east policy council. live coverage begins at noon eastern on c-span. you could also listen on the free c-span radio app. see spanish or unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more, including media,. >> the world changed in an instant, we were ready. internet traffic soared and we did not slow down. schools and businesses when virtual and we powered a new reality because we are built to keep you ahead. >> mediacom supports c-span as a public service. along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to dimock -- to democracy. earl anthony wayne discusses the latest developments in the country and u.s. policy in the

region sunil varghese. then,, from international refugee assistance, discusses u.s. policy on refugees leaving afghanistan. join with phone calls, text messages, and tweets. "washington journal" is next. ♪ host: good morning. it is friday, august 20, 2021. president biden is said to release remarks on the airlift of american citizens, u.s. allies, and vulnerable afghans out of kabul, and with refugees heading to the united states and tens of thousands of more applying for visas, we will focus on the afghan exhibits. we want to know if you would welcome residents from anniston into your community. republicans, 202-748-8001. 202-748-8000, democrats.

independents, 202-748-8003 -- 202-748-8002. and refugees, we want to hear from you, 202-748-8003. a very good friday morning to you. you can start calling in now. the airlifts out of kabul continued overnight. we are expecting an update on the latest out of president biden and we will carry that at 1:00 p.m. eastern on the c-span networks. these were the numbers from yesterday morning from the press briefing at the press conference -- at the pentagon. [video clip] in the past 24 hours, 12 c-17's departed. these flights contained more

than 2000 passengers. these flights left kabul and arrived at designated safe havens and staging areas in the area of operation. since the start of evacuation operations on august 14, we have airlift in approximately 7000 total evacuees. this increase is reflective of both a ramp up of aircraft and airlift capability, faster processing of evacuees, and greater information and fidelity in reporting. if we go back to when the department of defense began supporting the state department that the end of july, the cumulative number of people moved out of afghanistan is somewhere near 12,000. that number includes american citizens, u.s. embassy personnel, individuals designated by the state department as sib applicants,

and other evacuees in coronation with the state department. host: major general yesterday morning. sib -- the term -- siv -- the term he used, special immigrant visas. this story from fox news from earlier this week, the department of defense and to immediately house thousands of afghan refugees on american military installations around the country, potentially as many as 30,000 on basis including fort mccoy in wisconsin, fort bliss in texas. the fox news story quoting john kirby, the pentagon spokesperson, saying we want the capacity to get several thousand immediately, and the potential for tens of thousands. bliss and mccoy have the capability right now.

that is advantageous. the story out of oregon -- a coalition of oregon legislators joined by governor kate brown yesterday in saying the state will accept refugees fleeing the fall of afghanistan. the letter they sent -- "together we call on the biden administration to lift caps and take other actions that will save lives at this time. as a state we must take the necessary steps to be able to resettle families when they arrive. events in afghanistan echoed the departure of the united states from saigon following the end of the vietnam war." as we talk about the potential resettlement, we are simply asking you, would you welcome afghan refugees in your part of

the country? republicans, 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000, and the special and for recent refugees, we want to hear your story, 202-748-8003. bob is up first. ohio. democrat. caller: good morning. listen, i would welcome any of the refugees in this part of ohio, but the biggest thing is with fox news preying on these people every day telling everybody not to let them commune, they should not be helping -- come in, they should not be helping them, it is ridiculous. i wish they would take fox news off the networks. that is the worst tv station i have ever seen. i want even allow it on my tv. host: andrea appeared republican

here in washington, d.c. caller: good morning. too wet c-span as well. i believe yes, but due to america literally financing and employing the taliban to push the russians out of afghanistan, i believe we are responsible for whatever is going on, and absolutely anyone that wants to be over here, they should be vetted and be here. host: when you say vetted, you say they need to go to the immigrant visa process. caller: absolutely. host: we will talk more about how that process works, but as we hear from you, would you welcome refugees in your community, lancaster, ohio, jenny, also on that line for republicans. caller: i have called this for the last eight or nine years and my sweet little brother moved in with me about nine months ago and he was only here for a month

and i just got soundtrack -- sidetracked. what i think is sad is the man who just said about fox news doesn't want the refugees brought into our country? they are not saying that. what i don't understand about people, everyone has their favorite news channel to watch. news should be news. host: what are your feelings on it -- would you want some of these thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, would you want some of them in your community? caller: my god, these women that are taking their babies over a fence so their babies can live, and they know they will never see their babies again -- they are desperate. yes, let them in this country. everybody thinks that republicans don't want any immigrants in here. that is not it we just want them to come in the legal way that would need to be accountable for every american we have, and i

just think it is so sad that everyone is attacking everyone for what is going on. host: jenny and ohio. steve. illinois appeared independent. steve, what is your opinion? caller: yes, i will take them in. i even have a five-bedroom house. if joe biden is going to pass out some biden box, i would be happy to take them in, even in my own house. these people deserve it more than the people from central america that are illegally crossing. as long as they get their covid shots, i am more than happy to even take them into my house, and i watch fox news, so -- you know, i wouldn't mind. and there are all kinds of jobs down here. i mean, there has to be 300 or 400 jobs that need to be filled down here.

host: steve out of chatsworth, illinois. a couple of viewers mentioning fox news -- this issue about what to do with afghanistan refugees certainly a topic of fox news, including in segment with former president trump advisor stephen miller. this was his appearance on fox news from earlier this week. [video clip] stephen: the taliban has all control of the government, so the notion people can show up at it checkpoint and we can have any idea about their background, belief system, where they come from, now that the u.s.-backed government has fallen, it is just an impossibility. those that are advocating mass afghanistan resettlement are doing so for political, not humanitarian regions. it is extorting nearly expensive -- they get free health care, education, housing, free food,

cash welfare. for the price you could resettle refugees in america, you could resettle 10 times more, 15 times more in their home region, in this case, primarily in pakistan. host: stephen miller on fox news this week. taking your phone calls. would you welcome refugees in your community and where you are in the country? this is rory up on the west coast early. good morning. caller: good morning. i would say yes, take them in, but make sure you don't have terrorists among the refugees, and it would be nice if they say they like america, they are pro-american, and also anti-sharia law. a lot of terrorists would have a hard time saying they are anti-sharia. i say this earnestly after seven months of biden, maybe we can start think about impeaching him and harris.

he is a complete clux. -- klutz. goodbye. host: baltimore. would you welcome refugees in baltimore? caller: thank you. thank you for your show. i listen every day. i appreciate what you do. absolutely i would welcome afghan refugees into my community, or into my home. i think that it is what weowe to the -- what we owe to the afghani people after the past 20 years, quite honestly. host: stephen alexander, ohio, independent. how would you answer the question? caller: good morning. i appreciate your show. i would absolutely welcome all well-vetted immigrants. if they are afghanistan, that is

great, if they are mexican, that is great. if they are central american, that is great. we are lacking the ability to vet them, and i don't know why the administration is ignoring that fact. it is. the last administration -- i don't know if they did a better job, but we need to do that as a nation, as a country, as parents, that is what we need to do to come together. host: we are talking about tens of thousands, 60,000 or more that might be eligible for a special immigrant visa from afghanistan. the ability to well that people -- do you think we have the ability to do that with that many people? caller: you know, time. it just takes time, right? bring them, get them out of harm's way, them into the camps,

and let's go. take it that way. take that step. reject those that fail, and bring on the ones that don't fail. host: that is stephen alexandra, ohio. you heard stephen miller on fox news taking a different tone than some. . republican governors in this country the "washington post" story on this, the headline, "rifts emerge in gop handling of afghan refugees." one of the governors that quote is governor spencer coxe of utah saying his willingness to accept refugees. he said history guides our approach to refugees and we are eager to assist that practice and assist with families fleeing afghanistan."

perhaps it could be seen in these lead editorials today from the usually conservative editorial boards of both "the washington times," and "washington -- wall street journal." they read while many are assumed to be aids that assisted u.s. forces, certainly they require proper vetting. without it, mr. biden might be opening the nation's door to another type of immigrant, one who harbors islamist hatred for america. the people must be screened to weed out possible evildoers. mr. biden suggests he like mrs. clinton, has little use for borders. that is the editorial board of "the washington times."

compare that with also the usually conservative editorial board of the "wall street journal." they read the priority should be to rescue and escape trapped americans, but they also have a duty to thousands of afghans that are in moral -- mortal danger. they are rightly trying to evacuate them to a third country where they sit and await visa decisions. the u.s. house passed a bill that allows 8000 additional vetoes. they write gop hostility to these afghans is a mistake. there is a difference between lawlessness and afghans who earn the right to emigrate in lawful program. conservatives claim to believe in american exceptionalism and

they once took pride in welcoming exiles from up there -- authoritarian lands." taking this topic until the top of the hour at 8:00 a.m. eastern, this is mark in new hampshire. good morning. caller: good morning. this is so mixed up. first of all, i think, no, we should not be bringing all of these afghan refugees to the united states. where is the united nations? what have they been doing? they are not a peacekeeping organization like they used to be, why are we paying them? i don't want any of these surrender monkeys coming to our country without being vetted properly, and that takes a long time. the statement earlier about the cost of resettling people -- i

am 70 years old on social security, barely making it by, and all of these refugees collect way more money every month than i do. it is not fair to the american public. host: mark in new hampshire. this is walter in hartford, connecticut, good morning. caller: good morning. i just don't understand. we are a country -- we have immigrants coming from poland, germany, england, czechoslovakia -- all over. these people are mostly -- they work with the military. most of these people work for the military. they are not people they just want to come here and get on the welfare system -- all of that. let's not turn this thing into a , you know, a racist thing. most of us, if you are not a

native, you were born from another country. do i support them, sure? i support them --do i support them? sure. i support them because they work with our military, they were translators, doing work with our military people, so why not bring them here? host: dan. virginia. republican. good morning. caller: i agree with many of the callers -- this is kind of a binary answer, but there are a lot of nuances, vetting. getting into war is sort of like getting married, you are divorced, but then you have kids, you will have to deal with that person. there is a huge tail to this thing. host: can i ask about the vetting issue? a lot of the folks applying are people that worked with the u.s. military in a hostile war zone. when you talk about vetting, the

u.s. military trusted them in afghanistan. why is the vetting issue such a concern, do you think, when it comes to living in the united states versus working together in a war zone? caller: so, i will admit i am in the military, but when you say vetting -- that guy, or the person in the service did not do the vetting. it was some agency other than that person, right? that is the first thing. the second thing is did they earn -- did that person who helped translate earn some rights that go towards becoming a u.s. citizen, or being extracted when this time came, which nobody wanted this to happen --i would say probably yes. i think when the average american sees people standing outside of an airport or running onto a plane, that is not

vetting. that is what the public sees. we don't know who that person is that is running onto that plane. your heart aches for that, but what vetting went there --that is what they meant. where is the credential checked? to say yes, you are not authorized translator or a trusted agent, but is that same credential the same one used to board an aircraft? i don't know. that is the question most people have. just like the vietnam -- vietnamese folks i have met, they are some of the hardest working people i've ever met or known. i give everyone a chance, but i won't get away from the vetting part. that is tied to many of our opinions, i think. host: dan, we will talk more about exactly how that works. we will be joined by sunil varghese, policy director of international refugee assistance

at 8:45 a.m. eastern to talk about this process -- what happens when they step off of those planes, where are they, and how much vetting happens when that happens and someone who eventually lives in the united states. stick around for that discussion. crystal is next out of west palm beach, florida. democrat. go ahead. caller: good morning. i would definitely welcome the refugees in the community, but more than that, i would say that these people are obviously a part of our military, therefore they have a lot of military knowledge of operations, so i would say the country needs this community. i would also say, too, that i looked at some other news networks, not american, and they were saying the border countries surrounding afghanistan were actually ready for this great influx into their countries and

it never happened, so these people are being transported to other countries, not just america. and i would say to fox news, i believe, is america's public enemy number one. host: that is crystal out of west palm beach, florida, taking your phone calls on the issues of other countries accepting refugees from afghanistan. a chart from -- again, these numbers change very rapidly, but this chart showing where the vast majority of refugees from afghanistan and up, and that of course is in the border countries there, pakistan and iran have the lions share of refugees coming out of afghanistan. germany, austria, france, as well, in the tens of thousands. sweden as well. those numbers changing as this exit is of afghan refugees

certainly has ramped up in just the past 11 or 12 days, and certainly in the past few in the airlift out of kabul. this is dale out of texas, independent. good morning. caller: good morning. i would support allowing the refugees come in, putting afghani's that helped the american military at the top of the list. the big question is does joe supported? i haven't heard a word from him out of his mouth saying anything about those people that helped our military over there for the last 20 years. you heard austin, the other day, on his press conference, just addressing the american extraction. they will do it until time runs out or they are out of capabilities. boy, our military had better -- host: you mentioned you have not

heard from the president on this. the president is speaking again today. we will carry it at 1:00 p.m. on c-span if you want to watch it in its entirety and uninterrupted. . that is. happening at 1:00 p.m. it is the morning of -- uninterrupted. that is happening at 1:00 p.m.. it is a morning for pudgy events when it comes to the exodus from afghanistan. we are expected to hear from the u.n. secretary general on c-span, c-span.org, and the free c-span radio aoo, then former u.s. ambassador ronald newman will be discussing events in afghanistan. we will air that i c-span. this topic will be discussed. janet is in san diego. republican.

good morning. caller: good morning. i absolutely would except the afghanistan people into our country. as a matter of fact, i think we absolutely owe them, especially at the top of the list should be the family's who did in fact risking their lives helping our troops. i would like to say that joe biden is a colossal failure, and i would also like to speak to the first caller who wanted to go there speaking on fox. if you don't allow it on your tv, how do you know what they are even saying? as far as not wanting to receive people coming across the border, yet we want to have the afghanistan people come, which i heard another caller speak, i have been listening to you all week -- that is an entirely different issue of what is coming across the border versus what these people are owed

because we have such a weak president, that even i would know the first thing you would want to do is get the people out first before you go there and take the military out of the country where you know you are dealing with these barbarians. the taliban is not a new group on the set out of nowhere -- they have been around for centuries. and joke bite me should have known exactly what to do. host: janet in san diego. we are asking you if you would welcome afghan refugees in your community, and the refugee issue depending on the special immigration visa process -- not the only way, but a main way to get a few gees into the country. it was yesterday at an event hosted by democrat seth moulton from massachusetts, he served in

iraq and hosted a discussion about the immigrant process and his concerns about what happens to those refugees trying to get out of afghanistan. this is a bit from that event. representative moulton: monday will not be focused on changing the visa process, but making sure the visa process gets changed once we get people to safety. the biggest thing we can do is make clear it is not just people who qualify for the special immigrant visa who could get out. there are a lot of people that do not fit into those categories that are not nonetheless under tremendous threat from the taliban including academics who led the charge to let women go to school, who led the charge to liberalize and free deciding afghanistan, and therefore have values that run directly counter to the taliban -- they will be

under threat. people associated with u.s. military members. i am in touch with someone who worked for the u.s. military and is deaf lee afraid for his brother because -- death lee afraid for his brother because his brother has been targeted as an afghan official and the brother of someone that worked with the americans. there are a lot of people that are under dire threat that we need to get out that don't fit into these categories. there is work we can do to do that. the bottom line right now is we just need to get them through the gates. host: congressman seth moulton, if you want to watch the entire event, you can do so at our webpage. c-span.org. search molten. it will be the first event that comes up. i what. would you welcome -- iowa. would you welcome afghan refugees? caller: yes.

iowa has always been welcoming. we did it during the vietnam war and we should do it in this one. i would also say i'm a lot more worried about terrorism from domestic terrorists than i am with islamists coming in from afghanistan. these people will value freedom because they have not headed, and it is unfortunate we have so many people in our own country who do not appreciate our form of government and are not respecting our institutions, and in terms of how bad biden has messed up the evacuation efforts, it was pompeo and trump that negotiated with the taliban, and trump even wanted to bring them to camp david. that is not something i don't think mr. biden would ever entertain. host: stevie is in anaheim, california. republican line. good morning. caller: you answered my question earlier at 4:23 a.m. my time

about what other countries are taking people again. the thing i would like to ask your guests coming up, is since they are going to vet these people -- you had a segment on how they are betting these people that are coming in -- you know, because basically they get on the planes, we can take them to military bases, sort them out, try to find out who is legitimate, who is not legitimate, who is more of a criminal, and who isn't. the other thing, as far as do we have the resources -- well, i don't know. look at the price of housing -- most people cannot afford a house. you have to rely that we are having to pay for their schooling and all of that. our schools are clogged already. we have five people a day die out here of homelessness. that is a question of do we have the resources to take care of

them. some of the governors you did not mention, was utah, georgia, and i believe ohio said they would welcome as well, but should we allow these people to come in -- absolutely. the only thing is what are we going to do about the americans trapped outside of the airport that cannot get through? are we going to have to bribe the taliban because we have a couple of billion dollars in our bank, and as far as the collapse of this, their president is the one that started this by sitting and running even before the negotiations can start. host: let me follow up on a few of your points. as you brought up, the lions share of refugees going to pakistan and iran -- we talked about some of the other countries that have made announcements about accepting afghan refugees. al jazeera what they wrap up of countries that have made some of those announcements. let's focus on two of them. the united kingdom on tuesday

announced plans to accept 20,000 afghan refugees in the coming years as part of a settlement program that will prioritize women, girls, religious, and other minorities. british prime minister boris johnson's government said 5000 people would be resettled in the first year of the program, that has been compared with efforts for syrian refugees. canada said it would resettle more than 20,000 vulnerable afghans. the story from al jazeera noting the "globe and mail" report that they will include human leaders dishman rights leaders, journalists, lgbtq individuals, and those that belong to persecuted was just groups, as well as families of interpreters already resettled into canada, and separately, a separate immigration program will offer relocation -- century to thousands of afghans who worked for canadian officials and

forces during their operations in afghanistan. several discussions in the united states about how many will eventually come in, but we are asking you, would you welcome some afghan refugees in your community if that were the case. rob impaired alabama. independent. what would you say -- robin. alabama. independent. what would you say? robin, are you with us? we go to helena, fullerton, california. caller: i'm a republican. i would welcome them. i would say this upfront. this is a heartless question in light of the media showing people running for their lives to get on a plane to survive the taliban. the timing is poor. secondly, i don't want this politicized. this is nothing to do with publicans and democrats in congress -- this has to do with humanity. it is the right thing to bring these people to our country and

do what we can for them, because this is a prime example of flawed u.s. foreign policy in the middle east. if anyone members, the 1980's is when russia invaded afghanistan, and that is when the u.s. went in and said -- decided they would promote the taliban. there are videos of the taliban -- u.s. military telling the taliban you are god's people, it is your duty to save people from the communist russians. we prompt -- prop them up. then, over time, we turned them into enemies, and now we are persecuting them and fighting them for 20 years. they noted states never won the hearts and minds of afghanistan. the taliban quickly took over kabul in weeks. the people in that region supported them because maybe u.s. foreign policies just aren't that good and maybe they sense this is not a good thing to be like americans -- we are

-- did not set a very good example. as far as vetting, my mother is an immigrant. she came over in the 1950's during the height of the cold war, and her and her sister, who both married american serviceman, they were vetted for years. two or three years they had to show up every year at some government office and be grilled as to whether are you a communist, are you this? , are you that? they check their -- are you this, are you that? they check their face for scars and distinction marks. they were vetted. big deal. host: matt. them a credit. good morning. caller: good morning. -- democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you doing? host: i'm doing well. caller: i think by all means they should come. my faith in humanity has been restored listen to people.

i don't think there has been one person that called in saying they shouldn't. thank you. host: what you think about your governor larry hogan saying marilyn should be accepting and excepting refugees from afghanistan? caller: i agree with him. i think we owe it to them, quite frankly. the bush administration created this whole quagmire. people don't like to mention that, but he is the only one that hasn't been blamed for this . thank you very much. have a good day. host: that is not in bladensburg, maryland. this is marilyn governor larry hogan on the states willingness to accept refugees. governor hogan: the chaotic scene out of afghanistan over the last several days with innocent civilians running for their lives in fear of the taliban is the result of a rushed and irresponsible withdrawal. many of these afghan citizens are allies and bravely risk

their lives to provide support to our support staff pay we have a moral obligation to help them. these allies are eligible to receive special immigrant visas to the united states. maryland already expects to receive at least 180,000 afghan -- 180 citizens. the state office works with a network of providers to aid these interpreters and their families in becoming self-sufficient as quickly as possible. marilyn receives more of these siv's than any other state and we stand ready and willing to do even more. it is the least we can do. host: governor larry hogan. his statement earlier this week. taking your phone calls. we are asking you would you welcome afghan refugees in your

state. this is tim from west virginia saying yes, of course. we broke it, we bought it. this from steven green saying a victory should be vaccinated. becky saying no, don't give them anything. i cannot even get my tax refund. this from marion texas, stop comparing refugees to our ancestors -- they came here and worked. many refugees are here to take only. not a free ride. joe in north carolina -- america always welcomes allies from warfare. no question. joseph. you are next. caller: i would welcome them in

my community, i would welcome them in my house, i would adopt a kid if they wanted me to, and unaccompanied child -- most would do that. one thing is kind of sticking in me -- when we did the iraqi clout in 2014 under obama--- pullout in 2014 under obama-biden, we did not have this kind of chaos. i don't understand why biden pulled out military before he pulled out civilians. i think that was a horrific mistake. he also leaves himself open like china or russia who says they are working with the taliban, we will send a small contingent of troops and guarantee the americans freedom and afghani's

that were, we will take care of that and they are not loyal to their people. that would be a kick in the teeth to our foreign policy. host: john is in california. public and. good morning. caller: good morning. i think all americans are -- republican. good morning. caller: good morning. i think all americans are humanitarian spirit i would do it on one condition, and that would be the joe biden,, harris, nancy pelosi, and chuck schumer all resign. they got us into this mess. they caused this. joe biden says he planned for this chaos, and they need to go. we should not have to fix another big mistake from joe biden. this guy is a mistake. that is all i have to say. joe biden and the democrats have got to go from the leadership of this country because they are ruining this country. the guy that hates fox news, he should watch it more often

because you are getting real news on fox news, and that is what i have to say. host: that is john in california this morning. about 20 minutes left for this part of the discussion. we will be turning to the topic of refugees later in the program. stick around for that. if you want to join the conversation, 202-748-8001 four republicans. 202-748-8000 four democrats. independents, 202-748-8002. we are holding the line open for recent refugees, 202-748-8003. keep calling in. we want to update you on some of the news in a very busy and scary newsday yesterday on capitol hill. the story from "washington times," and you can see the picture alongside it. u.s. capitol police cleared the scene of a bomb threat in the vicinity of the u.s. capitol

yesterday evening in day-long ordeal with a man who claimed to have a bomb outside of the library of congress. certainly scary few hours up here on capital hill and plenty of police response across capitol hill, closures across capitol hill, and evacuations as well. speaking of capitol hill, this news yesterday from the senate side, three vaccinated u.s. senators tested positive for the coronavirus -- senator roger wicker, angus king, john

hickenlooper, said thursday they tested positive at into the number of breakthrough cases among lawmakers. the pictures of the senators there. the senate in recess after adjourning last week, leaving it unclear whether any of them had been in recent contact with other lawmakers. their diagnoses bring to 11 the number of senators that have tested positive so far, and more than 50 members of the house have tested positive over the course of the pandemic. several other vaccinated politicians have recently announced breakthrough cases of their own, including senator lindsey graham of south carolina tested positive after attending a gathering hosted by another senator, joe manchin, of west virginia that is from "new york times" today. this is rita in jacksonville, alabama. an independent. would you welcome refugees to

jacksonville, alabama? caller: might as well. everyone else is coming in. just welcome on in. we will keep them up. but let me ask you all something? who discovered america? where did he come from? 90% of america is foreign people. immigrants. i am an immigrant. back in the early-1900s, the democrats were the main -- anyway, my demo -- the democrats were conservative. my daddy taught me that. host: where did you live before you came to the united states? you said you were an immigrant? caller: i sure was. my parents and grandparents, out of england, and we have dutch units -- we have all kinds of race in us. host: that is rita in alabama.

this is enoch in silver spring. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am an immigrant in silver spring, maryland. 1.i want to make is we have spent so much amount of dollars in afghanistan we have a lot of human loss over there. there is no way we should have withdrawn our troops from afghanistan. we should have stayed there with hundreds of thousands of u.s. armies to civilize the nation. right now, all of the money and human loss that we have lost -- this should not have happened in america any longer. this is my contribution. thank you. host: kathleen. williamsburg, virginia. good morning.

republican line. caller: good i would not welcome them into our country -- good morning. no, i would not welcome them into our country. i am tired of paying for them. let these people stay where they are, get there ass in gear and start working. they are just living off of everyone else. i am tired of it. i am of listening to it. biden has no brains whatsoever. he should be kicked out of the white house if he won't say ok, i am leaving, then someone needs to go in -- host: roses in north carolina. independent. good morning. caller: good morning morning peter we are occupiers in a foreign nation -- good morning. we are occupiers in foreign nation. that is what happens. set consequence of allowing

bankers to dictate foreign policy. the u.n. should be putting their foot forward to help these refugees in muslim-based countries. this is basically a globalist clan well laid out by the world economic forum to overwhelm the united states with a flood of immigrants from other countries. host: the vast majority of these refugees are going to pakistan and iran, the border countries. they are taking the lion's share here. caller: they really ought to. when they u.n. meets, and this is a proven fact -- when they u.n. meets dave beat up israel and they go ahead and fall meant interest mostly in -- formant interest in muslim countries, time is come for those muslim countries to go ahead and accept their own. host: james, republican. good morning. caller: thank you for having me

on your show. i would like to make a comment that most people blame all of the stuff on president trump and he has been out of office for over six months, and i believe we ought to take care of our own united states citizens that live in tents and are homeless -- i believe you take care of them before you take care of people from foreign countries. that is all i have to say. host: james, do you want to shut down all immigration? we lost james. cindy in englewood, new jersey. democrat. would you welcome afghan refugees in englewood? caller: yes, why not pay we are a country of immigrants. my problem is we are bringing people into this country and we have children at the borden -- at the border. we have the daca kids we do not want to accept. sure, i would bring them here, but we also need to take care of the kids at the border that

americans do not want here in this country. have a nice day. host: adam care to tennessee. good morning -- adam. tennessee. good morning. caller: america is known as a melting pot. publicans think this is a race issue. this is a humanitarian issue. they do not want to bring them in here. it is selfishness. i definitely would welcome them into my community. host: adam, is there an immigrant population in fayetteville, tennessee? do you know? i've never been to fayetteville. caller: we have a lot of asians, mexicans -- we have mexicans working. i think we have a lot of illegal mexicans working around here keeping stuff going. i don't see a problem with it. i would definitely welcome them. host: that is adam in fayetteville, tennessee.

hager city, wisconsin is next. randy. good morning. caller: good morning, c-span. nice subject here to see what kind of people are really out there. i, myself, would welcome an afghan family -- a young family that has been vetted, a wife, a couple of kids. i have a place for them to stay. they must -- and this is number one, they have to know how to speak english, and help them start off -- they have to have the right papers to help them start off in this great country. i think it would be good. they are coming whether we like it or not. let's make the best of it. you cannot keep shipping them all out on the west coast or east coast. we have enough knuckleheads out there already. host: when you talk about learning english, before they get a visa they have to speak english? or before they might eventually

become a citizen at some point -- how would you set that up? caller: i would hope for them, and i would help them one way or another to become citizens of the united states and to be good people. these people that are fleeing, i am sure there are probably some bad apples, and i think they could probably weed them out, but i would be more than willing to take a family here. i have room for them. a job, and i really believe it could do a good job with them getting them settled in this country. host: don. a republican. good morning. caller: good morning how are you doing? host: good. go ahead. caller: the show is great. it is good to get different ideas paradigm know it is weird you have to call in certain line. the last time we let people get

here after 9/11 it was a big refugee thing -- or read before 9/11, and then 9/11 happened, so yes, we are going to take people again, but i would rather vaccinate them, that them, and make sure -- vet them, and make sure they love our country like we did in the years when they came here in the 40's after the war. and taxes -- we have all these illegal people. you pay 20% in the 90's, the 2000's, now you are paying 30%. host: to your comments about 9/11, are you saying taking and refugees was a reason 9/11 happened? caller: where did 17 of the 9/11 attackers come from? afghanistan, sir. host: saudi arabia was the main training grounds. caller: afghanistan, sir.

host: the al qaeda training grounds in afghanistan, i was not disagree with you. i was a trend understand the connection you are making. caller: we are taking people away, but why don't we do with the right way -- if you have to check id to get on a plane, check id to go to disneyland, i am not checking id to come in this country and live for free? host: donald in florida. one other story in today's papers about a high-profile refugee from afghanistan -- the ousted president driven out by the taliban is just the latest leader on the run to turn up in the united arab emirates, joining a club that includes spain's disgraced former king, and two tie prime ministers. --thai prime minister's. -- prime ministers1

if you want to read more on that story, today's "washington times. keith. fargo, north dakota. would you welcome refugees to fargo? sunil varghese i wouldn't -- caller: i wouldn't take them in. they are trying to change them to our ways over there. this is a christian country. i am not going to bow down to them and their ways. i'm sorry. that is my opinion. thank you. host: there is a small group of christian afghans.

would you take in christian afghans? host: it is a small -- it is a small community, but several thousand strong. caller: i have heard with the bosnians -- their ways are just two different than ours. host: we had one caller saying that refugees should speak english before they can live here. would you want immigration based on a religious belief? would you only want christians to be able to immigrant to this -- emigrate to this country? caller: that is another thing could my girlfriend can speak five different language -- another thing, too. my girlfriend can speak five different languages. she is from bosnia. they come over here, give them food stamps, housing -- us people that are on housing, like

myself, sorry to say, i had to wait two years to get on housing . they told me the only way to help me -- my mother to help me was to send a letter saying she was going to put me out into the streets. now, i am an american, and we are paying taxes, yet we are bringing those people over here and putting them on food stamps and housing. . -- come on. get real, you guys. host: new jersey. an independent. would you welcome afghan refugees? caller: i don't want them coming over here at all, period. one of the things i hear is they believe those people that helped out with interpretation for the government -- the guys that went over there --they were paid. so, what, you think they deserve to come over here because they

were interpreters? they were paid. they already got their payment. that does not mean they got -- earned their way over here. they were paid participants. host: you read the story this week of the u.s. military soldiers that have been in contact with former interpreters trying to get them and their families out. what do you make of those stories, the bond that u.s. military members have with these interpreters who went through hostile -- caller: i make bonds with different people. it does not mean i will have them come over to my house. it does not mean they are going to come over here. it is a different thing altogether. they were paid for their services. that doesn't mean you let them come over here. frankly, i am sorry. i don't believe them coming in is going to be kumbaya. i don't trust these people. it is the same thing 20 years

later. i am not buying it. host: catherine in new jersey. this is karen in florida. republican. good morning. caller: yes, good morning. i think we should let them come, train them how to parachute out of a plan, and go get their country back. we could have people with our military get rid of this stinking, rotten taliban. i think they should be in convention hall, not on a military base, and they are fierce fighters. we should do this. we should not let this terrorist group take over afghanistan. it is unbelievable. host: with 20 years of u.s. military intervention and training and arming that at least on paper with 300,000 strong, what would be different? caller: i don't know what we did wrong. ronald reagan did it right with afghanistan. he supplied people with weapons

when they drove out the russian army. we cannot go in and rebuild the country or anything else. our hearts go out and we want to help people, but we went too far. the 20 years has passed. right now we have some good fighters, and we need to get the 80,000 that are coming and get them trained, a little more training -- and go back because it is outrageous that our country is not going over there with a massive army and getting rid of the stinking, rotten taliban, holding our citizens, they are going to rely on them to get american citizens through. they already hostages. they will put them as hostages and they will start beheading them and torturing them on the street. host: that was helen. last caller on the segment of "washington journal,," but stick around. letting more to discuss on this topic.

we will be joined by former u.s. deputy invested her to afghanistan, earl anthony wayne, and later we will be joined by international refugee assistance project sunil varghese on what is next for those afghan refugees. stick around. ♪ >> today, former u.s. ambassador to afghanistan discusses taliban control of afghanistan at an event hosted by the middle east policy council. live coverage begins at noon eastern, online, or you can listen on the free c-span radio app. >> the house is back on monday and will work on the 3.5 trillion dollar budget resolution, which passed in the senate earlier this month. members are also expected to take up a bill to restore provisions of the 1965 voting rights act.

according to speaker pelosi, the house might also debate the infrastructure bill. first votes are expected for 6:30 p.m. eastern. watch gavel-to-gavel coverage of the u.s. house of representatives on c-span. ♪ >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are joined by earl

anthony wayne, a former deputy u.s. ambassador to afghanistan and current fellow at the wilson center. remind folks what years were -- he were in afghanistan and what the political and military situation was. guest: from 2009 through 2011 and i worked on afghanistan from washington at the very start of our involvement in this century from the fall of 2001 to the beginning of 2003 working on the coordination. so, the time that i went back to afghanistan was during the period where we were surging military and civilian forces into the country with efforts to really boost the work against the taliban and to try and boost the government of afghanistan in its capacity to deliver services and to govern well in the country. host: you said you saw the start, and the surge, did you

ever expect you would see americans being airlifted out of kabul at the end? guest: the thought sometimes passed through my mind, but i did not think i would see it happen. and i hope very much that we would use a combination of policies so that did not happen. i did hope that we could get to a situation of a sustainable peace that would involve the taliban with those who oppose them, those other afghans in a governing framework going forward for that country. host: the biden administration said that the collapse of the afghan government, the fall of kabul, even more the reason why it was the right decision to leave. do you buy that argument? mr. greenblatt: i do not. -- guest: i do not. i think a combination of our own moves over the last 2.5 or three

years, and the lack of unity in the government of in -- of the republican kabul led to this situation. plus, very serious taliban preparation to build up their military and political network across the country. i think what happened was there was a systematic undermining of the morale of afghan forces over the past several years as we negotiated with the taliban, and as we took a number of steps which delegitimized the government in kabul. at the same time the government in kabul was unable to overcome their own disunity and the taliban took great advantage to build up their military presence, especially starting in rural areas and to build up a political network and to start negotiating with local leaders and, eventually, leaders in the different capitals around the

country to cut deals, and there was a tipping point when many people in afghanistan said we are being abandoned, it is not worth me dying or my family dying, or we have got to switch sides. host: what is the answer right now on the question of afghan refugees, how many we should take, how fast we should take them, what type of vetting should happen? guest: i think the first step should be getting people out, and then we should take them to a place where they can be carefully vetted. i think the numbers are first those people who worked for us, and those who are in great danger of being killed or persecuted by the taliban. secondly, that other group of people who worked with us, and believed in us for the last 20 years, and that is a larger group including people from

civil society, women activists, those who were ready for democracy. journalists, there was a really free press in afghanistan. and, the officials of the former government who worked closely and steadfastly with us. i think we owe them the responsibility. when you have been in a country for 20 years, and people have grown up working with you, believing in you and the ideals that we put forward, and then this collapses we have a responsibility to help care for them. we are not the only country in the world that has that responsibility, so do others, but there needs to be an organized effort to get out those most in danger very quickly, and then do the vetting that is needed afterwards. host: we are talking with earl anthony wayne, a former deputy ambassador to afghanistan and u.s. ambassador to mexico, currently with the wilson center. phone lines are split as usual.

republicans, 202-748-8000. democrats, 202-748-8001. independent 202-748-8002, and in the special line that we have had open most all week long for afghanistan war veterans, 202-748-8003. we talked a little bit about your long career in the state department, what does this exit from afghanistan due to our standing in the world, due to the reputation -- do to the reputation and state department and our ability to engage on the world stage? guest: i think that we -- the way we are leaving is a blow to our credibility and it will take a lot of hard work to rebuild the trust among our allies and partners around the world. and, the respect among our rivals. i think our rivals, russia, china, iran and others are not

happy with the suffering and afghanistan are seeing this as a great opportunity to portray the united states as a declining power that cannot be relied upon. so, the big task for our diplomacy and a broader sense, beyond the immediate and very important needs in kabul is to start rebuilding that credibility and to rebuild these partnerships and alliances. very rightly this administration said they wanted to focus on rebuilding alliances and partnerships, but right now they sent a very serious shockwave. if you saw some of the excerpts from the debate in the british parliament for example a couple of days ago, it is very shocking and indicative of the hard work now that our diplomats, and our politicians, and statement -- statesmen need to undertake to rebuild confidence that we will do the right thing, and we can be relied upon. host: where does that rebuilding

effort start? could there be overcompensating where the u.s. decides we will go somewhere else to try and make a difference in order to rebuild what you are talking about, that confidence in some other place? guest: as a diplomat, a career diplomat, what i think is that a lot of this focus needs to be working in different gatherings, different groupings, the g7, nato, and other partnerships that we have to stick with others and work out what needs to be done right now, and to work out joint plans going forward, but i think we have to go into this with a good deal of humility and openness to working with others to go -- to build an agreement on what are the priority steps in afghanistan, and the region, but in other crisis places around the world. we do have to try and get a broader consensus on various

regional strategies, with problems in the regions, and then working on the multilateral problems which includes big global issues like the environment. that is for sure. we already had a big agenda and that has just become harder to accomplish. host: let us chat with a few calls. ambassador wayne is with us until 8:45 eastern. joe in maine, an independent. you are up. caller: thank you. i did not catch your whole comment, i do not know if you talked about the treaty indo hot with pompeo and trump -- in doha, where pompeo and trump released the taliban. have you talked about that? guest: no. caller: you keep saying you want to take care of these people, two weeks ago they told all americans to get out of afghanistan.

they stopped people from traveling. do not keep the scrap up that all of a sudden it is joe biden's fault, that is nonsense. host: ambassador wayne. guest: all of a sudden it is not joe biden's fault, as i said for the last 2.5 and three years we have taken a series of steps that undermined the credibility of the government in kabul. and that agreement negotiated with the taliban without close involvement with the government in kabul, and then after the agreement was signed forcing the government in kabul through diplomatic pressure to release 5000 taliban, something they had not negotiated, was a serious blow. i think there was a tremendous amount of damage already done during the trump administration, including the consistent messages that we were leaving, and we were not in a sense at

that time preparing for a good transition either that would help sustain the afghan forces. or, that the taliban -- get the taliban to a serious negotiation. they never seriously negotiated. use the period of time when the trump association was negotiating with them to build up their military presence and to try and influence local leaders to say, see the united states is leaving and you need to cut a deal with us. there was a tremendous amount of damage done before joe biden was elected, and came into power. but, the way in which the final decision was taken, the president has the right to take that decision. afterwards, it was clear that there needed to be strong signs of support to give a boost to

those afghans in kabul, and we promised that support, but it really did not materialize. and rather, what the afghans in kabul saw where the messages that the war was unwinnable that were being conveyed in the united states and they saw a very rapid pulling out of the technical support that they had been dependent on for successfully fighting the taliban. host: bonnie in brooksville, florida. democrat. good morning. caller: i think you are saying that trump signing an agreement with the taliban, and producing a deadline allowed the taliban to gather and be prepared to take over on the first minute. guest: yes, i am. i think that is the case. a number of us during that period of time were urging that what really needed to happen was

that the u.s. should be using their leverage to get the taliban to the table to negotiate seriously and keep them at the table and to not give up the leverage that we have had over the taliban until these serious peace negotiations were going forward. the idea of getting the afghans to the peace table is a good one but it is never going to be easy. after all of the years of war between the various groups in afghanistan, it was going to take a long process to get them to agree on a future structure for afghanistan, and on there was a whole process of building trust and confidence, and we just were not ready, apparently to keep our presence strong enough, and to keep working to make that longer peace process actually go forward. host: you talk about the various groups in afghanistan, we have

had a couple of questions from callers that you can help on. on the suni shia divide, that is something we became familiar with primarily through the conflict in iraq. and maybe you can answer jimbo's question, do you agree with and afghanistan effort that argues that there is no support from the shia community in iran for a taliban-controlled afghanistan? guest: there is a significant number of shia muslims in afghanistan. they mostly happen to be from an ethnic minority, and that minority is thought to be of a more asian, east asian origin. many people would say they were descendants of genghis khan's

army when they passed through afghanistan, many centuries ago. but, they have been integrated into the republic of afghanistan very successfully, and they actually have had a good deal of peace and they are part of afghanistan, but they have been the target of extremists from the sunni community, including isis of afghanistan, which we believe was responsible for that horrific bombing of a girls school in kabul, which was mainly of that ethnic minority's girls several months ago. there is great concern that they could be the target of at least prejudice and mistreatment under taliban regime. and, traditionally, there has been support for iran for this

shia community. we will have to see how that manifests itself at this time, but there is a hesitancy from iran vis-a-vis the taliban. they have dealt with the taliban, they have talked to them, and i am sure they have been thinking about preserving their interests as a neighbor. but, i think they will show a great sensitivity to try and protect other shia in afghanistan. host: is the taliban sunni group? guest: they are a vast majority sunni group. i am not aware that they have shia among them. there might be, but that would have to be for somebody much more expert than i on the taliban to say. they are generally thought to be

largely a sunni group. host: i am assuming you are joining us from washington, d.c.? plenty of rain and a couple of flood warnings. guest: i am sorry for that. host: the viewers can see how hard it is raining outside the windows behind me, and there have been flood warnings for a couple of days and it sounds like there is another one. no worries. guest: i am turning my phone completely off. host: dj, falls church virginia, independent. caller: good morning. ambassador wayne, i would like to ask you, in your training and believe me, i tip my hat to people like you because you are much smarter than me. much more educated. but, when you come from a position of being an ambassador to the developing world, i have

lived for 40 years as an adult, and we have had a war on drugs, so to speak. and, i am all for it. i am very anti-drugs. how is it that when we literally own a country like afghanistan, and parts of pakistan, like we have for the last 20 years. and the leverage we have over places like mexico, how is it that we as a country are willing to take trillions of dollars for a war, like a physical war with people getting blown up and the usual stuff as opposed to just adding $1000 per whatever, hectare, and just destroy the

fields, the poppy fields? do you have training in that kind of regard? how does that work when you are at the kind of level that you work? do you get training? host: what is the question, the ambassador has experience in afghanistan and mexico is speaking to two of the countries that you mentioned. go ahead, sir. caller: will -- guest: i can answer a little bit. one is a very serious question. i ponder this, and i work on it and i spent a lot of time in afghanistan. i oversaw dea and their efforts and the state department anti-narcotics programs that went on, and similarly in mexico, that has been a major part of our effort. i mean, i think, part of the problem is that the market for

illicit drugs is really attractive and people find ways to produce those drugs. and move the drugs up -- out during the country -- out of the country. it happened in afghanistan and mexico and it happened between china, mexico and the united states and the synthetic opioids of the been coming in so deadly. there is a lot to be -- there is a lot to do on the enforcement side of this, and i've come to the conclusion that we need to be just as serious on the demand side as we are on the supply side in this effort, and we need to invest much more money in the people who are using and suffering in the united states from drugs, as well as get better at the enforcement side.

that runs into problems and all of the countries i have seen, that runs into corruption, because there is so much money will be made by selling these drugs and it runs into the problem of building trust in the countries by offering alternatives to these poor farmers who do not make much, but grow the opium. how else can they survive? and in a country like afghanistan and even in mexico, it has been really hard to work with the local, national -- and national governments to provide alternatives for farmers who was just -- who are just searching for a way to survive and people are taking advantage of that. and along the whole chain there are serious problems of corruption, and inefficient judicial systems, people get arrested but never convicted,

they get arrested and they buy their way out of jail. it is a very complex issue, and a lot of courageous people are working on the local government side and the u.s. side working, but we really have not been able to make significant and consistent progress. remember it was president richard nixon that declared the war on drugs, we have been trying this for a long time, i think we need to take a fresh look at how we do this and look at both the demand and the supply sides. host: when it comes to the heroin epidemic, where is it mostly coming from? guest: synthetic opioids are mostly coming from china and india are coming into all parts of north america, some directly through the mail and otherwise to the united states, some

through canada and a lot through mexico. a lot of those synthetics come into mexico, they are increasingly being processed in mexico. when you are talking about heroin, most of the heroin in the united states is grown in mexico. -- or the opium is grown in mexico and processed into heroin in new mexico. when you talk about mth, -- meth, the largest supplier is also mexico. the heroin -- the opium produced in afghanistan and turned into heroin largely goes to russia and europe. and, iran, i cannot forget iran, serious addiction problems. those are the struggles in iran, russia, and then in parts of the rest of europe. but, by this illegal trade coming out of afghanistan, and

it is important to note that the taliban and taliban commanders have profited greatly from this trade in opium and heroin. host: grayson -- this is frank in georgia, an independent. i have -- caller: i have a question. why is it all of a sudden the taliban have a softer approach? before you answer that, and take five to 10 minutes to answer, i'm going to tell you why, because we are paying the taliban to be calm and relaxed. that is why, mr. wayne. host: let us have him at his thoughts. guest: i am sorry you are upset and you were asking a very good question. i think the taliban are trying to take a more acceptable approach because one, they do

not fully control the situation yet. they have to establish a government and figure out how to manage this country that they have not managed in a large area since they left power in 2001. secondly, they are going to need international assistance. the outgoing government in kabul was reliant on international assistance for 80% of its financing. it needed that money to pay civil servants, to provide services and do development projects, so that is not going to be any different for the taliban and it will probably be greater because the taliban have less skill among its cadre to manage things. they are very skilled at running an insurgent organization, but running a government is different. third, there is a terrible humanitarian problem in

afghanistan, and now the taliban is in charge and is going to be seen as responsible for managing this by afghans. there are millions and millions, estimated by the u.n. 14 million afghans facing hunger and serious humanitarian problems right now. there are hundreds and hundreds of thousands of afghans who are displaced and have fled the fighting. they are left with the clothes on their back. they are now in need of support, and there are a lot of afghans who are probably trying to leave the country and thus become refugees in other places, and there are already several minute -- million afghans living as refugees in other countries. the taliban needs international support going forward, and i think this is one of the reasons it is trying to paint a more reasonable face these days. we have to watch very closely,

and see what they actually do, because as you know if you are reading the news out of afghanistan, there are already reports that they are going door-to-door collecting names and trying to arrest people. that there has been violent incidents where they have killed people and others. this is a very important situation to watch what is really going on, certainly listen to the words and see what happens and if it fits the words. host: how are the countries on the border been doing dealing with the refugee surge. we know pakistan and iran have taken the lion share of the refugees. guest: pakistan has had several million refugees from afghanistan for over 20 years. iran has had up to one million, many afghans have tried to ask -- to get through iran to get to turkey and europe, so in turkey

and europe there is a concern that they could be overwhelmed by afghan refugees. so, this is a massive problem, it is a problem where there needs to be an organized, international effort to try and deal with the needs both in the country and outside of the country as people go through, and that means there will be a need for many countries around the world to support financially the right kind of care, basic care to be provided to these people, and there are many countries that are goi to get many more refugees from afghanistan than the united states. that is certain. and so, there does need to be a really coordinated international effort. and one of the very important things that i think the international community has to work on is an agreed set of

commitments that they want from the taliban. an agreed set of protocols to protect humanitarian protection and human rights protection going forward. we do not know if the taliban will abide by them, it is important that the regional countries and the broader international community agree on this set of requirements really, commitments by the taliban if they want them to get recognition, if they want to get international assistance. host: just about 15 minutes left with ambassador earl anthony wayne currently with the wilson center. this is dave in florida, a democrat. good morning. caller: good morning there is a pattern, and the west always treat symptoms and never the source of the problem. it did not start with that first gop electoral college wonder boy, george bush who ignored all of the red flags like the presidential warning him of the

terrorist attack coming on 9/11, and that is not even counting the economic ruin that he left behind. instead of dealing with that he played golf just like the last four years of incompetence that we have had to suffer through. the truth is that this goes back to 1947 when the allies dropped 750,000 eastern european refugees on an area the size of new jersey that they used to call the nation of palestine. you know, bin laden stated and is quoted in 2002 as stating " the palestinian cause has been the main factor since my early childhood, fueled by desire and that of the 19 freeman" he was referring to the bombers "to stand by the oppress and punish the oppressive jews and their allies." the thing is, we never seem to

get it. all of this is lost in the context of history. this is not something that started in 2001, this is something that goes back decades and decades that we continue to ignore. host: your thoughts on the history. guest: history indeed is long and complex, and there are a lot of ties between the inability to handle well conflicts in one area and then creating the roots of conflict elsewhere. and the overlap and interconnection has only become more and more evidence as this world has become more globalized as we has instant communication. as good and bad people around the world can connect and work with each other. so, yes, we need to keep history

in mind, and that is one of the very hard lessons, it is hard for even those who study it. i am a professor at america university so i try to pass on knowledge to the young people so that they do look at these historic roots to problems. there is no question about it. the roots of the problems go back many generations. and, solving them is not easy. there have been a lot a very dedicated people who have tried to solve these problems going forward, we just have to keep at it. we have to not forget, but we have to just get up every day and say what can we do today to try and work from where we are and make the situation better. who needs to be held right now? what can we do thinking about the broader situation and the longer term. that is the only way to go forward. and, keeping as the color

indicated, keeping history in mind is important, and drawing the right lessons from history. and, having those discussions with people who might have a different view of those lessons. and then, moving forward is very important. host: charleston, south carolina. joe, republican. good morning. caller: i have a couple of questions, so many callers think that the united states is the only actor in this drama and that is not true. there were 30 countries involved in the war that was fought in stages over all of this -- all of these years. where's the united kingdom, germany, and holland stand on the acceptance of refugees? the other thing, presidents in the past have reached out to people who are not necessarily on the payroll for advice. brett comes to mind, and you know him, i am sure. you served in 2011 and left your

position. your credentials are impeccable, you have a good resume. has everyone -- has everyone reached out for you? biden should be familiar with your experience. has every -- anyone reached out for you -- to you for advice? presidents are more inclined to satisfy an agenda instead of really reaching out to the people who have the experience and knowledge to deal with the situation. thank you. host: before you go, to answer your question specifically about where the world stands on refugees, al jazeera with a round of that this week that might be helpful for you. the u.s., the u.k., and canada. the united kingdom to welcome 20,000 people over several years. canada, 27,000 prioritizing minorities and lgbtq and

vulnerable afghans. there is a wrap up that i wanted to point out to you and i will let the ambassador take your question. guest: thank you for pointing that out. a number of countries have spoken up and i just noted this morning that albania has come forward and said we will take all of these people reprocessing, we will take a lot a people and receive them. we do not know that we can keep them forever, but we are happy to provide a place for you to vet and transit. this needs to be an international effort, you are exactly right. other countries have been involved, and they need to contribute to the solution going forward. the ones that we have the closest ties to our those who work with us and a number of whom are being hunted down by the taliban. especially those who worked with our military. others have responsibilities, and i think they will stay --

stand up to this. but this does need to be part of the diplomatic work going forward to build those coalitions, that framework, and that support. i also believe that having bipartisan or nonpartisan opportunities to share advice with new administrations and regimes, is really important. you mentioned brett, i had the great pleasure of working with him with -- when he was national security advisor and he was a model in so many ways of managing policy, but also in talking to people across the spectrum. and i think we need to get back to that in the partisan divides, it has become a lot harder to do that. but there has been bipartisan commissions, there was one on afghanistan that offered a series of recommendations, a

number of us who stayed interested have also been offering recommendations along the way with how to go forward. and recommendations are cheap and when you do not have the responsibility anymore, it is different. i think you were on the remark that we need to call on all of the wisdom that we can get to figure out how to move forward and make it through these complex situations. this is one of them. we have dug ourselves a little hole, we need to get out and stopped heading deeper, and -- stop getting deeper and figure out how to move forward together. i hope this crisis in kabul will be a catalyst, here also, for more serious bipartisan work to take the united states ahead. host: on finding the people to give us that advice and finding that with them, debra lee on twitter with a question about political and pointy appointees

to ambassadorships, "should we only allow career and not political nominees?" what are your thoughts? guest: one, there have been a number of serious studies put out over the last year or so recommending substantial increase in the number of career diplomats. most countries in the world have career diplomats. i worked for a political -- political appointees who have been outstanding states persons and diplomats, but i do think we need to have a clear majority, a large majority that are trained diplomats and they are going to respond to the people in the higher political level positions in those people will make the policy decisions. but when it comes to offering recommendations and implementing policy, it is really good for the united states to draw on the best of those who have spent

decades trying to build close relationships with other countries. now, there is definitely a space, a very important space for political leadership to make decisions. they need to integrate the domestic trends and domestic interests and the broader strategic and international interests. but, career diplomats have important input into that and a very important role in taking those policy decisions forward and implementing them. so, i am a supporter of 70%, at least 70% and more likely 80% of ambassadors being career diplomats, but i do think there is an important role to have some noncareer people in there also. host: a couple of more calls here with earl anthony wayne with the wilson center, former deputy u.s. ambassador to

afghanistan and former ambassador to mexico. this is ron, pennsylvania, a democrat, go ahead. caller: in 1972, a college classmate told me the previous year he just returned to the states after hiking around the world. he told me the friendliest people in the world that he met where the afghans. now, i am going to guess that the treatment of women, the caveman like behavior of the taliban, i am going to say that that has been induced by drugs. and i'm going to say that i would think that there is a commercial market for opm that still exists, and has anyone followed the money trail to see where this goes? host: ambassador wayne? guest: sure, very interestingly,

i had a friend when i was still in high school, but he had graduated from college and my mother was a music teacher. he came back and said the same thing. in fact, he became so committed that he worked for the next 10 years on afghanistan and i'd hardly heard of it before and he said those people are wonderful people. so, in afghanistan there is a mix of cultural tradition and in different parts of the country, i think you saw variations in how women were treated. and, there is no doubt that one of the great contributions that we have made over the last 20 years is allowing the space for women to become educated, to assume jobs, and even the training that we did of midwives to go out into rural afghanistan and save mothers and babies is amazingly important, so that investments that we have made in the human capital of

afghanistan, the young men and women needs to be preserved, which is one of those reasons that those in danger need to be taken in. on your other question you are exactly right that the money trail needs to be followed. that is true in afghanistan, mexico, colombia, it is true everywhere. we need to crack down on the money trail and we have to do it with other countries because the money goes to other countries. and if we can start doing that, it is going to be a better way. you have been trying but not too successful. that will be an important contribution, but i also really think that reducing the price by reducing demand has to become a more important part of this strategy as we go forward. host:ed, indiana, independent, you are on. caller: good morning, thanks you

for taking my call. could you please make a comment about the rule -- the role of saudi arabia in the scenario. there the one who taught -- you started the attack on september 11 and we ended up in afghanistan, and what we have been doing in the middle east from afghanistan to yemen to syria, lebanon, what is going on , and the many coming from saudia -- the money coming from saudi arabia and training the taliban and pakistan is causing this thing for 20 years and we have lost trillions of dollars and 3000 american lives, which is the result and it is just unbelievable. host: we will take the question, go ahead. guest: you are exactly right,

saudi arabia and the other gulf states have an important role to play and there have been a negative role in that a number of wealthy saudis and others have funded groups like the taliban and other radical islamic groups over the years, so a big part of what i did in the early parts of the 2000s when i was working on efforts to stop the financing of terrorism was to get those countries and others to actually crackdown on money being transferred to this various groups including through what looked like religious charities, but were not religious charities, they were really sending money to people who were carrying out terraced bombings and other abuses of human -- terrorist bombings and other abuses of human rights. it is important that those practices be as restricted as possible, i do not know if we can never completely stop it, but they cannot beat tolerated

and that there be rules and regulations to stop it and there be punishment if people are providing that kind of funding. i think that that is very important going forward, the saudis and others can play a positive role if they agree with the rest of the united -- the international community on cure got -- cleared guidelines for the taliban. the taliban is no doubt going to look to the gulf to trying get some money to help it run the government going forward, and so i think the degree to which we can have a consensus with all of the gulf arabs on the principles that need to be followed in dealing with this government, i think we will be in a better and stronger position. host: i know we are little -- a little bit past the time. just one or two more calls including mitch, in florida, a

democrat. caller: ambassador, are you privy to know what the real deal was, and should be, because the press lashed out at the biden government who -- and eventually we all calm down and we cooled, were you privy to know the original deal? was the original deal inviting other countries to participate when biden -- one trump cut the deal -- when trump cut the deal? what was the actual deal to your knowledge? host: take the question. guest: there is a text of the agreement that was released. and at least in part of that text, the one part that i particularly focused on, it

mentioned that the taliban promised to cut off its ties with al qaeda. it has not done that according to reports put out by the united nations. independent reports that they have put out. and, other intelligence articles that purport to have an intelligence is also the case. so, in one part of the agreement the taliban not keep its word. the other part of the agreement that the united states always said was in there was that there would be serious peace talks in doha between the taliban and representatives of the government in kabul. there were talks, but they were not serious. the taliban never engaged seriously on the key issues of what future afghanistan would look like, except to state their preferences for an islamic emirate. there was not even the serious start of trying to negotiate a

peace. as i said earlier, looking back at this, it looks like this was all a cover by the taliban to develop the military strength in the country, their political influence to get ready to take power through the gun, and through political deals. which, they succeeded in doing. so, that is my strong impression , and the impression of my colleagues who are no longer in government retain an interest in afghanistan, and we regularly met and talked about this. thank you. host: we will have to end there. earl anthony wayne, former deputy ambassador to afghanistan with a long career in the state department and a career at the wilson center. if you want to follow him on twitter @enthonywayne. guest: it has been a pleasure,

thank you to the callers. host: up next we will focus on the topic of refugees and be joined by the international refugee assistant project's sunil varghese. ♪ we will be right back. ♪ >> weekends on c-span2 bring you the best of american history and nonfiction books. saturday on "american history tv" on "the presidency" a 1988 oval office conversation between ronald reagan and the bbc on a story -- on restoring the economy, u.s.-soviet relations and iran contra. at 4:40 pm as a u.s. withdraws from afghanistan we look back 40 years at the country's history with two information agency films ", afghanistan 1982: the struggle for freedom continues"

which chronicled the aftermath of the soviet invasion and " afghanistan: a new generation." than the former cia officer, duane evan talks about his tour of duty in southern afghanistan. that was shortly after the 9/11 attack. book tv features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. on sunday at 12:45, mitch mcconnell shares what is on his reading list. at 2:00 p.m. eastern, discussions on afghanistan including wesley morgan with his book "the hardest place: the american military addressed in afghanistan." p bergen talks about his book " the rise and fall of osama bin laden." and a libertarian institute professor argues that the war on terror has been too costly to continue on "enough already."

watch american history tv and tv every weekend on c-span2, and find a full schedule on your program guide or visit c-span.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: the conversation on afghan refugees, our guest is any of our geese of the -- sunil varghese. could you talk a little bit about your group, where it is based, how it is funded and how you do your mission? guest: thank you for having me. our group provides legal representation to refugees and forcibly displaced people around the world. refugees are often some of the most difficult situations in the legal process by which a reach -- a refugee goes into a big country and it offers a few due

process rights and it is not transparent. for the last decade, the international assistance program has offered representation for thousands of refugees and other displaced people to countries for their protection, and we have used that valuable information from the client to feed really important systemic advocacy to remove some of the policy obstacles that we see our clients face. lastly, we also use that information and that mission to pursue advocacy through litigation when that is the best course to change policies and to make sure that the obstacles to protection are removed. host: is that all donor based and how you do your work? where'd you get your money? guest: all donor based, we do our work principally from offices in new york, washington, d.c., berlin, and brute.

one of the models that we premiered is because we are often in very difficult physical circumstances we really pioneered a unique model of remote representation, so we are able to continually represent people, even if they are waiting outside of the kabul airport or as they try to navigate taliban checkpoints or at the gates, we can still stay in touch and provide that representation from wherever we are. host: so it is focused on those in kabul. we have seen the pictures of those who are lucky enough to get on those c-17's and get out, can you pick up the story for what happens when they stepped off the c-17's? where are they landing and what happens next? guest: i think, the first thing that is really important is that there are more afghans and more flights getting out of kabul.

we really do not know much about where they are being taken or what happens to them, to be honest. right now the focus is really on getting people out, getting afghans out, because the window is rapidly narrowing. we do not know how long the taliban will guarantee the sort of passage to the airport for afghans, and remember these are all people who worked with, for, or on behalf of the united states may be as direct as military interpreter, but also individuals who are may family members, ring cardholders, but also people who the u.s. -- green card holders, but also those who the u.s. equipped to be a generation of journalists, the u.s. advocated to be involved in local politics or teach in rural schools or advance women's rights. these afghans are particularly at risk. we already see reports that they

are going door-to-door. right now, the goal is to get them into the airport and onto a plane outside the country. where they go, we really hope that they arrive in the united states and/or on a permanent pathway to protection, but honestly the administration wasted a lot of time begging other countries to take our own allies, and reports are that some are flown out and we do not know how long they will be there, how are they housed and fed, but are their due process rights? will they come to the u.s., how long will it take? these are all questions that we need answers for, and we hope that while the government is operating to evacuate people, as many as and as quickly as broad

as possible, at the same time the u.s. government with all of its might and capacity is coming up with more efficient and effective systems to get these afghans into the united states. the existing process before the evacuation was just too slow, and took too long, and was broken. and so, we really hope and expect that that rogan backlog process is not what is going to be -- broken backlog process is not going to be happening. host: the question what was the existing process and the scramble to airlift people out. explain what a special immigrant visa is and how hard it is to get and how long that was taking. guest: rights. a special immigrant visa is a visa provided by u.s. law since 2009 for afghans who worked for and on behalf of the united

states. very honorable and important intentions, there are -- the u.s. was there for 20 years, and to advance the goals of mock receipt and human rights, and freedom of speech and press as well as the military presence, it required the cooperation of thousands of amazing, resilient, inspiring afghans. and, they had the confidence to step up and do that work. that was with the u.s., side-by-side because we made a promise that if their lives became at risk because of their work with the u.s. than the u.s. would have their backs and we would not leave them behind and we would bring them to safety, and that promise was supposed to be manifested through the special immigrant visa program. unfortunately, on the outset, it was clear that this was a very

inefficient process plagued with administrative errors. you know, i could go into depth and maybe your callers will be curious, but for example, this is for people who worked by hat -- on behalf of the u.s. government. logically, one would think that the u.s. government would ne-yo -- would know who worked for the u.s. government, a large part of the process requires the applicant to prove that they worked for the u.s. government, and that process to secure documentation involves tracking down the correct hr person for a company that you work for five or 10 years ago and trying to get them to write you a letter of support so that you consent to the americans and hope that they think that the hr letter is good . it was so inefficient. there is 14 steps with emailing

the application package. the package being shuttled around the world. at the end of the day it is a process that could take months to years. we had a client whose application was pending for a decade who was murdered this year right before their visa could be applied. it was really well-intentioned by the americans. the way it was implemented was too slow. one other thing i point out is there are thousands of refugees -- afghans who work for or with the u.s. who don't qualify for the special emergency visa program. afghans who did work advancing women's rights, democracy, received funding through the u.s. grants or cooperative agreements. the trump administration, and abide in administration -- biden

administration did not work on behalf of the u.s. the taliban, when they go door-to-door won't say where you working on a cooperative agreement or contract with the u.s. government? they will say you work for the u.s. government. you represent all that we are against. they will not have mercy. there's a large group of afghans we need to get out of the country who may not be in this visa pipeline because they technically don't qualify. they did serve side-by-side with the americans and we really need to get them out. for someone -- host: for someone who makes it through this pipeline, what does that mean in the united states? what is determined where the united states they go and what to they get when they are here? guest: united states has a long history of welcoming refugees

and communities, cities. we are seeing so many governors step up ready to welcome and stand ready to invite refugees into their community. for decades, refugees have been the backbone of so much american life. just like refugees, afghans who come in through this program are resettled through a refugee resettlement agency. if they have family members in particular cities, there will be efforts to resettle them in those communities. once they are there, they are able to receive some temporary assistance to get them off the ground. these afghans and refugees in general are so resilient, they bring so many skills. especially those that work with the americans. if you are able to navigate the system that is designed to fail

and you are able to emerge out of the worst circumstances, you do really well when you have the support and protection in the u.s. we just see refugees really move upwards on the path and build a lot of value in our communities and countries. america is ready and welcome -- ready to welcome. that is our history. we will continue on that path. we need to get them here safely. host: our guest with the international refugee assistance program. it is refugee rights.org. if you want to join the conversation, republicans it is (202) 748-8002, democrats are (202) 748-8001.

independents. mike, in stockton california, independent. caller: i don't know if you are misjudging the mood of the american people and our ability to bring in all of these refugees. i'm not saying they weren't lied to by our government. a lot of people don't think our government represents the people too much anymore. no one could explain what joe biden is doing at the southern border and all of these poor people our politicians lament are being put in inhumane conditions. it is true, the american people are kind, empathetic. we have been misled by officials for the last 20 years. host: what is your solution to the problem? do you think we need to stop

accepting refugees? stop immigration? what is the right thing to do? caller: the right thing to do would be for people to advocate that all of our policymakers, all of our bureaucrats, all of the politicians in congress, maybe joe biden be transported. host: the caller brings up the politicians. how much does your group do with refugees at the southern border? guest: thank you for the call. i would just say that we are excepting fewer refugees than we ever have before. the refugee program has been around for years. the u.s. has been accepting and refugees have been a part of our fabric since our founding.

i think we not just need refugees but we are refugees. i take the caller's point. i think he underestimates our ability as a country to continue to adopt and have people join our family. it is a part of our family credence of who we are. our organization provides limited legal representation to some people in what is called the mpp process. i think the impact here is the u.s. is a country of immigrants. immigrants have a moral obligation. they really move our country forward.

if we really did a study of societies and look at which countries have the largest economic engine, what countries using capitalist systems are able to move forward the quickest where innovation lives. those of the countries that accept immigrants. immigrants, wherever they come from. especially those fleeing for their lives. if you live in cities across america where people are leaving and going to bigger cities. you cannot find enough people to work. you cannot find enough people to help. we need more people. immigrants, and especially those fleeing persecution just adds to an important part of our fabric. i would also say it is amazing to be american and to have such

a richness of culture around me. just watch in real time all of it melting into one. i am really excited for myself and my children to continue this experiment. i take a point but i think more americans are really just excited to see more neighbors coming from different places than what that means for our future. host: go ahead, dolores. caller: i seem like i'm not calling where i thought i was. in my on the radio? host: you are live on c-span and we also simulcast on c-span radio as well. go ahead with your comment. caller: my comment is i think it

is a delusion that america is a melting pot. when people come here they do not assimilate. they really stick to their own kind. they bring the culture with them. as far as relocating refugees, it is important. i also they get is important we protect our neighbors. afghanistan is a thousand miles away. haiti has a crisis and i don't hear that the united states is helping them at all. relocation is important. guest: the caller has a really good point. right now we have this moral and legal obligation to make sure the people who work with us for 20 years don't die.

we have an important obligation also to our neighbors. haiti has been on -- patients have been the victims of so many discriminatory policies. the u.s. should be doing more to help patients. they are looking to flee for their lives because they are being persecuted for political opinions, sexual orientation, because of who they are. they should find a home in the united states. there was a parole program which is a family unification program. there are so many haitians who have family who are waiting in line for years. the biden administration should make sure that program is brought back and expanded. if you are a haitian in the u.s.

with family suffering or a family succeeding in haiti and they need to come to the u.s., they can. the caller has an important point. on the earlier point of assimilation, i disagree in terms of -- i would just say that what we have seen over the last 200 years is the benefits of integrating people from all around the world and i think it just takes patience. i would just say it might be the first generation, second generation, we are all americans. we need to do more for haiti, especially for haitians who want to come to the u.s.. don't underestimate our capacity to live together and benefit from that. host: we had a caller in one of

our earlier segments say he thought it was beneficial and maybe something the u.s. should insist on that refugees speak english so they could assimilate after they go through the special immigrant visa process. how do you feel about that and the need to speak english and the assimilation? caller: specifically -- i think english, it really is important and helpful to do well in the u.s.. graduate from high school, get a job, go to a job interview. it is helpful to know english. i would encourage everyone, whether they are in the u.s. or otherwise pick up english as a first or second language. afghans, people right now we are focused on trying to get out of the airport today, trying to get out of the clutches of the taliban in the really small

window we have. these people are so resilient, they will definitely succeed in the u.s. we are talking about people who work side-by-side with americans. if these afghans served side-by-side with the americans than we should leave side-by-side. i take the caller's point right now we really need to focus on making sure we get those afghans out of the country. talking about all these other topics, the taliban are not just looking for reprisals. they are not looking to take revenge on a journalist that work with the americans or an employee of a u.s. state nonprofit. they are looking to send a message. they are looking to scare another generation of afghans. if you work to advance freedom

of speech, freedom of rights, freedom of press, women's rights, democracy. if you show any affiliation, you will be killed. don't do it. that's what we are trying to prevent. i don't know how much time we have. we need to get people out, today. the president needs to make sure the airport has capacity for more flights in the main points of getting into the airport needs to be solved. we need leadership. i think it is important -- i would love to talk about the value of english. we don't want to lose sight on what is happening right now. we have a small window to house our friends, partners, family not be killed. we need to focus on that. host: we are expecting to hear more from president biden today at 1:00 p.m. eastern on the

evacuation of american citizens and other vulnerable afghans. we will be airing that in its entirety, c-span.org and the free c-span radio app. terry has been waiting in illinois. a republican. go ahead. caller: just listening to you for a short time, i have changed my comment three times. i'm an american. you have to stop putting a sign on our heads saying that we are all immigrants, all refugees. my family has been here 175 years. there has to be a timeline on this. i do believe american citizens over there should be brought back immediately. their citizens help our country

fight those terrorists. they must be vetted, 100%. the ones that have been put on those airplanes now have not been vetted 100%. why do they have to apply to come over here? they know all they have to do is get on a airplane, go to mexico, and just walk across our border. host: we will take your point on vetting and how that works. guest: it is a great discussion that i am not the expert on. when does our american this begin? when do we stop being some other nationality and be an american? if we put a timestamp on that i don't know. it is an interesting discussion.

on vetting, i agree that we need to make sure there is vetting. we need to know who are coming to this country. it is my understanding that right now is people being evacuated to third countries. there is some sort of vetting before they get onto airplanes. number two when they are taken to a base, there is more vetting happening there. refugees are the most vetted population. these are people that went through so much vetting that we trusted to interpret for our combat military if someone required -- people with access to classified information or people who we trusted and kept

continually vetting to make sure they could be trusted with working with the americans. this especially has been vetted multiple times. i trust that the administration will do proper vetting. at the same time, it is really important to know the previous administration used vetting as a pretext to keep refugees out. because the security check regime is so opaque, we don't how it works. we put people in it hope they come out. it became an easy place for the administration to create a wall to keep out refugees and immigrants from majority of the country. this is in conspiracy theory. we have put out an extensive report on this. these are based on statements of the administration and things we have been able to access.

i think we have to guard ourselves to find that balance of making sure we are safe but also making sure the way we do that is efficient, meaningful, and fair. we don't want to bring people over and put him into a third country and throw them into a never-ending vetting system that has no solution. i want to make sure we are safe but we are being fair. i hear the caller's concerns. host: the report you referred to are they on refugee rights.org? guest: you will see not just that report but we have been working with afghans allies for a decade. you will see reports on why that process was broken and the recommendations to fix it. you will see recommendations as

soon they announced their withdrawal. we were hearing from clients frantically, speaking from -- specifically from those outside of couple -- couple -- kabul that they will start searching for us. it was imperative on the biden administration to make sure evacuation was part of the withdrawal planning. the defense department stood ready but never received the order. what i hope to hear from the president today is leadership and coordination about the plan to keep the airport as long as it takes to get americans and afghans out. who is doing the coordination to get them to the airport? people are waiting outside in the open. we have clients that were beaten at the airport. a woman and child who were teargas by the americans. how long is it safe to stay out in the open and say i work with the americans, my family is in

america, get me out while the taliban are looking? if the taliban didn't know who they were, they do now. this process requires waiting at the airport for too long. then you have hundreds of clients too scared to leave the safe house. we have clients where it is not even safe to get to kabul. some coordination could really point to say who is in charge? the state department? the white house? they are getting people into the airport and out of the country as long as it takes to get everyone out. host: the president's address expected at 1:00 p.m. eastern. we will be airing it live. time for a couple more calls. patsy's in massachusetts, good morning. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call.

i just wanted to say that americans don't seem to want to learn from history. we have gone through this before. i would say it is a military failure, not an administration. we saw the same damn thing in vietnam. they should have been prepared, there should've been a plan with the military in place to get all of the people. it is a military thing. we have such a moral obligation, i can't even say we have to get everyone we can. we have an incredible system.

churches, lodges, vfw. all of these that would be willing. we saw this after vietnam, to adopt a family, a person, a child. sponsor -- not adopt. unicef would ask people to help. that is the first thing you have to learn. guest: i think we have a collective responsibility and guilt but also opportunity as americans. i don't want to point fingers at any particular agency. it is our responsibility. second i would say the lessons of vietnam rain really true. very quickly at the time the president set up an interagency task force and evacuated over

100,000 refugees to guam very quickly. they have been asking for that sort of coordination and leadership since april, at least, if not earlier. i think the defense department stood ready to incorporate evacuation as part of the retrograde. i cannot say why we never received the order. when we put our mind to it, whether it is the military, state -- state department, whoever it is that there is coordination. right now, it is a bit unclear. it may be the state department

determining who gets in as all of this depends on communication . it seems no one right now at least has a plan or is able to articulate a plan for how to get people to the airport. is that defense or state? for the thousands of u.s. citizens, their partner and children, our interpreters and our friends and allies. who is in charge? i really hope we get that. we have done this before. the u.s. could do anything -- a lot if we put our mind to it. that is the leadership we need. we are running out of time. we are at the 11th hour.

i hope we see leadership" -- coordination and a plan to get people in and out of the airport. host: we will find out what the president says at 1:00 p.m. eastern. apology director of the international refugee assistance project, thanks for taking the time this morning and chatting back. host: about half an hour left in washington journal today. we will end in our open forum, letting you lead the discussion. letting you tell us what are the political issues, the issues in your state that are on your mind . republicans could call him at (202) 748-8001, democrats at (202) 748-8000, independents at (202) 748-8002. start calling it now and we will get to calls right after the break. ♪

>> sunday, c-span series january 6, views from the house continues. two more members of congress share stories of what they saw, heard, and experienced including pennsylvania democrat susan wild , who recounts what happened during those early moments on the house floor. >> i don't remember how long we were in that said you -- situation between when they barricaded the door and when we got out. it could've been two hours, it could have been five minutes. i had no sense of time. i remember when i got off the phone with my kids that i felt as though my heart was pounding out of my chest. i was very worried that i was having a heart attack. i never had a heart attack.

i was worried about -- i was very worried about that. i put my hand up to my chest. that photograph of me shows me on my stomach on my back. i don't remember lying on my back. our member jason taking my hand and stroking it and kind of telling me i was going to be ok. i was a little perplexed that he was assured -- reassuring me. i didn't realize i was showing how upset i was. >> this week you will hear from massachusetts democrat, jim mcgovern. on c-span, c-span.org, or listen on the c-span radio app. >> "washington journal" continues. host: this is our closed forum.

you could call in on public policy and political issues. the phone line split as usual. republicans, (202) 748-8001, democrats, (202) 748-8000. we will take this discussion until the top of the hour. a busy morning on the c-span networks. at 10:30 a.m. eastern we will be airing a discussion with nato secretary-general jan stoltenberg briefing the situation in afghanistan. at noon eastern, former u.s. ambassador jan rollins newman will discuss afghanistan at an event hosted by the policy council. as we have been talking about, 1:00 p.m. eastern, joe biden will deliver remarks on evacuation, special immigrant

visa applicant, and other afghans. that discussion coming from the east room. the vice president also expected to be in attendance. here on c-span, c-span.org. now your calls. robbie is a first, a democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. all i have to say is joe biden is the most honest president we have had -- the most -- president we have ever had. he is the most dumbest president we have ever had. host: joan in myrtle beach. caller: good morning. i'm calling about afghanistan, the refugees.

i believe they should bring these people here. my objection is when they do they have to bring the whole family. the cousins, aunts, brothers, sisters. they bring the whole family. i know that for a fact. i'm -- i know a family that came here as refugees. they brought mother, father, sister, brother, aunts, uncles, cousins. that is ridiculous. host: should they be allowed to bring spouse and children? caller: definitely. host: should they be allowed to bring a parent? caller: a parent is fine. it shouldn't vehicle -- handed out to uncles, aunts, and cousins. host: this is vicki in texas, good morning. caller: there's another aspect we should look at.

it is kind of like a precursor if our government is overthrown. what do we do as americans? who will come here and rescue us and take us out to a different land? nobody would. the english people are so -- suffering over there, we should be sympathetic. it could very well happen to us. if our government was overthrown, there would be chaos, anguish. what would happen to us? that is my comment, thank you. host: your next, independent. caller: i just want to tell america, how about invading for humanity? how about in our neighborhood?

it allowed the united states to buy the louisiana purchase. how about giving land because it is like israel, unless you have land, you're a stray dog. you assassinated our leaders, you had read lock -- redlining. people couldn't apply for the g.i. bill. i am not talking about slavery. start with the african-americans. you can't depend on us to be the bedrock. come into our communities and they are taking businesses in our neighborhood. we have basically been a stimulus to the world.

host: that is zack in mississippi. billion new york, republican, good morning. caller: the last caller was asking the administration was not responsible, that the military was responsible but who is in charge of the military? the commander-in-chief. that is the president. it made me think. when president biden came in, he reversed many of president trump's -- the keystone pipeline. he stopped draining oil. we are paying almost $3.50 a cake a gallon instead of $1.98. now we have a crisis at the border. that is not getting the

attention it deserves. the unemployment was going in such a good direction for everyone. now they are getting money not to work. that is just three of the things i can think of. there are many other things he was able to stop. he could not have stopped this plan -- president biden blamed this. he said he inherited it from president trump and there was nothing he could do. he could've change the plan and afghanistan. this could've started last april or so. i don't agree with putting the blame on previous administration. take the bull by the horn. get down and work and do something. don't blame it.

i'm just trying to be objective. you could see he could've change this. host: we got your point. alan, good morning. caller: good morning, it is what it is. why don't you bring somebody on the show that will really tell the story about the things trump took off the books before biden got in the white house. he destructed most of the stuff over in afghanistan. he drew down the troops to 2000 troops. host: do you have a guest recommendation? is there somebody would like to hear from? caller: no sir.

these people need to get their head off of newsmax and all of that propaganda. bring somebody on your show that could explain what president trump did before joe biden got into office. host: that is alan in north carolina. larry in florida. caller: i don't understand what is a matter what -- with the american people. how do you put joe biden in as president when he is mental. he had a brain operation. any surgeon will tell you if you open the brain -- host: why don't we talk about the policy issues here? caller: you have to bring back trump, he had it all set up. we hadn't lost any troops in a year and a half. obviously he knew what he was doing. he had the taliban around his finger. he told the leader if you go

against us, i know where you live, i know where your family lives, i will eradicate them from the face of this earth and they respected him. say what you want about him but he was great for this country. he built up our economy. we are still floating on the good things he did for us. biden is ruining everything. this is maureen in toms river, new jersey. caller: good morning. a good guess that could come on, i was wondering before if seem span -- c-span was going to have known chomsky on anytime soon? i think that would be a great guest. our view on foreign policy has been absolutely repugnant for decades and decades.

since world war ii, eisenhower speaking about the military-industrial complex. i voted for biden. i don't agree that he's keeping some of the status quo. no american if they knew the depths over the country, we are not nationbuilding anywhere and trying to build democracy. we are therefore our own selfish purposes to explain to people. we have done so many coups. we did all over central and latin america. indonesia, cambodia. none of these things are that. against russia, against china.

everything we are doing in the south china sea. i heard a caller bring that up the other day. we are like a lane of terror over the world. who is the most threatening country in the world? we are number one. it is terribly disappointing. it would start to change. we want the same things. host: that is maureen this morning on him chomsky, he has been on c-span networks some 20's -- 27 times. the most recent event was a book event from april, 2017. all available in the c-span video look -- library available on c-span.org.

caller: i have been watching the news here lately. i have been watching the southern border explosion. the afghans want to come over. all of these religious groups are hugging them and everything. i've got news, show me one place in the bible where it says destroy the multitude to save the few, i will agree with them. thank you. host: rufus, orlando, florida. good morning. caller: listening to the proceeding callers, i have to say i don't it has been a long time coming. i give president biden accommodation for having the courage to do something that should've been done years ago.

that said, one of my major issues with our policies is that it does not take into the intrinsic cultural elements of the countries we are working in. i am not like the preceding caller or a couple of callers who think we could go around the world trying to rob you of your resources. i do believe there is an inherent good in what we attempt to do. i do not think it really weighs intrinsically some of the cultural dynamics of the places we are in. thus we have what we have. i would like to see us as we move forward be very intentional

on where we go, while we are going there, and what we are going to do to leave the place better when we leave. it might mean there are places we just don't go. i would like to also see us bring americans home. i do have an issue with having trained people in their country but them when it comes time for robert to hit the road, they run. that is speaking from my perspective. i do believe there is something we could learn from the places we are in to better help them be sustainable versus a cookie-cutter profile of

democracy, thank you. host: rufus on bringing them home. there are some 2400 americans who lost their lives in afghanistan, who did not come home alive. they are all named in the honoring the fallen section in today's "usa today." more than 2400 u.s. troops have lost their lives during two decades fighting the afghanistan war. more than 3800 u.s. contractors and department of defense civilians have lost their lives. 56,000 afghan national military. 47,000 civilians. another 440 four aid workers. 72 journalists died over 20 years of war in afghanistan. ian, long island republican, good morning. caller: i agreed with the last

caller statement. courage is one thing joe biden has none of it. he didn't listen to his on state department. i am talking about those who were five years old when this started. we went in there and they never lived under the taliban. the taliban said we will let them learn. we are letting them know a journalist can shop at work, she is fired. girls can't learn in school. they will learn how to wear burqas or be stoned to death. now we have americans. whatever it is, we will scorch the earth should be biden's message to everybody. i'm afraid we have some generals we are worried about being rogue. right now we have to get all of the americans out. everybody that fought with us for 20 years.

if we look -- leave behind anybody who wants to get out, the taliban will use them. what better terrorist in the future than the people depending on us now that we turn our backs on. they will not help us again. lord help us. get all of the assets, we have gps for this. they are jumping around and dancing in the embassy. the embassy should have been hit with a hellfire missile. start getting all of the helicopters. host: got your point. bill in indiana, democrat, good morning. caller: good morning. the american people made a decision on their president. the decisions he makes our country decisions. we have never left a place that there has been a war and we have been over there assisting without a whole lot of people

being left behind. do you remember we left vietnam? we had to push the helicopters off the aircraft carriers to get the people off. this will happen with things like this. there's no reason for everybody to be on their chest. everybody says reagan did this or obama did this. who knows, maybe trump's promise the taliban some assistance if they make a big fuss over things. who knows. host: less than 15 minutes left in our program. it is the open forum. as usual, you could keep calling in. we could keep you updated on the events here in washington.

yesterday, a scary day on capitol hill as you probably saw on cable news and the morning papers. third time in eight months washington was brought to a standstill on thursday as the u.s. government came under violence. this time from a man who parked a truck near the capital demanding to speak with president biden and threatened to joy -- destroy two blocks with a device. nearby homes were evacuated. he was identified as floyd mae roseberry. he surrendered after about five hours and is facing criminal charges. no bomb was found in his car. officials did recover materials that could be used to make an explosive. that played out over several hours yesterday on capitol hill. those who work on capitol hill and in the building behind me

yesterday we found out three vaccinated senders have tested positive for coronavirus. senators roger wicker, angus king, john hickenlooper sent on thursday that they had tested positive. adding to the number of breakthrough cases among lawmakers. bringing 11 senders that have tested positive so far according to ballotpedia. 15 members of the house had tested positive. that story, those announcements coming yesterday. darrell in casper, wyoming. caller: i'm calling about the problem they have about president biden scooping up with

the afghanistan. i was around during the vietnam evacuation. at that time -- host: it is easiest if you turned on your television and just speak into your phone. caller: i'm sorry. anyway, they were having problems trying to eliminate all of the vietnam people. it is a similar situation. it seems like the gop blames democrats. the situation is the same. it was a mistake in vietnam, they say it is a mistake now. they should just get it over and

done with. i was alive and watching the vietnam extrication then. stop blaming each other and just get it done. we are americans. host: this is john in pennsylvania. caller: i have a question for all of the bleeding hearts out there. by the year 2030 we will you lose -- we will lose one quarter of our jobs. we have 20,000,000-30,000,000 uneducated illegals in this country. where will they work? will this be one big welfare state? thank you. host: paula, good morning. caller: thank you for taking my

call. i do believe we should bring the americans home. you mentioned all of the military people. what we didn't have numbers forward those who came back with missing limbs and so forth like that. they gave up their lives for our country. we should not forget them. those numbers should be added as well. host: that number is 20,001 hundred 49 u.s. military members wounded in the war in afghanistan. that according to the department of defense. 2352 is the official number from the dod. bernard in elk grove, california, good morning. caller: war is messy.

i'm sure the biden administration will do everything they can do to do the best they can. people in america think everything is like a movie, it will be perfect. war is unpredictable. nobody is talking about the fact that we have been over there for 20 years and afghanistan is 90% of the world's heroin comes out of that place. is it about money? host: we talked quite a bit about that topic with earl anthony, former u.s. ambassador to afghanistan. he talked a little bit about heroin production, where comes from when it is coming to the united states. where it goes in central asia. go listen to that conversation if you missed it. caller: i'm just saying, maybe

trump and biden didn't have anything to do with that. i have a comment about the guy you had on earlier that made a statement about we are all refugees. everybody here is not refugees and immigrants. a slave that was brought here against their will and kidnapped from their homeland. those people are not refugees or immigrants. there is two people known here in this country that i know of that are not immigrants. people in america need to stop saying that about everybody in this country. host: freemen's next out of georgia. democrat, good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to say kudos to the

brother that just got off the air from california. the problem with this country is it was created to defy this country. roger ailes and his partner. everything has been divided. things are not going to get any better. it is crazy. hillary clinton beat donald trump by 4 million votes. joe biden beat him by almost buy twice as many votes as hillary clinton. people are sitting donald trump won the election. these people are crazy. then it has become the afghan situation. they are getting ready to meet a

suicide bomber from afghanistan. strap yourself in. host: joe in ohio, independent, good morning. caller: i'm calling to figure out when they bring the refugees over, will they be subject to our laws or will they follow their law. hello? host: i'm listening to you. your question about the legal obligation of refugees, my understanding is anybody with a green card or a visa has to operate under u.s. law. caller: do you still have the picture of the -- trump saying the war was over in afghanistan? host: a picture of him saying that? caller: he was standing in front of the white house and said he was bringing the troops home because we had won.

host: what is your point? caller: was the war really over or not? host: do you think the war is really over now? caller: no, not really. i think there's going to be more people sitting in pakistan just waiting to switch sides. host: dennis in toledo, iowa, good morning. caller: why didn't -- the people that think we should stay over there, why don't they enlist and go over there or do they have bone spurs like trump and could not go over there? that is my question, thank you. host: stephen, fort lauderdale, good morning. caller: good morning to you. america should not try to nation build. especially in a culture that is so different from our own. i want to bring something up

that is so annoying. all i could remember four years ago was the muslim ban and how the right was so against anybody with a muslim background coming into this country. all of a sudden we can't leave one behind or it is the end of the biden presidency. i will take my answer off air. host: charles, democrat, good morning. caller: i think they should concentrate on covid-19 that has killed over 500,000 people. it will kill 500,000 more. concentrate on that. keep people from dying and stuff. take care of us first. we are americans, we are born here. take care of us first. don't bring so many refugees over here.

take care of america first. host: charles here in washington, d.c., our last caller on today's washington -- today's "washington journal." have a great friday. ♪ [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2021] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] ♪ >> today nato secretary-general jens stoltenberg holds everything on afghanistan. live coverage on c-span, online at c-span.org, or listed on the free c-span radio app. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. funded by the television companies and more, including

wow. >> the world has changed. fast, reliable internet is something no one can live without. speed, reliability, value and choice. it all starts with great internet. wow. >> wow supports c-span as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> today, former u.s. ambassador while newman discusses taliban control of afghanistan at an event hosted by the middle east policy council. live coverage begins at noon eastern on c-span, online at c-span.org, or listen on the free c-span radio app. >> walking from washington, d.c. to new york city, former wall street journal reporter neil king reflects on his nearly 300 mile