as always. we will take your calls. you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. " is next.n journal ♪ host: good morning and welcome --"washington journal" congress returns to work tomorrow. they will get to work pretty quickly. a confirmation hearing for a new cia director. in the house, a look at storing nuclear waste permanently. and we are looking out for a meeting this week between paul ryan and the reverend patrick conroy, see chaplain who turned and thensignation

rescinded that. shouldn the question, there be a chaplain in congress? tell us why or why not. here are the numbers to call. democrats, (202) 748-8000. .epublicans, (202) 748-8001 independent callers, (202) 748-8002. social also comment on media. use our twitter handle or facebook. cnn -- the house chaplain is staying and so are questions. there is a picture of the house chaplain. and here is this headline. saying speaker ryan has a flip-flop decision to retain a only chaplain has one bank partial praise.

ryan faced heavy scrutiny from lawmakers in both parties after it came to light after he forced the resignation to resign without clear reason. ongranted his request thursday to rescind the resignation. democrats,ites that smelling blood, aren't letting go of the episode. vowing to press ryan on his historically unprecedented hope to protractor controversy that's highlighted deep divisions within the gop. so this was a piece of a prayer we will show you now from november. came to the house to deliver the opening prayer. many said that this particular causedmay have

controversy. >> as legislation on taxes continues to be debated this weekend next, may all members be mindful that the institutions and structures of our great nation guarantees the opportunities that have allowed some to achieve great success while others continue to struggle. may their efforts these days guarantee that there are not winners and losers under new tax balance andefits shared by all americans. host: that was back in november. we are asking this morning if the position of chaplain in congress is necessary. , paul roy is said paul ryan is said to have remove conroy.

.emocrats, (202) 748-8000 republicans, (202) 748-8001. independent callers, (202) 748-8002. our guest by phone is a reporter for roll call. good morning. this positionng of chaplain has been around and what are the official duties? the house chaplain has been around since 1789. one of the first moves of congress to establish a chaplain position in the house and the senate. the house chaplain duties include starting each session with a prior or bringing in guest chaplains to start the prayer. for are also responsible

religious judy davis -- for religious duties outside the house itself. which was one of the reasons paul ryan said was a component in his initial drive to have father patrick conroy resign. things,of those two they are also supposed to provide a ministry of outreach throughout the capital. this means offering counsel to members and staff and greeting religious leaders from around the world. previous chaplains have received the dalai lama and other religious leaders. and answering religious services on the hill. ?ost: so who hires the chaplain how is that position approved? and when with the chaplain be

leaving the job? the chaplain is usually assigned by a bipartisan counsel who goes through and decide what person would best fit. one of the controversies going ,nto conroy and his predecessor , was that as chaplain there were not any roman the positionbe in before this. that was because they were looking at non-christian chaplains, in general. peopley are looking at who are leaders in face and not necessarily christians although all current chaplains have been christians in the house and the senate.

we often see guest chaplains. how does that work? aret: guest chaplains from americame in and other places within the world that are leaders in faith. are a lot ofplains times people who are representative of all different states. there have been speakers from islam and judaism and hinduism and other religions that have spoken. chaplainne of the duties. to start out bringing in guest chaplains with a prayer and interface the dialogue. host: back to the conroy controversy, any discussion at all over maybe whether there

shouldn't be a chaplain? or is it firmly believed that the position is necessary? guest: there hasn't been that much talk about removing the chaplain position as a whole. a lot of people do find it important, especially coming out of events that they have trauma from or personal problems. it about whether having family as a religious leader -- people who are missing their families. and this is a big deal. for people who want some sort of connection to face or some sort

of connection to a person who can provide some sort of counseling and therapy to help them through their decision. decision, but their experiences on the hill. one of the complaints that paul ryan brought up was that -- not paul ryan -- sorry. but that was brought up in general was that after the baseball shooting last year, sufficient didn't do work to reach out to the house members affected by that. opsahl, thank you so much for your time and your background on the house and senate. guest: it was a pleasure talking to you. have a poll on our

facebook page that we have been running for the last day or so. a simple question. should congress have a chaplain. so far, 53 percent say no. a lot of viewpoints on the phone now from mark. no, i don't think we should have a house chaplain. at all. i think it is a waste of money. he makes $170,000 a year. you have to be kidding me. the point i want to make here is that it is clear why paul ryan fired this chaplain. the anti-roman catholic bias by caucus.dom they are the ones behind his firing and it is ironic because president trump wouldn't be in office if it had not been for the roman catholics then voted for him in pennsylvania and wisconsin.

and to those people who voted signrump, look at the real of the republican party and how anti-roman catholic they are. host: thank you for calling. let's go to jacksonville. on the independent line. caller: i agree with this gentleman who such as worthless to pay for that. they have ase person who is leading the line to an invisible being who is supposed to be everywhere into knows all things and is in total control. so if that be the case, for the sake of argument, everything is fixed. no need to pray to an all-knowing being. , the this guy, this being

majority of the united states is christian. for example, it says abraham spoke to jehovah as a man speaks to another man. and then, another passage saying has ever seen god or spoken to him. rob ine go to lawrenceburg. should congress have a chaplain? caller: i think it is necessary, definitely. thew your comments about present chaplain not being present for -- or not being available for people who wanted

to discuss certain matters and i find that disturbing. is, does paulty ryan believe we should not have a catholic chaplain? and who are the members of are in the freedom caucus that don't want to have a catholic chaplain? host: to what extent does a catholics and nomination -- to what extent does a chaplains denomination makes sense to you? caller: i am a christian. i was born and went through a catholic church and then i did go through other christian churches. know, the denomination doesn't make a big difference but it seems like there has been some bias here. that was robbed from

tennessee. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independent collars, (202) 748-8002. some of the opinions here in writing over whether congress should have a chaplain. in the washington post it was written recently that "as is routinely the case when government and religion are mixed, it takes a hit. host: we have some support now thoseays americans ask

who represent us to do an incredibly important task at demanding times. we demand they carry out the constitutional function in a constitutional way. they need all the help they can get. if anything, congress needs more chaplains. as is said in the declaration of independence, to the supreme judge of the world for the rest of judah their intentions. caller: thank you for c-span. i do think that we need a chaplain. they could rotate through the different faiths if they wish. my biggest comment is that the chaplains shouldn't make any political comments or references to what is going on in the government. host: did you hear the piece for

the prayer that we showed? what was your take on that? was it political? caller: yes, it was. it wasn't his decision to comment on the taxes. his position is to give people and to keepfidence on but the good work they are doing. they got me to get involved in the politics. host: to kevin from new jersey on the democrat line. that theregree should be more division of church and state, especially less based now being on facts. i would love to see that money towards a fact checker. .nd have that

same way of saying in god we trust and to put your hand on the bible, for people who don't believe in that, that is a long gone history. thing of is such a division of church and state. and when religious policies with , andences heavily into law it is based on facts and rules and what is good for the general good. host: a little bit more details on chaplains. chaplains havee a history that runs deep. the alleged firing of performedonroy, they ceremonial duties, opening the ceremony with a prayer.

presiding over the funerals of congress. house chaplain earns $170,000 a year. the senate chaplain earns $155,000 a year. it is a tradition headed down from the continental congress. elected at the beginning of each congressional term. they do not need to be reelected after each term. they do point out here that for a short time in 1850, the house and the senate had no chaplain it was abolished with a separation of church and state. saying it had become too politicized. mary calls now from connecticut. caller: good morning. what do you think?

does congress need a chaplain? caller: i believe they do. this country was built on biblical principles. where hets him first should be. a lot of the things going on are because we don't keep god first. so prayer and god and good government will make a better country. tim is calling from ohio. good morning. wondering,m just when did congress become more important than the military? militaryt have enough bases around there that they could bring in chaplains from the military bases? under all faiths? and instead of paying one guy all of this money, they could donate to morale support? host: those are the thoughts there of tim.

and kenneth is calling now. hello, kenneth. no, congress should not have a chaplain. and i totally agree with the gentleman who just called. congress falls under the government and the military, it would be a great thing to rotate chaplains from all faiths into the chamber and to say prayers, no matter what faith it is. , because it bothers me i watch c-span every morning, and once you guys start to go do, it confuses me on why they have a chaplain there knowing that 90% of the people are hardened towards another group.

i don't understand why congress even goes through that formality of praying, knowing all along are against them certain people. and the others are for a certain amount of people. that is my comment. poll thatt of a a la we had recently. this is the southwest and southeast regions. of 2017.as you can see the darker green here. and then the next shade down is the most religious parts of the country. the southwest, midwest there. the coast and on the coast, the lighter color. that means that according to this poll, the below average or least religious out there.

speaker ryan, late last week he has decided that father conroy will remain in his position. says itear, the speaker was based on his duty to ensure that the house fulfills the pastoral duty. i know the body is not well served by a protected fight over an important post. i intend to sit down with father so that we can move forward. that was the statement from paul ryan. thank you for waiting. caller: i am a little old so i am slow. i think if we have a chaplain it should encounter all religions.

he is reciting over the greatest number of crooks in the country. and the second number of greatest crooks are those that enforce. you're going to be a chaplain, you should be for all religions. and one person said that you preside in politics. so if there presiding over it is not.- host: what would you be looking to hear and say, that's political? politicalll, it was

when he commented like that. but how can you not apolitical when you are in a political organization? encourage all religions. islam.t christianity or all religions. and then we have those that don't believe in religions. i believe in the spirit of all human beings. but not somebody you pray to the university. so americans, european americans, black americans. is political. thank you for being so kind.

good morning. i have something to say. i think that politics should be left with politics. the church should not talk about politics because you are sending messages to certain people. host: thank you for your call. we are here for another 35 minutes. show you another piece of tape from the house. april 27, it is democratic officer reading a resolution brought to the floor to set up a committee. again, this was before father conroy sent his letter back. on april 16, 2018,

the nation's first jesuit and only the second catholic over the house, submitted his resignation before the full house. where is this resignation was and membersul ryan of the house republican conference. said "thespeaker decision to remove the chaplain was his, speaker ryan's." so his forced resignation without adequate explanation is not reflective of the integrity of the house of representatives. 2017, during the gop tax scam, the chaplain led a prayer asking congress not to

guarantee that there are winners and losers under the tax plan. saying the skin's care to the the marginalized. that ever did not move anywhere. expect them to shop this week. , thank you for joining us. caller: i thought it would put out there that you don't necessarily have to be the same face to do what the military

uses for chaplains. you provide service or you refer them. i want to speak to what has to do with, congress not making a law that protects a religion. a state that recognizes religion that didn't infringe on the first amendment. it wasn't until the first amendment that we had an established just religion. so saying it is not politics to .et involved in religion go about youryou work each day? part of the controversy in the house is that some suggest that father conroy didn't reach out to people.

he waited for people to come to him. explained the process? caller: you usually do wait for people to come to you. you offer services. and depending how embrace of the make --r is, they may well, it is difficult in the military. but as far as the religious aspect with counseling, you don't necessarily -- you wait for people to come to you. and that is something you wouldn't necessarily see was a chaplain in the military. the: what would you say impact of having a chaplain in congress or in military on the folks there -- what does it mean to them and their lives? caller: well, i visited the

capital one time and i saw before thee a prayer bill proposal. in the military, it is a little -- you have a greater rubber meets the road saying when you talk about faith and what it means to a soldier. things come up, whether it is and what comes up on deployment. it pulls the need for spiritual .uidance why would somebody do what they do if they don't have faith if they don't have a higher calling?

so i think it has a unique place .n the military but it is a silent part of the military. now. on to david good morning. caller: yes, i don't think the congress or house should have a origion or a chaplain priest. i am sure there are plenty of churches in washington they could go to. and it's ok for him to make a political statement in a church but not in the house of congress or representatives? sense to me, whatsoever. does anybody remember the three stooges and the little rascals? this sounds a lot like religion today. women can't achieve a place of

power and and is ridiculous. host: lots of news out there including senator john mccain, the new york times front story saying that he shares memories and regrets. a picture of him and joe biden. joe biden visited the senator recently in arizona. senatorhave as the battles brain cancer. the republican senator -- writes the times -- laos to not walk away from politics. mccain is using a new book and a to discuss not choosing lieberman as his running mate.

host: senator mccain has a book coming out with a documentary coming out. brian in florida. thank you for waiting. caller: i think the role of a chaplain is important. more, with all of the temptation that goes on there, on a day to day basis, they are making decisions for the country. as it pertains to speaking on politics, i disagree with that. there have been private meetings with those who are making those decisions for the country, which they are providing some sort of support or decisions that they make on behalf of the country.

int: on to charles uniontown, pennsylvania. show, verynjoy your much. that theye believer shouldn't have a chaplain there. you should not mix state and church. i am a christian but i don't believe they should do that. host: just so i'm clear. using just the fact that there is a chaplain is mixing church and state? not so much what he is saying? caller: i just don't believe at all that there should be religion in politics. ago, i noticedrs that they were pushing more towards -- they even have elections in churches today.

it is just the way that i feel. back to the line for democrats. beverly, good morning. caller: a couple of things. the speaker of the house, doesn't he lead the pledge of allegiance and under that, doesn't it say, under god? didn't congress establish those two words in 1956? as church and state, the concentration -- the constitution doesn't say anything about that. thomas jefferson came up with that statement. the constitution says something somethingestablishing righton't or what it says

now. but the law to establish a national richard is -- a national religion? why did he fire him? chaplainyan fired the when he leads the pledge of allegiance that says "under god" and on our money it says "in god we trust." host: thank you for calling, beverly. i do point out that a member of congress usually says the pledge of allegiance. so back to our pohl, should congress have a chaplain. the numbers look like this. 48% say yes. 52% say no. we will keep that up for the rest of the day so you can weigh in. by can weigh in by phone or

online.

caller: the approach in -- paul ryan is an advocate of the philosophy of -- that says altruism is the enemy of capitalism and i think that needs to be addressed. thank you. host: thank you for calling. more of the news, the event we covered yesterday.

the president tuesday roundtable. using undocumented immigrant's for taking advantage of the week. here is more from the president. immigrationrs and laws are a mess. mexico has some of the toughest immigration laws in the world. you can't just go into mexico but they allow people to go up and come into the country. and they know that the laws are so weak that once they get there, it is the most religious -- it is the most ridiculous thing. catch andeard about release. just to show you how ridiculous -- we have judges. thousands of judges. do you think other countries have judges?

we give them trials. is that they never show up to the trials. the child takes place in a year. the problem is that nobody ever shows up. these of the laws that we are suffering with. how about the wall? [applause] now, we are fixing and building the wall now but we need much more money. up ourhave to close country to get this straight. we either have a country or we don't. president ins the cleveland yesterday. deriding immigration laws.

this story at a pyeongchang says that it slammed the u.s. for misleading claims that washington's policy of maximum political coverage is what drove the pyongyang to the table. the news agency on sunday quoted a spokesperson saying the claims are "a dangerous attempt" to detente after north korean leader kim jong-un's summit late last month withresident moon -- president. t moon. set.summit is still we are waiting on a date and place. carne, good morning. listen, i don't believe

we should have a chaplain. chaplain, let's have every religion there. another thing that i'm very upset about as i listen all morning to this is the christian people. the christian people. catholics are christians. they know the bible. head of thes the catholic church. the rest are profits in churches. let's read the bible right. this is for yourselves. say that the church and religion, whatever it is.

host: dennis from new york. should congress have a chaplain? makes ai think the idea mockery out of the idea of the separation of church and state. host: how so? if there will be a separation of church and state, you should have the church represented in congress. -- you shouldn't have the church represented in congress. that is all. from politico, nancy pelosi: for an ethics investigation. demanded a probe into allegations that -- sexually

assaulted a minor. host: that was politico this morning. we will hear more about this case this week as the ethics committee begins. patricia, good morning. caller: you know, instead of prayer -- ine say a

don't care what religion -- have religious figures available. they could have secular ones for those who are agnostic or atheist. why don't they first thing "america the beautiful" or "this "grand oldr land" or flag." just to get everybody in the mindset of who we are. we are country and we should be united. ok? anyway, that is my thought. james, a republican. caller: good morning.

i believe that we must look with , and only look through our hearts and study the history of america, we have begun with the lord. there is only one god. many religions but one god. and we should all be serving the one god. we don't need the different religions. because we are serving one god. yes, we speak different languages, but there is still one god. attempting toinue thene god from america there will be no america.

thank you. florida.e in should congress have a chaplain? caller: yes. and i totally agree with the last caller. if we take a look at our country , if we look at it and see the difference of how god bless , from the wilderness of wilderness. and the this country was built on christianity. ,nd because they were praying how can you separate god from in this country?

and if we separate him and take him away from the country -- with all of the chaos and crime if yourything -- separate god from this country, we are headed for distraction. thank you for calling. a couple of quick facebook comments. lori says there is nothing wrong with having a chaplain to pray over. it brings people some measure of comfort. host: troy writes and is calling now from

stockton. how are you doing? good morning. you have church in your house today. the message from the last few callers that you had -- all i'm saying -- and i agree with them, america lookgod, stupid right now. we really look stupid. and the chaplain, that is the moral compass. we gave the vote to fight for us. and now you are playing games

with this. and all i'm saying is, think about it. numbers allf the around the world. how do you got -- have a meeting with kim jong-un? host: all right, thank for calling. we have time for a few more calls. the nra is having a convention in dallas. we did take pictures of a lot of this. andhot it with our camera we will have more later this week. this is in the washington post.

"with an all right under fire, faithful flock to expo." the subhead to the piece says host: that was in the washington post. thatallas news says according to activists, the provocative welcome -- a dallas-based activist group .anted to shed light the north texas light brigade, prides itself on a group that fights for human rights and environmental sustainability and economic fairness and the end of war using peaceful means, it left no doubt on when it stands. they took a light to shine on the front of the building and it enables domestic

terrorists." calling now from michigan. hello. caller: hello. i would vote no. no chaplain. god off c-span. ,hen people call in and preach i get really distressed by that. host: to baltimore now. i say no. i am a christian. i don't believe we should push it isd our agenda when the opposite of what christianity is about. i say no. because america has always been

under the false illusion that it was a christian nation. but when we massacred indigenous people and then use other people to bring forth their wealth, that is not anything that god had anything to do with. it was a dominant force and it was taken by force. so christianity has nothing to do with america. individuals are christians. host: here's is a little bit from the president last week making remarks on billy graham. this was with the national day of prayer in the rose garden. graham's words remind us that prayer has always been at the center of american life. because america is a nation of believers. right? [applause] the prayers of religious

believers helped gain our ofependence and the prayers martin luther king helped to win the long struggle for civil rights. faith has shaped our families and it has shaped our communities. inspired our commitment to charity and our defense of liberty. and it has forged the identity nationtiny of this great that we all love. host: that was last week at the white house. willy is on the line now from georgia. should congress have a chaplain? caller: of course. good morning, first of all. let me just commend c-span, again. this is my favorite show and i commend c-span for having this

conversation. ryan and speaker, paul the committee -- they dismissed the chaplain because he said that the tax bill should protect the poor and the needy. i think we need a chaplain. what is wrong with prayer? to have this conversation on a sunday morning in the united states of america, what does this say about our moral values of religion? and one of the congressmen or how speakers said that we should change the chaplain. the chaplain shouldn't be catholic. i mean, one god, one nation. we question so many things about second amendment. but what about the first amendment? the freedom of speech or religion? it is great for c-span this morning to have this conversation.

i commend c-span for bringing this to light. we need a chaplain, the chaplain of the congress is in order. the president just spoke about great ministers so why not have a chaplain? think he was not dismissed because of the prayer, because of how he said the prayer. michelle obama in the washington examiner said to stop searching for the one great person to solve our problems. she spoke at an event in los angeles and said that she doesn't plan to run for office. she argued that a focus on the "who" is premature. doesn't matter who runs, obama said. don't think i'm any different

from hillary. we got a lot of work to do before we are focused on the who. because we are the who. we are the answer to our own problems and it is not finding the one great person to save us from ourselves. it's." us." lee is calling. good morning. ikea.: honey or about the separation of church and state and there in ourisn't such a thing constitution. shouldstitution said it not prohibit the free exercise thereof. that is never the intention in the constitution. compass, likeral that one person said, there wouldn't be a free america. , we had thatues

when we had slavery. but because of our constitution, we took time to get right in this country. so our values are very important. our chaplain isn't there to just in the morning. he is there to counsel people. apparently there were complaints about the counseling. do about it?he he did make a political statement on the floor. we are free country. we can comment on anything. without them, we will have chaos in this country. one more call before we wrap up. g8 is calling. is calling.

caller: an interesting conversation this morning. we are supposed to have a separation of church and state. there is no place for this in the government. a proxy to suggest that the government is the source of religion in this country. am an nrara -- i member and i wanted to put that in four context. host: we will hear more this week about the conversation between the speaker and the house chaplain. preview gina will 's nomination. our guest will be alex bolling. and later on we hear from lynn novick and doug stanton to talk

about the vietnam war's impact on the homefront as part of " 1968, america in turmoil" series. talking about what motivates voters. at part of this piece. >> it is important for us to hold donald trump accountable but if all we are doing is talking about donald trump, it force fortivating voters. donald trump is the breathing embodiment of why they think the system works against them. only talking about trump actually has a negative impact on their interest in the election. and it highlights a point that he yes, trump is not going to let the election be anything .ther than a referendum

the news work is all about stormy and robert mueller and that is important but it isn't what will decide the election. so convincing democrats that we need to hold trump accountable but we also need to get act to talking about the bread and butter issues. do you just ask democrats not to talk about impeachment? >> yes. partisans ons that both sides are already in their corners. and independents who are not pitied them to -- who are not -- my focuseson less on that and more around the

issues on stormy daniels and robert mueller. we should elect investigations for peace. wantrt of oversight, we our elected representatives to focus on holding the trump administration and the various pieces of it accountable. that is different then choosing it for the basis of running the office. and i think the better off we will be. host: you can see the entire interview with guy cecil today on newsmakers right after this program. you can hear it on c-span radio and watch it online at c-span.org. joining us now is alex bolling, a former cia intelligence officer, talking to us about

gina haspel, who is been nominated to run the cia. good morning. gina haspel? guest: gina haspel is a career intelligence officer with a background in field intelligence. she spent the majority of her career in the foreign field, collecting information. i do want to take the opportunity to provide context and background on gina, because one of the backgrounds -- because one of the challenges we have is that an officer who spent their entire career overseas, we don't have context to describe their job and how they do it so i would like to provide clarity on that today. host: let's do that. explain what you think she is a good choice?

guest: having someone with experience in the intelligence process, that will be useful. for the intelligence community but for policymakers and the american people. is thathe challenges intelligence collection is a specialty. get expertise and a lot of people don't understand how that works and what are the components to that. in that will be an advantage for policymakers. that they can rely on her the tremendous intelligence challenges that we have, the complexity of these it will be benefited by her experience in the field. she is deeply respected. determinationt and respect for superiors.

previous directors of the cia respect her and so do subordinates. that is a style of her leadership. host: numbers on the bottom of the screen for alex bolling. gina haspel's nomination is this coming wednesday and you can watch that live on c-span3. separate lines for democrats, republicans, and independents. the criticisminto we will inevitably here. newsweek talking about allegations over the managing of a torture site in thailand? this is according to newsweek's right up. this is the george w. bush white house. loan nomineeas the

about here?talking the torture site in thailand? guest: i will break that into two parts. in the earlyced days, post 9/11. at that time, the cia got a justification from the system on what was and what not was legal. that is one important distinction to make. following the distinction about the case, there were numerous investigations on the house and the senate and the department of justice to return and the actions that were taken with the tapes, was there anything that incorrectly, or wrongdoing? there were allegations that gina

haspel didn't do anything incorrect and there were multiple investigations. they were looking clearly at those allegations. that jonathan kane writes it was one of the darkest chapters. gina haspel needs to clean the nature and extent of her involvement in the interrogation program during the confirmation process. she should and she will. but they were well aware of the program. thethey knew about it, program. and that is one of the challenges that we need to remember. we historical context and have a robust intelligence oversight. we need to exercise that.

intelligence committee, the staffers, their representatives of the american people who are looking over the intelligence practices. the challenge is that we need to so we canurces maintain competitive advantage. we need to have robust oversight. get to calls,e what else should we know about gina haspel? she has taken on hard issues. she is tremendously respected in the field and in washington and i believe she will be a wonderful representative for the intelligence community and the cia but and experienced professional that puts the interests of the american people first. host: dianne feinstein tweeted that she was involved in one of the darkest chapters of history.

the hill reports that a 27 page will be released in defense of the gina haspel. what does that mean for you? guest: the intelligence community wants to provide as much information, providing all of the information to the oversight committees but the challenges, how do you make that public? gina haspel is aware of the details but the director didn't want to make all of the details about that report public. let's get to the calls from alex bolling. a democratic caller, good morning. caller: i wanted to comment on gina haspel. as an american, i really

disturbed by what seems to be crimes done byst the cia, especially with this nominee. secrecye is so much into what the cia does overseas the regime changes and revolutions and destabilizing other nations. and there is no one held -- forable, ever for instance, the torture program. i just feel like, what does that say to our allies? we want to nominate somebody that wasthis agency

involved in these heinous crimes? aboutk they want to talk our values and we need to show that in action. that is all he wanted to comment on. good: that is a very point. one of the challenge is that we want to have intelligence services be reflective of the morals and values of the american people. but to the point for the accountability purposes, the agency is an executive organization of the u.s. government and it carries out policies directed by the executive branch. so that accountability, that does go back to saying that the weres at the sites thoroughly investigated by the house and department of justice

and by the senate oversight committee. agency, theinternal inspector general. the challenge is that not all of the details on those things were made public. was made public, the oversight committee has that. professional representatives task to slaynging the details to the constituents constituentswhy feel they are not getting the whole picture. because they are not. host: let's go to fred in illinois, and independent caller . caller: thank you for c-span. i would like to ask alex bolling, why would you think that gina haspel would stop putting forth perpetual wars?

the cia should be dismantled. is no reason for you. none, whatsoever. fighting wars that we are not supposed to be involved in. she was involved in torture. i have seen it all. that she isou think going to do anything else but more torture? so the cia is a command organization. directives by the president in accordance with the u.s. law. so most people, they don't appreciate what the cia does, ultimately, they do want to have the robust intelligence collection so you can make informed policy decisions. so that is ultimately the reason

why both sides of the aisle and all aspects of people in government need intelligence collection, robust analysis, in order to make informed decisions. to the point about taking action , executive action, it is outlined by the executive branch of the government. the cia doesn't come up with those things on their own. they do it in conjunction of the branch. and the oversight of the branch. florida, rich, are you there? i am.: i couldn't agree more with the last two callers. the country needs to start getting out of other peoples business and setting an example instead of the spying. look at our own faults. arepast crimes of the cia

numerous and the biggest example i could give you is why the iranians don't trust us. iran. wheretrated by the cia, the secretary of state and his cia, they the executed a coup d'etat of iran and almost overthrew iran's freely elected leader. iranians had to suffer through 27 years of dictatorship by the shock. and we're supposed to be proud of that behavior? with money.s to do i am a very conservative democrat. more conservative than george w. bush or any of the republicans that claim to be conservative. what a joke. a isn't an oxymoron to be conservative democrat but what is an oxymoron is government

intelligence. there is nothing intelligent about the government. even trump has figured that out although he is a crook as well. lots of voices out there for you this morning. guest: i want to point out that eisenhower was -- however you feel about taking executive action, when you look through the lens of history, that was in operation supported by the president of the united dates, the former commander of europe. and from his perch in history, he thought that made a lot of sense. in history, doing those types of action may not be a good thing moving forward. iran, youou look at also have to take a flash forward to what is going on right now. you have a regime that is showing aspate -- state sponsor of terrorism.

of ourible for the death soldiers and responsible in iraq and syria and taking military actions against our allies. so when you look, it seems to be a quick answer to say, let's disband that. but when you put the various options in front of policy makers -- do you put troops in and what level of troops to you put in? is there a third option that is in between military or diplomatic things? or do they take action? but it is not done in a vacuum. put out by the white house, here is a letter put out by 28 groups concerned about gina haspel. they havey do say grave concerns about gina haspel.

from the cia and they do ask they not advance the nomination. saying that should be classified and released to the public. where is that request? i don't have unique insights into that. i believe the oversight committee has asked for more information on this. reaction will be from constituents on this important issue. and again, this is the balance between the leaders of the oversight committee and the full congress, they want to be able to say that they look at these allegations and that they can do that. morales memo, talking about the tapes. also, the previous senate investigation on the tapes and the previous house committee intelligence going back to 2002.

host: our guest is alex bolling, former cia officer. we are putting something on our screen, the cipher brief. is a: the cipher brief media organization pull together by suzanne kelly, who wanted to create a forum for people within a wide swath of national security to have a robust form on these intelligence and national issues. sides and alsoh people like myself, it allows them to have a dialogue that they can talk about that is a little bit beyond a tweet. but i'm a member of the expert

network. to talk mostly about cyber security and how it can be applied to the civilian and private sector. and that is more and more where i put forth an op-ed. and independent caller named jim. you are on with alex bolling. caller: the nominee's views on is a stalinist dictatorship. china's leadership has used its strength surplus to leverage foreign investment to take over major companies and dominate markets. politicians, especially the democratic party, china covers the one world structure created by globalists. it creates that structure as a pyramid. the global to occupy structure.

make no mistake. it is still in place and it plans to dominate the world. cyberattack.and i really appreciate you telling me how the cia views my statement and how you think this nominee will proceed with that. i can't speak on how the cia views that statement but i will say that china has always been a top priority in collection issues. of ambitiousiew designs. not only in the economic and commercial sector, but you see them engaging throughout the developed world. to actually expand their market. a different view on intellectual property than we do. they view that as a lever to

advance the national interest. , in the west, a clear intellectualhat property needs to be protected and not nationalized. so all of those reasons are underscoring the importance of knowing more about china. china, engagement with so that you can better have a free and competitive economic system and you also have to have defenses against china's cyber ambitions. they have collected and used the cyber domain as a mechanism to collect information. for their national interest. and we need to be able to identify that and collect on that and thwart it by whatever means necessary. looking callert

named tom. you are on the air. for taking myyou call. i am a first-time caller. alex bolling, for your service. gina haspel, do you believe she -- restore the sea the repeated should the cia? given all of the damage that mr. brennan has proved himself to be nothing more than a political act? i believe that gina haspel's experience as an intelligence officer will be very useful and valuable to advancing and building the to improve the collections and analysis. and because she has experience with that, i also think that she has gone through the crucible of

this, of the enhanced interrogation. , i believe,thing that shouldn't exclude her. i believe that makes her a more valuable asset to the country. she has seen what they scrutiny is like and she will bring that into the future decision-making. that is, again, her experience in the field and with the organization will be an asset. for thecommunity but american people. what do you expect that to be like? what does she bring to the table? has managed relationships with some of our most senior and significant allies. building that trust is so important. and i believe that when we are given the opportunity to build that trust inside the beltway,

people will be duly impressed with her capabilities. she has been taking on hard assignments in the field, behind enemy lines. collecting information. i believe that with oversight and members of senate are able to talk with her one-on-one, she will answer a question and they will be satisfied. with all of the questions. host: carl is waiting from pennsylvania. an independent caller. so much fork you allowing me to speak. i am a proud independent. i wanted to say that gina haspel did break the law. she destroyed records and tapes. -- congressneutered ordered them preserved. it is a felony to do this. the one thing the executive

branch doesn't need is a war criminal. do tell -- why do you think a war criminal would be a good asset to the trump administration? all, i don'tof think gina haspel is a war criminal by any stretch. i would point out that the did anent of justice extensive investigation to answer that question -- was there legality that took place? in theas an op-ed piece wall street journal this weekend that commented on that investigation. and the memo made public recently, she drafted a memo by jose released and he was acting in what believed was his authority. like burrell pointed out that he believed it was a failure of the a, for not keeping congress

timely notified of the events that took place. so i don't believe she is a war criminal by any means and i do believe there was a process that investigated very deeply into those activities. that is the challenge of pulling out the details so the american people can see. caller: good morning. i was wondering if you could explain the word torture. we have seen it thrown around this morning. when they say torture, are they throwing people off the top of buildings? are they talking about putting them in cages and burning them? war putting them in a cage and dropping them to the bottom of a pool? or something a little bit different? going into the word torture

would help explain things. the enhanced interrogation techniques that were used against some al qaeda detainees, those techniques were and a memo was obtained by the department of justice. -- theechniques included training. evaded used for special forces operators who would most likely be captured by enemy forces. so that term -- interrogation techniques -- used specifically. as people say it is torture, there was subsequently a legislative investigation spearheaded by senator mccain

that said that any methods used would have to be in compliance with the army field manual. werehose techniques >> is a very good question between enhanced interrogation and a law that says it could no longer be used. host: our guest is alex bowling. we want to thank you for your time and morning -- remind people that the hearing will be wednesday. you can watch it live on c-span3 or at www.c-span.org. you can listen to it for free on the c-span radio out. our 1968 america in turmoil series we will explore war onact of the vietnam the homefront and soldiers

coming home. by an authorined and filmmaker. this is coming up in a moment. 1969, generations of, a profile in dissent. it talked about the different levels of support for the vietnam war. specifically, the war in vietnam troubles all americans. the gap is greatest between college students and the rest of society. >> since the war began to escalate, explainscal student one reason for the spread of radicalism, his audience is a colonoscope. vietnamsn't for the

war, it would never reach the level it had. the war began as a conflict. parents andf 10 noncollege youth believe in fighting wars for our honor. only one fourth of the college students say the same. almost two thirds of the parents and more than two thirds of noncollege youth say we should fight to contain common-ism. a minority of college students agrees. a majority of the young in college or out say the war in vietnam is imperialism. only a minority of parents believe it is. both generations are aware of the way vietnam has torn america apart. >> i don't think the problems of the american youths will go away until we solve vietnam. this is one of the greatest of problems on campuses.

during world war ii, we believed that hitler's should be defeated. we believed we should have germany, we believe we were fighting for the freedom of america. >> it's a great country. i really believe that. somethingfighting for as it did in world war ii, today in vietnam, i don't see any cause for anybody to die. >> i don't think any of the kids understand what the war is about. i don't understand what the war is about myself. >> you are the head of a family. you are the head of the community. a the road.ad

-- head of the road. i don't think we should be in vietnam because we are not immediately threatened. here, wemmunists came could stop it. >> most of the younger father, leslie i feel. i think the united states should stop playing policeman of the world. >> that hasn't happened since world war ii. joining us is doug

stanton, the author of this book which just came out. guest: it just came out in paperback. host: also join us in new york is the documentary filmmaker. most recently, she worked on the 10 part vietnam war series. thank you for your time as well. let's start in new york. americans feelst the war was winnable? polling shows that by the end of 1967, the country was evenly divided. the country never really wanted to face the fact that the war was not winnable. should we be there? 1968, 50% said no. lose the war, most people did not want to. there was a conflict about that.

the johnson administration had tried to convince the public that the war was going well and it was almost over and we can see light at the end of the tunnel. there was a little bit of an uptick in support. after many years of casualties and no real progress, the public was losing patience. about the troops themselves, by the beginning of 68, did the soldiers feel like the war was winnable? guest: i can speak mostly about echo company. lbj they discovered that had decided not to run for reelection, a number of them felt betrayed. they thought that they were winning in the aftermath of the tet offensive. day by day, they might be

winning, but in the long run they didn't feel that way. host: what does the country look and feel like at this point in 1968? guest: in 1968 itself? you had the uprisings in detroit, you had martin luther king on civil rights. you had the kennedy king'snation and assassination. what was interesting was how little some of this penetrated the consciousness of the soldiers in the field, at least among those i talked with. it was almost like they were living in to america's. that was the day when walter cronkite on cbs news said it seems more certain than ever that the bloody experience of vietnam is to end in stalemate. is that the turning point in

support for the war? guest: i don't think it was a turning point. i think he was reflecting a turn that already happened. the polling shows the country was already divided about the war and it was clear we shouldn't have been there. as the tet offensive unfolded, that lack of progress and we were not surprised, that shocked the country. is not leaving anything. he is reflecting where the country is at that point. news reports of the tet offensive were shocking and the carnage was of a level that we were not used to seeing. the ratings of the news broadcasts refuge. the public was really paying attention in a way that they had before.

cronkite did take a risk greater he said his personal opinion greater it was a neutral reporter before that print he had seen what was happening. he came back and said the war is a stalemate. we're never going to achieve the goal or government has told us we were working toward. would you like to add to that? agree.i completely once interesting is that sense of dislocation between what the guys in the field were feeling. their story and what was , that still america resonates with us today. the american public lived another. this was march 23, 1968.

this was a lot of month after that walter cronkite report. have got to find some alternative to turn this thing around a little bit. we are going to be in trouble and vietnam just murdered me. eventually wants to the next just three weeks. we've lost everything. we didn't know it was going to happen. the press is not with us. around.t to turn take an approach

and that will get away from us. i don't know. if we don't, we're not going to get any support. got 140 people here who say they will not representative -- support us in the house of representatives. i think we would have that for two weeks. we've got to find something to put these people in the whole. we haven't got that on them yet. hannah why doesn't want peace. long way to go. them hamburgeret to eat once in a while. host: your reaction? the sort of all over the place. i think is really struggling with what to do.

leading men who were foreign-policy, who urged him to escalate the war in 64 and 65 said you have to find a negotiated settlement. we are not going to win. that is what tipped him and the place is about to go, which is not run and he's going to step away and say we have to a way to find a negotiated settlement. to code for leaving south vietnam and getting out of there. that doesn't mean surrender, but it doesn't mean winning. it is not want to be the first president to lose the war. is to the press is line and he's trying to find

a way to do a pr thing. it was if the reporters on his side. ii, the press and military were on the same team. the reporters that was their obligation to help win the war. by this time, it's a very different perspective. the reporters by the time walter cronkite makes his comments, obligationit's their to tell people the truth about what actually happening. host: we want to put those figures back up on the screen the poll.is is was it a mistake? you can see the yes his work 46%. by 68 and 58%4% by 69.

support, i'm not seen it on the screen here. 46% say it was a mistake in 1967. year andf 8% the next then another 4% the next year. if you want to look at january of 68 of the reflection point in the war, it's coming straight into our living room as it breaks. ii, this great disconnect that we are beginning to experience. , world war ii had only ended 21 years earlier. these are the sons of world war

ii who have got off the fight. parents who are slower to become in the yes column. this is exactly with the generational schism that we had not had before this moment. are holding their parents accountable in a different way and saying just because you are older you not necessarily wiser. you have to listen to us and we are going to go over there and make the sacrifice and do the killing. we don't think after once been happening that you know what you're doing or putting this on the right path. charge, then authority figures that we have , maybe they are not

doing the right thing. we've never been able to sort that out since then. it's very painful. i think there is heroism on all sides. the young men that doug wrote about our heroes. they serve their country and tried to do the right thing. young people on the campuses back home who felt the war was wrong and tried to stop it were also doing what they thought was the right thing. , howy because of politics our politicians of exploited we feel if we have to choose. i have to move beyond that. early did organized protest begin? where did it begin? think they begin much

earlier than we think. 1965. they began in d.c. and new york. it's interesting about how little that seem to penetrate the consciousness. that was going on. this is really from their experience, they are not paying attention to the protest that is brewing. guest: the first protest were small-scale. we interviewed a guy named bill zimmerman who was active in the civil rights movement and the antiwar movement. he remembers being invited to go to protests in the midwest. 20 people showed up.

this was in 1964 and 1965. it was a tiny movement. in the fall of 1965 as we get down to troops in the ground in vietnam, a protest was called for in washington d c. there were 25,000 people there. moment he felt there might be a mass movement. that's not a lot of people to what dr. king would get. it was local, it didn't get a lot of press. timeew organically over and that have to do with changes in the draft and who is getting drafted. more young men and women who had brothers and boyfriends and friends felt this was going to touch them. the question of what we fighting for became much more real and present.

host: we have some the names that came up. on our screen, we have a picture of someone named norman. remind us to norman morrison was. his story i found devastating. he had very strong held beliefs of the past is a -- pacifism. this becameto a major news story around the world. he went to the pentagon and set himself on fire outside robert mcnamara's window. i don't think he is well remembered as he should be for

an extraordinary and insane back active civil disobedience. there are a few other examples. it does speak to the kind of fervor with which some people felt that the war was wrong and had to be stopped. he does represent a tiny minority of the public. lots conversation with our two guests. host: we went to the phone numbers on the screen. we want for separate phone lines . if you live in the eastern and central time zone, (202) 748-8000. if you live at west, it's (202) 784-8001. we have a line for vietnam veterans, (202) 748-8002. ,or vietnam war protesters

(202) 748-8003. we will start getting to your calls. we want to put another name in front of you. his name is tom hayden. early he was one of the founders of the protest movement. michigan, theof students for a democratic said, thes lynn protest movement when it begins be a theitical mass draft, people start to pay attention. as i sitwrote about here and listen, joined earlier. i wonder what their experience

with have been had they been younger. host: go ahead. guest: i was just going to add in the making of our film, we had a chance to speak with that or is for many different phases of the war. generation went in with a great deal of idealism. the people who were drafted or joined later in the war did so in a different context. hard to hold on to your idealism about what the war could be and as it continued after the election of 1968. it's important to not love all veterans together. there is a lot of variety and new wants in all of these groups. host: we should talk more about

students. this is a clip from a fellow about the columbia university student protests in new york. here's a look. >> the strikers were getting community support. they are getting opposition from the faculty and right-wing students. >> they were trying to put food out. >> they stand here with their arms crossed. they are not going to say anything.

host: your reflection? guest: i had a teacher who is part of that protest. i am now good friends with him. this is another america we are looking out, when students took over. the new york leased department had to come and take the university back from the students. this is democracy in action. that's what it looks like. we are talking about veterans and protesting. host: what goes to your mind when you see that video? guest: i had a chance yet to know one of the protesters, a woman who was involved in the takeover. story. a wonderful

did having to rep do with building a gym. it quickly became something about the war. the university was complicit with military contracts. that was a big question for a lot of students, does our college have a role in the war? they begin to see we're getting money from the defense department to do research into certain kinds of bombing. it got out of control. there is a radical movement from the student groups. there was also the tension on , they were right-wing students. they were more conservative. they didn't want this chaos and unrest. they just want to go to class and they didn't want to rock the

boat. conflicts between people who see their role in society in different ways. it was an important moment for anyone who was there. the police came in and people were hurt. people who run these institutions didn't know what to do honestly. this kind of fervor and youthful idealism and chaos and sometimes violent impulses, the people in charge were kind of at sea. happenss to me what when the children of the elite turn against the old order and want to turn upside down. nobody really knows what to do. there was a level of tragedy in all of this, what happened at columbia. host: we have a couple of calls. we are talking about the homeland here.

can you explain something for us? who could avoid the draft and why? medical reasons, psychological reasons, it's interesting. a marriage. i interviewedys for the book remembered being in the high school cafeteria saying i can't believe charlie wants to get married so he can get out of the war. that was really surprising to me. soldiers seene inhering in support the war of home? >> that evolves over time. guest: several of the soldiers remembered reading about the

antiwar movement in the military newspaper. they got time magazine or whatever news media they got on delay and read about protests and felt betrayed. we are here trying to win this war, while not supporting this? that was a prevalent feeling up until 1968 for sure. they weren't getting a lot of information about what was going on outside their area of operations. you can't really understand the big picture, nobody could. they were focused on where they were and surviving. this did not make people feel supported. it caused a schism. it's a bit more nuanced than that. a soldier speaking to who was in the marines around the dmz in 1968.

he was mexican american and his sister back home was protesting the war. she told him about that. at first he wasn't sure what he thought. she wanted him to come home. he could see something in that. lynn is a documentary filmmaker, she worked on the pbs the at him more with ken burns. our guest in washington is the author of this book. tell us about this book. guest: it's about a recon platoon in vietnam. they've survived the tet offensive. i met one of the main characters in afghanistan in 2005 when i was researching another book. said youd out and think anyone is interested in

our story in vietnam? he was still in the army. the book tries to tell that story and be the homecoming they never had. i think this remains are unfinished narrative in america. lynn is exactly right. it's almost as if we need reconciliation in the way we prescribed for other countries. i traveled on a book tour for this. i was shocked at the degree to which vietnam is simmers in the consciousness of so many americans. a woman said i never said the word vietnam. maybe the book is a portal like the great documentary into that conversation.

that's what we need to have right now. separate the war from the soldier and go forward. i agree 100% with what done just said. that's why we wanted to make this film. businessis unfinished and a traumatic experience that we never talked about were really understood. 10hoped that by spending years and talking to people across the political spectrum that we would be able to shed some light on the story. maybe we were expecting too much. you don't have reconciliation until you understand the truth. it's not like there is one simple and clear narrative. we can agree on what happened, some of the facts. our leaders from the beginning of the war in the 50's never

really had confidence we could win it. yet, they kept fighting it. that's an important perspective to start with. we have found it opened up communication, we are beginning to have this conversation we never really had it. there are some great documentaries and books. we have discussed for so long how we feel about the war. was interesting is now this generation approaches 70. they are the de facto previous world war ii generation. and it's important to ask how the war made them feel. there's a lot of unfinished business. if you imagine the conversations it never happened in america because that energy was spent repressing the experience.

then't remember a bit of most important year of my life, we can't go into history without putting that on the end of the sons. host: we have a vietnam veteran on the line. philip, did morning. go ahead. caller: i am an air force veteran. to 1965.from 1961 host: thank you for clarifying. caller: i was on a base during the cuban missile crisis. i remember thinking i was going to die because i thought we would be at war. 65, i startedin at the university. some civil warin protests, but got involved in

antiwar stuff. started, there would be 20 people at a protest. it grew and grew and grew eventually. for ani was expelled antiwar sit in. my brother served in vietnam in the air force. a boomher-in-law was operator out of thailand. he flew the bombers and fighter planes. host: do you have a comment for the guests? caller: i was going to talk about the division of family. father, hevisit my said i should be shot for treason.

day, theo this division in america at that point, we see reflections of that today. host: thank you for calling. the division of family? guest: i had a neighbor that recently passed away. he quit theademy, air force academy because he did not want to go into the service. we can't live like this. i don't know how you get beyond it. i think storytelling can help. this is not a productive way to live come to have these kinds of divisions. host: good morning to you, to nice? -- denice? 68 was a pivotal year for our culture. i'm the quintessential baby boomer.

in high i was a senior school and i started college at michigan state. i became involved in student government and wanted to be, a politician. as i became more aware of the war, i was up at michigan state. the poor guys my age were getting drafted. it didn't seem fair. i got involved in the women's thement to protest inequities for women. in order to organize a protest, i called and asked for help. they sent someone up from the university of michigan. organize ap to help women's protest. i stayed involved with them and went to a convention in texas where a faction escalated the

violence and broke off. they signed a political decision paper. faction wrote an opposition paper that said you don't need a rectal for mom or to know who the -- thermometer assholes are.he what was the reason for the war? to figureing, trying out why we were in vietnam. i did not believe in the domino theory at all. it wasn't worth sacrificing 55,000 guys my age. abouti wanted to ask you women and minorities when it comes to the protest. how big with the numbers in those areas? guest: i'm probably not an

expert on those demographics. movement was led by men and women played a huge role, but did not have leadership roles. woman i spoke to who was at wereolumbia protest, we there to help the guys do with a were doing. -- they were not issue of women to the degree they should've been. they incorporated aspects of the civil rights movement. empathic desk imperfect aspects. -- imperfect aspects of it.

the idealism to protest inspired women and people in the environmental and the gay-rights movement. it gave birth to other kinds of movements that were asking the same questions. where are our obligations to hold our leaders accountable and demand change? what the caller spoke about in terms of the movement is very important. there really was a small minority at this point. up, but people showed the leadership isn't going to be responsive. you had to essentially take up arms and moved toward a very radical and violent revolution. these were infantile fantasies. there's no way they were going

to take over the government of the united states. thatme out of frustration the protested not seem to move the dial. you have teenagers who believed very strongly that something needed to happen. the radical side of the antiwar , they wanted to get media attention. conversation in a way that was destructive. let's hear from bill in north carolina. i was out of high school in 1965. i had no desire to go to college. i had no idea what i wanted to do. drafted, i would get which i did in 1966. back before id

was even 21. i served with the 11th armored, when we don't hear much about. i watched most of the pbs series. i thought it was outstanding. out, this is what my country told me i needed to do, so we must be right. i think the whole thing was a mistake. i've never gone to see the wall. i don't want to see it. when i got out, that's it. that part is done, leave me alone and let me live the rest of my life. i started to go to college. i never felt so out of place in my life. i was 21 then.

i was in classes with 18-year-old kids. it was like a different world between 18 and 21. now i am 71 and retired. hindsight, whole thing was a mistake. host: thank you for sharing your story. guest: it's interesting to hear him talk about not wanting to go to the wall. it's interesting. it's about a monument to a war we talked the least about. we know how to look at the wall, but we don't have the language yet. we are getting there thanks to documentaries like lynn's. interviewsd in my with a lot of veterans, they want to know who is watching. who's watching out for us western mark you are only -- stay to save alive

alive and for your buddies. there is a sense of dislocation to the vietnam experience. no one was offering a moment, nobody really was in charge. there was no order and principle. i read a book about world war ii and they came home under a very similar cloud. their story had been framed early. we knew how the narrative ended. that was the good war. it's interesting how now in later life, we should really think to look to storytelling. i would urge bill to go to the wall. oncoming the of vietnam war. i was there yesterday. you see people coming out of their own reflection, looking at the name of the dead.

host: we want to play you a quick clip from the pbs documentary. we will talk about it. the cops were guys from the neighborhoods. polish guys, irish guys. vietnam,adn't been to they had cousins or brothers who were. >> he had fought with the marines in vietnam. he was now a reporter covering the conflict in american streets. >> all of a sudden, the streets are filled with these kids who don't look like what college kids are supposed to look like.

committingm were vandalism and yelling obscenities. i think a lot of the policeman saw that as abusing the privileges they had an scorning them. host: what can you tell us about the perspective of the police and the national guard? guest: i think we talk about this a lot today.

we want them to be trained in something called de-escalation. if you're putting a ds -- difficult situation, how do you get people to calm down. we saw the complete opposite in chicago and that cap state. they were not given the right training of how to manage a difficult situation. there was an enormous amount of class resentment going on. and it's something we feel very much today. they see these kids protesting as a privilege and they felt they were being unpatriotic. they thought they should just the quiet. i'm generalizing. whosure there were people may not have held those views. they were in a very tough spot. once important to take away from chicago is there

was an investigation. students were being provocative, but the police and the national guard made the situation much worse. television cameras captured it. a soldier was in australia watching on tv. andaw this chaos unfolding people in uniform beating up students with clubs. he realized it was america. his father is a police officer. someone like his dad was beating up someone who looked like him. he felt he was being politicized. host: let's go to bill in

pennsylvania. you are on the air. caller: i want to tell my experience very concisely. in 1968, i graduated from high school. people remember the lottery system that determined whether you got drafted or not. six, therenumber was was very little chance that i would not get drafted. i tried to be a conscientious objector. i wrote a letter to the draft board. imagine could not ever killing someone, especially someone i didn't know. i never really got an answer to that letter. they acknowledged that they received it. developed alege and severe mental illness. the draft board was no longer interested in me.

they sent me a letter. i recovered from that illness i'm glad to say. i participated in the demonstrations, the antiwar demonstrations in washington in 1970 and 1971. there were over one million people there. i remember seeing jane fonda and bob hayden and some of the big protesters. were toohese people radical for me. we were all opposed to the war. mayry chilling moment was 4, 1971 for students were killed that cap state university. i remember that day so clearly. it seemed like this country was at war with itself. the main comment i wanted to make was when the veterans

return to this country, it's a disgrace how they were treated. onsome cases they were spit at the airport. i think these things happen because of what people saw on tv. went, they dido what they believed in. they thought they were doing the right thing. they followed orders. what happened in the war was never their fault. it was the fault of the politicians like next and and johnson and mcnamara. host: thanks for sharing your observation. experience, what do you take from his comments? guest: he seems to have a great deal of empathy for the other side, which is not really the other side. a couple of people i interviewed

, he was sitting in his airline seat of the person next to rank the bell and said would like to be moved. i could hear this. do i look like a killer? i want to stress about everyone had this experience. we have this ongoing debate about how these guys were treated. my friend came home. someone took him out to dinner with he was hitchhiking. they were coming home to a changed america. did you want to add to that? guest: i wanted to jump then about that because it such a critical point about how the veterans felt they were received. said, no one story fits everyone's experience.

there may not have been much literal spitting as you might think, but there was a sense of they came home and no one thanked them because we didn't win the war. it's that unfinished business aspect of the war. world war ii veterans came on to victory parades. the country was celebrating. here, people came home one by one to a country so bitterly divided about what they had done. there was a conflation with not thiswho's responsible but specter of war crimes and whether soldiers had committed them. for us to talk about. or the next best

thing for the public. robert't go in spit on mcnamara or yell at lbj, but here is a soldier in uniform. they became psychic targets. that was very wrong. we need to acknowledge that. we need to move forward. host: let's get back with nancy from north carolina. thank you for waiting. you won my heart. you brought up something very important to me. the babyp on one of boomers, i watched the war. the first war that was ever on television. we watched it every evening. cronkite narrated the war. my father was a world war ii

veteran. .e was home he was pro-vietnam in the beginning. cap --war cap going, -- kept going, he said we have to pull out now. tofather after listening walter cronkite say the war was beyond belief, our senator said we've got to pull out now. agraduated in 1967 out of class of 700 students. , over 700 ofood up us with our parents sitting out there from world war ii and i withpossibly world war great grandparents, they were

shocked when none of us stood up for the national anthem. that was our protest. host: do you want to respond? it's painful for nancy and her generation to feel that they were trying to get a message across to their parents and grandparents and they weren't ready to hear it. her father did it come around. as the earlier caller said, he was in the service and realize the war was a mistake. these things can happen over time. in that moment it must've in very difficult. we spoke to a veteran who is very enthusiastic about joining the marines and fighting for his country. he had a complete transformation.

he joined the veterans against the war. he wanted to send the message to the people making the decisions. i don't think you know that much about what you are doing. that was a very courageous act. by that time, the policy didn't make sense. look at the 1964 gulf of talk and resolution. they are both reasons to go into a country and fight a war. afghanistan,r those subjects are treated very differently. it has to do with the way afghanistan was framed for us. iraq is another question entirely. when i compare those two

it's tragicments, the way the vietnam veterans were treated in the aftermath. than half an more hour left with our guests. pbs 10 partn the series the vietnam war. he is the author of several books, including the odyssey of echo company. good morning, sandra. caller: good morning. sent.three family members they went over and they joined up. one was my husband, two of my brothers. up goingothers ended to vietnam.

to germany and the other state in vietnam. my husband was not part of the war. brother who went to vietnam the lumbertecting yards. he had to be sent out because he had tumors. his or hised where to this day. set 3:00 in the morning. he is never left vietnam. in bay of pigs. to our family,me

we went to church. while in church, we became the focus. my husband was dressed in his uniform. my husband told me it was about what he gone through and everything else. it was terrible. i never heard such things in my life. i was told that. he said it was shot up because they were protecting the lumber yards over in vietnam. he knew it because he drove out of it himself. i have a son that was in the

service as well. host: thank you for calling. let's hear from doug stanton. guest: it was about that and many things, but not just the lumber yards. host: and nathan calling from connecticut, good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. and thanks to all the moderators on "washington journal" who do a fabulous job. i loved nancy, and just as she her, the filmmaker won heart. bill from pennsylvania won my heart. his story was just wonderful to hear. mohammed ali was punished, and that is why he is a hero to my generation. werear protesters

significant to ending the war because they drove lyndon johnson out of office. he knew he was not going to be reelected so he withdrew. i think that was because of the protesters put so much pressure on him. stanton, whoor mr. i think is a hero, too, when robert mcnamara, who wrote his , in about 15 years ago which he said, that they all unwinnablet was an diduntenable tragedy, how that make you feel? did that indicate your feelings of doubt as a soldier or do you think he should have taken it to his grave?

i saw you nodding your head, did you want to respond? guest: i think a number of soldiers we spoke with in particular, a marine, who gave up a road scholarship to go to vietnam and to lead a platoon in what is was recalling revealed in the pentagon papers, which is mcnamara's memo to johnson in 1965, saying the chances for victory are no better than one in three. we probably will not win. and johnson going along with it and subsequent revelations from mcnamara that they knew the war was not winnable and they kept escalating anyway. they said, i can understand that our leaders make mistakes with good intentions, with a noble hearts, people make mistakes and policies can be wrong and we understand that.

but when you are lying to protect your own ego, that is what he said, and many soldiers went to vietnam, did their duty, and fought, killed, and had their friends die for leaders who lied. he said that makes him mad. that is what i was nodding. i was a membrane that -- i was remembering that soldier and knowing what we had known now, if they had been honest from the beginning, we would be having a different conversation. host: let's go to market grand rapids, -- let's go to mark and grand rapids, michigan. caller: i would just like to thank your guests for one of the most important and brilliant documentaries for anything i have seen. i am originally from a large upstate new york family that got involved in anti-vietnam war and civil rights protests early on. i was born in 1960, so these people were heroes of mine as i

grew up. my question to mr. stanton and is novack, in 2018, where the civil disobedience and where is the outrage over the war in iraq and the war in afghanistan that is going on now much longer than the vietnam conflict? host:. thank you doug stanton? -- thank you. stanton? guest:guest: that is true, the first interview i did, the question was, i was still in afghanistan? 18 years in afghanistan. i have three nephews and a lot of family members in the service now or have been but i am an anomaly among my writer friends. where's the protest? where are the people fighting this war? we could debate whether or not we should bring the draft or public service pack, but if we did either one of those entitled

to our foreign policy, we would see immediate more public engagement to at this very issue he raises. host: i am going to collate a trailer for -- to play a trailer about a group called the catonsville nine, but who were the catonsville nine? guest: i believe these were the drafters who went into the selected service office? they try to destroy it draft records in maryland, and basically, they poured blood or destroyed -- poured blood on draft files so people would not -- the service would not be able to do its job. they were arrested and tried. it was that they miss trial about civil disobedience and how far that can go. i believe it was the berrigan brothers, two prominent peace activists, who led the protest. the sense ofo

there is civil disobedience, nonviolent protest, and many forms that can take. there was a sense of building frustration in the antiwar movement showing up in a big rally that you could do that and get a lot of people to come, but it would not move the dial on the policy. there were different factions and ideas about how to really shake things up and people -- many people thought the war was so wrong. let's not forget, we talk about the 58,000 americans who died and every single name on the wall is a tragedy, and it is important to go there, but there were 3 million vietnamese killed. when we think about the war and the american story, we forget our role in the deaths of the vietnamese, and certainly they also played a part. americanle died but

munitions did a lot of that killing. that is partly what was fuming this sense of the need to stop the war. not just to save american lives and stop our country from disintegrating, but stopping our country and policy from killing vietnamese people who had not done anything to us. host: more of your calls in the moment but here is the trailer for "hit and stay," about two minutes. [video clip] >> i believe we are at times making it increasingly impossible for christians to obey the law of the land and to remain true to christ. >> at the height of the vietnam war, nine catholics and to this holding in kingsville, maryland, the draft board -- catonsville, maryland, a draft board. they brought the files into this parking lot and burn them with the help of homemade napalm. >> they stood around and they were talking amongst themselves, and they were praying and waiting for the feds to show up, so it was a big story.

we are about publicity. we knew this was drama, not just politics. this was political theater. >> i think the catonsville nine opened up the options of what people were willing to do. >> i had no idea. it was a prototype of some theories of action. >> there were over 100 draft toward -- draft board actions in this country. >> we now know they never drafted again. to be thes my thing, first nine in the united states to commit a federal felony. escape. not try to we waited for arrest. we use the trial as educational medium. >> we also put the fbi on trial. >> i do not sympathize with the burning of draft boards. i think that is on american. >> we received threatening people. i remember one comment of the prosecutor. these people are greater threat to the security of this nation

than is organized crime. he said that's open court. >> i think the jury, every one of them was opposed by the time we finished the trial. >> we have chosen to be powerless criminals in the time of criminal power. we have chosen to be branded as these criminals p by workroom criminals by were criminals. host: that was for a documentary made in 2013. we want to hear from doug stanton on what you just saw in the reflections on that catonsville nine. guest: it goes -- it is hard to get civicw he can engagement at that level today to talk about our own policy. i'm not saying that will be the path to go forward, but it is really interesting because that is the bitter fruit of so many

families sending their young men and women off to vietnam. this is so interesting because callingo many people in, and i want to get to those calls, but if we do this about korea, afghanistan or iraq, we here in the calls the sense to be heard. people want to say, simply, this is what happened to me in vietnam and that is a different feeling in this show than we see elsewhere. i am glad to hear from the because we talk so much about the protests that i think until we get to what it just felt like for these guys. i know it is my contention and lynn's, too, that this is perhaps and unhealthy blister in the american soul that needs to be lanced. host: let's hear from more callers. jeff in connecticut. caller: yes, good morning. host: go ahead, please.

caller: yes, i spent two tours of duty in vietnam. i was drafted and i should not have been. they an only son, and all theafted me, and friends in vietnam when i was in mobile construction battalion 141, although i was a navy person, i am still alive and still having problems to this day with my situation. host: what kind of problems? caller: for example, the other day, i was at my town hall and an individual tommy i wasn't -- told me i wasn't honorably discharged. it said honorable discharge and the guy gave me a hard time. i have prostate cancer.

but they do not care. nobody cares. host: story of jeff. here is the story of alvin and that we will get back to our guests. in arizona? caller: yes. host: yes, alvin. caller: well, first of all, i want to thank ken burns. he is doing a fantastic job, not only with vietnam, but i followed him with the civil war, black baseball, etc. -- in mysaid i experience, in 1964, i enlisted in the u.s. army, basically believing that would be sent to vietnam. was sentrvened and i to korea instead of vietnam. every other class was sent to vietnam, and the class in between was sent someplace else. i served in the seventh infantry division in korea, but i did

follow vietnam very closely and i was young. naive. i wanted to serve my country, and that is what i enlisted. i am 85 -- i made it fairly quickly because i was in great shape, exercised, so when i got out, i went to college. at that time, i was falling vietnam and i was in my sophomore year when the offensive occurred. what i did is i started researching how we got into vietnam and our involvement. i think the real untold story of vietnam is the beginning of our involvement in vietnam, which dated back to 1942. i think that is the real untold story. if people want to understand

vietnam, they have to understand the cause and effect of how we got into vietnam. host: thank you. lynn novick, your response? guest: i agree. in our film, which is 10 parts, 18 hours, ken burns and i decided to go to the 19th century with the french involvement in vietnam before we got there. we quickly gets world war ii, and we did get involved in vietnam because we were trying to fight a common company -- the common enemy, which was the japanese. we helped train them, and then as the war ended, the cold war started. the communists were our enemy, and everything flowed from there. our initial involvement had to do it the dynamics of the second world war. one of the tragedies of the vietnam war is that there was something happening in the world after the second world war, which looking back we understand

was the process of decolonization. that these empires, the british, the french, the portuguese, the belgians, they were going to lose their empires and no longer have colonies and subjugate people in the third world and the countries are going to demand self-determination. there was a strong nationalist current and communism, the russians and the chinese supported the movements. we oppose them. that became sort of irreconcilable conflict that got us deeper into printer vietnam. and then it had a momentum of its own. memo,cnamara says in the it has a momentum of its own and it must be stopped. that is true. once you start something, it is harder to stop. the reasons why we got in our important but equally important, the reasons we stayed in. and you had american leaders who kept it going, even though it was built on a house of cards. host: doug stanton, i want to

get your reflection on the caller pryor, who said poorly or, who said he was poorly treated. guest: he said, nobody cared and nobody is really in charge. did, it washings i in the two people i would about, we went back to the beginning of where this all happened and that provided some sense of reconciliation with their younger selves and another did,r mentioned or lynn when you travel the streets, this is the american war in vietnam. it is not called the vietnam war. host: we had george on the line from florida.

things for taking part. what would you like to say or ask? caller: thank you. i would like both of them to comment on walter cronkite. -- it was a military victory, and it was not reported that way, but that is what happened. walter cronkite, that is on tv, and he says what you said, which was 180 degrees opposite to what happened. prognosticating about things that perhaps they do not know everything about. could you just comment on that, please? host: is asked lynn novick to let's ask lynn- novick to take that one. guest: i think the caller is demonstrating a common understanding. a lot of people feel the way you

feel. it is important to take a step to telescope out from the end the, yes, one could argue offensive was a military defeat for the vietcong because they lost so many people, tens of thousands of their soldiers were killed, so on the surface, that could look like a decisive turning point in the war for them, but what we have to keep leadersand what our understood, even though they were not telling the american people at that time were ever, was that north vietnam has a very healthy birth rate. they have no interest in stopping fighting. lickmight go back and their wounds for however long it takes to rebuild, but they will be back and they will not walk away, so it ultimately became a question of how long is this war going to go on because even though we killed a lot of soldiers and combatants in the offensive, it was not decisive for them, so understanding where they were coming from, that is

why the wiseman, the inner circle of the risers that johnson had came to him and said, you have to get out. so walter, cried to not know any of that, and you know, what he was looking at was this is unsustainable for the american people, and also what is at stake. what are we fighting for? what is the cause and risk to our country if we do not win the war? also, the cost problem, do we continue to throw more young men into the fight to justify the lives of those who have already been lost? so there's a lot going on below the surface, and i think walter contrite becomes the fulcrum -- walter contrite the comes the lightning rod or fulcrum in the what you have to take a longer and wider view to appreciate the context. host: doug stanton, i want to show a clip from march 8, 1968, a phone call between johnson and the secretary of state talking

about a meeting with the senate foreign relations committee and talking about the state of the war in vietnam. [video clip] meetingd a three-hour the other night. mansfield, as usual, spaghetti, had nothing to say. he is against the war. i have done everything i can to them saying this is nothing, just spaghetti. fulbright says i am determined that we have got to get out of there and that is my purpose. and anyed to, misled, time a contract is based on fraud, misrepresentation is no contact at all. and that congress does have some responsibility. be consulted. they say, we have been here

three hours, and you play president for a minute and what is it you recommend? he recommends negotiation. i said, i do, too. going? how do you get he just goes off on a tangent and talks about how terrible the warriors, how it is tearing our society to pieces and dividing us and hurting us. i agree to all of that. host: what is the role of congress during this period in containing the war? that cliphink what just showed is that they certainly took an active role and they are coming forward. this is march of 1968. the previous caller said walter cronkite had been 180 degrees off from the tactical achievement of the tests, but what i want to point out and it goes to the johnson clip, the offensive guys in the event was

180 degrees off of what a headset in the u.s. that summer is that we are close to the light at the end of the tunnel. isis not as it cronkite coming out of the blue with this summation he had after being in his underreporting. and then you have johnson being spoiled on the wheel of a decision between the politicians in congress feeling this aswback from the country they watch it in color on their television screens. host: let's go to michael in california, good morning. caller: good morning. i just want to say that -- to make this quick, my father was with patton in the third army so i felt it was my duty to go to vietnam. when i got there, i was with a division and general ware

died that month, or that the highest-ranking officers. then the president visited us in 1969. then i got out and i was walking through an airport on may 4, felt like ireally because they looked at me -- everybody was looking now, it iste, but turned around. i have great experience with persian gulf, the soldiers said do not celebrate without us, do not celebrate without the vietnam vet, and i was welcomed home 2000 times. .ost: thank you to roger

caller: the vietnam war documentary was excellent, by the way. i turned 18 in 1972. my lottery number was 217 and i was one a. college bill with a lot of vietnam vets, and the head of business partner who was a medic in vietnam and i disagree. everybody wanted to hear their stories, and i don't remember anybody ever talking down to them. everybody seemed to hold them in high esteem. we got a lot of higher and working jersey because my friend was a vietnam that and the doctors wanted to hire him and hear his stories. my father was a platoon sergeant in the philippines -- i mean in world war ii. he came home and never talked about the war, went through hell , kept his not shut, worked until the day he died at 83 and

never asked the government for anything. bill,er got the g.i. medicare, and i think the vietnam vets should just shut up, do their job, and go to work just like my father did, the greatest generation. host: anything from those last callers to respond to? guest: well, i think what we haveguest: seen as there are many versions. we all have our own narratives and they do not always lineup. it is of the country and there a lot of variety of experience. on the one hand, it is true that sometimes, especially if soldiers came home around 1959 -- 19 to see nine and 1970 -- 1969 and 1970's, they were the closest thing to criticize. but there were plenty who came home and went about their lives. the great legacies of the vietnam generation is that they did not keep quiet in the way,

so they demanded better care from the v.a., they called attention to what became known as poster medic stress disorder. at first, it was called post-vietnam syndrome. there was a sense if you had been to combat, something might have happened physically and psychologically and you did not feel right. ournam veterans held government accountable that we have to take care of our soldiers. it is a big uphill climb but that is an important legacy. what has been moving to see, we have had experiences with the generation of soldiers that have fought in more recent wars being grateful to the vietnam generation for opening the way for them to come home to a different kind of welcome, and then wanting to pull the vietnam veterans into that, parades, and welcome home ceremonies. this intergenerational warrior

community is powerful. host: let's get ronald and from this again. -- in from michigan. caller: hi, i was in vietnam in and the reason i am calling is the were crimes that happened -- the war crimes that happened in vietnam. i am very nervous. with lynn, she slipped out the word illusion, and i think that is the proper word because it is an illusion and we should never have been there. if you have history of vietnam, he went to war i, china for help in the chinese do

hislike him because he kept country -- their priorities were party, country, etc.. his was country, party, etc., and they did not like that, so he would act of vietnam, started -- one last thing is pleased, the vietnam vets, please, tell your story to your family. it is lost history, and the other thing is, i am going to do this is to write the vietnam embassy in washington and apologize to them for the war. host: thank you. tell us a story, doug stanton. before thataller said he came home and the guys wanted to hear his stories about being in vietnam. which is all the difference when

you have an audience who was going to be listening. i would urge him to say today to vietnam veterans not to say to them shut up but to listen to their story and move on. we do not have to do anything with the stories. the biggest lesson i learned is we have to acknowledge. you cannot fix the pain but we can listen to become the audience. host: lynn novick, final thoughts? guest: wow. for ken burns, myself and our colleagues who worked on the film, we had the privilege of spending 10 years listening to people tell us their stories in america and vietnam. one thing that was profound for me was i made four trips to vietnam in the course of the project, talking to veterans and civilians there. there is a lot of unfinished business in vietnam. their country is still unreconciled about what happened during the war and to is responsible and whether it was worth the cost. even though on the winning side, they had the pride of victory,

it is enormously painful and difficult. the impulse to listen to each other and be present and tear each other stories, the vietnamese who have seen our film and to have been -- and has been translated to vietnamese and millions have strained it, it is opening the i think that speaks to the on the mental human need to know ourselves and each other before we go anywhere. my life has been changed by the privilege of hearing so many stories on all tied, people who believed in what they were doing, and people carrying baggage about what happened. the more we can share our stories and listen to each other the better we will be. host: the vietnam war with ken burns. thank you for joining us. guest: great conversation. thank you. host: we appreciate your time.

thank you for participation this morning. ,e will explore the cold war and we will be joined by mark studies, next war week. coming up next for our viewers on c-span three, it is real erica.a -- reel am this was the second of a three-part program based on a cbs poll of young people between 17 years old and 23 years old. why, another edition of washington journal. looking at washington with a

, a busy week in washington ahead. at 9:00 in this technology in the work force, andrew stegner will join us. and policy issues involving the state of nebraska. onwill join the governor issues in his state. thank you for taking part in the program. see you back here tomorrow. >> newsmakers is next with guy

cecil from priorities usa followed by deputy attorney general rod rosenstein talking about the rule of law a congressional oversight. later, a look at how mental illness is dealt with in the .riminal justice system >> welcome to newsmakers. the primary season is in full swing. we are pleased to welcome guy cecil, from priorities usa, a democratic super pac. michael, you are up first. news,had good unemployment below 4%. is the economy revving up create headwinds for the democratic argument in 2018? guy: