c-span's congressional chronicle. the congressional chronicle is at c-span.org/cognress. -- c-span.org/congress. >> follow c-span on washington -- follows c-span's washington journal on twitter and tweet your questions to our guests. do not miss any updates from "washington journal." twitter.com/cspanwj. >> this june on "indepth," your questions for eric posner who books include -- he will take your calls, e- mails, and at week's -- and tweets. live, sunday, june 5. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we begin with "the washington post." they categorize the future of the relations as make or break. what you think this story does to the relationship? guest: i think we're in a very delicate phase, no doubt about it. the trip that senator carey took, some of the commitments that he got -- i think there was took, some ofrry go the commitments that he got. just after he left, there was a brown strike, which i think was a very unfortunate -- drone strike, which i think was a very unfortunate set of circumstances that happened after the high- level meeting. it is important to stay focused on how important they are in terms of what is happening in afghanistan. 50% of our supplies come through pakistan. that is very important. host: the senate foreign relations committee had a hearing yesterday, looking at their relationship with pakistan. there was testimony from general jones. your republican colleague at the hearing had a bit to say about our relationship with pakistan and tried to explain that to his constituents. i want to get your reaction. >> i have a difficult to explain to the people back home in idaho what we're doing spending billions of dollars in pakistan, particularly on civilian matters. they do not like us. they do not like us. here, they have this terrible tragedy with the floods. we went in. we were the first ones there. we helped them. we saved people's lives. after we spent hundreds of millions of dollars rebuilding bridges that were washed out, i get asked, why are we spending our kids and grandkids' money to do this in a country that does not like us? host: senator tom udall, your thoughts? guest: i think that this is a very troublesome partner, no doubt about it. the capture of bin laden, people are wondering, it is pakistan really an allied? many of the things he is saying -- those questions are being asked back home. we have to look in the larger context. we have to look at how we get our supplies to our troops in afghanistan. we have to look at al qaeda and how they can assist us. they did help us with some of the things that led up to the capture and killing of bin laden. i am not here to apologize in any way for them or to say that many of the things that they do are good things, but they are a strategic partner. we need to try to reset the relationship and move on down the road. host: $27 billion to military and economic aid to pakistan from 2000 to 2011. what have we gotten for the money? host: -- guest: that is an excellent question. i do not think we have gotten what we need. the most worrisome thing to me is that, as we move down the road in afghanistan, we need to try to do everything we can to wrap it up and bring people home. the only way we are going to be able to do that is to deal with this safe haven situation which has been going on in afghanistan from the very beginning. they have ties -- they have had ties over many years with the taliban. we have the leadership of the taliban. the people come over, get dressed, get trained -- get rest, get trained. we hope after this meeting that senator kerry had, that they will change the situation. it may well be that this relationship is broken to the point where we are just going to have to make decisions in afghanistan to move down the road -- this accelerated transition, handed off to that and do -- the afghani's, everything we can to maintain a good relationship while we have troops there. host: does anything you have heard, read, or seen since the capture and killing of osama bin laden change your mind? guest: everything that i have seen since the capture of bin laden and way before tells me that we should be moving in the direction of having this be an afghan-led security operation. we need to turn -- the excellent things we're doing there on the ground, we need to now say this is the time -- it is coming up in july -- within 12 to 18 months, we should be able to turn this over to them. that is what i would like to see. to me, that is an accelerated transition. this three year timeline is way too long. i think we need to be moving down the road in a very aggressive way. it has been 10 years. this is america's longest war. it is your time to step up to the plate and take this over. host: if that happens, do you have any concerns about headlines like this in "the new york times." guest: part of what is happening in this whole region is that china is going to be there, russia is going to be there. they will try to be in afghanistan -- and they were trying to be in afghanistan and were thrown out. we need to stay focused on our national interests. our national interests have reached the point where we turn this over to the afghanis. it does not mean we're leaving the region. it does not mean this is not a strategic region to us. it does not mean we do not have ties. it is time for them to step up to the plate. host: your first phone call. senator udall. caller: two months ago, i was in kandahar. i spent the last several years in iraq and afghanistan as a civilian contractor. as yogi berra used to say, it ain't over till it's over. we're going to have to have a substantial political, military, economic presence in that part of the world for some years to come. we cannot afford to quit the scene too early. host: before you go on, why were you in that area? caller: i'm a contractor. host: what about your experience there makes you have this opinion? caller: because the situation is so fluid, so delicate. there are so many different parties involved. the insurgency is thoroughly entrenched. they have the logistical support, the military support. the elimination of osama bin laden is great. i have no problem with that. i am glad he is off the scenes. the organization that he founded that has been running this terrorism is not finished yet. host: senator? guest: the thing that troubles me -- we have been there 10 years. this is america's longest war. the boots on the ground presence is what we do not need any longer. we have trained their troops. we have trained their police. we put in billions of dollars in this training. at some point, you have to say -- and i think the president was right when he said that we would have an accelerated transition -- i personally think three years is to go along. i think we could be able to do that in a rational, reasonable way within 12 to 18 months. i think that is what i would like to see happen. it does not mean we leave the region. we are going to have our ships in the region. we're going to have our diplomatic mission there. but it is important that, at some point, they step up to the plate and do the job. host: ronnie, an independent in corpus christi, texas. caller: i am a first-time caller, so forgive me for my nervousness. guest: do not worry about me. -- it. caller: the middle east since the pakistan, afghanistan -- the pakistanis have nuclear weapons. the india-pakistan relationship, the israel-pakistan relationship. host: senator? guest: that is another important point. greta and i have not talked about that yet, but pakistan has a large number of nuclear weapons. they have a nuclear arsenal that we are sometimes concerned about. i am not so sure that what we have going on in afghanistan necessarily makes it more secure. and there is a lot going on between the two countries. i think that many of those issues would be resolved and worked out if we did not have such a large footprint right now in afghanistan. host: newport beach, california, marilyn. you are on the air. caller: my name is mary-lynn. i probably talked too fast. good morning. i am a democrat, but i guess i am sort of conservative when it comes to foreign relations and our military and stuff like that, so i will probably sound little off base to you. do you think that going back to our relations with pakistan -- do you think act maybe our -- that maybe our relations and the the world works out of kilter when president obama came in and he seemed -- were set off kilter when president obama came in and he seemed to have a very wimpy take on our place in the world? notwithstanding the killing of osama bin laden, which i think most of the world sees as in the air military did, not our president or secretary of state -- sees as in the military did, not our president or secretary of state'. host: let's get your thoughts about how the president is perceived to. guest: i think that president obama's started off with speeches in various places on foreign policy. one of the major speeches he gave was in cairo, which i think uplifted people. they felt closer to america. we still have real problems in this area at in terms of the people feeling good about our country. if you look at the polls that are taken on a regular basis in the middle east, there is a real suspicious attitude towards us. i think a lot of that has to do with the large footprint that we have, with the way we carried out foreign policy the last 10 or 15 years. it is not all just president obama. there is a lot that has happened since 9/11 that has convinced these countries that we are not necessarily a good partner for them also. i would not fall president obama -- fault president obama. i think he is doing everything he can. one couple you made is that people do not think this capture of bin laden was about president obama. he was in on every step. he made this decision. it was a very tough decision. people were split at the cia. i have to give him all the credit for that. caller: as far as afghanistan and pakistan, i say, let china have them. it is nothing but a huge money ghole. it is time to get out of that stupid war. host: ok. guest: i agree with you on ending the war. as you heard earlier when you were listening, within 12 to 18 months from the july deadline, i think we could give a signal to the afghanis to a separate the transition, start handing it over. -- to a accelerate -- to accelerate the transition, start handing it over. we will have a diplomatic presence. no doubt many of our companies will be operating in these areas. it is not like we're completely ending all ties to the middle east or in particular to this region. host: hank is a democrat in manhattan. you are up next. guest: good morning. how are you? caller: i am doing well. it is great to see you on the program. i agree with what you're saying. i think it is almost a spiritual construct -- we really have to keep the focus on ourselves when we get involved with other countries. i have one question with our economic interest in pakistan. i firmly believe that, when we get ourselves involved -- embroiled with other countries, often, there is an -- i would like to know your take on the realities of the situation. what companies are there rooted in pakistan that we need to be concerned about? oftentimes, i find that policy and government follows economic interests. guest: i think that is true. unfortunately, when you focus on the region, this is a very, very poor region of the middle east. there is not a lot going on economically. there is a huge amount of agriculture. people are living -- especially in afghanistan -- in a tribal way. our efforts have been coming in the past, to give aid, the build projects, to build dams, to do things that help people out. that is something i think we need to continue doing because we want to try to bring them up. that is spread of where it is. is.-- kind of where it host: help me with your name. go ahead. caller: id'd was back in the 1700's -- i think it was back in the 1700's when president james monroe enacted the monroe doctrine. i would like to know -- guest: i think we lost him. host: you have to turn your television down. we will go on to mike in oklahoma. you are on the air. caller: good morning. guest: good morning. how are you? caller: i am well. i graduated from the college of lost princess -- of las cruces. guest: it has changed a lot, no doubt about it. caller: there was an article about columbus, new mexico, where several police officers were arrested for running guns down to mexico. related tovewhen >> was project -- i was wondering if that was related to product gun runner by the atf. they were instructed to proceed with questionable and illegal sales to suspected straw-buyers. i would like to get your opinion projectject beg-- on gun-runner. guest: it is a stain on law enforcement. they started getting information on these purchases. a number of agencies work on the border to try to prevent guns from coming across, guns from being run from the united states and mexico or the other way around. they found out that these officials were involved in in it. in fact, the police chief was involved. they followed it and they cracked down on them when they thought they had the evidence. i am not so sure this relates as much to the program you're talking about. it is just a good effort by law enforcement at the border to talk well -- tackle a serious problem. it is in the legal system now. host: richard is a democrat in canton, illinois. welcome to the conversation. caller: i have three quick points i would like to make that i would like the senator to answer. the main reason we're in afghanistan was to get bin laden. we got him, now let's get out. we're getting ready to give pakistan almost $3 billion in aid. why do we not tell them to give us the nuclear weapons in exchange for the aid? as low as they have the nuclear- weapons, we will be browned -- as long as they have the nuclear weapons, we will be bound to protect them for eternity. iraq is the second- largest holder of oil in the world. why don't we ask them to give us their oil in return for paying for their freedom? guest: those are great points. you have noted one of the things that we went into afghanistan -- bin laden. we also went in to topple the government that was sponsoring bin laden and to destroy the training camps and destabilize al qaeda. those things have been accomplished. that is why i believe we should be on the road to this exonerated transition -- accelerated transition. there is a real question as to what we have gotten for the aid we have given to pakistan. i do not think that is a deal we can make in terms of aid for the nuclear weapons. these countries that get a nuclear-weapons do it for very specific reasons -- get nuclear weapons and do it for very opposite reasons. in this case, it is because of the india-pakistan situation. i just do not think we can do it. i wish iraq was doing a lot more to pay us back. they are in a very unfortunate situation where their oil is not as high as it could be, but i hope that they will do everything they can to give us breaks there at the local level while we are there for the rest of the year. it looks like we will end up with strong and our troops from iraq on the president's schedule by the end of the -- withdrawing our troops from iraq on the president's schedule by the end of the year. i think we have to look at the broader issue of al qaeda and the other terrorist groups in the region. they are spreading out other areas. we are stuck in one area with our allies, 140,000 troops on the ground. we should be more flexible. we should be pulling back and doing this accelerated transition. then we will be able to work with other countries all around the world on the counter- terrorism effort. that is the course we should be pursuing. i think it makes a lot more sense to pursue that course and then having such a large footprint -- course than having such a large footprint that is really not getting us anywhere. host: scott, washington, d.c. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. want to talk about our government getting involved in the middle east. we get involved in these countries and we take so much of a financial, military, political burden upon ourselves. we ask so little of the countries in that region. specifically with iraq, it was often touted as security for the region -- one of the several reasons to get involved in that part of the world. then, the coalition fighting in iraq seemed to be made up of countries that had a presence there from around the world -- philippines, great britain. i wonder why it is that the u.s. government -- congress, the president, so on -- as always found it acceptable that -- has always found it acceptable that we americans take so much of the burden than many of the other countries that are likely to be involved in the region itself. saudi arabia -- they have their reasons. why does the u.s. government fined those reasons acceptable? guest: these are some tough foreign policy questions you have raised. first of all, i do not think we should have gotten into iraq and the first place. i voted against going there -- in the first place. i voted against going there. i think it has been a real disaster for us. finally, obama, with the ending of the policy and the troops out by the end of the year, i think that has us where we need to be. as far as afghanistan -- we have talked about this. we went in there to get the mastermind of 9/11. we've got him. we went in to take the government out that was sponsoring his type of terrorism. we have done that. we have destroyed the training camps. we. had a -- we have had a devastating impact on al qaeda. i think all of those things that we have done our major accomplishments. we should feel now, we can turn this over to them in an accelerated away in the next 12 months to 18 months and maintain a smaller footprint and work with other countries in the region on the counter-terrorism effort. host: silver spring, maryland, joyce on the line for republicans. caller: we cannot mention afghanistan without mentioning the drug problem in our own country. we are begging for help to get information out to -- especially -- young people on this medical marijuana issue. there are over 25,000 studies out of the university of mississippi and not one of them says marijuana is good for anything. new mexico happens to be one of the states that passed it. my own state of maryland. i think there are 25 states now. it's the biggest lie that has been perpetrated on the skids in the history of the drug issue, i guess -- on these kids in the history of the drug issue, i guess. 18 nations have linked marijuana to schizophrenia and others. testimony before the maryland legislature -- it was talked about that marijuana causes schizophrenia. the maryland secretary of health and hygiene was asked a question --the sponsor of the bill asked the doctor, if he were in his place, would he vote to allow their one as a medicine. the doctor said absolutely not. host: will have to leave it there. go ahead, senator. guest: i think you have raised some important issues and the one i would like to speak to about the mexico -- about new mexico is the we do have a medical marijuana program in place. it is targeted specifically at people who have terminal illnesses and have problems where doctors believe that marijuana or the ingredients in marijuana can make a difference. i think our program is a good one. i do not think it endorses drug use outside of the program. that is the way i think a medical marijuana program should be focused. all of the other things you said may well be true. i think a good, solidly supervised the medical marijuana program can work and is working in a state of the mexico. host: louis from fort myers, florida, a democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. guest: good morning. caller: i have a question for you, senator. i noticed the elections -- i hope republicans sometimes. it depends on the person. in the future, i would never vote republican again. i think it's good to vote across the line. i think we should have a clear mind. i noticed the attitude of the republican party in the last few months and years since obama has been elected. their attitude -- you notice the things they say and how they come off and the negative use -- a lot of my friends have really turned off to the republican party. i am 72 years old. i never thought -- could tell you a lot of things. host: what is your question for the senator? caller: my question is why no one has come forward and condemned the attitude of some of these senators and some of the people running for president. why doesn't someone come forward and say something about it? guest: if you tune into cn every day and look at the covers nonstop on the house floor and the senate floor, people are getting out there and condemning each other, and fighting over these programs, like the ryan budget and what ever is. unfortunately, we're in a real gridlock situation. i think we need to pull together for the country and look at the important things we need to do in energy, education, and foreign policy where we can all agree and start moving the country forward again. we just had a vote yesterday on big oil -- trying to take back those subsidies. we will have another vote today. both of them are failing. we ought to be designing an energy policy that moves us on the path to independence. i think you are right in the sense that your question seems to say to pull us all together and forget the parties. that's where we need to head. there's no doubt about it. . host: cottonwood, idaho, cornelia, a republican. good morning. caller: good morning, everybody. guest: good morning. caller: good morn
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Open Library
American Libraries
TV News
Understanding 9/11
