are we still in germany? why are we in japan? those people were suicide bombers. they did whatever they could to defeat us. why are we still there? guest: in germany and japan? we are in germany and japan might have because they are both allies. they are not suicide bombers, at least not at the moment. they are not trying to kill us, they're working with us, and we have our bases there as a way to project power.

particularly in japan, the concern is north korea. in germany we have closer access to the middle east and we have concerns about russia. that is why we stay there as long as we did. it is one thing in germany and japan when we stated there post-world war ii -- when we stayed there post-world war ii they had completely and totally surrendered. there were not terrorist insurgent movements going on in either of those countries. we were there because they cooperated with us in rebuilding their country -- countries. and it worked very well. in iraq, that was not the case. they did not want us there, they did not want to cooperate in rebuilding the country. they want to fight us and they wanted us to want to -- wanted us gone. i disagree with anyone who says, gosh, if we stayed in iraq longer into the better. it is clear after a decade that the iraqi people did not want us there and saw our very presence

as the primary threat to the type of government that they wanted. host: given the situation on the ground there now, should the u.s. continue withdrawal plans? guest: i'm sorry, in iraq? they are already through. host: well, there is u.s. forces -- guest: advisers -- host: obviously not right now but what is the end game for them? guest: it is much smaller and we are not fighting. we are providing advice and assistance in trying to combat isil. the problem is having a reliable partner. our partner is primarily the baghdad government although we are working with the kurds to greater success in the north. there are some people we are able to work with. but the true breakthrough here would be to find a group of sunni tribes that are willing to work with us to fight isil. we have not been able to accomplish that. as i have said too many times already, in part we have not been able to accomplish that

because of the way the sunnis feel about the baghdad government we are still trying to work with. host: you don't think there's anything the u.s. could do to beef up the sunni forces and convince them to join the fight? guest: there probably is. the keys working with saudi arabia and other sunni states. part of the problem there is early on in the conflict in syria, some of the sunni states were not too picky about who they funded. they funded it very extreme groups. how do we find those moderate sunnis who were willing to reject isil and what sort of offered to we make them, given the situation in baghdad? that is the strategy we need to develop. the old strategy that says try to convince the sunnis that they will be a true part of a power-sharing agreement in baghdad, i don't see that strategy working. host: we will go to herb in orchard park, new york democrat. caller: yes, good morning.

congressman, we had to learn from history, and i don't know if you were in congress at the time of the iraq invasion, but we do know that political people today say that voted for the iraq invasion, such as jeb bush that said "gee, if i had known then what i know now, we would never have gone in." that is the point i want to ask you, congressman. when we found out that saddam hussein really did not have those weapons of mass destruction, what was our reaction as a nation? you would think that george bush and dick cheney and especially the members of the senate and the house intelligence oversight committees would have said what in the world went wrong? how would george tenet, then the

cia chief, just two weeks before our invasion walk into the oval office and say "mr. president, it's a slamdunk, he has those weapons of mass destruction." what really happened is nothing. intelligence oversight committees did nothing. in fact, when george tenet shortly retired shortly thereafter, he received a presidential medal of freedom. the man that really blew it, the presidential medal of freedom with the intelligence, with the senate and house intelligence committee members there applauding. host: all right herb, let's get the congressman to react to what you are saying. guest: yeah, there was an article just recently -- i think it was paul krugman, actually -- saying that the reasons for going to war, wmd and all that, is beside the point. dick cheney wanted to go to war.

there was the believe that removing saddam hussein would be a positive step forward. i agree, there was not enough accountable for people who told the tale of weapons of mass destruction when it clearly wasn't the case. there is also a lot -- something a lot of people have forgotten. after we made the case, the vote in congress, and the vote in congress was not to go to war. it was to authorize the president to go to war if saddam hussein did not release his weapons of mass destruction. a month later the united nations passed unanimously in incredibly coercive inspections regime that iraq agreed to. if weapons of mass destruction with the issue, that should have been the end of it. we should have sent in the course of inspections regime that would have bound these weapons and taking care of them. our threat of war would have proven enough. the fact that the bush admin attrition completely ignored the u.n. resolution and did it anyway is a rather troubling

factor that i think a lot of people forget in the history of that conflict. host: in this debate over whether or not iraq was a mistake, that question being posed to the 20 16th presidential candidates. "usa today" editorial board -- "just a minute, iraq war was a disastrous mistake." with the opposing view is bill kristol of "the weekly standard," saying "we were right to go in there and to stay and to continue to stay." richard, what do you think? caller: i just get so tired of hearing the same answer from democrats. i'm glad representatives like mr. smith worked around in world war ii. we would have surrendered multiple times. let me correct him, and i'm going to send the article to his office. last year "the new york times" published an article that the cia found 5000 artillery shells that had sarin gas. the artillery shells were not ready to be fired. that is correct.

but the sarin gas was still there. that was published in "the new york times." you keep hearing this mantra there were no weapons of mass destruction. it's pure nonsense. the reason we failed, and it is obvious from even to this former marine and aviator, that bremer messed this up by disbanding the iraqi army. the generals in the iraq he army then are the ones fighting is now in isis could everyone has agreed to that. there was no isis when there was the sunni awakening. everything was fine until this most incompetent president in my lifetime withdrew all the troops and left the vacuum. mr. smith won't admit that. that is what started this. the nation was progressing. i will remind him about japan very quickly. there is not a more alien culture to western culture than the japanese.

they revered their emperor as an actual gone from a literal god could the reason they were so malleable is because we knew to them. not saying that is what we should do, -- the reason they were so malleable is because we nuked them. not saying that is what we should do, but that is the reason they were so malleable. to say we cannot do something because it is muslims is nonsense. it is defeated some, and mr. smith is exec to what is wrong with this country -- host: all right, i want the harassment to respond to what you are saying. that's the congressman to respond to what you are sacred -- the car was meant to respond what you are saying. guest: the idea that we can get a muslim country to do what we want is wrong. i think iraq and afghanistan have proven the point. yes, japan is a different culture, but they clearly surrendered and they decided to cooperate with us. iraq never decided clearly to cooperate with us in building a new government.

if there were 10,000, 20,000, 100 thousand u.s. troops still there, we would still be having the same fight. keeping u.s. troops there was not going to change the way the iraqis reacted. and to draw comparisons between that and japan is just historically wrong. i think it would've cost for u.s. lives and money and we would be in the same place. what broke iraq apart was not u.s. troops leaving, it was al- maliki making it a shiite-dominated government and pushing the sunnis out and creating the conflict. host: christopher, tallahassee, florida, you are next. caller: oh, hey. i really do appreciate you taking my call this morning. i just had 2 quick questions for the representative, mr. smith. first question is this -- do you think we should have pulled out of iraq -- guest: of iraq?

caller: let me finish and asking the questions and you can answer them. yes, of iraq. do you think it was great for us to pull out as quick as we did and let the world know how quick we were going to pull out? first question. host: i will let the congressman answer that question. guest: yes and the reason we pulled out is because the baghdad government would not give us the status of forces agreement. president obama do not want to pull out as quickly as we did. the iraqi government would not let us stay. their parliament refused to vote in favor of allowing the u.s. forces to stay in the country. it is not like we had much of a choice. it would've been better to step it down rather than pulling out as abruptly as we did good but we pulled out as abruptly as we did because the parliament in baghdad would invoke to let us stay. -- wouldn't vote to let us stay. host: gary in kentucky, republican. caller: i just have a question i

want to ask you. in ramali, the parade of the convoy of the isis fighters, what is puzzling to me, we have satellites. if they had a wristwatch on, rea d the time on their arm. yet there was not one plane aircraft to come in and could've took them all out. american-made vehicles -- why wasn't that done, the drums? -- drones? these lonely stretches of highway, they go from cities to cities. i don't understand why they don't take them out? guest: i don't know the answer that question, actually did i know we were inviting airstrikes in the ramadi fight. i don't know what the intelligence we had was at that point or where we work. -- where we were. host: discussion in the u.s.

papers today of having squatters on the ground to help with airstrikes. we are relying on iraq's soldiers to be spotters on the ground and the intelligence is unreliable. can you speak to that a little bit? what are the generals telling you as the top democrat on the house armed services committee about what needs to be done? guest: we have a limited amount of resources there and what the top generals are telling me to be done is what i've said over and over and over and over again , is to have the baghdad government to the sunnis invested so that the sunnis are fighting with us instead of against us. at the end of the date that is what needs to be done. we are working with the kurds. we need more sunnis fighting with us that against us. that is what needs to be done. host: national security adviser susan rice telling "usa today" yesterday that the fight against isil will be a long slog. given that, why hasn't congress passed a new authorization of military force to fight the terrorist group? guest: because it is difficult

to do legislatively. anyway you write it, there are going to be people concerned that it is too broad, there are people concerned that it is too narrow. that said can i think congress should pass that authorization. it is clear that we are there clear that we are fighting him i think congress is abrogating his role by not doing so. host: speaker of the house in "the washington times" saying that the president's strategy against isis is not working and that it is mr. obama who is failing by sending a bad request, bad aumf request, that asks for less power to fight the islamic state then he had under the 2001 legislation. guest: well, speaker boehner can write his own. he is speaker of the house. if you really want an authorization and half passage, why doesn't it? host: have you pose the question to him? guest: i have it. host: is it something you are

pushing for? guest: as i said, it is something i think we should do. a couple minor changes as we work through it, but i'm in the minority and the majority has decided not to take it up at all. host: what changes would you have made? guest: oh, gosh, i forget what details were in it. i was concerned about the scope, the geographic area not being more clearly defined. host: we will go to george in lafayette, louisiana. independent. caller: good morning. but once you. guest: -- good morning to you. guest: good morning. caller: ujhh, can you hear me? guest: we got you. host: the congressman is with you. caller: my comment is very simple. in order to result the problem first, you have to know what the reasons were. in iraq, the middle east, general, mainly, the whole world

, they have a big resentment toward the u.s. because we support israel. as long as our palestinians -- as long as there are palestinians and as long as the u.s. says folstein does not exist, -- palestine does not exist, they don't like us. i come from lebanon originally, i'm a christian, and it has been a war. the christians used to be 60% of the population, and now maybe 25%. the muslims are on the rise. they have their own way of life. let's face it, this is an essential commodity war. the u.s. needs the oil. the middle east has it. and we want it. and they basically don't want to give it to us as long as we support israel, period.

host: well, george making that argument -- guest: i obviously don't agree with it. they do want to give it to us. they sell it to us all the time. this is about oil but -- this is an about oil but about the filing extremist groups and how we -- violent extremist groups and how we contain them. a resolution to the palestinian-israeli conflict would be universally helpful just to bring these to the palestinian and israeli people. that is something we need to work on. it is far, far, far from the only issue that motivates people like osama bin laden and al qaeda and isil. there is much more to do with it than just the palestinian question. host: mike in ohio, democrat. what is the name of your town? caller: urbana. host: you are on the air. caller: first off, why don't you

tell the people where bagdadhi, the leader of isis, came from when we had him in captivity and turned him loose and he said "i will see you guys in new york." i was shocked when i heard an interview back in the 1990's of dick cheney when he was asked what his opinion was and how can we didn't finish going into baghdad to topple saddam hussein? i was shocked when he said "do you want to cause an uprising? the sunnis and everyone would be fighting against each other." on the shelf the guy was cap -- shells the guy was talking about earlier, those shells were from the 1970's and whoever shot those off would probably be destroyed, and not the person they were intending for. thank you. guest: i agree. i don't think those are evidence of weapons of mass destruction. i think dick cheney clearly was right. now i will say, saddam hussein

how long he could have held on in that situation, i think the sunni-shiite conflict in iraq was coming one way or the other. certainly our intervention is not -- did not help. host: jim, iowa, republican. caller: one quick question -- if the sunnis don't help us, then what? guest: that is a very, very difficult question. if the sunnis don't help us, we have got to rethink and come up with some intelligent containment strategy about how to protect allies in the region like jordan and israel. that is the situation we are in right now. host: is breaking up iraq and option? guest: we talk about that as if we can make a choice. iraq to a certain degree is broken up. people talk about how bad it would be if iraq broke up. look around, it is broken up.

isil controls a chunk of it, the kurds are increasingly autonomous, and the shiites control their portion of it. it is not a unified government right now. there has been a massive sunni-shia conflict going on for the better part of a decade. there is obvious negative consequences. we are seeing them because of what has been happening. host: we will move on to bob in massachusetts, an independent. hi, bob. caller: good morning. i would like to say -- guest: i assume he is talking to you, not to me. caller: we kept people in korea we kept people in japan. when we go into a country and take over the military, we all worry about them coming back on us. why did we have to leave iraq? i truly don't understand why mr. obama needs to run away from everybody in the middle east. we are going to endu u up paying

for it -- guest: two answers to that. host: go ahead, congressman. guest: the iraqi government, which was put in place because we wanted a democracy and elected government -- that elected government told us to go. we do not have the right to state in what was that we did not control -- in a sovereign country that we do not control. they didn't let us stay. japan, korea, all those other places wanted us to stay and worked with us to build a better government. when we left iraq, they didn't want us there and they continue to attack us to -- and to compare iraq to japan and germany and korea is really to misunderstand history and what exactly what was going on. they didn't want us in iraq. we could've stayed there for another 20 years and we would have not been able to impose a new government on them. in the way that we were able to impose new governments in germany and japan. an entirely different situation for those reasons. host: congressman, you also

serve on the select committee on benghazi. there is this headline in "the washington times." " benghazi panel subpoenas clinton aide said blumenthal." guest: the benghazi committee has long since left behind benghazi, and it is unfortunate. this is all about hillary clinton and this is what i said at the outset, that i did not trust of the panel would be anything other than partisan and political. we have had nine separate investigations of what went on in benghazi and it was very necessary to look at what happened in that tragedy and to learn lessons about how to prevent it in the future. that is not with the benghazi committee is about, and they are proving it. it is partisan political, and i think that is sad and unfortunate. host: "the washington times" had a story yesterday about a defense intelligence agency report that was circulated before the benghazi attack that said "detail intel in saying an al qaeda-linked group plan to

the assault 10 days beforehand and the goal was kill as many markings as possible. -- as many americans as possible." guest: it was a very interesting for hundred the thing "the washington times" to not say is that there are those sorts of reports all the time, not just in libya, but all sorts of countries in which we are threatened. you have to evaluate the threat, but those threats come in all the time. one of the things that has been found about benghazi is, no question, we do not provide proper -- we did not provide proper security and respond to the threat in libya. i don't think anybody should dispute that, and that is one of the lessons learned from that we should have provided more security or gotten out of there. that is pretty much -- that has been made clear by the previous investigations. host: what is next for the committee, real quick, the benghazi committee? guest: it seems like it is try -- to try to figure out how to hassle hillary clinton, and that is it. i think that is unfortunate.

i don't think $3 million of taxpayer money is well spent just doing a partisan political witchhunt, which is what they are doing. host: representative adam smith, top democrat on the house armed services committee from washington state can we appreciate your time. guest: thank you. host: coming up next, we will talk to senator mike rounds freshman republican from south dakota who serves on the armed services committee could we will get his take on the fight against isis. we will be right back. >> this sunday night at 8:00 eastern on "first ladies: influence an image," we look at the personal lives of three first ladies anna harrison

letitia tyler and julia tyler. anna harrison never sets foot in the white house. letitia tyler becomes first lady but passes away a year and half later. the president remarries julia tyler, the first photograph first lady. this sunday night at 8:00 eastern on "first ladies: influence and image," examining the personal -- public and private lives of the first ladies from martha washington to michelle obama. as a couple meant to the series, c-span's new book, "first ladies: presidential historians on the lives of 45 iconic american women," available as a hardcover or e-book to your favorite bookstore or online bookseller.

>> the new congressional directory is a handy guide to the 114th congress come with colored photos of every senator and house member plus bi and contact -- bio and contact information and twitter handles. district maps, a full.net of capitol hill federal agencies and state governors. order your copy today. $13.95 plus shipping and handling through the c-span online store at cspan.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we want to welcome to the table senator mike rounds, republican of south dakota serving his freshman year, but i no stranger to government. served as state governor from 2003 to 2011. thank you, sir, for being here and talking to our viewers. guest: thank you very much. appreciate the opportunity. host: i want to start with your service on the armed services committee and the fight against isis. what you think about the president's strategy so far?

guest: the question we have is what is the strategy. it is the executive branch's role to look at it and make decisions and bring it back in. but we are also supposed to be actively involved in getting the resources necessary to carry out the plan. the plan is not working and it is his responsibility to step in and make changes. clearly a lot of us don't think the plan is working, but when you look at all the options, you understand the reason why he is having a tough time making the decision. nobody wants to put ground troops in. that is something not on the table at this stage of the game. we want to make sure that the resources we put in our part work adequately and they are effective. it appears that is not happening. in a way we are almost in a holding pattern because we are waiting for the president to step up and say "this is the plan, this is the next step this is the ultimate goal." we are not sure he has got that set up yet. you will hear the discussions and hear us talk about that and

we have a hearing today, as a matter of fact. we will talk about what is going on in syria and iraq and what is being done right now. this is not something in which you are going to find a republican-democrat split, i don't believe. this is a matter of silly saying, look, we understand things are tough there. what role do we play and what we do to help get to the bottom line so we have an effective strategy? host: as you say, the armed services committee is having a hearing this morning in about an hour and we have coverage of it so our viewers can go to cspan.org for more information about it. some of your republican colleagues are saying perhaps there needs to be troops on the ground, or a larger presence of u.s. advisers there that are on the ground helping with the situation. would you support that you would just beefing up the advisers that are already there and having them play a more active role in this fight against isis? guest: what we know now is the current plan is not working. we will come back in and say

that it is the president's role to lay out the plan and bring it back in and bring it to us. we are open to discussions. this is not a democrat-republican issue. this is where to go to get the best resources and make it happen. the president needs to step up and needs to be able to lay what he thinks is an effective plan for the use of our resources. are we happy with the way things are going right now? no. at the same time, we are there to assist and support. this is the responsibility of the executive branch of government to tell us how the armed forces, all the resources should be utilized. it is our role to asking hard questions and then to make darn sure that if we decide on a proper role, the resources are available to get the job done. we lost a lot of america in the fight there. we lost a lot of blood there. let's not just walk away from this and say well, it was all

for naught. host: the white house spokesman josh earnest saying in a press conference on tuesday that congress has been awol when it comes to the authorization of military force. at some point somebody in congress needs to assume responsibility about this and not just complain about it the whole time. guest: the biggest challenge for us is to see what works, and we have not seen a plan laid out yet that will work. this is the responsibility of the executive branch of government. i think you'll find republicans and democrats alike more than willing to step in and work with the president but it is his role to lead in this particular case. the sense that i find as a freshman looking at this is that there is a real sense of frustration that we don't see the leadership there right now. perhaps it is because it is very difficult to come out with a strategy instantly save "this is the direction i want to go," just a matter what the president does he will -- because no

matter what the president does he will get criticism for, but that is the role he has to take. the plan right now, is it working? the answer to that clearly is no. do you continue on the same path or do you say timeout, we will reevaluate and reassess and take a different path forward? host: in your view, what are the options for achieving some sort of success, if you will? guest: either we are in this or we are not. most of us would say we are in this because we would rather be doing the battle there than having the battle on the homeland. host: doesn't that take troops on the ground? guest: it depends on how you define troops on the ground. a lot of us would prefer not to have our troops involved, but that does not mean when you talk about committing troops that you don't provide resources to help them get the job done. the folks who actually help to cordon eight the airstrikes we are doing and the folks that are on the ground, those other types of things that we are talking about to begin with.

once you start saying what we will and won't accept, before the president lays out the plan, that puts more difficult -- puts him in a more difficult position in terms of what you can expect to get support from congress. a lot of us are saying, look lay out your plan. sure, we will ask questions, but give us the ability to look at what you want to get done and how you will get your goal and what your goal really is there. we are here to help and we are here to be -- once again, this is the case of national security. it will not be decided, i believe, on a partisan basis. you have got to be able to step up with a plan. that is the role of the executive branch of government, the role of the commander-in-chief. host: if we are in it, as you say, and the fall of ramadi in the fall of mosul if they prove we cannot rely on iraqi sunni soldiers to fight this fight either they want or they can't or the training has been there

whatever the reason, if you can't rely on that and we are in it what is the only option? guest: i really think that is probably the challenge of the president is facing right now. you clearly cannot allow isil to exist long-term. they have to be defeated. their goal is to defeat us, their goal is to kill us, their goal is to wreak havoc on the american homeland. there's no question about their long -- what their long-term goals are. the question is what point and what is the proper strategy to get that taken care of . you're talking 535 members coming up with a plan. no. the role of congress, once the plant has been presented, is to make the final decision, do we go to war or don't we go to war. but the president needs to step in and lay out a plan and get the feedback on it, but once again, i think you will find a very supportive congress, republican and democrat alike, once the plan is laid out in

such a fashion that we know what the goal is and how we are going to achieve it. host: all right, let's get to calls. alan has been waiting in brooklyn, democrat. caller: good morning, thank you for taking my question. just yesterday the president spoke at the graduation of the coast guard forces about the need to address as a military repair this issue the reality of cut --military preparedness issue the reality of climate change because these things affect how operations are conducted. an admiral spoke on that very topic yesterday on chris hayes on msnbc spoke about the fact that the salinity of water when the temperature changes fix s -- affects sonar and the number of square miles they have to operate in, and the droughts and the heat and the food crisis in the middle east affected the readiness of the population in the middle east to accept the message of isis. it really becomes a question for

the republicans, are you prepared, if you talk about the blood and treasure we sacrificed in iraq, to be as courageous as the soldiers that you praise when will you find the political courage to realize you cannot do the job finding the military until you accept the reality of climate change like adults? host: senator? guest: personal, you will not find many republicans who don't accept that there is something like climate change could the question is what you do about it without destroying your nation's economy? climate change is an issue that is there and we can deal with climate change, let's take a look at what the other things are that are going to get to us before climate change gets to us. isis is one of them. what we want to try to do is put these things in perspective. you compartmentalize. when we talk about what to do with regard to climate change, ok fine, let's recognize you

have climate change and we will deal with it but let's not deal with it by destroying the economy. if you have a strong economy you can focus on how to make changes and how you address changes within the climate itself. climate change has been ongoing and it will continue to be ongoing, it does exist, but that doesn't mean you stop everything and focused quickly on climate change -- focused strictly on climate change could you have got to address the problems in front of you right now. part of it is the economy but part of it is the military threat we have got out there. you can't go back to climate change and forget about the guys trying to kill you and you have got to take care of those issues today. host: jimmy is next, an independent. caller: hello, good morning. guest: good morning. caller: senator, i really have to disagree with you, senator rounds. it is just like president kennedy said, we should not try to impose on countries pax americana. we have to re-examine our own attitudes. clearly the iraqis, the sunnis

don't want america there. that is the reason why president obama pulled out the troops, as the last senator stated a couple of times. i disagree with most republicans because it seems all they want to do is go to war and line the pockets of the government contractor friends and cause more chaos. there are a number of other countries that are involved in this fight. it is not totally an american problem. lastly the war over there is the iraqis' fight. saudi arabia's there, a lot -- it is not america's responsibility solely. isis makes threats but they are not here and they have no boats or planes. they can't come here. we can hold them there. i disagree with you, sir. guest: thank you, and i understand the thought process why are we involved at all

overseas, let's protect the homeland. i think where i would disagree with that concept is i think isis is here, and i think they are trying to establish more activity here. the challenge we have got is do you allow them a base where they are safe and can continue on an international basis to spread their message, which is jihad against americans? when they have a safe base, a location where they are at, it will get a whole lot easier for them to train and recruit and to send people back over here. you cannot let that happen. it is beginning to occur now. they are actively trying to bring people out. they are training people. they will end up back on our homeland. number one, we have to protect the homeland. second of all, we have got to go to the places where you are getting the training happening. i will also say this, because i do agree with the caller in this together area -- this particular area. the countries in the middle

east, our allies will tell you we are not asking you to support bring ground troops in. that only creates more problems for those of us who have to live in the region, as they put it. they understand that they have a role. you see saudi arabia is coming up. you actually see jordan stepping up. what they are saying is, please give us the resources, allow us the technology that we have been training with to be fully functional so we connection to go on in and lead the fight. they have got to decide for themselves how they do that and where they do the work, but they are -- our allies are asking us for the resources so they can get the job done. i think that is probably the best focus we have got right now but that means that we have got to be able to actively engage with our resources or with our allies in the region. they want to carry the fight but they will have to step up, as the caller says. host: our allies questioning the strategy from this white house against isis.

white house spokesperson josh earnest was asked about this on tuesday doing the daily briefing, whether or not the white house was feeling pressure to change the strategy. here is what he had to say. [video clip] josh earnest: we have seen that there are no quick fixes involved. we have seen that there have been -- important progress that has been may come as we just discussed, as it relates to this military operation against the senior isil official in syria but there have also been periods of setback. certainly the isil effort to take over the money is a setback. we have been pretty candid about that. but i think this illustrates how important it is for us to maintain some perspective on this. we have had other periods of setback, too, that is then followed by important progress. there is extensive discussion on capitol hill and in the media about the risk posed by isil when they took over coup bonnie inside of syria.

there are cameras trained inside kobane inside of -- outside turkey on the effort to take that village. but because of the effort to coordinate with peshmerga fighters on the ground, isil fighters were driven out of that city and even several miles from that city. again, that is an indication that while we have certain periods of setback, we have progress. host: the white house, sir, saying that ramadi is a setback but 22 areas like ko -- pointing to areas like kobane where the kurds were fighting. you want the sunnis fighting and that isis took over. guest: correct. it's -- the approach we are the today is not working. our allies have to step up but we have to provide them with resources and if that means integration, means giving them

support, in some cases it means giving the manpower. not people on the ground, not literally putting our men and woman that in the front lines in harms way, but it requires special forces to step back in to work with them. regardless of what it is, use and we cannot allow isil or isis to win in this particular areas because if you do, they have one more race in which to create havoc not just there, but they reach out through the internet and other ways in north america. what we don't want to happen is to make up months from now and say, why didn't we realize that what we were doing was going to impact our people back here? anything we can do to stop them before they become more powerful will probably save american lives in the future. host: "new york times" front page this morning "the united states is rushing 1000 antitank

rockets to combat the vehicle bombs that the islamic state militants use is capturing of the provincial capital of ramadi." first step from the u.s. come rushing in these rockets that the iraqi government asked for when the iraqi prime minister visited washington recently. we will go to indiana. democrat, go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call this money could good morning to you and the senator. i've been listening this morning to the discussion and previously throughout the morning of whether we should have gone in and all the things that went wrong. i just can't help but find it interesting, just the wide chasm of interpretation as to what actually happened leading up to the iraq war, on both sides. very disappointing, because it really doesn't show that if you can't agree on history, i'm not really sure we can learn how to avoid repeating it. with the previous guest and with regards to isis and the iraqi

fighters right now, it is a matter of will, and adopt result of partisan sectarian divisions within iraq. i'm not really sure that in the states it is addressing the key problem. we talk about fighting so that we don't fight them over here can we fight them over there so we don't fight them here. well our there is someone else's here. how do we motivate them to do so? that is my question. guest: the caller has a very good point. literally, the individuals who are our allies, those who are fighting against isis today those who have a direct confrontation with this particular sect, this is not a new issue. for some of them it has been going on 1000 years. they understand the differences

and what they fear right now is for their own countries, their own families, that if prices continues to grow, their families are in direct -- if isis continues to grow, their families are in direct line of fire. for them, the need to stop isis is immediate and it is a lot closer to what a lot of americans feel. that, i believe, is there. we talked to one for leader who said "this sect killed my relatives of 1000 years ago." they have a history, they understand what is going on here, and part of our role is we have relationships with allies now and let's maintain those relationships and reassure those individuals, those countries in the middle east to our our allies -- who are our allies that they understand we are with them, we will support them, and if they are prepared to step up and be on the front line, we will assist them in getting the tools necessary to defeat isis. they expect that. in many cases they have relied

on it. in one case, one government had f-16's and they purchased f-16's from us. what they really wanted was the technology to be effective and be able to bomb on target. members of the armed services committee said, what do you mean? we have authorized this and it has been available for two years. they are not received it for two years. why not? someone in the state department had been holding it up. they have the equipment there but not the technology and attached to it to get the job done. we are not alone in terms of fighting isis, and the individuals who are there really do feel that they have to contain this sect as soon as possible. they do need our resources, they need our help, but they understand that if we put ground forces on the line, that creates more animosity on the other

side. they are not asking for ground troops but they do want us to act as allies and a system the best we can and to coordinate with them. host: louisiana, james, republican. you are next for the senator. caller: good morning, greta senator. the senator just said it, this fight is 1000 years old it is not going to stop if isis take iraq or iran takes iraq. the senator got towards an argument earlier in the segment that really upsets me. the sacrifice we meet in iraq for the iraqi people was tragic. we lost many, many liesvves. to say we should put more lives on the line or else those lights have been wasted is a bad argument, it is a disingenuous argument. i am as conservative as it gets but i will not beat obama over the head for getting us out of there because it is a lost cause. anybody who says those lives we sacrifice were wasted, then that person is playing politics and it is a disgusting tactic that i

can't tolerate anymore. one more drop of american blood in iraq and i will blow my job. thank you very much. guest: i am -- i will blow my top. thank you very much. guest: i understand his concerns. i don't think we should ever take anything away from those individuals. one thing that happened earlier that i would like to touch base on -- i remember in 2002, i was elected governor of south dakota. i went to the governor's meeting, and it health and human services secretary at the time met with us, and he should the data they had at the time and the concerns about the attack on the american homeland. and about what they truly believe at that point was imminent with regard to weapons of mass destruction. i walked out of that meeting convinced at that point, with the information they had, that

they're very much was the possibility of weapons of mass destruction being utilized. we are 12, 13 years away from that. but i remember very clearly the feeling at that time that we would lose lives on american soil. the challenge that we had was to stop it as quickly as possible. if the members of the administration had that same concert on the date of -- the same concern, and the data they were receiving was as strong as what they laid out for us, they truly believed they had little choice but to enter that conflict. and the soldiers who entered at the direction of our country they did it solely because it was the right thing to do at the time based upon the best judgment that they had. for the soldiers who lost their lives, we should never forget what they have given to us because if you don't have that young man with a young woman who

is prepared to step up and say i will go and follow my orders, we are in real trouble. you have to honor what they get. i appreciate what the caller is saying. host: the intelligence turned out to be wrong and the congressman and of smith, our guest before you, said that when congress authorized war against iraq, congress said if saddam hussein would not cooperate on weapons of mass destruction. the u.n. passed a resolution saddam hussein agreed to it, and yet the iraq war happened. was it a mistake, the iraq war? guest: looking back at it now with the information that we have today, he did not have the weapons of mass destruction that we thought he did. that is based upon our most current information today. at the time and we didn't have that information. based upon the fact that our information today says that they weren't there we probably never should have entered that war in the first place at that time. host: huntington beach,

california. wayne, democrat, go ahead and way in. caller: what the senator said about five or six times, that this would be bipartisan, and the reason it is going to be bipartisan is because what all of this involved in the middle east is basically in support of three powerful groups in the world. one is the defense contractors which the other guy hit on, which is really true. this is about making defense contractors rich. it is about getting an administration more conducive to better oil deals and it makes the oil lobby rich. and it is about israel. if you watched congress stand up like a bunch of trained seals clapping for netanyahu when he was talking complete nonsense to get us even deeper in, because

they want to distort every arab country in that region -- host: what evidence do you have that israel wants to destroy every arab country? caller: that's what they lobby for good host: -- that is what they lobby for. host: what evidence do you have for that? does aipac say to you senator that they want -- guest: no, and i disagree with the analysis our caller has made in this case. i'm a freshman up your, but what i have seen from republicans and democrats is a sincere desire to get to the actual facts and to find a long-term strategy that what works for our country. they fear that we have is another terrorist attack on our homeland. that is where the concern comes from. when we talk about whether or not we should be asked ending american resources in another part of the world, it goes back down to why is it, what are we doing, what happens if we don't

and what about our foreign policy and what happens when we withdraw. i work with folks on one side who say we should just get out and let them do what ever they will do to each other. then i have heard other folks say that that doesn't work because they are going to come back and at some point they are still focused on america. i am of the opinion that a lot of our presidents in the past had it correct. you should not be dictating to other countries how they should operate. but you should carry a great big ugly stick that says if you mess with us, you will only do it once. i think that message is still a powerful message. you have got to have a strong military but also a very good foreign diplomacy effort as well. host: only a few minutes left with you, sir. charles and alexandria virginia, republican. caller: yes, good morning. let me preface my remarks by saying i am a telecommunications

man, not a foreign policy expert. but i served for 10 years in iraq and afghanistan probably as a civilian technician -- proudly as a civilian technician. i've been all over iraq. i operated and supervised two computer systems in ramadi and another base and it was a term that job and i had nine data collectors in iraq and i commuted to work by helicopter and it was a privilege to work side-by-side with our military. host: sir if i could ask you to get your point because we are running out of time. caller: i believe sincerely the american, forces left of it too early,. we still have troops in korea still have troops in germany. we should give some presence in iraq. host: all right, charles, we will take that point. senator? guest: it is behind us now. there are a lot of people who think the pullout should have been done differently. it is behind us. how do we move forward and confront the issues today and

keep the homeland safe? it is not just homeland safe this year, but how do we keep it safe for an extended time? host: charleston south carolina an independent. go ahead with your question. caller: i'm just listening to the sender and everything and it is the same old partisan stuff trying to make the president look bad. i understand all that. this fight is over. we can state of the next 300 years, it will be just stay there the next 300 years, it will be the same thing. i was in the military could -- i was in the military. it changed me. i know only a certain few people in america fight for the country, and we love each other we love our country and we work together. host: carl, we will talk about

patriotism and the politics but let me hear first from freeman in sioux falls, south dakota. democrat. caller: i am not a democrat, i am an independent. i would just like to say that the cabal we have their, you still have the iranians and the sunni government of saudi arabia coming down on the president because he doesn't do enough for the sunnis, and yes the iranian government upset because we are backing the sunnis. we can't even handle our own domestic problems in this country between the blacks on the lights come full we want to go over there -- blacks and the whites, but we want to go over there and divide these countries and get this safe honey spot where everybody will get along over there, when we can't manage our own. and we put young men and women

back in the same precarious spot as they were before. it is not like the sunni government of saudi arabia and the other ones are deprived of resources. we sold them the best possibly make in this country and we sold them jet fighters. host: senator needs to run. guest: i am not hearing anybody in congress saying that we should commit ground forces and go in and create a larger war for america. the existing plan does not work. we expect that the president will step up and have a plan. the plan he has right now is not working. as members of congress we want be supportive. we also understand that isis is dangerous and they have to be dealt with. if we do not have a foreign policy that allows us to stop it there, they are going to be h