i watched a bush. he invoked the power of the unitary executive and basically he had a lot of trouble with the commissions to set up. and also not giving the prisoners lots of rights, on the other hand i would not like to go all the way for there would have middlmiranda rights. i like to see something in the middle ground. on the other hand, i like to see them tried in civilian courts. but i'm not very comfortable with them being housed in the united states. those are my ideas and i would really like to hear more about how fdr handled the situation. host: lechery more from this article this morning -- let's read more from this. the alternative which would be going to congress would be painfully political. you would have the budgetary machinations limiting the president's discretion on closing guantanamo. the president can still get what he needs on the attention a few works from congress's bipartisan center. if he releases more information and speaks often about the need for stable rules to govern non-

bush and he says, george w. bush is no conservative. he said conservatives whether we like it or not we conservatives are chained to reality with to that is what two help me out on the edmund burke. if you want to foil that message down it is matt we are part of our time, we are chained to reality. we can give inaugural addresses -- you respect reality. you don't as buckley said of bush, you don't go into iraq and say you are going to bring democracy to these people and are going to throw flowers at us and everything's going to be okay. you don't give inaugural addresses where we're going in tyrrany on the globe, the president's words, that is utopianism that is wilsonian. in so the last best hope. >> host: oddly where the aggressive. >> guest: as you said messages inebriation also. but here is the deal, it is one of the reasons republicans are having such a hard time i now is that they are being told and some republicans are thinking have lost power because we haven't been conservative enough. no, that is not the case. it is also not t

bush. bush was okay and pretty good when he was given a written speech and to give it, he has some give to speechwriters' but in the day to day arguments of public policy he was just not very good. i hate to say that. and that was not where he excelled or as obama is good and all of us. what is the story he told sanitarian that he has a good gift? gives meaning to give to persuasion he thinks he can talk his way in and out of anything i suppose. he could become as some point to be seen to be glib out there in the country and also can seem to be, come to be seen as to moralizing about some things. when he starts to call people, state certain things are shameful like the bonuses and so forth. maybe they are but we do -- do we want a president been in school all the time. it will be interesting how that plays over time and, of course, holzmann we have to see the a fax of these policies. if we're looking at a 2.10% inflation from a staggering economy that is not kind to be in very good recommen

bush. he was ok. when he was given a written speech and he could give it, he had some gifted speech writers. in the day-to-day argument of public policy, he was just not very good. i just hate to say that, but that is not where he excelled. obama is good at all of this. what was the story he told senator reid, that he has the gift. he has the gift of persuasion. he can talk his way into and out of anything, i suppose. that could become, at some point, to be seen at glib -- as glib. when he starts to call a certain things shameful like the bonuses. ok, maybe they are, but we -- but we want him to keep saying that? i think it is interesting to see how it is going to play out over time. overall, we need to see the effects of his policies. and we're looking at up to 10% inflation, a stagnant economy, that is not going to be a very good recommendation for the democrats in the midterms or next time around. >> terry, you raised a question and not sure if you answered it and it was over whether or not bush an

under president bush, dr. at stanford university, senior fellow at hoover institution and teaches economics at stanford. welcome to the program. caller: good morning to both of you. i have maybe three questions, if i could stay on the line. host: can we stay on the line? caller: do you know tim adams? guest: former colleague at the treasury? host: second question? caller: of the second question is, -- the second question is, what area were you undersecretary? guest: international affairs. caller: that is what tim was. here is my question. the bush administration was fundamentally established as a corporate model government, which did not sit well with me because governments and corporations are difference. the first treasury secretary, paul o'neill, i liked, -- the price of loyalty, what happens with him. john snow -- paul a came -- lcoa and john snow came from cs x, so they had business experience on the ground with employees. but then with henriette -- when henry paulson came in, he came from goldman sachs,

george bush blocked 10 billion bar. of oil after we invaded iraq, take the oil reserves -- war reserves, put it out on the open market and sell it. host: next from arkansas. caller: i am very wary about inflation. of all of the bank bail outs and auto bailouts. this president has created the hugest deficit in history, that our children and grandchildren will never be able to pay for. he should return to the bush tax cuts that created jobs, and put money in many american pockets. host: the bush tax cuts are still active. they have not been repealed. caller: great. this president needs to continue them. host: virginia on the independent line. caller: this is worse than inflation. if they don't extend the bills again, they are worried about obama putting debt on their children, but they do it themselves. with their credit card, if you over extend yourself, and you are worried about 5%, maybe you should cut back on your spending. host: do you have credit card debt? caller: i have one credit card. i am paying it down, and i

, bush won, and even more so by clinton. in .. nothing at all surprising about what followed next. in 1995, u.s. aid wrote a report pointing out, and i'm quoting it, that the export-driven trade in investment policy that washington, d.c. mandated will squeeze the domestic rice farmer. in fact, the neoliberal policies rammed down haiti's throat destroyed, dismantled what was left of economic sovereignty, drove the country into chaos. now, that was accelerated by bush number 2's banning of international aid on totally cynical grounds. in february, 2004, the two traditional tortures of haiti, france and the united states, combined to back a military coup and send president aristide off to africa. the u.s. denies him permission to return to the entire region. haiti had by then lost the capacity to feed itself. making it highly vulnerable to food price fluctuation. that was the immediate cause of the 2008 food crisis which led to riots and enormous protest but not getting food. the story is familiar. in fact, quite similar in muc

in the bush administration office, -- the office initiated the patriot act. if there is something that -- you talked about state -- state secrets, whistle-blower is another issue we are working on. we work with different components within doj and also different agencies around the government. so really balance out and work through and negotiate these institutional interests. the criminal division at doj has different interests than the civil rights division and cit -- add the zero j and dea made -- the primary focus is preventing trafficking of illegal drugs whereas hhs mixed sure how people have access to -- sick people have access to drugs. how do we become a neutral arbiter? certainly there are some big issues that are out there with regard to state secrets and other issues and their competing interests. one thing that was fascinating to me and maybe this is because i was unable professor. you see the difference between republicans and democrats. maybe at a certain point, people could see a difference between senator clinton and senator obama during a prim

why bush finally decided to do so. so i felt it was important to for in the whole story of his life by beginning at the end. host: the book is "by his own rules: the ambitions, successes and ultlimate failures of donald rumsfeld" by bradley graham. caller: good morning. as donald rumsfeld donald rumsfeas the president of a corporation brought aspirin came into the public domain which caused several million people to die from brain tumors -- he brought asparatame into the public domain. i wonder if he feels he is responsible for those deaths guest: the product which is commonly known as nutrasweet now found in thousands of products as an artificial sweetener and now from soda pop to chewing gum remains controversial. i am no expert on the scientific findings, but lender standing is that the predominance of evidence has not established any links between asparatame and nutrasweet in the deaths use. donald rumsfeld remains proud to this day of bringing the product to market. it was an fda regulatory limbo when he took over

bush. this is what george w. bush said that in 2000. >> host: you keep looking at it and i will cover with these words. it seems to me i have found the years 2001 and 2009 intensely painful politically because as a conservative because i saw a great coalition and a great movement director job like a pane of glass and splintered by keeping those that did not have that coalition in the '60s and '70s and '80s. i saw how hard it was to bring together. it broke my heart to see it broken and it broke my heart to see that you're not allowed to say that it was breaking. it was a terrible lie. >> guest: this is george w. bush in 2000. we must be judicious in our use of the military. we will find only one is in the vital interest of the united states, when our mission is clear and when the eggs in strategy is obvious. that is what we said every day in the clinton appointees that and come up to the armed services committee in congress when house on the armed service committee in congress and the cente

the bush family, if you look at any reasonable history of the bush family get us into wars and time again to power. you have press got bush treading openly with though nazis when he was a senator. a myriad of illegal activity they're pretty much like the gambino crime family and should be prosecuted under the rico statutes. host: thank you. here is a headline. we're also focusing on the issue of health care. president obama is during the health debate of the capital. she writes that with democrats deeply divided, president obama is trying to enlist the governors and grassroots supporters to increase pressure on lawmakers without getting mired in a messy battle plane out on capitol hill. in a session in the roosevelt room in a meeting last week with some governors he tried to steer the debate away from government in washington to the states. he will travel to wednesday tomorrow. it will be a town hall meeting including questions from online communities. good morning, maryland. caller: yes, this war was a lie. how dare we invoke our views on any other country? if anyone had stepped in durin

let me put the delays this context: in the first four months of the bush administration, second bush administration, i'm sure it was the same -- i'm sorry in the second bush administration; i'm sure it was the same in the first bush administration, when the senate was controlled by the president's party and we were in the minority, there wasn't a single filibuster of a bush nominee; not one. but in the first four months of the obama administration, republicans have filibustered eight of the nominees, the ones we had to file cloture on. i've indicated there are many others with the constraints we have, with the rules in the senate, i can't file cloture on every one of these. those eight filibusters in the first four months of president obama's administration are twice as many as president bush faced in his first four years. four months compared to four years. so i hope, mr. president, people who are listening, watching or understanding this, we are not here berating republicans in oregon or nevada or cross the country. what i'm saying as the republicans here in the senate, the 40 of t

then we look at what happened during the bush era, where president bush apinted two -- appointed two people to the supreme court, first, chief justice roberts, at the time a judge on the d.c. circuit and prior to that had a distinguished career in private practice where he was widely acknowledged as one of the fore massachusetts most supreme court advocates of his generation. his confirmation vote 78-22. there were a lot of senators who acknowledged his credentials and competence but presumably because they disagreed with him philosophically refused to vote for him. justice alito, a sitting judge on the third circuit, long, distinguished track record, served as a federal prosecutor among other things. his confirmation vote was 58-42. in the span of just a little over a decade, we've gone from a three votes in opposition to justice ginsburg and then on the other side, justice alito who at the risk of overgeneralization is a mirror image of justice ginsburg, he's on the conservative side but both were circuit court judge he had 42 votes in opposition. there's one interesting comment ma

that is what president bush did tha. i am not surprised that is what president obama is doing well he has a congress of his own party. i expect there are going to be areas where president obama just like with president bush cannot accomplish his policy goals working with congress. a good example is that do not ask, do not tell policy. i do not know where the majority of congress is. if the congress is not where the president is, as i am understand the law, the president could change that policy fairly quickly if he wanted to. i think the president ought to be prepared to fully assert his power when he needs to. you do not have to be stupid about it and you should not do it when you do not need to. >> does anyone want to take that case sap? -- case up? you guyus are cowards, come on. [laughter] i can't get a rise out of you all? ok. i can't get a rise out of this crowd. often the questions about transparency is about the of ministration communicating with the public and the public seeing what the administration is doing.

the second bush administration, the second bush administration as well was a supporter of the i.m.f. as the gentleman perhaps knows. the fact of the matter is the united states will play a very significant role in the decisionmaking of the i.m.f. because we are a very significant contributor. it is a red herring from my perspective to raise the fact that money could go somewhere. of course money could go somewhere, any money that we appropriate could go to -- if the gentleman is going to reclaim his time, the gentleman asked me a question. money could go any place. it could go to a bad place. we don't want it to go to a bad place. i don't think any of the 19 other nations want it to go to hezbollah or other organizations that might be negative in the use of that funds as far as we are concerned. what we do want, however, that's what ronald reagan was talking about, that's what george bush was talking about, that's what president obama is talking about, we do want to see the international economy rebound as well because it impacts on us as we impact very severely on it. that is why th

caller: we had elections stolen from us twice by bush.hey did not protest because they were benefiting. the people of iran, more power to them. host: alice, from georgia. good morning. caller: thank you for c-span. there is one thing that people are forgetting. iranians are using their own tactics, throwing rocks and burning things. they should remember how we blacks had to fight for our freedom back in the day. we were jailed, killed, and everything. we kept on fighting. that is what they have to do. president obama does not have to say anything. why would we get involved in this situation? these people must follow a pattern that martin luther king said. maybe they will get something done. all those tactics they are using, throwing rocks, martin luther king did that do that. we did that do that at all. we marched peacefully. individually we sat in front of the bus. thank you. host: thank you for the call. in this twitter, "president obama speech in cairo and republicans say that he should worry about home. he rightly stays out of iran an

if bush were still in office the question would be, how would you grade the bush administration? there is no alluding to obama and this at all. i would give him an f-. host: the next call is from maryland on our democrats' line. caller: i would give president obama a b-. it could be better, but he has the taxd dogs. they're just attacking him with everything he tries to do. these guys are not worried about getting the country back on the line. they are worried about getting back in power more than anything else. new gingrich gave a disgusting speech, just attacking this president. i have never heard him even call president obama president obama. host: in the marketplace section this morning from "the wall street journal" a story retain to 2004 concerning digitally- produced books. this is addressed by the justice department. the escalation of its books search inquiry is the latest in a series of antitrust probes of google's business launched by the department and the federal trade commission. in response, the will appears to be stepping up efforts to press its case with lawmakers

one criticism i would have of the deal the bush administration struck, it didn't strike a better deal on how to get out the logistics and supply chain from the russians. that seems to me to be a key national security interests, not just for creating jobs in the united states, but the defense relationship. i don't see that going away anytime soon. i don't see that in the and the united states will ever have the kind of alliance relationship the u.s. has with its allies, the u.s. will be the key arms supplier any time soon to the united states. it is in gauge in multilateral defense, and all seat conventional defense -- multi dimensional defense, and it is understandable as neighbors, at the same time, it is a concern about this matter of chinese deployments and interest, it has quite an ongoing relationship with russia in the defense sphere and relations with the united states and japan and singapore, the new ones, the burgeoning new ones or the late come ears -- latecomers, quite closely. i think that the u.s./in the a strategic relationship is more akin to what nixon and kissinger tr

it would be interesting to know how much bush and cheney made off of this war. as a nation, we still don't understand why we went into iraq. has nasty as saddam hussein was, he did keep out al qaeda and others because he knew they would oust him. i don't know whether it is because daddy was threatened or the oil or because cheney and that they gave him this sweet stuff and be turned on it, i think we need a huge commission to get this out in the oceans so that we can get over it as a nation because it is destroying us. >> guest: the authority to go to iraq was voted on by the congress, it was a democratic process that we went through. not everybody voted to do that. >> host: my take away from your book is you were critical of president bush for building public support and explaining the reasons for the war effectively. >> guest: for not doing that. president bush was caught between trying to find a diplomatic answer to the iraq issue. at the same time, preparing for potentially war. you have to be careful because if you remember, there was a lot of work done wit

so we are talking now about a bush administration initiations of funding for aig, a bush administration request to congress to create the tarp, and the bush administration intervention without congressional final action for the auto companies. how that became a democratic agenda puzzles me. perhaps i will be enlightened later on. i do know that i have colleagues who believe that the world was created only 4000 years ago. i had not previously known there were some who thought it was created on january 20, 2009. so i do want to say we are engaged in this and we are engaged and have been engaged for months in dealing with the consequence decisions made by the bush administration, some of which i agreed with, some of which i agree with the course they weren't well carried out. i would note on the tarp money, that thanks in part to an increase in the conditions that have been imposed on target recipients, both by the congress and the obama administration, more than one third of the money advanced to banks has already been repaid to the treasury. we have to decide what we do with that. but th

olson and governor bush at that particular time. many justices will say that oral arguments don't change their opinions but the help them close the gaps and narrow some of the inconsistencies. i am not sure but in hindsight looking at this and listening to the arguments again just the other night, you see justice kennedy in particular trying to wrestle his way to the conclusion that works for him, and it was sent by more seemingly draconian article to approach but rather if there is a way that he could find the result that said equal protection was not being afforded every voter that was a comfort zone for him. tony? >> it's an honor for me to be here as well and was a fun project to work on this book about oral arguments. it is an intense and fascinating process and i am struck how intensive eight days by the fact where we are right now we are sitting at a replica of the supreme court at the university law center where the dimensions are exactly as they are in the court with the lectern the same distance from the justices in the re

i really do not support bush policy. on the other hand, i don't know if i am comfortable, but i would like to see them tried in court. i am not comfortable with them being housed in it united states. i would like to hear much more about how fdr in your program handled the situation. host: we can read a bit more from the washington post. you are talking about the executive approach, the alternative going to congress, will be painfully politically, the president can still get what he wants a detention if he works from congress in a bipartisan center. if he speaks often -- we will leave this now. president obama is coming to the podium. >> my administration mounted a sustained response for an economic crisis. even as we make decisive action to repair the damage to the economy we are also working to build a new foundation for a sustained and lasting economic growth. we know this will not be easy. this is a moment where we are called upon to cast off the old ways of doing business and act globally to reclaim america's future.

that's what president bush did. i'm not at all surprised that that's what president obama is doing while he has the congress of his own party. i expect that there is going to be area that's plaub just like president bush can't accomplish his society. i haven't taken the teptur of congress. if the congress is where the president is, they could change this policy quickly if you want to. the end of the day, the president ought to be prepared tofully assert his power. don't need to. guyus are cowards, come on. [laughter] i can't get a rise out of you all? ok. i can't get a rise out of this crowd. often the questions about transparency is about the of ministration communicating with the public and the public seeing what the administration is doing. the question is, how does the public communicate with the administration? how does a regular citizen or member of acs make their concerns known to the administration? >> one of -- it goes along with transparency. the illustration is using technology in ways you have not seen b

president bush, it increased under president bush but it is increasing many more times under president obama. but i think in some sense it is not a partisan issue. for d. what good government for effective government to let the private sector grow and create jobs. i am concerned, like the caller, about the future because we are creating a lot of debt, much more than what was created during president bush ordering president reagan, it is astronomical come in many respects. host: you touched on this from there, but how you create bubblemania -- going back to troops in holland, credit cards, stock market? guest: you will not stop them completely, that is when markets are. but what the government can do is not helped create them. frequently we see government actions -- and we talked about that with respect to the federal reserve -- it is a very powerful instrument. imagine setting the interest rate for the entire economy, it is potentially very systemic. the first idea is, do no harm. and then figure out if you can create more transparency, describe what the government is doing, more trans

he, like other top officials of the bush administration of course never forgot that day. and it gave him more than anything in even greater sense of urgency than he had before that day in terms of trying to affect change in the u.s. military. u.s. know, he came into the job as the defense secretary with the main mission, the main assignment from george bush to transfer the u.s. military. and he was pushing for that, he was pushing for that before 9/11 but that whole mission gained even greater urgency. >> host: let's hear from -- we are going to take a look at one of the comments, one of the many briefings, rumsfeld held up the pentagon and this is the response to a question about back when he did a kuwait troup town meeting and said basically you go to war with the army you have, not the army you want. this was his response a couple of weeks later to one of the reporters' questions. i want to get your reaction to this. >> i am truly saddened by the thought anyone could have the impression on or others here are doing anything other than working urgently to see that the li

it was president bush george h.w. bush whombings a republican, who nominated her to be a federal district court judge.

a bush administration request to congress to create the t.a.r.p.d the bush administration intervention without congressional final action in the auto companies. .. more than one-third of the money advanced to banks had already been paid to the treasury. we have to decide what we do with that but does consider the whole 700 billion gone have to cope with the fact that approximately 200 billion advance in less than a year and more than 70 billion has come back some of which exceeded the loans because there was interest. these are complicated questions to be worked out and i would not ordinarily have brought this up but listening to what i heard before, yes we have had a problem with bailouts for the second point i would make is that say on pay comes from england. it is not some intervention. it is not a bailout. the compensation matters we talked about, is one thing to have fair of compensation restrictions when people are getting money correctly. it is another when we are talking about risk assessment so i will now ask my question of these three gen

bush and chinese silenced of that. he was paid $5 million and currently lives in jordan. -- bush and cheney silence that. i think it is important information. senators grassley and baucus both received the most money from the health-care industry. host: would you like to reply to the first part? guest: a lot of our recent history in the previous administration up until today remains shrouded in secrecy. there is a lot of archaeological work required to document the history of the last 8-10 years and overcome its secrecy. the president has asked jim jones to oversee the 90-day review of classification. some critics have pointed out that the heads of agencies doing the review have not asked for public input. is it necessary? guest: it is desirable. the primary customer for declassified intermission is the public. one would think that it is important to get public input on expectations and demands -- for the classified information. until there will be an informal advisory group. the board will organize some kind of sessio

the bush administration has tried to negotiate with them. host: north carolina on our democrats line. caller: about this terrorism thing, with this thing about north korea. when clinton was in the chair he made it clear to north korea that they would not get a nuclear bomb. he said we will newt you guys. when push came in the chair -- bush came in, he let them get the bomb. they have been talking for years. china has not said anything. if you want to be frank about it, we spent a lot of time on this and they will get the bombs anyway. if they have money, they have it. they have russia, china, there is nothing we can do. guest: proliferation problem is critical. we have to be able to defend ourselves. i don't believe that bill clinton that i recall said that. there was an agreement called the frame work, where they try to cap the north korean plutonium and weapons program. unfortunately, in early 2002, we started to believe that north korea had eight iranian-based program and that made things much more difficult. many people believe that they

george bush said this, the i.m.f. and the world bank, given their central role in the world economy are key to hoping -- helping all of us through this situation by providing a combination of policy advice and financial assistance. george bush said that on september 25, 1990, a time economic stress internationally. for the same reason president obama and the 19 other industrialized nations of the world agreed that this was an appropriate step to take. i would hope the gentleman would urge his party to support this consistent with the principles of ronald reagan and george bush. i yield back. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. i think as the gentleman knows, we're probably going to have to leave this topic and just agree to disagree. it's very concerning, given the new times we are in and frankly the facts and information has come forward about the special drawing rights about the fact and knowledge that we have at this point knowing u.s. taxpayer dollars will help facilitate countries like iran, venezuela, burma, and

president decided finally after months and months of resisting advice from others to replace and why bush finally decided to do so and so i felt it was important to frame the story of his life by starting at the end. >> host: the book is on donald rumsfeld, bradley graham, "by his own rules." first louisianan on the independent line. good morning. >> caller: good morning. thank you, c-span, of weeks of the people. i just wanted to add donald rumsfeld as president ceo of the corporation, and 83 into the public domain it cost several million people to die from brain tumors. i wonder if he feels like he is responsible for those deaths. >> guest: the product aspirating commonly known as nutrasweet now found in thousands and thousands of products as an artificial sweetener from soda pop to chewing gum, it remains controversy all and i am no expert on the scientific findings but my understanding is that the great predominance of evidence has not established any link between aspertane and nutrasweet and the deaths you speak of and rumsfeld to this day remains proud of having brought the product

these internal task forces that the administration has set up, you are more transparent than the bush should ministrations was and the clinton administration was prior to that. to me, the real fight about transparency in our administration, the claims of executive privilege, when it was putting the executive congress against the presidency, you don't normally see that when those fights with both parties told congress and the white house. if, i hope, the control of the congress and the presidency come to differ over the next few years, you will see those classes, and you will see the extent to which president obama is committed to transparency. i happen to think there's an enormous value to be able to shield some of your highest -- you are bested 5 not to splash your best advice on the front pages. i don't think many members of congress would want to make public the internal e-mail between them and their staff over whether to vote for a certain bill and what considerations they take in voting for a certain bill. that is the type of non transparency that we were really advocating in the

now what i'm wondering is what you think of president bush's rolph. he had firsthand information and knew what we were doing on national security and guantanamo and techniques we were using. shouldn't he be standing up and fighting for values we believe in? >> it is an interesting role if former presidents have, and i think you did hear president bush when he spoke last year he gave a couple speech is one in michigan and one in canada and he did talk about how important and effective these programs work. and so, i think it's a mistake to say he hasn't been all they're defending them and i also think it's important to recognize their as a very small fraternity of former presidents and i think that they owe obligations to each other that someone like my dad who isn't a part of that group doesn't have so i understand completely president bush's decision to remain silent. i think it is a different decision than the one that my dad has made. >> good afternoon. my name is morgan from the university of south dakota. i studied arabic the past year and i'm won

george bush, your talked-about republican ideals. george bush gave $800 billion worth of tax breaks to the top 1%. he gave oil companies, who made half a trillion dollars in profits, which is basically war profiteering, and now you're talking about the war on terror. the only war, legitimate war in this country, is not the war on drugs or the war on terror, it is the war on the middle class. guest: sir, i have been called a lot of things, and i am intrigued by your notion that we are -- that the republican party is at war with the middle-class. you have bought into the whole notion of class warfare that i think the democrats have so are fully executed over recent years. at the end of the day, i do believe it is government's responsibility to keep its spending under control and to keep -- to let you keep as much money in your pockets and help you make the kind of his that you and your family need to make to improve your own lives. at the end of the day, you need to encourage entrepreneurship, reward and incentivize work that creates o

there was a lot of money spent in iraq during the bush of ministration. what would the economy looks like today if they did not spend all this money? guest: i did not rail against the bush administration for spending and other money in iraq nor am i doing that for the obama administration. we may have spent the money in the middle east the wrong way by going into a rock. -- iraq. that does not mean the money did not need to be spent. the u.s. economy may not have looked at different if we did not spend the money. i do nothing our spending on defense is part of the problem. our policy in iraq is a different story. if we were not in iraq, we would not be spending the money -- that notion is silly. host: what else will you be looking at a month down the road where you say, that is the plan that is working? guest: we are tracking the infrastructure projects. there are some good things in the package. there is money for alternative energy which is very important. we need to correct our energy deficit. that is a good thing. we are looking for those things to ca

george bush to the great job cutting taxes but kept spending and spending irresponsibly. no question about it. what you have to say is just that. the facts are the facts. i saw a panel on tv, a democrat kept saying george bush is conservative, almost went over the table. he is not a conservative. i am a conservative, i know a conservative when i see one. you don't. this is what they're going to do, paint him to the us, then we fall as a result. the american people rejected outright the policies of the republicans, they rejected it and they should have. i think conservatives can see now the mistake of not speaking out against the president. you can't let your president, because he shares the same party with you, you can't let him take the country in a direction that you disagree on basic principles, and not say anything because the american people do believe you are worthless. we were. what do we do? take a look at what obama is doing and we say there are 2 ways to define who we are today. by saying what we are for which is hard to do when you don't have a bully pulpit, ma

bush and barack obama. it's something i see continuing is the covert war in the eastern tribal areas of pakistan, how it is affecting the war on terrorism. the front is really moved into afghanistan, but with what the soviet union tried to do in 1980's, they're not being able to stop the mujahadeen and supplies from pakistan, alongside on friendly iran to the west, and then supplying the insurgents, too, along with the drug problems with afghanistan. what could president obama do besides continuing what president bush did? how can we win this war? this really is part of the war and terror. >> i agree. i think you have to go back and look at the very significant differences between the way the soviets attempted to pacify, to defeat the sovereign afghan government and the way we have operated and attempted to live. the country, both in terms of the difference in method of operation and also the objective. i think based on what i read in the news, which is my source for this, it looks to me like president obam

i will say that the first bush nominees were in may in

i think his more conservative than bush. i made big money under bush. my pocketbook has been effective. i must have missed about $12,000 that i thought i was going to qualify for. host: when did you buy your car? caller: i just bought its in may. host: thanks for your call. a number of calls concerning the withdrawals of troops from iraq. the date was established come up being tomorrow, june 30. it was established in a secure pact approved last year. it sets the deadline also for the complete withdrawal at the end of 2011. iraqi officials have hailed it as a victory against insurgents. one more story on iraq. this is a story from "usa today." u.s. forces snubbed by iraqi forces. the colonel, the iraqi colonel is convinced he can get by with minimal support from u.s. forces. he says he really does not need them. they also quote a u.s. soldier, 26 years old, a platoon leader who is concerned that a diminished u.s. presence on the ground could lead to a set back considered. he noted that they step of the u.s. military moved out of a station last week insad

the reason i say that is a republican party problem is that, with bush's -- as president -- with bush as president, it is hard to complain when it was on the republican watch. we will see how that plays out. >> my question is, given that congress often grants authority to the white house, they are reluctant to pull it back. the imbalance of not only tarp, but the end to it -- antiquities act, where the authorities granted power, they tend to say they will wait until our guy is back in power. >> that is an excellent point. i don't want to say is laziness on the part of congress, it is cultural convenience. some members spend more and more time in their district, running for office and mending fences. what suffers is committee worke. what is being slighted is oversight, congress taking policy initiatives to correct things within the executives. you have seen a decline by default. they like their -- their three- day work week and four days in their home district. they have suffered with policymaking as a result. the president's powers have been enhanced. they have delegated a lot of thin

>> what bush v. gore says? can have conduct that becomes so arbitrary, so egregious that it rises to the level of intention. what the court found in bush v. gore and why we have not argued as others have that bush v. gore was a won and done ducat, no presidential value, it is fair to read bush v. gore, that it has presidential value, the court was clear in limiting it to a unique set of circumstances, where you have conduct in court overseeing a recount. in that recount these ballots were open. governor bush knew what the score was and vice-president gore's team knew what the score was. was in these ballots, they were looking at completed ballots and without any standard in that circumstance, with the court standing by letting these be counted by would ever stand in the election officials came up with, you had an extreme example of where gamesmanship by the 2 sides could take place because they knew if they ruled that the standard applied in a certain way with a certain ballot, they ruined the outcome because t