i could be wrong, and i don't understand the treaty thoroughly, but those two provinces have a right to elections to determine whether they want to be independent and all i themselves with economics in russia, or those two provinces want to remain part of the ukraine. i think it is part of the treaty, and i hope, maybe you could expand the c-span coverage to bring in the treaty that it has provisions and its interpretation of it, because, i could be right, but i think, that would expand it and be more informative about this whole matter. host: let's go to james and luther, oklahoma on the republican line. good morning. caller: hello. i would like to know why i was becca stand and all of that, afghanistan, it cannot be handled like this can. russia went into afghanistan,

they try to do it, they couldn't do anything. america went in 20 years, and did it. they couldn't do anything. i would like to know why they can't sit down and figure this thing out. that nord stream 2 pipeline, that -- trump opened it up, and now they are going to use that as age shut to the new. -- as a shutdown to the e you. -- there is no reason that people should hurt over this. it is a big decision. it is a big decision on the countries around them. belarus, all around. just like us pakistan was around afghanistan. -- i was pakistan wawashington " continues. host: we are back with dan caldwell, a senior advisor for concerned veterans for america, and he is here with us this morning to discuss public policy and defense issues impacting veterans. good morning.

guest: thank you for having me. host: first of all, explain to our viewers exactly what concerned veterans for america is and how does it get its funding. guest: sure, it is a veterans grassroots advocacy organization whose mission it is to advance policies to preserve the freedom and prosperity that we fought and sacrificed for a while in uniform. we are focused on reforming -- reforming and fixing the department of veterans affairs, reining in national debt, and advancing a foreign policy rooted in realism and restraint. we are part of the larger stand can -- stand together community a group of philanthropic organizations that aim to help individuals break down their own barriers and realize their full potential. we are funded by individual donors across the country and we are grateful for their support. host: what is your message now

that there are tensions between russia and ukraine, and deployment of u.s. soldiers to bolster nato's defenses? guest: i think we need to start off by looking at what are the u.s. interests currently at stake in ukraine. in my assessment, there are no vital national interests at stake in ukraine that warrant a large deployment of u.s. forces to eastern europe, and warrant action that might indirectly lead to a war with nuclear armed russia. the reality is that we as a country have faced many challenges at home and abroad in the last thing we need is another war, especially with a nuclear armed russia. in regards to the deployment of troops specifically, we have had troops deployed in europe for a long time, obviously since the end of world war ii, even when

we downsized after the cold war, it remained a major focus for the united states. even with the end of the cold war, keeping our alliance commitments, expanding our alliance commitment through nato, it sends a message to wealthy european countries that said we will continues to subsidize your security, we will continue to provide a security umbrella even if they are not properly funding their own defenses and their own security, and that we will continue to do this regardless of whether or not it is in your interest. we have had a lot of challenges at home and other parts of the world, which are frankly more important to the united states security and conditions of economic prosperity. i think the policies we are pursued in europe post-cold war era have not been good in large part have led us into the current situation we are in. host: what would you suggest if

you were asked for advice by the white house on what they should do about the current tensions between russia and ukraine? what would be your suggestion? guest: i think one problem that is occurring is that there are a lot of mixed messages from the united states and our nato allies. on one hand united states is saying it does not want war, on the others -- on the other hand we are deploying more troops to eastern europe, we are keeping the open door to ukraine joining nato, which i think is a mistake and a legitimate concern from the russians. i want to be clear that vladimir putin is a bad guy and is somebody who is always looking to metal -- mettle and his neighbor's politics and expand his sphere of influence, but since the end of the cold war and the collapse of the soviet union, multiple russian

governments and political party has made clear that they are concerned about nato expands and. so, i would have urged them to shut the nato open door long ago, and make clear that the united states is not supportive of ukraine and georgia joining nato. again i would not deploy more troops to eastern europe, those are assets that we will need in other theaters and it is incredibly expensive to deploy those troops. it could cost us billions of dollars in a time where we have record levels of national debt and economic challenges at home. i encourage the europeans to take the lead. at the end of the day it is a european security challenge, not an american one. host: speaking from the nato ministerial conference lloyd austin spoke about the role in need the u.s. defending nato

allies in light of russia's military buildup. i want to listen to what the u.s. secretary said and then respond to it. here is defense secretary lloyd austin. [video clip] >> in many ways this brings russian troops right up to nato's to waste -- doorstep. let me begin today but -- today by making clear that america's commitment to nato and article five remains ironclad. as president biden said a couple of days ago, we will, if we must , defend every inch of nato territory. there is no reason, of course, that it should ever come to this. just like there is no reason for russia to again invade ukraine. ukraine is not threatening anyone, let alone its russian

neighbors. and yet, that is what moscow would have us believe. [end video clip] host: first i want you to react to what the defense secretary says. guest: yes. we were the ones that essentially brought nato troops to russia's doorstep i expanding nato to their borders. of course russian troops are going to be at nato's borders because we expanded nato to include the baltic states, which border russia. it is a little disingenuous to say that the russians are the ones that moved to nato's borders one essentially we expanded the alliance to move not just estates that traditionally have been part of the russian empire or the soviet union, but are now actually on the russian federation's borders. i think this gets to the core problem, at the end of the cold

war as the united states was negotiating the reunification of germany and other issues with mikell gorbachev and boris yelton, there were promises made that nato would not expand eastward, and it did. that first and foremost was not in the united states' interest. there was no reason in the aftermath of the collapse of the soviet union to expand nato. it did not enhance security or conditions of prosperity. all it did was tie us further in europe where, as i said earlier, they are wealthy countries that are more than capable of funding and taking care of their own defense. these actions that we have taken and president biden has been a long time supporter of them going back to when he was vice president and head of the senate foreign relations committee, has enmeshed us in europe and in a large part helped create this dilemma that we are currently in.

i think there needs to be end and knowledge meant that these policies of more troops, more aid to ukraine, more arms, bigger nato have not deterred the russians or made united states saver. host: let us move to what the military population, what the veterans population thinks about the russia-ukraine conflict. they can -- you commissioned a poll on this question of u.s. military involvement against russia aggression. according to the poll, 49 percent of the general population, 60% of veterans and 52% of military families opposed war with russia over ukraine. what do you see in those numbers, especially from veterans and military families. guest: it is important to keep in mind that over the past 21 years now, a veteran and

military family community has bourne an incredible burden as a result of our endless wars and the greater middle east and era -- in africa whether it is iraq, afghanistan or somalia and niger. the other day there was an american servicemen injured in mali. you've had a community that has bourne the butte -- the burden and cost of repeated deployments of their brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, wives and husbands coming back from deployments injured or wounded, the stress placed on families, if they are in the reserves or national guard, the stress placed on businesses and nonmilitary careers. and, it is important to note as well that our military is increasingly staffed and many of our recruits come from serving

families or families that have already had somebody serve. these wars, for many are becoming multi generational. you are having fathers that are seeing their sons deployed in the same place as that they did earlier in the global war on terror. i had a marine who served in iraq and he had the same experience. his son deployed to the same base for the reasons we were deployed in iraq 10 years later when the united states intervened to fight i says. this is a community that has seen an incredible amount of war over the last 20 years, they have seen the cost of it and they are incredibly wary as a result of a new war, or even a new large-scale deployments, which will put strain on military communities and families, and having seen how these play out, particularly in afghanistan and iraq where there does not seem to be progress.

where the local population does not really want what we are selling in terms of liberal democracy, and not seeing a direct connection to our safety and security, i do not think that it is surprising that this community is more wary than the general population which is already wary of more military commitments abroad. host: let us get viewers into this conversation. we especially want to hear from veterans, military, and military families. we are going to open up special lines. for veterans, we especially want to know what you are thinking about when it comes to what is going on with russia and ukraine. veterans, we are opening up a special line for you, 202-748-8000. if you are active military and want to chime in on what we are talking about today, we want to hear from you, active military you have your own line, 202-748-8001.

military families, spouses, fathers, mothers, sisters, sons, daughters, mom to know what you think. the terry families your number will be 202-748-8002. if you are not connected with the military, your opinion still counts and we want to hear from you. we will use you to an -- move you to another line. if you are not connected to the military we want to hear from you at 202-748-8003. you can always text us at 202-748-8003, and we are always reading on social media, twitter at c-spanwj and facebook.com/c-span. now, as he referred to earlier, you yourself were in the military. remind viewers of your military service and how that shape your worldview when it comes to issues like russia and ukraine. guest: i was in the united

states marine corps and served for 40 years. i started out my career serving in what is called the presidential support program or yankee white. i spent a few months in washington, and then i spent two years at the presidential retreat at camp david. after my tour in that program was done i got orders to the first marine division and served with second battalion first marines applied to iraq towards the end of 2008. i spent eight or nine months in the country. for me, i loved being in the marines, it was a hard decision for me to get out, and i am very great full for the opportunities that i had in the marine corps, my fellow marines that i met and still consider my brothers in many ways. and, it instilled in me a lot of

values that have helped me be successful in life and it was a generally positive experience for me. in terms of how it shaped my worldview, what i am looking at debate surrounds when and where the united states is going to deployed troops, i always go back to what is a infantry rifle men or squad leader thinking about this? and what is the impact going to be? at the end of the day, sometimes the debate in washington is detached from the impact that these foreign policy decisions have on real people. and, what these constant deployments and endless wars where you do not see a lot of progress and that can be incredibly frustrating,

especially to someone who is career military and will often deployed to the same country five or six times. and what the impact on families are, it is incredibly difficult for families who have to see their husband, or wives, or fathers or mothers deploy again and again into a combat or non-combat zone. i often go back to the perspective of what will this be like for the infantry, combat arms and support soldiers, sailors, and airmen deployed to fulfill this mission and foreign policy objective that is being pushed by policymakers, and institutions in washington. i want to be clear that at the end of the day there are times and places for military action which is warranted. sometimes you will have to deploy young men and women to fight, and sometimes die in combat and more.

but, for two men -- for too many and for too long, the impact of these wars on our servicemen and women and their families has really been i do not want to say ignored, but in some ways card -- compartmentalized or minimized. i hear now that these deployments in places like iraq, syria, and before, afghanistan. that was low because, and that is infuriating. in afghanistan, prior to the doha agreement, we lost 18 service members. and we had dozens more wounded. same thing in iraq and syria, few were killed but dozens wounded. the aftermath with the soleimani assassination, there were over 100 service members who received traumatic brain injury from the rocket attack.

those are lifelong injuries that are going to have an impact on these individuals for the rest of their lives, and it will inhibit them in certain ways, fortunately, there are programs and treatments that can help them overcome a lot of barriers that those are real impacts, and when people say we should be more aggressive against russia, or we should have stayed in afghanistan and iraq that they are detached from the actual price paid by real people in these conflicts, and that, for me, goes back to what i saw in my time in the marine corps. host: let us let some of our viewers take part in the conversation. we will start with mike from wheeling, west virginia. mike is a veteran. good morning. caller: ees -- yes. i am a vietnam veteran, and i

served with several million other veterans in vietnam, and a lot of us went to a -- went through agent orange and all of this other stuff. i have a disability from agent orange. i do not want to see us getting back into ukraine. we can support them and then do like joe biden is doing is keeping us and nato together, and i think also that joe biden is doing a great job holding putin down. he is letting him know what is going to happen, and he is standing for it. he is speaking his peace and standing for the united states of america and i think he is doing a great job as he did getting us out of afghanistan. i thought it was fantastic getting out of there. we lost 13 people, the thing is it was a combat zone and we left some people behind. remember vietnam and -- in april

25. we left 1.5 million people behind and nobody seemed to care about that. and that was a republican president that got us out of there. and i think joe biden is doing a good job. we do not need to get involved with our troops, but we do need to stand with all other nato nations and then if so we will go from there. host: go ahead and respond. guest: first of all i want to say, the vietnam that, welcome home. in regards to afghanistan, i supported the president's decision to withdraw. i thought it was a bold decision and the right decision. it was time to end the war. i think that the conduct of the final evacuation needs to be fully examined. i think there are people who need to be held accountable for

the failures that occurred. i have to say, again as someone who fully supported the decision to withdraw, i am disappointed that there has not been accountability for those failures. those 13 sailors and soldiers who died at abbey gate, the majority of them with mild unit second battalion, first marines, and that was their sixth deployment and support on the global war on terror. so, it was incredibly heartbreaking to see that attack and those young men and women lose their lives, and i do think there needs to be accountability for the failures that ultimately put them in that situation, not just during the last 20 days, but -- but for the whole 20 years. again, i am disappointed that the president has not been willing to acknowledge those failures and has continued this tradition of presidents not

really telling the truth about afghanistan. he had an opportunity to break president and say stuff went -- precedent and say stuff went wrong and we are going to fix it. in regards to ukraine and nato, i would say that i do not know how united nato is. i think there are conflicting interests within the united's -- of the alliance. germany has an economic interest in stake and they do not want to see an escalation. they have nord stream 2 and they are worried about sanctions. they have been more hesitant to do things like arm ukraine and they do not want to see and -- cema tagging is take towards the russians. the french have tried to do a parallel diplomatic track. i heard some say that was done with the united states which might be true or might not be, i

am not 100% sure. i think it shows that there are different interests at stake, and i do not think that is a bad thing. i think that we should take this opportunity to the europeans to take the lead, is that ultimately as i said earlier, this is a european strategic challenge and countries like france and germany should be in the lead and helping drive a solution as opposed to the united states. and also, carrying most of the burden further europe. germany severely under funds the military. when looking at the size of its economy and economic strength. france has been catching up and they have their own security challenges in north africa and their own endless war, in a sense. they can invest more and do more. i think that the concept of european strategic autonomy is not a bad thing, and we should use the opportunity to encourage

more of that, because we have other challenges at home and abroad that we need to deal with. host: one of our social media followers has a question for you. this person writes "does the presence of our troops in proximity to russian troops increase the likelihood of armed conflict? and if russia invaded and we do nothing, does that further the impression that we are a paper tiger and encourage despots elsewhere?" guest: i think this is a good question. having troops in close proximity to russian troops does increase the likelihood of a conflict with russia. i think that this actually can be applied to what is going on in syria. if you have had many incidents where american and russian troops have come close to getting in firefights with one another. you had a battle between

american troops in syria, and russian mercenaries and syrian militia back in 2018. and there is some intrigue about that. the russian military in effect tried to disavow what the mercenaries were doing. it is a very interesting story and i would encourage your viewers to take a look at it. just like in syria and with the iranians in iraq, the presence of troops increases the likelihood of a major war and getting locked in an escalation spiral that could lead to an armed conflict that is a nobody's interest. this is one reason why i do not think we should be pushing troops further east or putting them in proximity. this is also the reason why i do not think we should be arming an insurgency in ukraine if russia does invade. these are actions that could

escalate and bring us close to a war with a nuclear armed power and i do not think i need to explain further what that could potentially mean. with regards to the second part which is the credibility question. i hear this thrown around in the debate in d.c. about how we have to be tough to preserve our print -- are credibility and if we give up on ukraine than putin will push further and further west. i do not buy that, just like i do not buy the arguments that us pulling out of afghanistan is part of the reason for this happening. in regards to the afghanistan issue, putin started the build for this operation if it does occur in march of 2021 before biden made the decision to withdraw from afghanistan. putin sees crimea, -- seized crimea and the eastern provinces

of ukraine why the united states was engaged in afghanistan and while they were ramping up the war against isis and was heavily engaged militarily across the world. in addition, we have increased our troop presence since the invasion of crimea in europe. we started deploying tanks and armored brigades back to europe, and as i said we started pushing them further east. and, ultimately at the end of the day, i do not believe that putin has either the willingness or capability to do something like try and push all the way to germany or france or to other parts of the world where we might have more vital national interests at stake. you have to keep in mind that russia is not the soviet union. there is not a global communist bloc or quasi-pie being run out of masa -- or quasi-empire being run out of moscow.

they have real demographic and challenges that constrain their ability to project power floor west or to do a lot of the things that the soviet union could do prior to their collapse. it is not the same situation, and there are real constraints on russia's ability to be overly aggressive outside of certain areas. remember they border china and russia and china have decent relationships. our actions in ukraine are pushing russia and china closer together which is not good because we are pushing together two countries that historically have had significant relationships. one of our greatest security challenges is china. so, a lot of and i think the idea that we need to do certain things to preserve our credibility despite the fact

that those policies will actually hurt us in other areas is just really an ineffective argument. host: let us talk to rob from new york. rob, good morning. caller: good morning, gentlemen. this is a great conversation, however i agree with your guest that the afghanistan withdrawal was terrible. we handed the taliban 83 -- 83 billion dollars of blackhawk helicopters and military equipment. it was by no means a success and the people who did that should be held accountable. to further the point, this is all a distraction. our biggest threats are china and bigger than that, we have a threat from within. a lot of those people we brought here from afghanistan and our southern border being wide open. those people are the threats. we do not know who they are. this ukraine and russia stuff,

this is like number 50 on my list of most important things. hillary clinton did spy on trump week ago. you guys should talk about that. thank you. host: go ahead and respond. guest: i would agree that ukraine is not something that we should be prioritizing. china is a bigger challenge and i want to be clear, i do not think we should apply the cold war framework to try not do that with russia. china is a challenge, they are a competitor, but at the same time i do not think that we should take overly aggressive action and further embed ourselves in certain countries and build more alliances. i think that we should be proactive in doing things like equipping our partners and allies in east asia with

technology and anti-access aerial denial technology, anti-ship and aerial missiles. we should do the same things in how we armed taiwan. we should change our policy of strategic ambiguity. but at the end of the day because of our economic relations with east asia and because of the economic power currently concentrated there, it has -- it is of more concern to us rather than eastern europe and ukraine. i agree with that. in regards to the afghanistan issue, ideally, we would not have equipped the afghan army in a way that they would just simply hand over american-made equipment to the taliban. i think that was one of the flaws in the whole conduct of the war. we tried to create an army in our image, we tried to create a

first world army and a third world nation. that was a huge mistake. we should have never built an afghan army and equips them the way we did. as a result there are billions of dollars of equipment no longer in our control or the control of a partner. the good news is that the taliban will have a hard time maintaining that equipment because it does require constant american support and maintenance, which they do not have access to. my understanding is that with the blackhawk helicopters is that they have been able to keep very few of them flying. m16 service rifle or an m4 service rifle is harder to maintain than an ak platform. at the end of the day, i think the bigger mistake was not the decision to withdraw, but actually equip the afghan army and security forces the way we

did. host: let us talk to joe from riverview, florida. he is a veteran. good morning. caller: good morning. how is everyone doing? interesting discussion. i want to focus on what the guest talked about referenced the contribution by european countries to nato. if you remember when former president trump was in office he made that an issue and brought it up, so i do not know to what extent their contributions have gone up. the reason i am bringing that up is the guest did also mentioned that france, germany and the other countries have some economic interest, and russia is providing gas to germany, so what would be the geopolitical effects if an attack was to happen. so if the guest could touch on that, thank you for your time.

host: go ahead and respond. guest: so, i do give president trump a lot of credit for raising the issue of burden sharing, meaning how our nato allies continued. that's contributing to our collective defense. as i said, most countries in nato are not contributing a bare minimum. i believe it was under secretary robert gates in the early part of the obama administration or maybe the bush administration that they worked to set a threshold of spending 2% of the country's gdp on defense, and as far as i am aware, there are only four nato countries out of the alliance that are actually meeting that threshold. i believe it is greece, poland, the united states, obviously, and the u.k.

you've countries like germany which has an incredibly strong economy, robust economy who are not meeting that threshold and worse, they are spending their defense dollars that they do have on the wrong things. they are not building the type of capabilities that they would need to secure europe. so, president trump deserves a lot of credit for really pushing the europeans on this front and aggressively pushing them and getting them to spend more, but there is a long way to go, and it think -- i think it does not solve the fundamental problem that we still have an open door to countries to join nato, that frankly should not be joining nato, is not in the united states' interest for them to join and further expand security through nato to these countries, and as we were seeing with ukraine right now, and i would go back to georgia in 2008, that actually destabilizes the region

and increases the likelihood of war. it does not deter war. fundamentally we need to think -- rethink our alliances and commitments in europe and how we approach our commitments. it is not to say that we abolish nato, but we should definitely shot to the open door and really rethink our posture in europe. i think there is a strong argument that we should continue to withdraw forces from europe, just like president trump proposed, he wanted to take 10,000 troops out of germany, yet people are -- yet people in his administration undermined it and abide in administration reversed it. it does not make sense to have tens of thousands of troops and important military assets like fighter jets and surveillance equipment and anti-air equipment in a country that is incredibly

wealthy and has refused to properly fund and maintain its defense. that is, in effect, subsidizing a freeloader. and that is something that we cannot do with other challenges in other parts of the world and almost $30 trillion national debt at home. host: michael calling from hagerstown, maryland. good morning. caller: good morning. i appreciate the call. my father was a marine in okinawa, so he left us about four years ago. i appreciate your service. two things if you could touch on high level, primarily about russia but i want to talk about the v.a. system real quick. so, with the v.a., the recent budget was over 200 billion and only about 25% of that goes to the care of veterans.

and, i really think to provide better care, we need to do away with the v.a. system and totally privatize and give each of you guys a card. you go into any hospital that you want and get rid of the buildings, the staff over to privatized, and you would have a better service. they would be first in line and it would be a better system. the second thing with russia is that people do not realize that russia is the size of south korea from a gdp standpoint. they are not that big. 1.5 trillion gdp and we are 20 trillion. so, one thing is why are we buying oil from russia? it does not make sense to me. we could control the oil pricing by increasing our production. and, i think we need to put germany on notice to stop buying energy from russia. there are 38,000 troops that we

have got which cost a lot of money. move them out of germany, they do not need to be there. from a high perspective if you could touch on those two things. guest: absolutely. i am a big fan of hagerstown, maryland. i spent a lot of time they are stationed in camp david. the caller brings up an important point about russia, they are not an economic powerhouse. they are gdp is slightly smaller than south korea and i might be wrong. it is smaller than individual nato and european countries. it is not a country that is an economic powerhouse by any means. and that is important to remember because that is a constraint on who attends's ability -- on putin's ability to expand his sphere of influence. i am glad the caller brought up

the issue of veterans affairs which is another issue that we have worked on over the years. we were advocates called the v.a. mission act, which was passed under president trump, which greatly expanded health care choice for veterans. we also supported the passage of the v.a. accountability act which made it easier to fire bad employees and proposed other substantial reforms to the department of veterans affairs. we support full health care choice for veterans, meaning that veterans can take their benefits from the private sector, if that's what they want to do. we do not support a privatization of the full system. for choice to work, you need to have a good v.a. choice in the department of veterans affairs medical system that is functioning, that is focused on what veterans need, and is positions and funded, in a way that can serve the veteran

population of today, not the veteran population of the past. that is a big challenge that the v.a. totally -- currently faces. this is a system designed to survey world war ii population in terms of where its hospitals are located, where clinics are located, they have been the same for over 50 years. so, that is something that needs to change too and that is why i am bothered by the fact that the biden administration has not executed the air commission, part of the mission act, and this is the asset and infrastructure review. it would do the analysis of all the v.a. hospitals, and health care clinics and other facilities to determine whether or not they are needed in a particular community, whether they need to be downsized or moved to a smaller building, whether they can integrate better with the private sector or in a few cases expand the facility. because abide in administration keeps kicking the can down the

road we keep delaying some of these decisions and as a result there are veterans not getting the best care they could be getting. i have to compliment the caller, i think he is dead on with the budgetary numbers. most of the v.a.'s budget goes to disability benefits, and it is worth noting that this budget is massively expanding while the veteran population is shrinking because the world war ii, korean era and early vietnam era population is passing away. so the veteran population is not expanding because we did not expand the military significantly during these wars and there are not enough new veterans replacing those passing away. so, there are real challenges with the v.a.. there was a lot of progress made under the trump administration but i am worried that that progress is being stunted or rolled back under this current administration. host: we would like to thank dan

caldwell, the senior advisor for concerned veterans for america for being with us this morning and talking us through the veterans' point of view and issues when it comes to russia and ukraine. thank you so >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government, cofounded by these -- cofounded by these television companies and more including cox. >> cox is committed to dividing families access to affordable internet. breach the digital divide. cox, bringing us closer. >> cox supports c-span as a public service along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> book tv every sunday on

c-span two features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. at 9:00 p.m. eastern, a journalist -- the attempt to overturn the 2020 election and the people who stopped it. at 10:00 p.m. eastern on afterwards, professor mark bauer talks about his book the dumbest generation grows up. from stupefied youth to dangerous adults. he argues millennial's lack of general civics knowledge poses a threat to america's political and social institution. he is interviewed by the cultural of the federal institute. watch book tv every sunday on c-span two and find a full schedule on your program -- on your program guide or watch online anytime at db.org -- at booktv.org.

>> on almost all presidential rankings list, you will find warren harding's name at or near the bottom. sunday on q&a, in honor of president's day, historian ryan walters says while harding had his faults, his accomplishments are often overlooked, including bringing the country back to normalcy after world war i. and his economic plan that led to the roaring 1920's. mr. walters lays out his case in his book for why the president should rank higher. >> he has finished last in more presidential surveys and rankings than any other president. he and james buchanan are running neck and neck. harding has come up in recent years, but what has been said about him is really in the realm of myth. there are a lot of myths about him and harding's and outright lies. with what he accomplished as the president of the united states, it is quite impressive. >>