weekend. " washington journal" continues. host: joining us from boston's former congresswoman jane harman , the author of a new book called "insanity defense: why our failure to confront hard national security problems makes us less safe." thank you for being with us. guest: thank you and good luck at the bipartisan policy center. i'm getting this is your second to last broadcast you will be missed. host: what is your overall message? guest: i was in congress for nine terms and i headed the wilson center for nine years and that spans more or less three decades since the cold war and ted, my premise is after the cold war ended we had no strategy for what the world would look like. we won, russia lost, everyone

wanted to be us, and we missed china's rise in the 90's p i was in congress than. --90's. i was in congress than. then came 9/11. we were surprised, which we should not have been, then we over militarized our response, which is going on to this day. so, "insanity defense" means doing the same thing and expecting a different result. my point is we have been doing the same thing and have not made the country safer. host: you were very honest at the end of the book. you did not come up with the title, did you? guest: no, we all have to credit our children -- i was going to call the book "the war on terror," but my journalist daughter, said that is boring, please call it "insanity

defense," and she was right. i'm glad i listened to her. host: let's take a deep dive. you write "consider the track record of the last 30 years, blowing off multiple terrorism warnings and then creating a homeland security apparatus neglected and misused by successive presidents and congresses." you go into great detail on the formation of the department first led by governor tom ridge at the time and how it asked you -- it has changed over the last four presidents. guest: well, three presidents. it was formed after 9/11, it missed the clinton presidency, but i do make the point it is four presidents that have not had a comprehensive security strategy, and we now have a chance with joe biden who is our first truly experienced president and foreign policy since george h w bush, and george w. bush was one of the people credited with ending the cold war. host: also in the book you write the following -- "considering

the track record of the last 30 years, running the intelligence community is what you described is a 1947 business model, reforming it after the iraq debacle, and undermining it through repeated purges of experience career leadership. explain that. guest: i did not answer your question about the homeland mission and staff either, but what has happened since 9/11, when we took some important steps to set up a homeland security department, which we did not have before, and to reorganize our intelligence community with a joint command structure across 16 intelligence agencies is that the leadership has been mixed. we had some good folks. i described who they are and what their skill sets were. we had someplace best folks placed by the last president whose mission it was to use the agency, or use the intelligence community for political purposes. that has cost us lives. host: you write also "allowing

successive presidents to ignore additional checks and balances most egregiously after 9/11." explain that point. guest: bad on congress pit my last chapter is the incredible, shrinking congress. i served in congress for nine years. i love the institution of congress and i have many dear friends that still serve there. the point i make in the book is the business model of congress is broken. the business model of congress is to blame the other side for not solving the problem because if you work with the other side you are dreadful, bipartisan, something you are going to address in your next tax good if you are bipartisan, you often get primary, and that is a word that did not exist in the english language 20 years ago. #two get reelected, so they moved to the left or the right in order to make sure they do

not get primary. that has cost us an enormous amount. it used to be back in the day when i was an aide in the united states 70's -- in the 1970's, working together was pride, members lived in washington, they were friends, and even if they disagree, they disagreed civilly and people were respected when they would bring their bills to the floor, and that seems like a quaint story from another century, which, guess what, it is. host: this is what you write in the book, congress weakened by what you call toxic partisanship, enabled its own demise, conceding other powers to the executive all at a time when bipartisan consensus and action are needed to take on america's hardest problems pit to the point of being a coequal branch of government, when did that begin to taper away? guest: we have always had

partisan fights. the parties, going back to the 1800s were form -- that was not contemplated initially when the government was formed, and had big fights, and presidential races were contentious, so on, and so forth, but most everyone believed, i think, the best i can tell, in the institution of our government and respected them, and wanted the government to function, not so much anymore. i think this this slippery slide into what we have now started in the late 1980's, before i was elected. a couple of things happened. i republican operative named -- a republican operative named lee atwater created the negative political ads, and they will tell you that they became easier

for candidates in both parties. the second thing that happened, the hearing to confirm bork to the supreme court became personal. there had never been that kind of approach by the congress. now, a lot of hearings are personal attacks and a lot of campaigns are negative. what does that do? again, it pushes us apart. that pushing us apart, reinforced by social media has created a kind of, tribalism in the country. i am not the first person to say this, which has sadly overrun the sense of community we have always had, certainly around foreign policy. partisan chen -- there was an old adage that partisanship stops at the water's edge. i think most people have not even heard of that anymore. host: what i'm hearing you say, congresswoman, is a pox on both

parties? guest: i'm seeing a pox on these practices. i am saying that i want a robust republican party -- not a call party. -- colt party. i have pride -- applaud liz cheney. it does not mean i agree with her on most things, but i applaud her for wanting that. i also want a robust, resilient democratic party. the democratic party seems to be in better shape than the republican party but each has its wings, no one is missing this, in tragedy for both parties in my view is the center is disappearing -- the center in our politics -- those are the folks that make the deals, and if we just have a very vocal, far-left wing, and a very vocal far right wing, i don't see much chance for prompt -- compromise. i don't think compromise is a dirty word. i don't see much chance for country over party. i don't think that is a bad

idea, especially around the hard problems that is the point. in my book. terrorists will not check party registration when they blow us up. that is not what they are after. they are after taking down what was a resilient and beautiful idea of a democratic republic that is the basis of the united states of america. host: we are talking with jane harman, former president of the wilson center. she served nine terms in the house of representatives. also worked as a staffer to the senate judiciary committee on capitol hill. earlier in her career served as a deputy cabinet secretary in the carter administration. is a headline from fox news -- developing stories today as u.s. troops pull out of afghanistan. there were an estimated 2500 that remained there. the deadline was yesterday. the taliban welcoming the move. your thoughts? guest: member, the title of my book is "insanity defense," doing the same thing and

expecting different results -- we have been in afghanistan for 20 years. i, of course, voted for, including members of congress including senator joe biden, every member but one, voted for the authorization to use military force in afghanistan, and we were effective. he went in there, we degraded those that attacked us, and 10 years later we took down osama bin laden, who had been hiding in pakistan. i think that another plus 10 years, even though we have surged troops and done other things, afghanistan is not much safer. it has a 300,000 person army or a military. it has a democratically elected government run by a technocrat who may not be charismatic, but he is competent, and yet the taliban surges. i think what joe biden did is our least bad option. we have no good options in

afghanistan. if by changing the mission, not eliminating the u.s. focus on and presence in afghanistan, but changing the mission, we have a better chance of helping the country, and moreover, we free up resources and save american lives to focus on the direct threats to the united states. host: let's bring in our callers -- ben, alexandria, virginia. caller: good morning, steve. good morning, representative herrmann. you are a treasure to our country. i watched you over the years when you served on the intelligence committee in our house and you are one of the few remaining states women in our countries -- in our country could i also watched you when you were deliberating on foreign policy and intelligence. i wish we had more people like you left in congress. our member the likes of david boren and hatfield back in those days, where compromise and consensus where the word of the day. today, there was none of that

and it is set for our country. i want to thank you. i think you are a great treasure in terms of intelligence, smarts, and everything else. we need more people like you now in our country. thank you. guest: thank you, caller could i wish my children were listening. very lovely. host: what surprise you the most in researching this book, congresswoman? jane harman that is a great question -- guest: that is a great question. nobody has asked me that. what surprised me -- actually i had a wonderful researcher, sarah scott, who according to bob gates, former secretary of defense, his favorite speech writer at ever. -- ever. sarah went through everything and came up with press releases and other materials that are remembered, but not so precisely. what surprised me was how much of it there was and how much i did.

it wasn't always successful. i do chronicle a number of my mistakes, including voting for the authorization for military force in iraq based on intelligence that turned out to be wrong and i think my vote was wrong, but the point is i sure tried to do so much, and i took it very seriously. it is a great honor to serve in congress. it is not easy to get there. getting elected does not fall out of a tree. you really have to work, and commuting from d.c. to los angeles on a regular basis, which i did over 17 years, is not for the faint hearted, either. host: dylan is joining us. independent line. texas. good morning. caller: yes. the leadership in congress is so terrible. speaker pelosi is just -- just seems like a very partisan person, and mccarthy is not much better.

up what can we do about the leadership in the congress? host: thank you. both of your former california colleagues. guest: that is true, and i know both of them. at this juncture i would disagree about pelosi. if you read my book, you would see that back in the day in 2006 she could have ended not make me the chair of the house intelligence committee. that was a blow to me personally and to some others that were supporting the action, and i thought i was qualified, but i understand, looking back, why she made that decision. she was trying to keep her caucus together, and the caucus was then and still is full of folks across a very broad spectrum. so, you can fault her for being partisan, but that is her job. she is elected to represent the democratic caucus, just as kevin mccarthy is. what is sad about this is there is no reward for solving problems together. that is the sad thing.

i am heartbroken that the 9/11 commission, that the 1/6 commission, modeled after the 9/11 commission which was supported by a number of republicans in the senate, including my close friend susan collins, did not pass, so now pelosi has set up an alternative 1/6 commission, but if we had had the political will to do the right thing, which is to launch a truly bipartisan, independent investigation of 1/6, which was, to become a threat to the fundamental fiber of our democracy, that would have been a really high point for the united states congress, and i think it was a tragic mistake not to do it, and pelosi was for it to be fair. host: but initially she wanted to be more democrats and republicans, going back to the debate in january and february. what is that a missed

opportunity to move more quickly? guest: i don't know if it would have made a difference. i think using the 9/11 commission is the model was the right end point, and as i mentioned, some republicans in the senate got to that point, and then their ideas started to get traction until it was shot down by, i think, minority leader mitch mcconnell. i think he was the one that was against it, but i was there on 9/11, literally there, walking toward the dome of the capitol, as the cochair of a special subcommittee on terrorism in the house. i later became ranking democrat on the house intelligence committee, and i saw our government unprepared, even though there had been ample warnings that we could be attacked. we had no evaluation plan and nothing going on -- evacuation plan and nothing going on men and when we studied it later, when we formed the 9/11

commission cochaired by lee hamilton, former congressman from indiana, former chair of the house foreign affairs committee, we learned -- chronicled, and we learned the big lesson of 9/11. that is what we should be doing now. i think in many ways 1/6 was a bigger attack on american democracy than 9/11 and not disparage it all the tragedy of 9/11. host: bennie thompson from the state's secondary -- second district will be the chair of the committee. if you were on the committee, what is the one overall --question you would want answered? guest: i think we know what happened. i would like to know why it happened. i would not like allegations being made that this person, that person, our president, our then president was responsible -- i would like to know how that claim is proved, then i would

like to know why it has happened and what we can do to prevent it from ever happening again. i do want to commend the fbi and the justice department from doing investigations about why we were there, but i think a truly nonpartisan commission would have the most credibility to do that, just as the 9/11 commission did. host: we welcome our listeners on c-span radio. our guests joining us from boston is jane harman, former member of the house of representatives, former president of the wilson center. her new book is entitled "insanity defense," why our failure to confront national secured problems makes us less safe." craig is on the line. thank you. good morning. caller: i would like to thank you and congress for providing me 16 good years at trw, and my

second question, what you think about space force and also gunned up and how that will help with -- el segundo and how that will help with national security? guest: i still call the aerospace center of california my own -- my home. i remember trw with great fondness. i thought -- it still lives in spirit, even though it has merged into northrop grumman, which is another great firm. anyway, space force, el segundo, great move. el segundo, named after the second chevron refinery in california, it is home to something called the los angeles air force base in the aerospace corporation, and they are the place where we procure and

shield missiles and satellites, and there has been a threat over the years that this whole capacity would leave california and move to other states, and why that would be a tragedy is that a really robust and competent aerospace capacity is just around it, and we have great universities there including ucla, usc, and others, to train the folks at work in the industry. so, moving space force to el segundo would help secure that facility, which is basically economic engine, and i would argue one of the national security engines for the united states. host: from oberlin park, kansas. bobby, good morning. democrats line. caller: good morning. how are you? guest: fine, thank you. caller: i have to inject an uncomfortable truth in the whole discussion, and i think we are

talking about the space shuttle, but not the hydrogen and the oxygen that makes it go up. right now, i think about 50% of white americans want to keep the white hegemony and white privilege, and i think that explains the trump phenomenon, the january 6 insurrection, fox news -- everything. they want to do everything and anything, including get ready democracy -- getting rid of democracy to make that happen, and i think trump has promised them that, and they want him back. they don't care about trump aide they just want to make white hegemony, that is primarily the reason why you are not going to see people working together in congress because republicans have, basically -- they are in lockstep with the whole idea and they don't care if you bring in authoritarian rule. i think we are up against a very serious issue here in america, and if we don't do something about it, i think democracy is

going to be lost forever. host: bobby, thank you. guest: well, i think there are some challenges we are facing as a country. i am a daughter of immigrants -- i think all of us are. in this country, there were indigenous people here, sometimes called native americans, and all the rest of us came from somewhere else, and the truth is we are now a diverse country -- we are not one race. we are a variety of races, cultures, ethnicities, everything, and some people are having trouble adjusting to that. california has been the melting pot forever. it is now majority minority in los angeles, where i am from and grew up, and it has a gigantic population from mexico and i think diversity makes us stronger. i think we have to find a way to coexist, and i certainly think there are some of the republican party, since that is what you mentioned, who, courageously,

are trying to save that party from part of itself commend someone i would call out is liz cheney, who, by the way, is now joining the democratic group of members of this 9/11 commission, and nancy pelosi has been praising her, and i think that praise is deserved. host: i want to go back to something you mentioned earlier, the debate over the authorization of military force. here is how the debate unfolded. i want to get your reaction to two lawmakers. representative barbara lee on the house floor. [video clip] representative lee: former president bush told america that major combat operations in iraq and appeared in 2011 president obama brought combat troops home, yet the authority remains on the books vulnerable to misuse because congress has not

acted to remove it. the bush administration, yes, misled the american people by saying there were weapons of mass destruction, that iraq posed an imminent threat and draw a connection between the events of 9/11 and saddam hussein. those lies and misinformation had deadly consequences. domestics continue to haunt us today. once the war started, led by chairwoman maxine waters, we found that the out of the racks -- out of iraq caucus. many took protest to the streets, protesting the unnecessary, immoral war of choice. year after year we work for the safe and orderly withdrawal of our troops. i share this history not because of nostalgia, but we have to remember why this authorization was passed, because it is, percent of members of congress now of the current house were not here to vote in 2002. the constitution requires that we cannot appropriate funds for

armies for more than two years. for more than two decades, we have failed to revisit these. to this day, our endless work continues, costing trillions of dollars, thousands of lives in war that goes way beyond any scope that congress conceived or intended." host: the debate on the house floor, june 17. and on the republican side of the house, adam kinzinger. [video clip] representative consider: we are debating this as if we all believe we will repeal this and come up with a narrow replacement that will authorize, when we cannot really agree that the sky is blue in this group, but i want to, for a second, looked back and say what would have happened when this was introduced originally. in january, 2014, this repeal was introduced. let's say we passed it? what happened since january of

2014? in june, 2014, we began air against isis. we were able to assist allies to defeat isis in their capital of rocco, and we even destroyed a caliphate throughout the region. and though my colleagues to support legislation have the right intention in mind, but even president biden's own policy admits this repeal would have impact on military operations. that is why we don't call for a blanket repeal, but a narrowly crafted replacement, let's do that first. the bleak reality is without an authorization to fight terror, more innocent human beings will suffer. host: that, from congressman adam kinzinger. you were on the house floor when the initial debate took place. as you hear the debate today on two different sides of the aisle , including from barbara lee, your reaction? guest: i'm glad you played such

long clips. i think it is important. people can learn from this. barbara lee was the only no vote, the only against the 2001 authorization to use military force in afghanistan, and her view was there was a better way to respond to the attacks on us. she was from berkeley, california, as was her predecessor, chair of the house armed services committee when i was elected, by the way. out of moral conviction, she voted against the 2001 au mf, which is also still on the books . i agree with her about repealing the 2002 au mf that was. based on wrong intelligence. i voted for it, and as i said, the intelligence was wrong and i was wrong. that is in my book. i think it should be repealed. i think the 2001 aum, which has

beenf used to justify or support 40 military missions in 19 countries -- i am not making this up, against a bunch of groups that did not exist on 9/11 -- that is where adam kinzinger is right. that should be amended, repealed and replaced, or amended to authorize what congress, not some expanded executive authority under the president thinks is the right force for military missions in the future. by the way, joe biden supports repealing the 2002 aumf and amending the 2001 aumf, and to do that will be hard because as adam kinzinger points out, congress cannot even agree on the weather, but it is congres'' duty to declare war.

the article two branches supposed to carry out what congress passes it article three make sure both branches are consistent with the constitution. congress, in my view -- and this is why my last chapter is called the incredible shrinking congress, as advocated its response ability, and there are good signs of life. commerce wants to step up and be a partner of the executive branch in fashioning the future for the deployment of the american military in the world. host: jane harman spend nine terms in the house of representatives and serve in the house intelligence committee and homeland security committee. her new book is titled "insanity defense," and back to your phone calls, from bakersfield california, james, good morning. caller: good money.

can you contrast the drawdown strategy under president biden in afghanistan with the drawdown strategy by president trump? guest: i can. president trump decided he wanted to remove american troops from afghanistan, and he had a very capable envoy. what was wrong to this picture -- maybe the goal was right, but the negotiation excluded the afghan government. it is unfathomable why. we agreed under the topic nutrition to release 5000 troops in advance of getting a final agreement from the taliban and

the date for withdrawal was supposed to be may 1. so, biden is elected and he has extended the deadline to 9/11, but as of today, apparently the last of our troops has left afghanistan, which is not fair. have some troops in afghanistan to guard the airport an hour and the sea in kabul. we will have troops, but they have a specific mission. at any rate, biden extended the deadline, has included the afghan government in planning for our exit, and has invited the world to be a bigger part of the changed american mission, which will now rely on diplomacy and other forms of connection other than military. the intelligence community will still be active. it won't have the same ability on the ground that we did when

we had troops there, but we certainly have technical means to know what is going on and i do think human rights is a major plank of u.s. foreign policy and should be, and if the taliban, and this is predicted by some, turns on women and girls, we will have some opportunities to push back. one final point, and biden is doing this, and i don't think trump did -- he is now, in favor, and i think it is long overdue and very important to him, very delayed, of providing a way for the 18,000 people and their families who helped us as translators and others in the early stages of this war get out of afghanistan and get refugee status in the united states. it is a long process, but they will be helped to get out of afghanistan before the withdrawal is complete, and i think that is an important move, long overdue, not done by the

last three presidents and it should be done now. host: if asked, would you serve in the biden administration in some capacity? guest: i very much support the biden administration. it depends on what, but what i try to help the biden administration succeed and goes like this, absolutely. i would love to do that. host: this from the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff mark milley -- he testified on capitol hill last month about the withdrawal of u.s. troops from afghanistan and the taliban. here's what he had to say. [video clip] general milley: two back up on the momentum of the taliban, so to speak, there are 81 centers that we think are currently under taliban control out of 419 district centers. there is no provincial capital under taliban control, and there are 34 of those. it is true that the taliban are sniping at and picking off

outposts, it several -- etc. and they have seized some district centers. 60% were seized last year, and the others since the last two months or so. so, yes, we are concerned, we are watching it, but there is a 300,000, plus were minus military force afghan army and police force and it is their job to defend our country. host: that from the chairman, the joint chiefs of staff -- the full hearing on our website. let's go back to your phone calls. grant here in washington, d.c., you are on air with jane harman. caller: steve will not like my preamble, but here he goes you have been a highly -- supporter of israel, and you were recorded volunteering to an israeli foreign agent to help quash the

well warranted intelligence committee -- who were caught using stolen dod information to create a pretext for u.s. attack on iran. my question to you is what do you say to americans who believe operatives for aipac and fellow travelers, and aipac was ordered by the justice department to register as an israeli foreign agent in 1962, but the idea that aipac and israel advocates in congress represent a far greater danger to u.s. national security because they continually lobby for u.s. military actions that serve israel, but not the u.s.. host: we will leave it there, grant. guest: ok. there is a lot in there and you have a right to ask that question, and i am ok with that, and i hope steve is ok with that, but my answer, and it is in the book, too, in several parts, yes, i am a supporter of

israel and have been since its formation, not that i was particularly old at the time. i think it has the right to exist as a pluralist, democratic society, which was the original intention. i am. . not a member of aipac 20's allegations were made, and they are unproved, i said it was a smear campaign against me. since then, just so you know, i have been told in writing by the justice department and by the ethics committee in the house that i was never the subject or target of an investigation, and i won five elections after that. most people looking back at that think it was a vendetta by some folks, and i describe it in the book. the two people under investigation whom i never met, i never intervened in the prosecution -- so far as i know, the whole prosecution was dropped by the justice department. nothing to do with me. but, you know, politics is a

bloodsport, and when people want to hurt you they try to hurt you, so i chalk it up as an unpleasant moment, but it was one that was unfair, and here i am, and i do think israel has faced some challenges. i am supportive of this new government in israel, and i am hoping that because it is basically a rainbow coalition it will listen to a lot more voices and carve a path for israel that achieves security. i am still a supporter of a two -state solution could i think that is the right idea. one comment, if i could, on the little piece you showed from mark milley, the chairman of the joint sheep, he said that afghans -- chief, he said afghans want peace on the ground pin they have to want it. they have to fight for it. same thing for israelis and palestinians. they have to want it. they have to fight for it.

i am for being helpful in the world to promote democracy, but focusing on the threats and interests that america has in a global way. we have to do that in -- with allies. i think the biden administration is trying to put forward a strategy that will accomplish that and i applaud them for doing that, with the experience and understanding that we cannot just be tactical here, technical there, and be buffeted around by foreign events. we have to keep our eye on what america's values are, live our values, and keep our eye on what the real threats are against our country. host: congresswoman, there is one sentence in the book that i think particularly stands out in light of what we have been doing with in this country over the last 18 months. you say if 9/11 was a wake-up call, then covid-19 a five-alarm fire for revamping how we prepare and respond to security

threats in the united states and around the world. can you explain? guest: yes, i can, because in a way they were similar. there were predictions of both. more predictions about a pandemic than about a catastrophic terror attack, but there were predictions about a catastrophic terror attack. i was a member of a national commission on terrorist, and coincidentally, on nine/10, 2001, literally one day before, had lunch with the den -- and then chairman of the commission, i was back in congress and we were decrying the fact people were not paying attention, in a day later they were. on the pandemic, we have had numerous pandemics over time, nothing as lethal as this, but there were serious preparations made starting in the bush administration, going through the obama administration, a lot of the stockpiles and other

efforts were not focused on during the trump administration, and we paid a colossal price. and what i'm talking about here is america's national security is not just a question of how many nuclear weapons does russia, north korea, or iran have -- it is a question of how resilient is our society and if we have tools we are not using to make our society resilient, shame on us. host: which is how you conclude your book with the following quote, "democratic societies focused on day-to-day concerns and appetites tend not to confront serious, underlying albums until disaster strikes. technology, you say, can be a major lubricant for needed change. can we do better, yes. will we, i would argue we do not have a choice. insanity is not a defense.

caller: i would like to give you a reason why january six happen. the media ran that -- saying that president trump was a russian agent, an illegitimate president. when you have a campaign against american people, events like january 6 will happen. host: to what he we will get a response. guest: i think it was more complement -- complicated than that. as fond as i am of the american media and i think c-span does a good job, and i think steve scully does a good job, but on both sides there has been room to criticize. i don't think your reasons for 1 /6 are fair, but i do think there is room to criticize, and that is another reason why we need another -- why we need a 1/6 commission that is founded on principles, totally

bipartisan. as allen baylor host: discolored -- our last color is from -- our last caller. caller: you and other people keep saying that israel is a democratic state. however, israel itself is a jewish state. moreover, declared that only jews have the right for self-determination. you and other people could be, could live in israel and become citizens and they can even run

for the parliament. but a person who is not a jew is not home. the prime minister, the fourth best the former one, and 2000 -- the prime minister, the former one, said israel is not a country of all of its citizens. a non-jew living in israel is not whole citizen. host: we will leave it there. we will get a response. guest: i was a little kid, but being the first world leader to recognize the existence of israel as a whole land for the jews. my family did not miss the horrors of the holocaust and forming a homeland for the jews is so that we will never forget and will never repeat. i support that.

you heard me say that i want israel to be pluralist democracy. i don't think it has achieved those ideals. being pros -- being pro-israel does not mean being pro everything the israel government does. you set a couple of things that are inaccurate. the rainbow coalition government includes the interim party which does have seats in the parliament. the israeli era -- the arabs have been part of the israeli population for years. they are a minority part, i will give you that. what do i want for israel in the future? i want a safe and secure democracy living alongside a palestinian state which is safe and secure and guaranteed and has appropriate borders but

living alongside and peace. we got very close at the end of the clinton administration when a proposal was made and it was refused by the then plo president. i think is possible in the future and i think the rainbow coalition government may, over time, begin to move in that direction. i also think the palestinians need to have new elections which they said they are going to have and i would hope for an opportunity to bring hamas back into the fold and for there to be a well-run palestinian's -- well-run palestinian where there

is peace. i think that is the future and it would make the area safer. i think it would make for a much better relationship with the united states. host: the subtitle, with a half minute left. what is the overall message? guest: i want us to regrow a political muscle to confront hard problems. i think when you look at the history, the congress in particular has not done everything it should and everything it used to do. congress used to be an equal partner to the executive branch.

certainly on foreign policy. i think the bridge builder that we have, joe biden, stayed in congress for decades -- foru --four decades. that's why he supports amending the authorization to use military force. that's why he is changing the mission in afghanistan. i think if we can continue on that path while building allies and living our values. it's a hard thing to do. the country will be safer. we will confront the hard problems. maybe i was not doing it all right, but maybe i was the canary and the goldmine.

host: giving full credit to your daughter who gave you the idea for the title. guest: she writes various publications -- she writes various articles for various publications. host: the book is titled "insanity defense"podcasts. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us from iowa is terry schilling, the president of the american principles project. we want to talk about the american family. whats