all starts with great internet. wow. >> wow supports c-span as a public service. giving you a front row seat to democracy. ♪ >> c-span's washington journal, everyday we are taking your calls live on the air on the news of the day and we will discuss issues that impact to, coming up sunday morning, the investigation -- editorial director and publisher of the nation talks about the biden presidency, and political news of the day. watch washington journal live at seven eastern -- 7:00 eastern. on c-span now are free mobile video app. join the conversation with your text messages, calls and tweets.

>> welcome back. we are here with virologist, andrew pekosz. we are splitting up our phone lines by region this time. if you are a medical professional, we have a special line for you. andrew, i want to start with that new covid-19 booster shot. what do we know about it, what's happening? the most important thing is it something we are calling a biva. we are using two different forms of sars cov-2. it tries to

get your immune system to recognize the two strains of the virus going around right now as well as strengthen the previous vaccine. host: who is eligible for this? can everyone go out and get this? guest: everyone 12 and above. any adults irrespective of medical conditions. the recommendation is everyone above the age of 12 get out and get this booster in the fall. it should be available in the next week or so. host: the old booster shot, what if you got that one or got it recently, should you get this one right away? is there a waiting. ? guest: they suggest waiting two

months after your booster before taking this bivalent booster. it can be up to six months afterwards. it is good to space out between those vaccine doses. this will take place of all the other boosters. you should be able to get it anytime this fall. host: is this really going to work with all these new variants? guest: it is hard to predict efficacy but we know that in june, the fda made the recommendation that this particular form of omicron ba.2. 5. as part of this vaccine. we have the right vaccine component to match the circulating virus. this will be our best shot at having the highest amount of

protection in the population. host: the recommendation is also for a flu shot this fall. flu season is going to be upon us pretty soon. is there a recommendation as to -- can you get the flu shot at the same time? guest: there is nothing from keeping you from getting the flu shot and the covid vaccine at the same time. if you have the ability to take both of those vaccines i think it is a good idea. we know from the flu season that happened in australia that flu was very strong down there throughout the winter with a high number of cases, particularly in younger individuals. we expect to see something similar here. when that overlaps with the covid-19 surge we have this problem with a lot of people feeling respiratory symptoms

and we have an issue diagnosing them correctly. host: what do we know about how long immunity lasts? not just from that but from an infection? how long are you protected? guest: the vaccine induces really good responses for about six weeks afterwards and then they reduce over time. similar things are seen with infection. it is important to know that is one part of the immune response is that immediate protection you get. this booster will boost memory responses. that means your body will remember this vaccine and respond to it faster if you get affected in the future. the most important part of this booster to understand is the

immediate protection but it it will also give stronger protection because it is boosting your memory responses. host: let's take some calls from our listeners. our first one is marianne in minnesota who is a medical professional. caller: i am calling to ask the person speaking why they are recommending a booster shot that has only been tested on eight mice and not humans. guest: this vaccine has been tested on more than eight mice. we are relying on the history of these mrna vaccines and their safety profiles. there was a clinical trial done with the related form of omicron

ba.1 and it showed broader protection against omicron and the strengthening of the responses to the vaccine. we do this often. once we know a vaccine is safe, when it comes to a slight change in the sequence of the virus that we are using in it, we tried to jump ahead so that we are keeping up with the virus and not behind with the virus is doing. host: there is a tweet from jj about testing, where can the public find manufacturer and cdc verified independent safety data and adverse events on each version of the vaccines i have heard the testing is been minimal? guest: the testing information is on the national registry, the national vaccine adverse registry page.

you can go there and see all of the information. it is there unobstructed and without any bias. the companies are constantly reporting back to the fda on adverse effects from the clinical trials, the entire set of data from ba.1 bivalent vaccine is available on the fda's website and all the companies are currently continuing to monitor the efficacy and safety of the vaccine. this is not being rolled out without keeping our guard up and monitoring these types of things. this should all be available through the fda's website. the pharmaceutical company should be reporting back to the fda on these things continuously. host: let's talk to lester from

sandy, oregon. caller: good morning, how are you? host: good, thanks. caller: my concern is that i have an immune deficiency and my concern is that the people who are making drugs are not telling people that you have to be careful because your immune system. my doctor says, you should have a shot. i have had it twice. the first time, i did not even have the shot, i got it in january when it first came out. my wife had it, my son. we never had the shot. nobody knew it was. the problem is, i think one shot

is enough. at the same time, you have to watch the safety of the immune and those people who have immune deficiency. host: let's get a response. guest: you hit on an important point. there are segments of the population that are vulnerable to severe covid. immuno compromised as one of them, individuals over 65 and with other medical conditions. those same populations do respond differently to the vaccine and so, there is the recommendation that the fda has for the general population,

people with specialized conditions should seek out information from their medical providers how they should take the vaccines depending on their immuno responses. you may need additional care, pay attention to infection. it is important to reach out to your health care provider if you are in one of these high-risk groups to get more specific advice on how to deal with rooster vaccines. host: here is a tweet from lizzie. what is circulating right now is nothing but a cold, why push for more and more boosters? guest: omicron is not just a cold. we have 400 people a day dying

from covid-19. we don't see that with things like the common cold. we rarely see that with influenza. covid-19 is still a big risk to the population. what you are saying is that more and more people are suffering milder infection because we have had vaccines out there. we have antivirals to treat people and help them not have severe infections that are associated with infections just a year or a year and a half ago. milder cases are a result of the public health interventions that have taken place. that does not mean we have to forget about covid-19. we have to keep up with these measures so we can maintain that level of protection the population.

host: i wanted to ask you, 67% of the country is vaccinated. only 33% have gotten a booster shot. is this idea of herd immunity out the window? guest: when omicron came through it changed the game when looking for herd immunity which is where infections are limited because enough of the population has strong immunity to prevent infections. right now, the focus is on severe illness and limiting that. these boosters are going to have an impact on infections as well. it may not be as great as the 90% we saw initially but omicron is a very different virus than we initially saw at the beginning of the pandemic. expectations have to be realistic but this vaccine has

the potential to reduce cases as well as severe cases and therefore it is moving in that area of a vaccine that people really want. caller: let's speak to ken in oregon. i am an anti-serb. vaxxer. i spent time in the military during the cold war. i went to vietnam a couple of times. during the cold war, i had a top-secret clearance and i read about the files of the thousands of army guys that died from taking experimental vaccines. the vaccine itself is more dangerous than covid. as far as i'm concerned.

i would rather be in a room of people that have covid then take a shot for it. there was a big government cover up going on right now, thousands of people are dying from the shots they are taking. host: let's get a response. guest: think you for your service. i can't speak to your experiences in the military. i can't speak to the covid-19 vaccines. i have spent a lot of my time going through the information out there. some of it is high quality, some of it is not. what i can clearly say is that the vaccines are safe.

thousands of people are not dying from the vaccine. it is true that hundreds of people a day or dying from the infection. if you look at the people who are suffering the most severe disease right now, they are people who are unvaccinated. infection alone is showing not to be as good at protecting from reinfection as vaccination. vaccines are our way out of this pandemic. they are safe and can be used to help us get back to a more normal society that we had pre-pandemic. host: benny is next in stockton, california. caller: good morning. i would like to say that i trust science. i have had my booster shots and i had my shots.

but i also had covid back in march. i did not have any effects, i did not even have to go to the doctor because i had my booster shot. i see that there is a new booster out, how do i go about getting it? do i go to the pharmacist like i got my booster shots? what do i do? and i do trust science and i feel sorry for that gentleman that spoke a few minutes ago. there is nothing wrong with it. i have lost friends. my ex-wife passed because she did not get the shots. she developed pneumonia and she died. lets everyone get the shots. we can get rid of this virus. thank you very much. host: what do you think andrew?

guest: if you have had an infection, you should count that as an explosion to the virus. if you have had one recently, you should count that as a booster. they will be available at pharmacies across the country. there will be no charge for the vaccination. everything about this booster will be exactly the same in terms of availability and lack of having to pay for it. host: the news came out that the free covid-19 test program halted yesterday. that was due to a lack of funding.

the idea of getting free testing kits from the government is over for now. what are your thoughts on that? guest: this is where the economy and budget constraints come into play when it comes to our ability to control this pandemic. it is clear that vaccines, testing and antivirals are the tools that we need to be able to keep down severe cases limit the spread of this virus. what we are starting to see now is that the government has paid for all of these things. we are starting to see that some of this will not be paid by the government and it is important to understand how we will transition to some individuals will have to pay for a portion of the cost for tests and vaccines and antivirals. it does not diminish the fact that these are the things we need to keep combating the

pandemic. it means that it will be more difficult for us to roll this out efficiently if we ask people to pay for these things when they have not done so previously. host: don from ohio. caller: this new virus, will it be another trial? if somebody dies from it we will not be allowed to sue pfizer? host: what is your other question? caller: we had a meeting and we looked at it this way, if fauci they make immigrants take it coming across, how can they tell us to take it? they have to explain to us before they make us take it. guest: if you have adverse side

effects, there are ways to report that. you will get that information with the booster when you take it. to the second point, no one is forcing people to take it. this is a voluntary program in the united states. i do feel that the benefits of vaccination are quite clear. whether you come from a small town or a large town, covid-19 does not care. if it comes in there, people will get sake and people will get severely ill. the vaccine is safe, there is a lot of data out there on it. we will continue monitoring vaccine safety. host: kimberly is next in live oak, florida. hi kimberly.

kimberly, we lost kimberly. let's try rick from texas. caller: hello? i guess i had a different experience. when it first came out, i did not know what it was. it was like having a bad cold for a week. i am 70 now, i was 68 at the time. the doctor wanted to give me a vaccine and i said i had this little cold at the beginning of the year. and i said i want to check to see if i have anybody's. she checked, i had anybody's. i gave them a steroid tack and antibodies.

to make a long story short, over the next two years i got tested for anybody's, i had them for two years and i guess it wore out because when omicron came through i got it. i called my doctor and i said, do i need to get this medicine. and she says, what are your symptoms? and she goes, just take ibuprofen, drink water and stay in bed. like i said, it only lasted three days. i went on the cdc website and started doing research, if you follow the science, if you have no underlying conditions you don't have to take the shot. my daughter is a nurse and i have relatives that are doctors and none of them got vaccinated.

my daughter was on the front lines before they had the vaccines. they were treating people with hydrochloric quinine. lucky for us, and my area, and my county, doctors kept prescribing that. host: there is a lot there, let's talk to andrew about some of those treatments. guest: obviously, i can't give out medical advice. hydroxychloroquine out there. when you look at the good data out there, it does nothing to prevent infection with sars covid two or prevent symptoms. that is very clear from the data out there. this is multiple studies from

across the world. as an individual that is 70 years old, the recommendation for you when it comes to antiviral treatments is that you should get it within five days of coming down with symptoms. anyone over the age of 65 if they have a covid positive test, they should seek out the antiviral medication it is clear that medication is preventing severe disease in those populations. the vaccine is recommended for anyone ages 12 and over. anyone who is eligible for the vaccine should get it. there is a small risk of counter -- medical conditions that would

cause you not to get the vaccine but most people should be able to get it. host: let's talk to mary who is a medical professional and arlington, virginia. caller: i have several questions, how many people were involved in these trials for the bivalent vaccine? do you happen to know how many people who are dying of covid are unvaccinated, vaccinated or this is their second case of covid? guest: in people who are dying from covid-19 the risk of dying is five to eight fold higher if you are unvaccinated as opposed to being vaccinated. with respect to your other comments about the trial, i

don't remember the precise number but there were 300 individuals in the bivalent vaccine testing that went on with the ba.1 component. their endpoints were just antibody levels but those individuals are still being followed so you can get a true sense of vaccine efficacy to see how it protects from infection and severe disease. those people are being followed but i have not seen official numbers on what those efficacy rates are yet. host: i want to ask you about what is happening at the cdc. here is the new york times headlines, wolinsky calls for reorganization. she delivered a sweeping rebuke

of her agency's handling of the coronavirus pandemic saying it failed to respond quickly enough and needed to be overhauled. to be frank, we are responsible for some pretty dramatic mistakes from testing, communication and data. guest: i think the cdc response could have been better. as much as we prepare for a pandemic, there are so many variables that happen during a pandemic that we have to respond to quickly. i do feel that the cdc's communication and messaging could have been much more directed and clear. people were relying on a lot of different sources for their medical advice and it is always easier when you have one common source that you can use for that. going through a pandemic, the

response could have been better than anything we do now to reassess what we did right, wrong and to change those in preparation for the next outbreak is good. i hope this results in more systemic changes that will make the response better. host: angela is next in indianapolis, indiana. caller: thank you for taking my call. i just had a comment. the vaccines themselves, it should be clearly understood that no vaccine prevents you from contracting any kind of virus whether it is blue or covid. it is not 100% effective. it will not stop you from getting it. the severity of a person getting

it depends on each individual person and their immune system. no two people are alike in regards to their health. i am 61 years old and i have been exposed to covid multiple times and have never contracted it, even to present day. and i am not vaccinated i had some other health issues. i would like to see a panel, and speak about long-term covid and the suffering and the symptoms that people that do come down with covid and now have to live

with the long-term effects that have drastically change their lifestyle and the fact the help that they need to now live with something that has drastically change their way of living their health and all of that. and what resources are out there to help those individuals. i know people, loved ones. my grandchildren have contracted covid. guest: we will start with long covid. it is an important issue in this country because millions of people are suffering these long-term effects after covid infection. there is data suggesting that if you are vaccinated you have a lower rate of acquiring long covid but it is not perfect

vaccines are not a hundred percent but they do provide some level of protection against long covid. i think the other point that is important to highlight is, people are different and what is important to understand going forward is to years ago no one had covid and then people started to get infection or vaccination but now people have wide exposures to vaccines and infections. there is a wide variety of exposures that people have had and that is going to make it more difficult for us to, with comments about vaccine efficacy. we need to continue to do research to make sure the vast majority of people are responding to the right way to vaccines.

host: we have a text from j three sf. what is the possibility of new covid strains this winter? guest: right now, it looks like we are seeing some versions of omicron that are emerging. these are the things that viruses do. they mutate, they change. we tried to assess those changes and things that are affecting what the virus does. right now, there is not anything on the horizon that looks like a major change. there are a lot of small changes

occurring in omicron that we are monitoring. so that we can adjust our approach to covid-19 and control it porting lee. host: joe is next in ohio. caller: good morning how are y'all doing today? i have a couple of comments about what you said but i would like to preface by saying that i had the three shots. the original two plus the booster and i also got covid. so i had the anti-bodies. my first comment is the rna the technique the shot is based on his experimental and when he says that there has been no adverse reactions how does he explain the people that have

been reported to have died from heart attacks and heart problems after getting the shot number two he said no one is forced to take the shot how to see explain the 60,000 u.s. military people that were just fired because they did not want to take the shot and there was a third one that hopefully i will remember. you can go ahead and explain that. guest: starting with that last point. the general recommendation is that the vaccine was not mandated for the population. there may be certain portions of the population but they are not required of everyone in the population. when it comes to safety i don't believe i have ever said there are no adverse effects. it is quite clear that some people are suffering some side

effects and most of those are minor. those kind of effects are common with this vaccine and they are common with many vaccines that people take in the technology has been around for 15 years we have two years of experience in terms of using them for covid-19 vaccines and their is a strong safety record there as long as a strong efficacy record there. we do know a lot about these vaccines and their safety profiles and their efficacy. host: let's go to union, new york. i've got covid now. i thought i was getting better but last night i couldn't sleep

very well because i was coughing and i have had the symptoms for the past couple of days. i had beaver, throwing out is a new one today. my sister gave it to me. she was at a reunion from people all over the united states. you still have to be careful if you are around a lot of people. i got it. she had two boosters plus the two regular. she is doing much better than i am she is six years older than me she lives right across the street i would suggest if people can get the boosters and the vaccine that they do it because the side effects from a shot is much less problematic than getting covid itself. i don't have an appetite.

host: i hope you feel better soon. guest: what the caller described as a common scenario. people who are fully vaccinated still get infected and they can last for several days. everything the caller talked about is what you hear about a lot these days. host: jacob is in florida. caller: i have a few comments and questions. question number one, [inaudible] we have those two questions.

host: sorry we are having trouble making out what you are saying? caller: can you see god? and can you see the virus with the naked eye? guest: you can't see the virus with the naked eye, you can't see it with most microscopic. we followed the virus because we know that when we expose cells to it though cells die very quickly afterwards. if you look online there are beautiful pictures you can see pictures. host: victor is next from alabama. caller: good morning.

guest: good morning. caller: i have a question. my sister is over there, how are you doing? host: victor, you have to mute your tv and just talk into your phone. caller: she is in the hospital. she is in the hospital. and she got covid. but i want to go see her but is there a chance that i can get it? i have my booster and all that, but she had hers? guest: usually, in a hospital setting if someone is covid-19

positive they are restricted in terms of their contact with people. there are some hospitals that have rooms that allow you to see through a glass pane or something. often times, and a hospital setting it is difficult to go see someone who is covid-19 possible because of the risk of transmitting it to visitors. host: betty is calling us from jackson, louisiana. good morning. caller: good morning, i am 78. i got the two shots, i did not get the booster. i have had omicron. i was not very sick. i am worried. i have grandchildren. in all of my years, i have never seen the medical community act the way it is acted with this. the way they were nixing some

drugs and promoting others. you said people were not forced to take it, yes they were. they were threatened with the loss of their job. that to me is unconscionable. they are pushing the vaccine to young children. young children are the least ones that have had any problems whatsoever. that shot can be dangerous. young men have gotten myocardial trouble. these children are not at risk. why are they pushing a vaccine onto these children when it is not necessary at all? host: let's get a response. guest: just to be clear, the

government is not mandating this vaccine. it is sometimes the case that some businesses and organizations asked for that, but i am talking about government mandates. there is no government mandate to have everyone vaccinated. when it comes to children, they are an important population to get vaccinated for a couple of reasons. their rate of severe covid is lower on an average basis but more kids are getting covid than the adult population. the general risk in those kids is high of some sort of adverse effects when you compare to the vaccine, those risks of covid are higher than the vaccination. everybody is careful about pediatric populations. that is why the vaccines for those under 12 were so late coming out because they wanted

to make sure that the safety signature and the benefit/risk ratio were clearly documented, and they are. another thing to think about in terms of kids, children are one of the prime ways covid is introduced into households. vaccinating kids has a tendency to reduce transmission to adults and particularly adults that have medical conditions that make them more vulnerable to disease. protecting kids is important. covid is a risk to kids and vaccines are less of a risk than covid. host: jim is our last call from chicago, illinois. caller: i have two quick questions. i read two articles that there are two groups of universities

that includes uc berkeley and northwestern that are working on a nasal spray that is supposed to be available in 1.5 years that will be a game changer. can he speak to that at all? in the second question is, this current booster, how long is it supposed to last once we take it? thank you. guest: the second question is, you should have strong immune responses for six weeks to up to three months and then it will start to wane after that. the nasal vaccine comment is a great comment. right now, our vaccines generate immunity in the blood and we are asking those antibodies to go into your nasal track and lungs. they do that but it would be much better if we got the cells within your respiratory tract respond more quickly.

nasal vaccines have the potential to do that. they are still experimental, and they are not a short-term solution. if i am being optimistic, in the future we will have some combination of a shot in your arm coupled with the booster that you need to get into your nose to get the maximum amount of protection. host: that is all the time we have together today. "washington journal" continues. host: welcome back to "washington journal." i'm joined by ryan evans. he is the host of the podcast called "war on the rocks." welcome. guest: thanks for having me. host: i want to start with afghanistan. it has been a year since the last troops left afghanistan. what is going on there now? what is the thinking of the u.s.'s pull out now that we have a year since then? guest: there are two separate issues, the retrospective how the pullout could have gone so

wrong and the consequences, whatever they may be politically, and there is a commission that congress has not gotten started yet but it is supposed to examine the attire war and the withdrawal. as far as afghanistan now, it is a tragic story. the taliban is trained to solidify control over the country and is ruling the country but it is former elements of the afghan government and the self proclaimed islamic state and this unfolding humanitarian tragedy with shortage of things required for a society to run. host: i understand there are still people trying to get out, as far as those that helped the u.s. effort during the war. what are the chances of them being able to get out? guest: i'm not sure. a lot of this is happening behind closed doors and a lot of third-party organizations are involved, especially those run by veterans, trying to get out there former interpreters and people who supported us.

i know the effort is ongoing but i do not know a lot of details. host: should the u.s. cap some military presence in afghanistan? bagram airbase was handed over. do you think the u.s. should have kept that? guest: i think it is two separate questions. the first is should we have left at all? supporter of withdrawing and remain a supporter. i think it was a good idea. i think the execution of the withdrawal itself how was disastrous. -- how it was planned was disastrous. there is a need for accountability not only from the defense department but from the state department and white house. there is this weird narrative the administration is promoting that because we were able to get so many people out in the final weeks of the evacuation that this is somehow a success but we did not necessarily get the people i we would have gotten out had it would have been a well-planned effort. host: if you would like to call in with a question or comment, you can do so on our lines by political affiliation. democrats, (202) 748-8000.

republicans can call (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. you can also send us a tweet @cspanwj. the gop house foreign affairs committee recently released a report on the u.s. withdrawal on afghanistan and, last month on cbs's face the nation, michael mccaul went into details. take a look and that i will ask you to respond. [video clip] >> there was no plan and there was no planned -- even beforehand, i think the state department did not have the resources it needed to area out an evacuation of this size and the normative. they have 36 officers trying to process hundreds of thousands of people. they were overwhelmed but there were so many mistakes. the biggest one for me having lived through it or being in the

class-wide space, listening to the intelligence community of the story about this will be imminent, it will fall sooner rather than later, the military was told the same thing, and then we went to stay and the white house paints a very rosy picture. there is a disconnect between intelligence on the ground and what the white house is doing. this report says it all. there is no way we will evacuate embassy personnel from helicopters like we did in vietnam and we know that happened. >> the criticism of the report would be this was the minority report that is inherently political. that was the republican take, if they win, that this would be a political line of attack. how do you respond? >> i was a federal prosecutor longer than a member of congress so it has been almost 20 years now. i pride myself as being objective. i think this is a fairly objective report of the failures that were made.

you know one of the biggest ones was the taliban city was the special envoy and general mckenzie, the commander, made an offer you can take control over kabul and secure it for purposes of the evacuation. >> you said that is not my assignment. >> that is not with the commander-in-chief told me. they do run into the white house and they get no response. later, jen psaki said they would not have approved that. think about what that would have changed. we had secured the perimeter of that. that led to the chaos in the suicide bomber that led routine service member men and women and injured over hundreds of people. it could have been avoided. host: representative mccall erie it what he says? guest: i'm surprised i agree with a lot of what he said. i think about 80%. things were i agree are the state department was under resourced. i want to hit again there has been no accountability at the state department for this.

some problems for the biden administration's fault and others as he alluded to where the under resourcing of the department consular affairs and special visa programs that got worse under the trump administration. i think the failure to take the television on that offer -- because the taliban did not expect to win as fast as they did, to hold onto couple for a little longer area it will be seen as one of the greatest mistakes of withdrawal. the other mistake was a poor play not well coordinated between the different arms of government. host: let's wish to crane before taking calls from viewers. what is the situation in care sans with the ukrainian counteroffensive launched earlier this week? guest: it has been talked about for weeks, including on our podcast, so most famously with our conversations. ukraine has launched this long-awaited counteroffensive against the city in the south and it is unfolding. i think too many people are expecting things to happen

quickly. it will be a slow operation and it is too early to say how it will go but ukraine has made small gains. their aim is to box in the city and hopefully force a rough -- force a russian withdrawal. host: is this war at an operational standstill as some analysts are saying? guest: not now but i think in the last few weeks it was. i think the russian for settler -- force had largely gotten exhausted and ukraine was using this slower period to train and itself for the counteroffensive and prepare for that, to surge manpower to the southern front. we will see what happened. -- happens. host: there was a reuters post that talked about american support for ukraine. if you take a look at the numbers on the screen, about 53%, about half, support u.s. backing ukraine until all resin worse is withdrawn. 50% are following the russia/ukraine conflict somewhat

or very closely, and 53% say it is "worthwhile paying more for fuel and gas due to russia's sanctions." what are your thoughts on american support for the war? guest: i saw that pole. the first thing that occurred to me was, if i was in kiev, i would be worried about that because the margin of support for this ultimate goal of totally driving russian forces from the ukrainian territory, which would include the territory they seized in 2014 and 2015, not just the territory since february of this year, that is a thin read upon which to rest political support. have the president -- we have elections and the president will change at some point and this war will go on for years. this is not something that will be over by the end of the year. if we wan -- if we get up president that doesn't want to support the ukrainians, there may not be political resistance to face. host: a longtime leader was killed in a u.s. drone attack. does al qaeda and islamic

extremism as a whole still pose a threat to americans? guest: yes, although the statistical likelihood of being killed in a terrorist attack launched by al qaeda's i think less than getting struck by lightning. so these still pose a threat, i am troubled as i think a lot of people were by him being resident in kabul where he was killed by a drone strike. i do not know this means al qaeda is reconstituting itself as a global force. they have a leadership succession challenge that they might not be able to overcome but jihadist terrorism is still a thing. host: let's start taking calls. loretta is first in cleveland, ohio, it. caller: good morning -- ohio, democrat. caller: good morning. can you tell us what the trump deal was, made with afghanistan? and you said you did agree with the pullout when there was

actually no pullout because the troops were attack. since when is the president criticized after being attacked? reagan was not attacked after that debacle in lebanon where 290 troops was killed. the first year of trump, at least 20 were killed. where was that criticism? what are you talking about? they were attacked. host: let's get a response. guest: that was a great question. first off, i was in favor of the withdraw and even though it went poorly , i think withdrawing was the widest which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] -- even though it went poorly, i thing withdrawing was the wisest thing to do. the trump deal was they made a deal with the taliban that u.s. troops would be withdrawn from afghanistan by a certain day and biden decided to uphold that and withdraw u.s. forces on

schedule. but that is a deal donald trump as president negotiated. that is an important point. as far as your other historical example, i think some republican reaction to the nature of the withdraw his political of course. there's a lot less attention being paid to the disastrous conduct of the war for 20 years prior than that, which in my mind was the bigger problem. that is why i support withdraw from afghanistan. host: john is next, a democrat. caller: good morning. i think what we did was stand by and let russia destroy that country. what a disgrace. we are supposed to be americans. killing innocent people? what is wrong with our country? what are we doing? we should be backing them up 100%. they are good people.

russia is no good and have been no good for years and years. i cannot understand how the united states government is allowing this man to keep killing innocent people. host: john, what are you suggesting the united states do? caller: what we should do? host: yeah. caller: put pressure on russia ok? the people don't even know what this man is doing. host: all right, john. guest: i get your points. i understand your frustration. war is a horrific thing, one of the most if not the most horrific thing human beings do to each other. i agree with the rest of your argument but i think it should be said the biden administration and u.s. government is backing ukraine with billions and billions of dollars of weaponry, materials, intelligence, targeting support. the united states and nato allies have drawn the line direct intervening with its own military forces in the conflict against russia, which i think is wise given the fact russia has a

large nuclear arsenal. in that situation, they would probably likely to use it when they view an existential war with not just ukraine but the united states and most of europe. host: we have a tweet from buddha rollo who says this, ask him what happened to the kurds. i'm assuming the kurds in arak and syria and maybe turkey as well? guest: there are kurds living in arak. i'm not try understand the question, but there is a debate going on right now about why we still have u.s. forces, which we have a small contingent in syria, and what they are doing. one of the justification often given is to support our kurdish partners in syria who still face the threat from various parties. i'm not sure if that is what the question is being asked. host: daniel is next in texas, republican. good morning. caller: good morning. guest: morning. caller: i just got a question for you. we have china on one side of us, rush on the others of us.

if they attack our eastern borders and western borders at the same time, and right now our southern border is open, we have 180 million illegals that have already came across our border, and we are scattering them all over our country. the thing is, they are going to take over our country without firing a shot. guest: i'm happy to respond to that. i do not agree with your interpretation of that. i do not think it is helped to conflate the issues of the challenges we face on russia with one hand and china on the other with the problem of illegal immigration. it is a problem but i do not see legal immigrants taking over the country as you describe. host: next up is stephen in arizona, independent. stephen. caller: thank you for having me on. and thank the guest for his expertise. i just wonder why we would leave

billions of dollars worth of military equipment behind in afghanistan. that makes no sense to me at all. wouldn't that be a priority if you are going to engage in pulling out? why would you leave that type of equipment for the enemy? that is what my question is. guest: yeah, you know, the taliban as you might have seen had a parade where they celebrated their take over the country and which they shut off that showed off a lot of their military quitman, a lot of which were that was heaved by the afghan security forces, who we trained and equipped. those images are not easy to see it i do not think there was a case to be made at the time for taking the stuff we had given the afghan security forces, which is the problem. the intelligence community was certainly not unified on the idea the taliban takeover would happen quickly. there were some people saying

that but most people in the classified space from what i've been told as well as the open source thought the afghan government would last longer. we wanted to make sure security forces were equipped. as the far -- as far as the stuff we left behind that our military was using, i agree that could have and should have been planned better. host: staying with afghanistan, we have a tweet from mary lou who says the afghans were caught between rampant corruption in the government and the brutal taliban who offered us some degree of justice. what do you think? guest: this is one of the fundamental problems with our mission in afghanistan. the overall point is correct is that we were supporting a government that was extreme liquor up and not just corrupt in way -- extremely corrupt and not just corrupt anyway about government contracts but predatory against their own population. that is why there was enthusiastic support in the country for the government we help set up after we ousted the taliban in 2001. host: bill on the independent

line, good morning. caller: good morning. my question is, when the ukrainian problem arose, the administration says our goal was to blunt the advance. what exactly is our goal today? i listened to all of the sunday shows and everything, but in a sentence, what exactly is our objective? that is my question. host: i think that a biden administration official might say something like our objective is to ensure russia is defeated in ukraine. that could mean any number of things. does that mean russia is driven from all ukrainian territory? i don't know. the thing i worry about is a lot of our policymakers on size of the aisle do not fully accept or understand and are planning for the eventuality this war could go on for years. and what that means for the

global economy, our ability to sustain support to ukraine which is important but might become difficult over time, especially if europe gives into recession which in my do this winter. host: which is the right segway for this wall street journal article i wanted to ask you about. it was not planned. it says russia halts slow from gas pipeline. they indefinitely supplant -- suspended national gas flow hours after the group of seven agreed to an oil price cap for russian crude. two opposing blows exchange between moscow and the west in ne can -- in an economic war running parallel to the conflict in ukraine. what are the implications of that into winter? guest: it is a very serious problem for europe which gets much of his gas from russia. the ability of the united states to pick up the slack is not something that can happen in the short term because of lack of lng terminals and things like that that i will not get into too much detail. it is not my area of expertise.

that is a real problem for this winter, not just for people heating their homes but for the industries and private sectors of europe, especially germany. this could prove to be a massive problem because germany still produces and exports so much. host: let's go to april in rock island, illinois, republican. hi, april. caller: how are you? host: i'm good. caller: i wanted to say a couple of things about where we have been and where we are going. isis was in charge of syria and it took one year to wipe them out. dealing with iran, dealing with now all of a sudden we're dealing with russia, ukraine, it is china and taiwan. none of this would be happening, i'm sorry. -- i'm sorry, if trump was president. it would not be because

afghanistan, that was never ever allowed to happen that way. these taliban, they were supposed to stay in their caves and let the people that have been running the country for 20 years on the country. we have girls that were five when we went over there, and they were raised in country that they were free. now all of a sudden they have to wear burqas again. it is ridiculous. you cannot blame that on trump. host: what do you think, ryan? guest: there's a lot to respond to there. any argument i've heard before, i do not see the evidentiary area basis for the trump not negotiate the withdraw the deal from afghanistan, the war was not going well on his watch either. although the same could be said for the obama administration and the one before since we first went in 2001 and started to build an afghan state. as far as the middle east, isis was never really in charge of syria.

it did control large territory in syria and to a lesser extent iraq and the plan to oust them in the obama administration was continued under the trumpet ministration. i don't understand his argument that none would be happening if trump would be in charge. i do not see the evidence for any of that. host: let's go to iran in michigan. democrats. caller: thank you. if we read in "new york times", about three weeks ago, front page "new york times" sunday edition, they had an interview with one of the top cia agents or whatever in afghanistan. they said there go in russia/ukraine was the afghan is asian -- afghan-isation of russia. that went well with us starting with judy carter. since jimmy carter, not 20 years. and escape worldwide jihad, never ending. wi