the thing i found most objectable was when he pulled the rug out from under poland and the czechoslovakia republic. i was with them this last friday. what i'm saying is that capability is there. we don't have a way of deterring that other than i understand the argument that we have the ground-based system in alaska and california. i don't have the confidence that they would have that. briefly, what am i overlooking? >> senator, i will ask to take that one for the record. it's a technical issue that i would like to provide you a little more data on. i will say that as a naval officer who has commanded multiple ships at sea, i am extremely impressed given my background with the system and ability to adapt. part of my confidence comes out of my grounding and sea operating at that system and belief that it can be transitioned. having said that, i want to provide you the hard data on this and take that for the record. >> that's all right and i don't disagree. i have been a strong supporter, but looking at long range icbms and we get that for the record, general, i appreciated the fact that you

in march 18939, they seize all of czechoslovakia. the rest is history, horrendous history. it became the symbol of a rotten compromise. the compromise one shouldn't have signed under any circumstances. it became the label for the policy that led to the munich agreement. since the agreement was perceived as rotten, the term appeasement goes through the total reevaluation. it lost it's positive sense of bringing calm and peace and came to mean surrendering to the demand of the bully just because he's a bully. and apiece became the term he was delusional. as the saying contributed to churchill, one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. but is the munich agreement a clear case of a rotten compromise? my answer is book is the munich agreement is a rotten compromise. but not predominantly because of it's count. if the count of the agreement is rotten, was it? it cannot be the motive that make it is wrong. there was nothing shameful in chamberlain's yearning for peace for signing the agreement. even recognizing sincerity, and i quote, no one have been more resolute a

and what at that time, if you ask members of congress, everyone would have thought that the czechoslovakia mink is not endangered. i don't know what the czech -- years later discovered it is endangered. of course the statute applies. they enacted some words that expressed a general purpose and even if they thought the application was not what it turns out it's going to be, you have to follow their general purpose or the value underlying the constitutional provision, applying it to circumstances that they thought might not even exist. that's the name of the job, in my view. and if you look at the particular, and i like that example about the confrontation clause because it gets emotion and sort of -- therefore i think it's a pretty good example. justice scalia wrote, and i agreed with him and joined him, that when it says in the constitution every defendant shall have the right to confront his witnesses, that's basically what it says, confront the witnesses, what those framers had in mind was sir walter rollie, who in fact was convicted on the ground of some after davids -- affidavits peopl

and i think at that time her part of czechoslovakia was in the austrian hungarian.'t know much about my mom. she was a mystery figure. a darling woman with a german accent. and she used to say to me, you idiot, you have no brain she would say to me. i've always found germans a little scary. and i grew up in michigan just west of detroit. >> host: claudette in lewiston, idaho please go ahead with your question. >> caller: thank you very much for your commentary here. i'm learning a lot. your statement you made you would prefer state-by-state healthcare, i think what us folks in the grassroots, if you want to call it that, we don't want more government control. so would the state-by-state insurance benefit us? could we do that? not that we don't want everyone to have healthcare. we just don't want the government more involved in our lives. and one more statement, you served in the navy and thank you for that, i think i get real concerned with especially the europeans saying how bad we are and everything. but when you think all of the men and women that we had buried i

my mom was a european and her naturalization paper says czechoslovakia but she was actually born in 1912t that time her part of czechoslovakia was in the hungarian empire bleach she told us she was austrian. she was a mystery figure. darling woman with a german accent and she used to say to me you idiot, you have no brain. i always found german a little scary. muchrew up in michigan just west of the troy. >> host: claw that in idaho, go ahead with your question. assraller: the statement you ide, state-by-state health care, if you want to call it that, we don't want more at?ernment control. was it state-by-state insurance, would that benefit us? can we do that? we don't want everyone to have health care. we don't want the government involved in our lives. since you serve in the navy, ng howyou for that. i get real concern with the european saying how bad we are but when you think of the men and women we have buried in their land that we went over and iave their lives for, i get upset about that. >> guest: i mention that in my europe book. we liberated them. me helped them defeat the nazis

and what at that time, if you ask members of congress, everyone would have thought that the czechoslovakia mink is not endangered. i don't know what the czech -- years later discovered it is endangered. of course the statute applies. they enacted some words that expressed a general purpose and even if they thought the application was not what it turns out it's going to be, you have to follow their general purpose or the value underlying the constitutional provision, applying it to circumstances that they thought might not even exist. that's the name of the job, in my view. and if you look at the particular, and i like that example about the confrontation clause because it gets emotion and sort of -- therefore i think it's a pretty good example. justice scalia wrote, and i agreed with him and joined him, that when it says in the constitution every defendant shall have the right to confront his witnesses, that's basically what it says, confront the witnesses, what those framers had in mind was sir walter rollie, who in fact was convicted on the ground@@@@r >> they all said we cannot have tha

the thing i found most objectable was when he pulled the rug out from under poland and the czechoslovakiarepublic. i was with them this last friday. what i'm saying is that capability is there. we don't have a way of deterring that other than i understand the argument that we have the ground-based system in alaska and california. i don't have the confidence that they would have that. briefly, what am i overlooking? >> senator, i will ask to take that one for the record. it's a technical issue that i would like to provide you a little more data on. i will say that as a naval officer who has commanded multiple ships at sea, i am extremely impressed given my background with the system and ability to adapt. part of my confidence comes out of my grounding and sea operating at that system and belief that it can be transitioned. having said that, i want to provide you the hard data on this and take that for the record. >> that's all right and i don't disagree. i have been a strong supporter, but looking at long range icbms and we get that for the record, general, i appreciated the fact that you