then at 10:30 a.m. eastern, the f.c.c. chair and commissioners testify in an oversight hearing before a house energy and commerce subcommittee. you'll be able to watch that on c-span.org and c-span now. watch this week live on the c-span networks or on c-span now. our free mobile app. also head over to c-span.org for scheduling information or to stream video, live or on demand any time. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. host: good morning ae to washington journal. after days of grilling by senators, judge jackson will likely move forward to the sioux jennet judiciary vote her candidacy to join the nation's highest court. if confirmed, she will be the first black woman to sit on the

supreme court. as she moves through the process, questions raised about the usefulness of confirmation hearings, which of been used for partisan grandstanding for senators rather than serious questions. what could the senate do better next time? what questions should they have asked? what questions should the candidates have answered? you know enough now if you support or suppose the supreme court confirmation. we are going to open up special lines. if you support her confirmation, we want to hear from you at (202) 748-8000. if you oppose her confirmation, your number is going to be (202) 748-8001. you can always text us at (202) 748-8003.

were always reading on social media, on facebook and twitter. you can always follow us on instagram. once again, judge jackson went through days of confirmation hearings in front of the senate judiciary committee, answering questions from senators and sparring back-and-forth about partisan and political issues around her candidacy. the new york times has a story that talks about how the issue of supreme court confirmation hearings has become more partisan rather than questions about the substance of the nominee. i will bring this to you from the new york times.

we would love to know what you think about the hearings going

on for judge jackson. once again, let's go to angela who is calling it from maryland. she says she supports judge jackson. good morning. caller: good morning. i do support her. she has the patience, the knowledge, the ability to do a fine job. she is someone we need. we need a breath of fresh air. her integrity, her knowledge, i sat there and watched 18 hours with this lady. i don't know how she did it. i would have gotten up and left. i was ready to break my tv the way the senators treated her. host: did you learn anything

about her that you didn't already know when the hearings began? caller: i didn't learn anything. she was just so knowledgeable about everything. she was so honest. i think her integrity, she's a beautiful person. this is what we need. we need a breath of fresh air. that's what we need. i think she is going to do a fine job. host: let's bring to you what judge jackson said in her opening statement on monday, she talks about her position as a judge and how she would be on the supreme court. this is judge jackson. >> if i am confirmed, i commit to you that i will work

productively to support and defend the constitution and this grand experiment of american democracy that has endured over these past 246 years. i have been a judge for nearly a decade now. i take that responsibility and my duty to be independent very seriously. i decide cases from a neutral posture. i evaluate the facts and i interpret and apply the law to the facts of the case before me without fear or favor, consistent with my judicial oath. i know that my role as a judge is limited. the constitution empowers me only to decide cases and controversies that are properly presented. i know that my judicial role is

constrained by careful adherence to precedent. host: once again, judge jackson will be coming up for a confirmation vote in front of the senate due to sherry committee in the next week or so as her candidacy for becoming the first african-american woman on the supreme court moves forward. what we see from the research center is the supreme court is not gaining in popularity around the united states. here is a story that comes from pew research that talks about how the supreme court as an institution is viewed by the american public.

that mission ended up being judge ketanji brown jackson. she went through the committee

hearings all last week. during her confirmation hearing it, judge jackson had several exchanges with republican lawmakers who talked about several different issues around her judicial rulings and issues they wanted to see talked about an upcoming cases. here is an exchange between her and senator josh hawley on her sentencing during a particular child pornography case. here is what happened in that exchange. >> i talked about this yesterday. you've been able to think about overnight. you had an 18-year-old who possess to distribute it hundreds of images of eight-year-olds and nine-year-olds and 10-year-olds and you gave him a slip -- slap on the wrist. >> i don't remember whether it

was distribution or possession. in the law, there are different crimes that people commit. >> do you regret it or not? >> senator, what i regret is that in a hearing about my qualifications to be a justice on the supreme court, we spend a lot of time focusing on this small subset of my sentences. i have tried to explain. i'm talking about the fact that you are talking about very serious cases. some of which involve conduct that i sensed people to 25 or 30 years.

>> you haven't answered my question yet. >> i would have to look at the circumstances. i'm telling you -- >> there is a 55 page transcript. you have lived it. you said you've been through all of this. you've looked at all the images. you gave him a three month sentence. i wonder if you regret it. >> in every case, i followed what congress authorized me to do and looking at all of the various factors that apply. that constrain judges, give us discretion, but also tell us how to sentence. i ruled in every case based on all of the relevant factors. host: let's go back to our phone

lines and see what you are thinking about. let's go to michael in pittsburgh. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i do oppose her. i wouldn't be tremendously upset if she got on the court. she seems like a nurse -- nice person. some of the things that she set about supporting the constitution ring true. i do not think she was picked on the basis of her strong thinking. which is why people are put on the supreme court. you compare her to some of the previous supreme court nominees and judges that are on the court, they have a long record

and a deep understanding of the constitution. those are the things. this is not a popularity contest. the constitution has been diminished in the eyes of the american people. it is what has made america great. it is a difference between us and ukraine or something like that. it is why we are free. because we have certain rights. they are taking our right to free speech. that's what is happening now. the right to own a gun it, certain rights are becoming diminished. host: what experience do you think she does not have?

what experience should she have that she does not have? caller: i can't tell you for sure. it seems that in some of the previous nominees, they were asked questions about the constitution and deep philosophical questions about where the country is headed. i do not think she has a grasp of some of those things. it's like she would be learning on the port. -- court. i don't think that's the place to learn about these issues. that's my take on it. i don't know. i just get upset when people are

picked because they are a nice person or they have normal feelings and things like that, which does not necessarily make someone a great person to be defending our constitution. host: let's go to ann in florida. go ahead. caller: i support her. i find her to be very intelligent. there is nothing she has said that i could criticize. can you hear me? host: go ahead. caller: the question what is a woman is the dumbest question i've ever heard. it is too bad she couldn't go back and ask the man what is a gentleman.

they certainly couldn't ask that question -- ask that. i was impressed through all of those questions that she was so patient. this is something that will serve her well in the court. host: did you learn anything new about judge jackson from the confirmation hearings? are there questions they could have asked her that let you learn more about her? caller: they could've asked anything except some of the stupid questions they asked. they could've asked her about her rulings instead of taking out a few sentences. they didn't even listen to her answers. it was so ridiculous. i can't believe people could be like that, instead of asking an

intelligent question. she went through all of this. it really showed what her personality really is. i think she has the integrity to be a really good person. i think it's nice to have on the court to have a man and a woman's opinion rounding things out more evenly. host: just like previous nominees before her, judge jackson did not answer several questions about hot button issues that could come in front of the supreme court. do you think they should answer these questions? caller: not when they are so stupid. she's not even going to go down as low as they are when they ask a dumb question. host: all right. let's go to john from arizona.

good morning. caller: good morning. anyhow, there are no stupid questions. there are only stupid answers. had she bothered to listen closely, she would have discovered there is a lot more. that's not an american name to begin with. she's not truthful, not honest. she was asked about critical race theory. she said i don't know anything about it. she was actually teaching a class in it. she lies. host: what makes you think it's

not an american name? caller: i've never heard any american names. it's an african name. she might have been named in america, it's not an american name. host: how much of the hearings did you watch? did you just watch -- caller: a lot of it. she was asked what is a woman. i think that was in reference to her transgender beliefs. she said she's not a biologist. she was asked what his assault. she could have at least honored the question. she knew what it was all about.

she just decided to be belligerent. and give a stupid answer. there are no stupid questions. host: do you think senate confirmation hearings for supreme court nominees are useful at all? in previous nomination hearings, others did not answer all the questions either. it seems to becoming a pattern. caller: i disagree with you there. i listen to most of them. they go by the constitution. she is not sticking to the constitution. she is not going by rule of law guidelines.

he got out and committed the same crime again. if she followed the lock, this person would still be alive. she is dishonest. she doesn't go by the law. host: let's go to melvin from florida. good morning. caller: good morning. i support judge jackson. i think she will do a great job. what she had to deal with with senator cruz and senator cotton, there questions were outside what they needed to ask. i think she did a good job. host: do you think these

confirmation hearings are worth the time considering there are a lot of questions that senators asked that they know nominees won't answer. it seems to be a pattern. they all say there are questions they are not going to answer. senators asked them anyway. are these useful to anyone? caller: i would still say so. it's important that the people can hear what our justices think to a certain degree. we've never heard of judge jackson, this gives us the capability to have some form of relationship with her. when she is confirmed, we will have that connection. i think it's important to have that. with our higher bodies of the court system, i think this is a good move.

i don't think it's a bad idea. i support her. i watched the confirmation hearings. i didn't think it was right for them to do what they did. i think that senator klobuchar did a great job of trying to balance out the insanity with more substantive questions. host: bloomberg columnist wrote about the problems that supreme court confirmation hearings have and why they should continue. i want to bring to you what he said. this is from limburg. -- bloomberg.

this comes from jonathan bernstein. where do you stand on the confirmation? let's go to kathleen who was calling from los angeles. good morning. caller: it's very early in the morning. i will preface my statement by saying why do you read from the new york times and the

washington post? getting back to the supreme court nomination, i would oppose any liberal jurist. liberal ideology from the supreme court has destroyed american culture, black americans, black families. they bast or di's the 14th amendment which was meant for descendants of slaves. these are liberal jurists. then we have democrat colors saying the republican senators were offensive. they clearly missed the hearing with cavanaugh and amy coney barrett. the democrat senators were very offensive and rude, including harris. they don't know what they are

talking about. democrat colors talk about people who watch fox are ignorant or don't know what they are talking but. how is that true when fox was right about the russian collusion business. the liberal media never talks about the data. we only have 25% black americans two-parent families. we have 87% in the 1930's. this was before liberals were dominating the supreme court. we had 65 two-parent families during lbj. they don't discuss data. we have 40% homelessness. we have 9000 black politicians

and they are facing zero median wealth by the year 2053. what is the point a black fella titian's. host: let me stop you there. you brought up amy coney barrett and rhett cavanaugh. how do we change the process so that neither side has the complaints that you are bringing up about them? how do we change the process so it is fair and everyone is happy? caller: we have had seven decades -- host: we are talking about the confirmation process so that all nominees get a fair shot from the judiciary committee? caller: the issue is this. people will complain that the

questions are being rude and offensive. then the democrats were rude and offensive to brett kavanaugh and amy coney barrett. host: how do we change the process. both sides have complaints. how do we change the process so it is fair to everyone? caller: it's about honesty. host: how do we make it honest for both sides? caller: the issue isn't changing the process. the american people listening to the confirmation hearings need to be informed. it's the issues. it's not about personalities. it's about addressing the issues. host: how do we make sure that those issues come up and it's not a political process like we have now? caller: what i'm saying is this.

the democrats don't know what the issues are. they think it's about liking someone. child pornography is an issue. the first amendment an issue. democrat colors don't know what the issues are. the first amendment is an issue. the second amendment is an issue. the public school system is an issue. these are in the constitution. host: let's go to brenda from jackson. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. there is ignorance throughout the american public based on what i've heard. ignoring does not mean stupidity. it just means there are things you don't know. i wanted to express how ashamed i am of the representation as a tennessean of who we have in

congress and in the senate, who speaks for us. we have not had a voice on the supreme court since thurgood marshall made his exit. this has been a long time coming. i harken back to the time of barbara jordan. she was first came on the scene. my hope was with that woman being the first african-american female on the supreme court. she was wonderful. her health failed just like thurgood marshall's did. she didn't get to have an opportunity to be appointed. ketanji brown jackson was worth

waiting for. hands down. more qualified than any other individual who has ever served on the united states supreme court. i am the granddaughter of an american slave. i know a lot about the constitution. i'm a retired educator. i went to law school for one year. that's what i want to say. i did hear cory booker. he began to talk about her. she was appointed the first federal judge before i turned 19 years old. i was a student at knoxville college. she is worth waiting for. we've been waiting a long time. host: how do we change the

confirmation process? should we change the process? it seems like everyone whether liberal or conservative has complaints about how their candidate is treated in front of the committee? how do we make sure everyone is treated fairly? caller: that's going to be a trick. most people view it as political theater. as someone previously stated, this was the opportunity to try to get revenge for what happened with brett kavanaugh. that's all this is. that's political theater. i didn't waste my time listening to a lot of it. they showed a chart of all the people. shiite shines the mall. -- she outshines them all.

i'm 75 years old. i started out in segregated schools. you've got to strive for excellence. your reach must exceed your grasp just so you can get in the room. host: let's go to georgia. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? host: go ahead. caller: how we could stop this is stop labeling. we don't need republican. we don't need democrat. i'm a woman and proud of it. i don't understand why it's so hard when they don't answer the questions. we don't need labels. we need to judge people for what they have to do for this country

that's -- the president put her in there for a reason. that is her racism and that is wrong. we are supposed to do what's right for this country. right now she doesn't know what she's doing. the woman before, i'm 76 years old. we are not teaching the right things. i was raised where you didn't have racism. it was years and years ago. we need to stop with the racism and judge people for their character, their knowledge, not be putting people. this is wrong. that's what's going on. this is all theater and it's crazy. host: you said that he's trying to put her on the supreme court

for racism. can you explain what you mean? caller: i honestly think the president we have is -- i'm not saying she deserves it. the things they are asking questions for a do not understand. that's my point. they are asking questions. we want to know what she would do to go by the constitution. nobody right now is going by the constitution. that's a fact. we are going by what they think. the thing about it is it's our opinion. how about taking care of america and the people in it. we should be taking care of people and not the agenda. host: let's go to greensboro.

good morning. caller: good morning. i support the nominee for the supreme court. i think the republicans were very disrespectful and rude and condescending to her. they treated her -- they already decided. that is their method and behavior. she was asked a question about what is a woman, as another journalist wrote, what she should've done was turned to that person and ask her what is a senator? thank you. host: let's go to california. good morning. caller: good morning.

thank you very much. i am certain there are a lot of black women that would be qualified to be on the supreme court. america right now, we are more divided since the civil war. people want everything free. they want free health care. we are $30 trillion in debt. we are spending billions on illegals for schooling and health care. we don't have it. we can't pay off the debt if we wanted to. biden doesn't even know he's alive. of course he's going to pick somebody that is not qualified. he just wants somebody that he can say she is black. the thing is, anyone who is racist is ignoring.

common sense is uncommon. we all should love one another and help one another. we believe in the constitution. we believe in liberty. i am afraid of her. the reason biden picture, he doesn' fein, fein, [speaking in foreign language] forth forth ft. ft. fort worth, mask, masks, ex-ex, pore pore, kristaps porzingis, maine maine, kenny mayne, f.d.a., facemask,

fein, fein, fant, stanford, we '. they say the rich will pay for everything. he is going to tax the rich more. they will raise the prices on everything. they will just move out of the country or layoff people or pay less wages. host: going back to the supreme court confirmation process, how do you find a person you would support for the supreme court? it sounds like you are against any judge. caller: to me, if they are more libertarian leaning, they want

people to have more freedom. there are too many people in government that are tyrants. hello? host: you are still on. caller: i appreciate this. we are more divided now. i never hear it on tv. you've got a lot of young people that don't want to work. she's a democrat. even republicans, we've got 80 of them that are supporting a lot of the issues the democrats are supporting. they are worthless. we need to get back to being a christian conservative -- and promote liberty.

host: let's go to ray in california. good morning. caller: thank you very much. i was so appalled at the hostile , rude treatment from several of the senators. they did not let her finish a sentence, answer questions, it was downright hostile and disrespectful. i don't understand how people could say she's not qualified. she's clerked for a supreme court justice. perhaps people don't know what a clerkship is. she was a public defender. she's been on the court of appeals. she has a depth of experience

that will be very useful. i liked her temperament. she was very calm. she maintained her composure in spite of being viciously attacked by lindsey graham who tried to put words in her mouth. according to the pornography cases, she kept telling the senators that she had to make her judicial decision based on the guidelines that congress had provided. they hadn't updated the guidelines to take into consideration the fact that a lot of pornography now is done on the computer and not through

the mail. those guidelines were done when computers weren't widely in use. that's not her fault. out of 250 judges and attorneys who responded to the american bar association survey, not one of them had a bad thing to say about her. why is it -- soft on crime. she is supported by the fraternal order of police. host: cory booker had an exchange with judge jackson during wednesday's hearing. i want to bring that exchange between cory booker and judge jackson to you. >> your family and you speak to service service service. i'm telling you right now, i'm

not letting anybody in the senate steel my joy. i told you this at the beginning. i am embarrassed. i just look at you and i start getting emotions. i was jogging this morning. at the end of the block i live on, i put my music on loud, trying to block out the noise of the heart attack i'm having. this woman comes up on me and tackles me. an african-american woman. the look in her eyes, she just wanted to touch me because i'm sitting so close to you. she told me what it meant to her to watch you sitting where you are sitting. you did not get there because of some left-wing agenda. you didn't get here because of some dark money groups.

you got here how every black woman in america who's gotten anywhere has done. it's like ginger rogers said, i did everything fred astaire did except backwards and in high heels. host: let's see what some of our social media followers are saying about the confirmation process. . is one tweet that says oppose. her views are far outside the mainstream of america. her job is to interpret the constitution, not change it. she will change it. i don't like her liberal opinions on pedophiles. another tweet said i support her. she is supremely qualified. another tweet says we learned

that she has the knowledge, patience, and temperament to be an excellent supreme court justice. one final tweet says i'm confident after the dust settles she will be the newest member of scotus. this was long overdue. the racism in this country makes forward progress nearly impossible. that was obvious through the hearing. we want to know what your opinion is of judge jackson and the confirmation process. mike is calling from florida. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: i was so impressed by everything the judge was saying up to a point. there are two things that made me decide she is weak. number one was she didn't answer the question about sex. that's a very simple question to

ask. i think she thought it was a political question. she could've made to answers. if you're talking politics it's this way, if it's biology it's this way. host: you're talking about the question about gender? caller: that's very obvious. people can say whatever they want. the politics, maybe not. you can be whatever you want in politics. the second thing was when she was talking about whether or not -- i lost my train of thought. with the pornography thing about how she had to rule one way or the other, they can rule anyway they want. nobody consume her. -- nobody can sue her.

she doesn't have to follow any guidelines. host: mandatory minimums, they don't have choices in those cases. caller: they could say i'm not judging. that's what she probably should've done. we are looking for the truth. if she can't figure that out, she's weak and her method don't work. she should take a backseat. to answer the question about what is a senator? that's what i like most about her. host: let's go to raleigh, north carolina. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you this morning? i think it's more than time for

a black woman to be put on the supreme court. i do support judge jackson, who is highly questions. -- qualified. i think the republicans were very disrespectful attacking her. they asked questions and refused to allow her to answer the questions. even though she answered all the questions very intelligently. the process i think could've been more fair if the republicans were made to follow rules, to be civil and respectful and to be decent. caller: good morning. my opinion on the people calling in about judge jackson, they are

completely confused. that woman is the most qualified person, black, white, that was ever on the supreme court so far. you've got people that hurt judging her like just holly that was pumping his fist to the insurrection. how could he question a woman of her quality. for people talking about the name she has, who gives you the right to say people can't name their kids whoever they want. if we went with the constitution, at one time black people were not a whole person. i do believe they said it was 3/5 of a human being. everything has to be updated. we will not live by the rules

that my family lived by 30 or 40 or 50 or 100 years ago. host: victoria is calling from wisconsin. good morning. caller: i am opposed simply because as someone who was sexually abused by a pedophile at the age of five, it's a personal affront to me and to all other victims that were sexually abused. that's my opinion. host: let's go to mississippi. good morning. caller: how are you doing. i was calling because i feel like for the supreme court to the centers, they should be

elected. i think she is well-qualified. when president trump -- he said i don't understand some people. a person should be elected by the people for the people. host: let's go to kyle from illinois. good morning. caller: good morning. my problem is i don't have a race problem. america bleeds red. people bleed red. our government is bleeding green. we have a trans woman, that's what i was taught in school.

i watched six lawyers and six judges try a case where the woman was claiming neglect on the house she was in charge of. these lawyers and judges interpret the law. they interpret. they don't follow. they interpret. their own views they used to interpret the law. you watched the democrats run trump's appointees through the ringer. this woman was asked what is a woman. it's not awful hard. that's just my opinion. i've seen the lot take a 96-year-old woman take her money. the law done it.

when you appoint somebody, you should have standards on the way they interpret the law. host: let's go to diane from minnesota. good morning. caller: i just want to say that i definitely support judge jackson for the reason i've worked for 24 years with pedophiles and victims in my state court. the one thing that everybody is not taken into consideration is when you are a probation officer, you have to evaluate. you've got six weeks to make a decision. if you make a recommendation to the court, you follow the guidelines according to what the

legislators. in our state capital, it would be congress. the new look at her cases, she had over 1000 cases in 10 years. they brought up seven cases they didn't like. what happened to the rest of those cases? evidently she followed what was supposed to be done. judges have to make an interpretation around the sentencing guidelines. that is how it is done. host: let's go to clifford from oceanside. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i was just listening to callers about how the publicans were rude and disrespectful to her.

i find that to be such hypocrisy. when brett kavanaugh were going on, the democrats were just completely up the wall. for these democrats calling insane the republicans were rude, i don't think so. not as rude as those democrats work. host: you made clear that the republicans have their own complaints and democrats have their own complaints. how do we fix the process so both sides are treated fairly? caller: that's an interesting question. i would suggest getting a third party. one does not politically affiliated.

that's what the american people would ask. host: all right. let's go to robert from maryland. good morning. caller: good morning. what i see and this blows my mind, when i see josh hawley and the guy from texas ted cruz, i saw the disrespect they showed this honorable lady. it blew my mind. people like those three senators, i'm a vietnam veteran. they drove these crazy people

out of their lives. the same thing -- after nelson mandela gets out of jail for 27 years, they got rid of apartheid in south africa. now in afghanistan, white racism has been driven out. ever since that is happened, we've had peace in those countries. this white racism over 2900 years have destroyed humanity. these people are crazy. host: let's go to ernest from massachusetts. good morning. caller: how are you? it used to be that temperament and qualifications were enough.

since the bork hearings, judicial philosophy has come to the forefront. the votes in this century and really going back even earlier, they tend to go for judicial philosophy. i didn't have any problems with the republican senators questions because they were making -- ferreting out the obvious fact that judge jackson is liberal. that's why she was chosen. she will be less liberal than sotomayor. when the vote comes, the vote will be almost entirely based on judicial philosophy. if you like a liberal judge, you will vote for her. she is qualified.

as far as her qualifications and temperament. qualification and temperament. it will come down to judicial philosophy. it will probably come down to 52-48. host: we would like to thank all of our colors. coming up next, heritage foundation will be here to discuss russia's invasion of ukraine and the debate over increasing u.s. defense spending. later, founder and ceo jim haik joins us to talk about the work his group is doing to support ukraine's military. stick with us. we will be right back. ♪ [indiscernible] >> only history from the source.

-- only on c-span do you get history from the source. unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. if it happens here, here, here or anywhere that matters, america is watching on c-span, powered by cable. >> this >> this week on the c-span network, both chambers of congress are in session with a house taking up a bill that would legalize marijuana. the senate will vote on the u.s. misconduct chip january the committee hold a meeting monday at 7:30 p.m. eastern to recommending two former advisors to president trump referred to prosecutors for criminal contempt of congress. look for that on the c-span network.

general todd walters and he testifies twice on security challenges on the continent tuesdays on 9:00 a.m. and wednesday at 10:00 a.m. to appear before the house armed service committee. both hearings will be live on c-span.org and the c-span free now. the white house director is also on capitol hill twice testifying on president biden's 2023 budget before the house budget committee and before the senate budget committee on wednesday at 11:00 a.m. eastern. both hearings will be live on c-span3 and thursday at 9:00 a.m. eastern an interview with senate minority leader mitch mcconnell. you can watch that live on c-span.org and c-span now. and the f.c.c. chair and commissioners testify in an oversight hearing. you'll be able to watch that on

c-span.org and c-span now. watch this week live on the c-span networks or on c-span now. c-span. your unfiltered view of government. c-span has unfiltered coverage of the u.s. response to russia's invasion of ukraine, bringing you the latest from the president and other white house officials. the pentagon, and the state department, as well as congress. we also have international perspectives from the united nations and statements from foreign leaders. all on the the c-span network, the c-span now app and c-span.org/ukraine where you can watch the latest videos on demand and follow tweets from journalists on the ground. go to c-span.org/ukraine.

>> "washington journal" continues. >> washington journal. >> we are back and we are joined by these fine gentlemen to talk to us about policies toward russia and defense spending. let me introduce brent, with the heritage foundation, serving as a senior fellow. we are joined by benjamin friedman, who is the policy director for defense priorities. can you tell us exactly what defense priorities is? guest: it is a think tank. we are trying to promote realism and restraint. we have relatively skeptical. host: let's jump into the

current. tell us what stood out first. guest: the big news was president biden and living the idea that vladimir putin has to go for the sake of decency and i think that was an understandable sentiment, but i think it was exceptionally unwise for a president of the u.s. to say. it makes it harder to win the war. it makes russia less cooperative . i think it even makes regime change harder because i think that was an unfortunate part but the rest of the speech was fairly predictable, support of ukraine and trying to cast it in

a different light. guest: i definitely agree with the points. there were three different speeches that the president made , and there were missteps in each one. the white house had to come back to make a correction to the record. there should be actions behind those words, but every time it diminishes his legitimacy or credibility. we have a hot war in europe with the competitor, russia. the cost and consequences are much higher. host: we will stick with you for this question. how would you judge this trip to europe for president biden? was the trip successfully at the did we lose ground? guest: nato has already valued to the cause.

the bombing and the shelling and major population centers in ukraine -- that has shocked europe, mostly western europe, out of a post-cold war slumber that they have been in. despite what the president has done and said, his presence last week in europe, i think europe was already on a trajectory of rallying the cause. if anything, it has caused a little bit of confusion, when that is the last thing that we need. >> i agree with that for the most part. major european states have decided to increase defense spending. jimmy is doing this one time edition. they only spend $50 billion a year, so that is a huge increase one time.

gdp will be faster. europe is reacting to this threat that russia poses. the u.s. is actually doing too much. we spent something -- sent something like 20,000 troops to europe to respond to this war and with russia's weakness revealed in the war, the u.s. does not need to do that. horrified as we are by russian actions, it does not need to be us who takes the lead. host: do you agree? is america doing too much? guest: no. it is important that the current uptick and awareness that security matters -- the u.s.

needs to be very vigilant. overall, the u.s. has been living for over 30 years, and the service i am most focused on is the contribution. the real challenge is in asia for us. if we do not signal and have appropriate deterrence, we may find ourselves in a situation where war becomes inevitable. so, a penny is worth a pound. host: let me take a moment to remind our callers that they can take part in this conversation. democrats, your number is going to be (202) 748-8000. republicans can call in and (202) 748-8001. independence, your number is

(202) 748-8002. you can always text us at (202) 748-8003. and we are always beating on social media and twitter, and on facebook, at facebook.com/c-span. i will throw this question out to both of you and whoever is wanting to answer can jump in. d.c. nato rethinking its goal, post ukrainian invasion? russia has invaded crimea and now ukraine. d.c. nato rethinking its goals? -- do you see nato rethinking its goals? guest: no. it is not surprising that russia attacked ukraine. it is something that people suspected might happen. you had a ukrainian government

and if anything, nato should reevaluate its open-door policy. georgia, although not a direct cause has thwarted a lot of hostility between nato and russia with no real security payoff. we sort of left ukraine in the lurch with the open-door to join , which i think was worse than nothing. guest: as the conflict in afghanistan has come to a close, it certainly needs to reassess its role further abroad from europe, but it needs to take a more expansive approach and be

more concerned about migrant flows, through the middle east that have had a significant impact on their societies and government. it comes to nato expansion, there is another point that i would like to make. expansion was heralded or advocated most vigorously in the 1990's and early to thousand's by those countries that had been under evaluation. i'm of the mind that expansion makes what we are seeing less likely, but i am concerned about actions that could follow and right now, there is an uptick in violence. there was a war that was five and there is a russian peacekeeping element.

we may see it picked up in another part of the sphere of influence. nato could have a role to prevent more from occurring, but it has to be very thoughtful and how it does that. host: would you be in favor of a nato expansion? guest: yes. we will see some exceptions to the rule made. over 20 plus years, this has been a slow brewing conflict between russia and ukraine. it would have been better to have deterrence in place. it could have been avoided host: --it could have been avoided. host: could they expand? guest: ukraine has a border and a military that spends about 110

of what russia spends at its -- on its military. it is not feasible to defend ukraine. sides that, it is a terrible idea. if we had put ukraine in nato years ago, russia would have accelerated their timeline and attacked at that point. it is not that we do not care about ukraine, it is that we cannot defend every country in a serious way and attempting to defend them might have led to world war iii if the u.s. did not back down, which then would have shown that our commitment to the other nato countries were not really worth all that much. it would be a colossal mistake to put ukraine in nato. it was a colossal mistake to say

that nato would eventually expand. that kind of pinned a target sign on ukraine and made the war much more likely. it was an act of negligence. guest: i go back to earlier said 1989 to 1984. there was a period of time in moscow where the liberals, and until things started to take a more conservative and nationalistic turn. there was a window of time where actions could have been taken. nato should have considered bringing in russia. the resolution of border disputes -- we could have been in a much different situation. unfortunately, we accelerated into the situation that we are in now because nato countries

did not make the investment into defense. they did not look at russia as a viable threat. i agree to an extent that we did not take the threat seriously for far too long. if we had a stronger military presence in europe, we probably would not be in the situation. host: both of you have mentioned during your answers, the russian military performance that russia, as most of us six acted russia to have been doing a lot better than what they are doing now. explain to our audience you are opinions of russia's military performance. what has their failure to achieve any military goals -- what does that tell us?

guest: as a naval officer, i can speak about the russian navy, but i have worked several times at places that had to deal with all elements. much of this is not a surprise. the extent of the logistics planning and failure to execute a rational military operational plan is the part that is most surprising, but equipment that is not kept up to standards or training of a conscript army -- these are all consequences that were foreseen and understood on the russian military itself. no surprises on that part, but the biggest surprise is ukraine's performance with western equipment. guest: number one, russia started off in ukraine with a

terrible plan. they had this idea that they would do these deep drive under runs, where there would drive quickly, relatively small groups of forces to the ukrainian cities and somehow that would scare the defenders into giving up. obviously, that did not happen. it was a terrible plan. they would have other problems in this war, which is some of what was mentioned. logistics have been disastrous. their ability to combine arms with airpower has been surprisingly bad. they have not managed to suppress defense is. most people thought it would take at least a couple days, if not a month. most importantly, low morale.

they have conscripts disappearing into the fork -- into the forest, abandoning their vehicles, so that would be a problem in any country they invade. that's why i said, in large parts, this were, as horrific as it is is good news for other european countries because it shows that the russian threat is not as big and bad as we thought it was a year ago. it is not something that will make you sleep well at night, the balance of power broadly favors european countries over russia. the u.s. does not need to do more than europe because it shows that we can do less, as upset as we might be about the war. host: d feel like you have something to say? guest: i wanted to say one more thing. based on a horrible false assumption on the russian military leadership, making the

decision, they have well over 80% of their combat forces available and operating inside ukraine. there is still a lot of fight left inside ukraine, so we are not out of the woods yet. i would not be too quick to say we can reassess the balance just yet. there is a lot of fighting to be done in ukraine. host: we will start with connie. good morning. caller: hello and thank you for letting me speak this morning. do you think that the election of 2020 was agenda met? that would tell me why you are criticizing president biden right off the bat. both of you can -- both of you

gentlemen, i do not think are supporting our president. it is a problem with our strength and projecting our strength because if you are undermining because you do not believe in the last election. guest: i disagree. i'm sorry if that is what you got from my comments. the first thing is to make sure that american citizens are safe and protected. it includes following orders of our commander-in-chief. i hope he has all the guidance and is being well advised. at the same time, it is important to give constructive criticism early. that is my concern. i was outspoken earlier that we could have avoided the situation in ukraine. i'm not sure i see the

connection with the elections in 2020. i think those investigations. i think we have a president who was duly elected. there is a legal process that should play out. that is what makes our democracy so strong. host: every time the u.s. is involved -- guest: every time the u.s. is involved in a war, there tends to be, particularly in a big war like this, an outbreak of emotion, which is natural, but then there is a tendency to limit speech, where people say, you need to support the commander-in-chief and the president. there is a sort of idea that patriotism requires everyone to shut up and go along with

whatever it is the president is doing. i think that is wrong and it has always been wrong. the idea that we should quiet our criticism -- whoever the president is, we have come as citizens and analysts, not just a right at a responsibility to be critical or at least ink critically and ask questions about what the policies are. it is foolish to say that we should be supportive host:. so -- supportive. host: so both of you disagree. guest: i think american politics saturates every decision that you make. politics is part of a democratic

society. hopefully through that contested policy, you get to the best outcome. it is usually ugly, sloppy and slow. i embrace that chaos a little bit. politics is part of a democratic society and its century everything that we do, sometimes not very elegantly. guest: we want to have politics about everything, particularly foreign policy, so i never understood the idea that it should end at the waters edge. it never has. but politics, by design, it infuses our foreign policy. a dictatorship would be worse.

guest: if i could add one quick thing. president obama said elections have consequences. the american voter is empowered. each individual is at the top of political power in the country. they may not always feel like that, but every man -- vote matters. they do not get most of the plates influence our presidential or local election, as it should. the country is being impacted. host: let' s go back to the land lines. landon, good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to say that we belong to nato and if you belong to nato and support organization

, nato has to provide the protection of their members. the other thing is, it is hard to understand the russians because one comment as one question. do you remember charlie wilson? the russians tried to go into afghanistan with tanks and all kinds of motorized equipment. we ended up in the war that the afghans definitely had them covered. thank you. host: who wants to tackle that one first? guest: it took us 20 years to figure out we cannot beat the

afghans either. the offensive wars are extremely difficult. even a much more professional, impressive military like ours, which struggle to conquer another country -- we see various countries, various problems and the aftermath, but we see the proliferation intentionally of antitank weapons and other capabilities, that make it even harder to invade countries. there are these inherent advantages in terms of the morale of the fighting force with the ukrainians and their ability to generate outside support. we have given over $5 million since 2014 two ukraine and

support. we gave them another billion dollars of arms that will be there soon. the fact that there is a sympathetic party and a victim is a big advantage to them, in the way that this war is played out. host: go ahead and jump in. guest: i apologize his name. we learned time and time again, but with disastrous effects in the 2000s in afghanistan, in most cases, there was a defensive nature. you are responding to threats to the homeland, but there is a key lesson that we keep we learning. you have to understand the psychology of your adversary and competitor. vladimir putin and president

jinping. it is driving this countries to make the decisions that they do, very smart, very deliberate about how they go about acting. people he needed to have a much better understanding, and this is a bipartisan problem. it is shared across the board. they tend to look at things from our own list. we have to be smarter. the world is much more contested. they are not the uncontested superpower that they were years ago. we have to be smarter about how we employ our national wealth and power. i would just leave it at that. host: he brought up earlier that

congress has approved for the -- the war in ukraine. congress passed an increase of nearly 6% in defense spending. it is a total that is expected to keep rising, despite president biden's withdrawal. it is the u.s. government defense budget to big? what do you think? guest: no. i went back and did the math. i am old enough to remember the cold war and living in asia at the time. we were cashing in on what was called peace dividends. it worked towards defense. it was actually time to apply it to other things.

so we had been taking out of this bank account. we have cut five to much. if you are simply to look at navy, the navy budget, they only went to 1989 to today at the actual inflation rate, you would be spending $45 billion more than what the budget was last year. that's if you cap moving at the same speed. now we have china and an aggressive modernized russia, but the threads are driving us to spend more. the chief operations and to secretaries have said we need to spend 5% to 3% above in order to recover an acceptable level of naval deterrence across the world. that would be very important with china.

especially in a two -- taiwan situation, which would be very dangerous. we have matching inflation, hopefully with the next budget but we are not growing and recovering what we have lost. host: is our defense budget to vague? guest: it is way too vague. you have to spend a lot more money to deter them, but we are pretty safe in the u.s. with way less military commitments. we could have a much smaller military budget. we'll spend $813 billion as the proposed budget for 2023 and 2022. it is far too much. there was no peace dividend because a lot of money is already adjusting for inflation. it is higher than the 2016

defense budget, which was a lot higher than what we spent in the cold war. as long as the economy is growing, if you are spending a steady portion of the economy on defense, it is growing a lot. we now spend more, adjusting for inflation, then we did at the height of the cold war. we have more purchasing power in the defense budget that we did in the cold war, and that is utterly inappropriate, a misuse of resources, given that we are not in the cold war, as much as we are concerned about russia and china. it is not necessary for us to behave as if we are. we can behave in much better ways. guest: can i respond? i disagree with some of what was said, certainly on the first in

power aspect. there have been numerous studies, going back a couple hundred years. the most important ones were looking at defense spending. it is not as long, if you are not overwhelming supplies for demand-side. inflation actually drives higher defense spending because your dollar does not go as far. this is why a defense budget is so important because as long as you are less than that, you are shrinking the military, despite what growth and gdp there might be. we have not spent anywhere near historical norms during a time when we had significant growth in our economy. up to about 6%, so the record is

that we have room to grow without concerns of inflation driven by bad policy, but i would say we have to be coming back and be smart about what you have and what you will invest in. in my mind, that is in the eastern mediterranean south see. those are the places where our adversaries are placing a lot of strategic vents. i would say you cannot be everywhere, but be in those two places first. again, that would have a much higher deterrent value, a higher return on the dollars spent. china has definitely got a vote in this. they have been spending double digits. a have grown. it is double digits for quite a long time. if you look at the annual report on the defense.

they are actually expanding in places in africa for a potential base that is close to some sensitive missile testing ranges. it has come to light that they are looking at a base in the solomon islands that scares australia. it sits astride a lot of their key shipping. they talk about inciting a response from the one country from the other. china is definitely inciting a response by its actions. it is better to get ahead of this wave of the chinese pushing forward and shaping it anyway that is positive and not a cold war redo. host: let's talk to can, calling from north carolina on the independent line. caller: good morning. first of all, you guys on washington journal really do a great job of trying to be fair to all parts.

i want to say that first of all. second, i just do not understand why people keep saying that the president is weak. the man is doing as much as he can. world war ii took four years from 1941 to 1945. this man has been doing his best for four weeks. he has had to work with several companies to try to get them to go with the boycott or whatever we call -- i cannot think of the name of it. we are resisting, giving them -- i cannot think of it. exactly. sanctions. the president does not sanction

another country. we have to get our own companies to join in on sanctions. what do we want this man to do? he is just one man. he can only do but so much. it takes several people, the congress, country, service -- it takes a lot of people. you cannot just blame one person. that is all i had to say. thank you. host: what should president biden be doing right now? guest: there is a view that the u.s. should have bluffed better. many believe that the u.s. should fight on the behalf of ukraine, but many say that we took that off the table and it was a mistake. i think that is wrong. it is wrong because it was impossible for the u.s. to make

a credible threat that we would fight for ukraine because everybody knows that there is no basis of support because adding into a war with russia, because it was not credible. nobody would have believed him. i think even if ukraine were in nato. i agree with the caller that biden has been doing a lot, as much as you can expect. we have sanctioned russia more heavily than expected. they sell most of their energy to europe and it surprised me, given the high gasoline prices and the likelihood that -- it has been a robust u.s. response, and one thing that we should do

is help ukrainians find a way to settle the war on decent terms. it is up to ukraine on how they settle the war with russia, but what we can do is to be clear that we will remove the sanctions on russia, in the event that the war in -- ends. we know between the u.s., nato and russia, we want to be neutral because we know that is what it will take to stay that way. there are a lot of people who want to push ukraine into nato and do not want ukraine to settle. i think -- i hope that the president will not be one of those people and that he will support a settlement of this war, even if it is unpleasant because it is not everything

that ukraine would want. we in the u.s. should be supportive, where we can. guest: my criticism would be even more harsh than the president being weak. the president is just the president, but he represents an entire people. there are hundreds of thousands of government employees taking their guidance and leadership from the elected administration in power right now. it is one individual but a very powerful and influential one making millions of decisions every day. then, there are those that are our allies, who look and hang on every word that our president says. i said earlier in the speeches and messages that they were

confusing. i would say it is not just weakness, but misguided policies that he has made. the war in the ukraine did not start on the 24th of february. it actually starts about a year ago, when putin started to do exercises. he demonstrated and exercised one of the largest amphibious demonstrations in crimea. much of those forces came out of the caspian sea and started moving from other parts of the world, started amassing his military everything that he would need to launch the invasion. drought that time, there has not been any private movement. if you look at it and track, you do not see a public affairs announcement of it. but there has not been any

change of this position in europe to signal that we were aware or that we were going to bolster nato's eastern front. the signals he was sending from a year ago, we are just going to ignore what was going to happen there. then, as you fast-forward to the month before the invasion, you had statements that sanctions would deter, but would not be implemented until there was the invasion. then there was the unfortunate press brief where a little incursion would not elicit as much of a reaction as a big one. it needed to be more clear and explicit. diplomacy only works when you have a military behind it. diplomacy only works when you are clear and explicit in your

language. we have not been executing that very well. host: let's talk to mark on the democrat line. good morning. caller: good morning and thank you for washington journal and c-span. you are listening to all these other conversations and it gets you going from one direction to the other. maybe you want to change your thoughts, but i thought the main thing, after listening to these guys is, when you have a panel like this, i like to see. you will get different views, but i think washington journal needs to do a little bit better research on these things because everybody in the world knows

that every foundation is run by those remaining. people expect to hear from them. guess who started and funded the defense parties foundation. there are different things. they still sound the same, as far as that. here is the real kicker. i spoke to these guys. how did they feel about cox industries? right now, there is a big to do. they are staying in russia and backing groups opposing u.s. sanctions. you know, i am almost left speechless here.

they were really just attacking president biden before i got through here. he has wiped it off now, but has anybody else realized that he has been sweaty during this entire thing? host: we will cut him off right there. i will rephrase this question. what do you think of american companies that continue to operate in russia right now, despite sanctions being called for by the u.s. and nato? guest: it is up to companies what they want to do in russia, insofar as they are complying with the law. if they are breaking the law, they should not do that, but we have sanctions. that is our policy. they should not violate that. if they want to do business in russia and take the risk of

being boycotted or punished by consumers, they are right. what i would say in response to the caller is, you can look at everything i have ever written about defense spending and u.s. foreign policy. it is almost entirely opposed to what the heritage foundation would say. i have advocated a realism and restraint for a more peaceful foreign policy. there is a pretty big difference between the size here and i think my opinions on this are not drawn from priorities, but my own experience on the subject. i think that brent is wrong and that joe biden did not do anything in terms of being overly weak to provoke this attack on ukraine. in fact, the u.s. was doing

military exercises that were upsetting and arguably frightening to russia in the run-up to this war. we increased the pace and size of military exercises with ukraine, which was not great in terms of the way the russians thought about ukraine. we signed a cooperation agreement in 2021 with ukraine that said that ukraine still might eventually join nato, which i think was terrible. bill burns is head of the cia and he said the brightest of all red lines is ukraine joining nato. you can say that it is unjust. you can say it is immoral for the russians to be angered and violent towards that outcome, but you cannot say that it surprises you.

the russians have been pretty clear about the idea of ukraine joining nato. i think that we have to be clearheaded and practical about it. let's not do things, even if they feel good morally, that will make everything worse. saying we might put ukraine and nato, but not actually defending it. i think that was a disastrous policy that the u.s. had and one that i would be highly critical of this administration, the last administration and the obama administration, all the way back, setting this up, holding the door open to ukraine. guest: i will defend myself. you can access everything that i have written, at least since i left the military over a year and a half ago. definitely not partisan. conservative, but i tend to want to find the facts and i will go

where the facts lead me. no matter who is paying my check. i have never unconstrained by where those facts lead me or what my position is. that is a good thing, to challenge assumptions, wherever they are. you should always be updating and challenging assumptions. i welcome discourse and debate from those who do not agree with me. so, on that point, as far as i have to defend heritage foundation as well, the vast majority of the money that comes to heritage is from small donations. the cook brothers have a long history. heritage is much more diverse and it does not take any government funding or funding from any defense industry with strings attached. that is heritage. as far as the point, you need to

understand your competitors better. the reasons we have bad policies being taken by the administration, he is the one responsible, but you need to understand. you have to guard against constructs on to someone. we need to do a better job of that. when i say we need more defense spending, it comes with a deeper appreciation of how to do it in the smartest way. we did not understand russia, we have not understood them since 2014. we did not understand them in georgia and we still do not have an appreciation. from this point forward, the dynamic is very different from

when this invasion started. the worldview is shaken to its core. they are not going to go back to where they were before. not in this lifetime, likely. far too many people have died and there has been far too much damage and destruction. there is new -- there is a new era that we have to prepare for and embrace. host: let's talk to john, calling from the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. i was just wondering what you thought about the comments that joe made the other day, talking about this threat of stepping foot on nato territory and telling people he is a butcher. i really do not think, if you

are trying to end things peacefully -- i know putin -- we were just discussing about three weeks ago that he may -- his mental capacity, but it is smart to be doing this, -- i do not know if it is smart to be doing this, challenging this man. i just do not understand how people cannot see things in front of their face. the one gentleman, you take him outside and say, what do you see in the sky? well, that is the moon. i do not get it. if donald trump was in office, not only with the republicans be asking for chapter 25 or whatever of competency, but even the republicans would be asking, like kinsinger and murkowski, collins and cheney. i do not get it.

host: go ahead and jump in. guest: i have to say that the russia expert should have taken a harder look at those speeches and had a much longer sit down with the president. these are things that i used to do with senior leadership before i left government when it came to china, more specifically. i do not think the preparation period was adequate. they may want to we double their efforts. the speech, the words and his body language, the whole package is a complete misreading to hell putin would respond. there is a story about his childhood that when he is cornered, he will fight. like a rat. i think he is feeling cornered. it does not necessarily mean that we should change what we are doing, bolstering nato, but

it certainly should animate the way that we execute diplomatically, those moves. guest: when you advocate regime change in russia, i think you make everything worse, certainly in terms of the war. you give putin the idea that no matter what they do in terms of trying to get a settlement with ukraine that the u.s. will continue to sanction russia heavily and will continue -- maybe they are paranoid, but they are not completely wrong. democratizing russia and having a different government there, i think even if you think that would be great, i think it would be great if they had a properly democratic government, but even if you think that, saying it all the time makes the war harder to

end. we are making it harder to end the war, if we give russia the idea that nothing they can do will get us off of our regime change policies. i said earlier, if you advocate regime change, you make it harder for whoever might want to do that, to succeed because the idea that the u.s. is behind every revolution and every movement towards democracy advocating free speech and assembly and russia is incredibly harmful. we need to be in favor of a democratic government, but the president saying that is enormously harmful and it is a problem that happens a lot in u.s. foreign policy, where we cannot stop ourselves from saying that we want to revolutionize the government of all these countries, like china, which makes our relationship worse with them.

host: don't we gain in countries like russia and china? isn't president biden saying it out loud? guest: he is the president of the u.s., not just some guy on the streets pressing his moral convictions. you need to think about what kind of effect that is going to have. to me, it has a negative one. a regime change in russia commodes would be a good thing from my perspective as a person who believes in liberal values, but it may not be. it might make things worse. the people who can overthrow vladimir putin are probably in the security forces, and the intelligence agc of russia. they are not necessarily sweethearts or great liberals. if you do not think this could get worse, you do not know much about russian history.

we should not be signing up for regime change as the best policy. even think tank analysts should be careful about what we say out loud. host: i we just sang the pie part out loud? guest: i think during president joe biden' hospital career come -- political career, he has a history of doing that. what he says and does, people hang on every letter of every word and every punctuation that he says. it has significant consequences and political decisions, even military done all over the world. consequences are truly high with what he does. i would lead with a short leave -- euphemism of be careful what you wish for because you just might get it.

it is not something that we should be pushing for. we do not have a good track record of trying to dig a what government a country should have. it is for the people to decide. when we are most aggressive in that country to figure out what works best for them. it is how germany and japan work. movements that existed before they went to a totalitarian. you have to work with what you have and allow the people to come to their own conclusions. there were a lot of russians, for a long time, who did not like vladimir putin. host: let's get a quick question from albert, calling from north carolina on the independent line. can you give a quick question or comment? caller: yes. how does nato affect american

policy -- how does ukraine affect america? how does it affect our gas prices? why doesn't europe spend more supporting defense funding to protect themselves? host: we will start with brett. guest: for much of the cold war, russia was not a threat. that was a reason for so that's the short answer why they didn't and every country is different with a mosaic of different domestic politics, as far as ukraine and the war affecting gas prices, ben can probably give more color to this than i but there's an element of speculation that goes with this that prices will shoot up right away because of unavailability. we do import or have imported upwards of 7% to 8% of oil for russia so that does come at a

added cost and there is that but the rising prices in gas, you'll have to hit a pause to look at it from two different time periods. there's the day before the invasion, prices were already doubling and on the way to continue and then the acceleration of higher prices the day after putin invaded ukraine. it's additive but other fundamentals causing gas prices to go up. host: neither ukraine or the war in it has much effect on the u.s. economy. it's not strategically important in that sense. what does have an affect on the u.s. economy is our reaction to the war, our sanctions and in the long term our decreased defense spending which adds to the deficit. i think with the other part of the question the answer is why is -- why don't europeans spend more? one, the russian threat is not that big but now it seems bigger but the other answer is because the united states does it for them. we want them to spend more, we have to do less and probably

they'll do more and probably coordinate more among themselves and have more coherent defense policies as well as more expensive ones. guest: we'd like to thank the heritage foundation brent sad letter and ben friedman of defense priorities for being with us this morning and discussing russia's invasion of ukraine and debate over expense spending. thanks gentlemen so much. coming up next we'll move to our open forum where you our viewers can call in and talk about your most important political issue. you see the numbers on screen and later after that we'll be joined by spirit of america founder and c.e.o. jim hake who will be here to talk about the work his group is doing to support ukraine's military. stick with us. we'll be right back. >> at age 16, john enlists the

army in a enlisted man and then for the next five years served on duty for the air force and after his wartime was finished he got a masters at the university of california and then at age 33 received his p.h.d. from cornell in 1980. during his 40 years in the political science department at the university of chicago, he has not avoided controversy. a recent example is the headline in the march 1 issue of the new yorker magazine which reads, quote, why john blames the u.s. for the crisis in ukraine, unquote. we ask him to explain. >> john shmeirsheimer on booknotes plus.

there are a lot of places to get political information but only at c-span do you get it straight from the source. no matter where you're from or where you stand on the issues, c-span is america's network. unfiltered, unbiased word for word, as it happens here or here or here or anywhere that matters, america is watching on c-span powered by cable. >> "washington journal" continues. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2021] host: we're talking about what you think are the most hot political issues. we'll open the lines. republicans 202-748-8001 and

independents 202-748-8002 and text us at 7488003 and we're reading on facebook.com/c-span and talk 20 chip from trinidad, colorado, on the c-span line. caller: thanks for letting me on. i just want to say i think everybody on both sides agrees these days we are really torn apart in this country. and to me one of the main things is some people, and i'm referring specifically to shawn hannity make a living as being as hateful and rude and cruel and mocking the other side as they possibly can, and the people don't know, shawn hannity, ever since president biden was sworn in he has a segment on his radio show