stream quality and enjoy your favorite. t.v. is not required to watch all its all you need is your mobile device. any toy. tonight on our t.v. we are counting down until the presidential debate not just the one between president obama and governor romney that has already gotten plenty of attention something you won't see on cable news and the third party debate but don't worry we've got you covered have a preview. and it took years after the u.s. volunteered nagasaki to understand the true impact nuclear weapons had on japanese civilians and today nearly a decade after the war in iraq began starting to get a clearer picture of what impact to prove your radio is having on the iraqi people

the story about a disturbing trend in earthly facts i had. and they say talk is cheap but of rumors are true about the white house wanting to hold talks with iran could this be a costly mistake for the obama administration just weeks from election day and at a time when most americans believe that war should be a last resort party asks what's so wrong about iran to the negotiating table. good evening it's monday october twenty second eight pm in washington d.c. i'm christine and you're watching our t.v. . well in one hour president obama and mitt romney will meet for their third debate the topic tonight is foreign policy now this is being touted as the final debate between presidential candidates but guess what it actually is not the other presidential candidates will actually be debating tomorrow night dan next week as

well i'm talking about libertarian gary johnson who is on the ballot in forty eight states plus washington d.c. a green party candidate jill stein on the ballot in thirty seven states and d.c. the justice party's rocky anderson on the ballot in fifteen states and virgil goode of the constitution party he's on the ballot in twenty six states with one of those states virginia causing some drama since quite a few republicans are a little concerned he might be taking votes away from mitt romney in his home state which will most likely be a close contest. now as far as these other debates i should tell you governor mitt romney and president obama were in fact invited to participate but they've declined tomorrow's debate will be hosted by larry king and chicago and our own tom hartman will be attending that debate and working as a commentator and analyst he is joining us now in our d.c. studio for more on the debate and john i know you're heading to chicago for tomorrow's third party debate what kind of stuff do you think we'll hear tomorrow night that we won't be hearing tonight hi christine i think the word tonight what

we're going to be hearing from the presidential campaign campaigns and candidates is operating within a very very narrow channel of what's acceptable discourse in america you know let's not talk about drones for example. i'm expecting tomorrow in chicago that that's going to be widened considerably in fact that's the really important thing about third party candidates whether they're on the left on the right on the side that you like the side that you don't like they open the debate up ross perot did that back in ninety two the last time that we saw it seriously happen in a national level and to some extent ralph nader i suppose in two thousand but it really needs to be done now both ross perot and ralph nader called by some people spoilers people who they you know those candidates they were said to have taken votes away from what do you think about that notion that these candidates are spoilers or that a vote for these candidates are wasted votes. if you're a partisan if you're a democratic or republican partisan then yeah you could you could characterize it

as such the fact the matter is that ralph nader did not you know cause al gore to lose the vote in florida al gore actually won the vote in florida as the recount a year later found the supreme court handed the presidency off to george w. bush not the voters of florida but you know all that said i think that you know if you look at the rest of the democracies around the world third party fourth party fifth party now this is these are some because of structural problems our constitution pretty much drives a two party system. but we could change it with things like i r.v.'s are a voting proportional representation of what those other countries around the world multiple political parties demonstrate so well is that a wide variety of political parties including fringe parties what we might consider to be fringe parties actually drives a more vibrant and healthy political discourse and that's what we need here in the united states i think a lot of people are surprised i know when i was young and went to the polls for the first time i was surprised to see more than two can't presidential candidates names

on the ballot i mean what do you think it says that that these repeat these are people who we can vote for their names on the ballot especially you know it in at least some of the states and yet we don't know much about them at all i think what it says is that it's a tragedy that we allowed the democratic and republican parties to game the system to come up with this fifteen percent threshold and say that you know if a party or a candidate camp a fifteen percent in the elections them they have no reason to be on the on the ticket. counter argument to that to some extent is that within those two parties they've been allowing people who have what might be considered to be. outside the normal range of the party shows a voices ron paul in a senate for example they've allowed them to participate in the debates but i think that that only is the smallest little piece we need those voices louder and in the in the main debates well let's talk about that's why mean this two party system

it's been this way forever and you know some think it's it will continue to be this way i guess my question is who in whose interest is it to keep the system status quo well it's certainly in the interest of both the parties i mean the these these two institutional giants they're they're multibillion dollar corporations really when you when you look at it. it's certainly in their interest this is you know this really it's really interesting if you go back and look at when. the constitution was first crafted in seven hundred eighty seven and james madison the father of the constitution was writing the federalist papers and seven hundred nine to try and sell them to to get everybody to vote for ratification the constitution and federalist number ten as he was writing that he realized he just had was the sudden pity essentially that if they had if we continued with the first past the post winner take all lections which we have in seven other democracies in the world that you would end up with basically only two political parties two viable

political parties and the only solution you could come up with was to beg people not to form what he called factions or political parties and so federalist ten is this and this entire thing of james madison saying please don't form political parties course the irony is that a decade later he was the number two person in what is now the democratic party then called the democratic republican party so it happened and here we are it's so interesting i've never actually heard the democratic party and the republican party referred to as a multibillion dollar corporations but in fact i mean i think the case really could be made that that is indeed what they are and certainly now in two thousand and twelve we've got a super pacs and we've got these outside interests money interests taking part are we at a place now tom where it where it will be even harder it would be even harder to change the system i mean do you think that we will see a time when a third party candidate could actually win it's going to be structural chris christie and it's the as i was mentioning because of the first past the post winner take all nature of our elections it's always going to drive

a two party outcome if we were to have voting like they have in australia new zealand those are two of the countries that have systems very similar to ours it was first passed those winner take all but if we if if we were to do like they did with instant voting which the green party's been promoting in the united states in san francisco's the largest. minutes ballot in the united states the largest. electorate that now has in iran are voting then we could have multiple parties or if we were to have proportional representation like most of the. the democracies of the world have because they were created after each hundred sixty one when john stuart mill invented the idea then we could have multiple political parties but that would take an initiative driven from something much deeper than either the democratic or republican parties it would take a real real grassroots effort because those parties are going to everything they can to stop that from happening yeah it's hard to imagine that such a significant huge change would happen without sort of a major taking to the street i guess by

a whole lot of this is citizens here i mean can you foresee such a tipping point happening if the republicans win this election. if they put into place the policies that they're talking about there's a reasonable certainty that we will see an incredible economic crash here in the united states sometime in the next two three four years and if that happens if we find ourselves back in the one nine hundred thirty two position and people are looking back at the last eight ten twelve years of political dirty tricks with discussed then i think that there's a very real possibility that that could happen the australia new zealand r.v. or rank voting changes came out of economic and political crises so in some ways the worst outcome can set up something that could be a long term good i think it's interesting to see what you're talking about before tom i mean. no matter how big the chances are of

a third party candidate actually winning i think what you said about sort of the discussion happening in the outside ideas coming into play is important i know one hundred ninety two you mention. one of the one thing that he's remembered for is for really warning this nation about the implications of nasty things that i've heard recently from people who have a vested interest in manufacturing who blame nafta for a lot of these jobs leaving the country we haven't heard a lot of warnings from third party voices what do you think of warnings are we missing out on what i think that's probably the biggest one is this whole international free trade thing as if there was such a thing there is no such thing as international free trade every country every corporation is going to operate in ways that will maximize their own interests what we basically did is surrendered we had a trade policy in this country from seven hundred ninety three when alexander hamilton presented it in the washington ministration and it was put into place as eleven point plan for manufacturers that stood from then until the reagan

administration and that kept manufacturing in the united states and built the biggest and most dynamic middle class of the world ever seen and reagan started taking it apart bill clinton really ripped it apart. by signing nafta gatt and agreement on tariffs and trades which created the world trade organization of the cio and now we've got nafta calf to show after we you know a whole bunch of them and both parties now since since they started drinking the kool-aid back in the early eighty's both parties have their have their you know have blood on their hands are dirty with this and so the question in my mind is when you know which party is going to step back first because the party of the first steps away from from free trade as the party is going to seriously winning elections it is really interesting to just looking at these tea parties i mean you just pointed out some of the similarities that they have those of course are never focused on because they don't make for as much drama by the mainstream media which sort of likes to at least seems to me to view elections sort of more like

a sporting event than anything else i'm going to look forward to your commentary your analysis at tomorrow's debate have a safe trip to chicago thom hartmann host of the big picture here at r.t. once again r.t. america will be airing that's a bait live tomorrow night our coverage begins at eight pm eastern but that debate itself kicking off at nine. so i had here on our t.v. a disturbing trend is coming out of iraq these days children born with birth defects as a result of the depleted uranium u.s. military use during its war with the country has details next. in.

this presidential election is not just about obama and romney there are also third party candidates on the ticket and they will influence its outcome see a debate among this nation's major third party candidates right here on r.g.p. on october twenty third. i will fight all that i also promise that i ever single a member of. my own.

here is mitt romney trying to figure. the name of that thing that we americans call a dog. or. the guy who cares about. our. selves. want to save the future is a liberal chris. can you believe that of the. telescope are going to distract us from what you and i should care about because they're a profit driven industry that sells us sensationalistic garbage he calls it breaking news i'm not a martyr and we're going to break that. i

want to take a closer look now at the aftermath of the u.s. led war in iraq there's new information out that over the last few years there has been a significant rise in miscarriages there and also in birth defects for babies in that country according to the environmental contamination and toxicology bulletin

in the last seven years the number of babies born with major birth defects increased by more than sixty percent and forty five percent of pregnancies the pregnancies in the cities that were studied and did in miscarriage now this is one of several studies that finds connections with military assault in certain regions and major health problems particularly for babies r d correspondent liz wall takes a deeper look. well a new study takes a look at birth defects in two of the hardest hit cities during the iraq war including fallujah and central iraq and bars around the southeastern region of the country the study from the bulletin of environmental contamination and toxicology takes a close look at birth defects at hospitals in these cities over the span of a decade and the findings are disturbing to say the least this chart takes a look at the percentage of birth defects for patients at volusia general hospital between one thousand nine hundred one and two thousand and ten as you can see birth defects skyrocketed between two thousand and four and two thousand and six it was

in april of two thousand and four the u.s. marines first bombarded the city and as time goes on the number of babies being born with congenital defects continues to rise significantly and according to this study between two thousand and seven and two thousand and ten nearly sixty percent of all babies recorded had birth defects and it looks like there is a link between the time military assault began and the number of babies that are miscarried at during this time that the number of miscarriage miscarriages rises drastically forty five percent of pregnancies end in miscarriage these scientists also took hair samples from children with birth defects and fifty six flu shot families and what they found is that the toxic chemicals of mercury and lead were found to be five times higher in these children and the effects are devastating your looking at babies born with severe birth defects in the flu should general hospital but we may and august two thousand and ten the most common abnormalities

include congenital heart defects neural tube defects and facial cleft dating now this study is just one of many that links military assaults the prevalence of birth defects toxic metals like mercury lead and depleted uranium are used in bullets and bombs and pregnant mothers and their unborn babies are especially prone to toxic chemicals and pollution and during the u.s. army's three week bond bar. mint of illusion marines use hellfire missiles and two thousand pound bombs in addition to what the pentagon classifies as chemical weapons these are tanks loaded with the pleated uranium and phosphorus volume's white phosphorus was the same weapon saddam hussein used against the kurds in february of one thousand nine hundred one one of the many reasons the united states used to justify their invasion of iraq so what does that apartment defense have to say about this a spokesperson told r.t. quote we are not aware of any official reports indicating an increase in birth defects that albums are or fallujah that may be related to exposure to the metals

contained in munitions used by the u.s. or coalition partners we always take very seriously public health concerns about any population now living in a combat theater unexploded ordinance including improvised explosive devices are a recognized hazard in other words at this point the pentagon doesn't see lead mercury or depleted uranium as recognize hazards and about a month the world health organization organization is set to release its long awaited study on the lingering health effects in iraq and it's expected their findings will make the same link that exposure to toxic medical's metals excuse me a result of repeated bombings has not just ravaged the country cities but its future generations bodies as well and washington loses all our teeth. now on to iran a country that is once again in the spotlight and dominating discussion both for national and international leaders and for much of the u.s. mainstream media now this is in part due to an article published over the weekend

in the new york times that sparked major discussion about the u.s. role in dealing with iran ahead of tonight's presidential debate on foreign policy now the article outlines though somewhat vaguely how both the u.s. and iran have agreed in principle to talks but those talks would have to take place after the november sixth election they would of course be aimed at tehran curbing its nuclear ambitions though some have called it an attempt by iran to use the prospect of direct diplomatic talks simply to buy time now following the publication of the article both the white house and iranian officials publicly denied it national security council spokesman tommy vietor says it's not true that the united states and iran have agreed to one on one talks or any meeting after the american elections he says we continue to work with the p five plus one on a diplomatic solution and have said from the outset that they'd be prepared to meet bilaterally the president has made clear that he will prevent iran from getting

a nuclear weapon and we will do what we must to achieve that so to dissect this then look at it from a few different angles i was joined earlier. a producer for huff post live i first asked him what the implications would of this new york times article are. sure it will the implication is that the united states has publicly vilified iran and now they're going largely behind the us public's back and is reaching out to them to for whatever reason or whatever way create a political resolution to the nuclear file to the nuclear program that as many people in washington worried you know there's been this sort of for the last thirty years or so you want a phobia in the american political culture and so any attempt by the obama administration to reach out to iran can really be used by their political opponents their domestic political opponents to you know create fodder for the campaign for the the the debate tonight on the foreign policy realm you know i argue that it's

there's a good for obama to do this i think this issue with iran u.s. relations is really reaching a crucial point where the iranian public is buckling under these you know most profound saying sions and the u.s. position of power in the region is you know really precariously delicately in the balance what do you think out of it says though about the state of foreign policy that both parties both you know the administration and iran seem to be denying in engaging in such a popular course of action well it's possible that the new york times report wasn't entirely accurate and how they portrayed this agreement i mean we don't really know if a date has been set if you know the endpoints have been agreed to what we do know is that both sides are open to some sort of direct bilateral negotiation and that's really significant because what both publics have been or what both governments have been telling their people is that it's almost impossible to come to think oh shooting table so that sort of the real the real impetus for putting down these reports and denying it so ok we will bring politics into this as some calling this

you know a quote unquote october surprise saying it could give the president like you said it could be a popular thing give the president a boost but i'm wondering i mean is there any indication that mitt romney would refuse talks or would even do things differently if he's a. acted well it's a good question because i think you ronnie and leaders and their public statements have even said that they don't really see much of a difference between obama and romney i mean we see in the last four years the obama administration has largely continued or expanded bush's a bush is covert policies against the islamic republic of iran so there isn't really you know an idea of what a romney presidency would do a negotiation zz i think it would be a bad idea for me to pull out of talks if they were agreed upon because it would make it seem like romney really isn't interested in talks and it would put the onus on the ited states to kind of come to the table and that's not a position that the u.s. wants to be in instead i think you're on looks at united states as a system as a continuous system and one that has really you know kept the same policy of

pressure and more pressure on iran for the last thirty years or so and so it's been so interesting watching you know the media reaction to this it used to be that a big story would be saved you know for the front cover of the sunday new york times and i think eventually that's where it was printed but but this came out on saturday so that gave you know the producers of those sunday shows anough of a chance to change the topics and to book asked a major mainstream media blitz when it came to interpret ing the meaning of this report let me just play out a small bit of what you may have seen or heard this weekend days before the big debate on foreign policy the obama fan club newsletter i.e. the new york times drops a bombshell claiming the u.s. and iran have agreed to negotiate on nukes let me ask you about something that's developing this morning in the new york times exclusive reporting about iran yesterday there were reports of the administration is considering or moving toward direct negotiations with iran over its pursuit of nuclear weapons and the timing of

this is so carious the weekend before this final presidential debate hours really before and i think that's why the white house was so quick in its denial last night . so the timing the curious nature of this is that what about the fact that most americans at least according to polls would prefer diplomatic talks to the alternative you know talks it all or military force sure and that was one of obama's original two thousand a campaign promises you know he wanted to bring iran to the table and come to the table for talks i don't think he entered the white house really knowing what that would entail when he made his proposals some would say that they were half hearted that they didn't really address key iranian concerns over the u.s. or u.s. presence in the region and some would say that iran wanted just wanted to buy time i think that this these current round of sanctions kind of play into that because it says it gives the obama administration a chance to say look we can save face now we've implemented the most harsh sanctions regime in the history of us here on relations and now the iranians are

really for starting to feel it and are starting to capitulate under u.s. pressure so if that's the argument that the u.s. wants to make then it makes sense that they would want to say you know give these signs are these leaks that they're ready to talk in that iran is ready to talk converse lee iran can also say you know look due to the arab spring due to the u.s. losing allies in the region the u.s. is now ready to talk in the u.s. wants to have some sort of diplomatic agreement with iran so that we don't we can put these hostilities behind us because really at the end of the day you know it's the american people it's the iranian people that are losing out over these continued hostilities between the two governments and those arguments really give the the two sides a way to pull back from the brink and to come away from from that they have put themselves towards yes certainly you're right i mean sometimes in winning the messaging more is more important than what's what actually happens and you were talking just a second ago about the sanctions i know an official with the obama administration said today that while diplomacy could be

a part of the puzzle sanctions have been essential to the u.s. plan designed to pressure iran to come back to the table i mean is. this is a desperate measure by iran because of these crippling sanctions or you know do you think there's a whole lot more to the puzzle here i think at the end of the day these niggas these nuclear negotiations are really more joe political in nature you know the same definitely a horrible toll on the population my own family included is is is feeling these these sanctions i think it can be used as a way again you know to bring both sides to the table but what's interesting is that you know congress in the wall is the one that has a knack of these these sanctions and so it would take legislation to repeal them you know additionally they've implemented these sanctions for a whole variety of reasons not just the nuclear program ostensibly you know the human rights violations that iran has committed or it's you know quote unquote global support for terrorism and so it's hard to see how the u.s.

administration obama's administration would repeal these sanctions piecemeal if if iran had some sort of agreement for its nuclear program i just heard you say that even your family has been impacted by the sanctions i mean what have you heard what do you think is the story not being told in the u.s. that you would like to get across here well i think what's most interesting the most interesting is that the u.s. administration has said we're going to let you know humanitarian and medical aid go through and that's true there are preventing that but what they are doing is cutting off effectively your own central bank and also how it is on the international market for financial transactions and that has effectively created an economic humanitarian blockade because quite frankly iranian hospitals cat pay pharmaceutical companies for the the medications they need and so people you know iranian americans are resorted to bringing medication with them you know mass amounts of tylenol you know special cancer related treatments or you know

medications to iran physically because quite frankly the hospitals there can't buy it themselves due to the financial sanctions certainly so some basic things that whole lot of people in this country probably take for granted. and just so much going on that we really really aren't so aware of adam pramod a producer of huff post live thanks so much thank you. all right everyone well that's going to do it for us for now but for more on the stories we covered go to youtube dot com slash r t america also for the latest on the stories that we covered today and a few that we didn't have time to get to check out our web site r.t. dot com slash usa we want to hear from you don't forget to leave us your comments and story suggestions you can also follow me on twitter of course i'm at christine for sound. this presidential election is not just about obama and romney they're all.