this stimulus plan defies logic. this is at the cost of $2 trillion a leg, madam speaker. what do we get back for that? and these margins that were to come, we weren't going to see unemployment go past 8%, but now it's 9.4%. the stock market is down 204 points. the level of confidence that is there, it seems it's less volatile and more stable than it was, but we have a lot more debt than we had. and the chinese were happy to buy our debt. i was never happy to sell it to them. today they're not happy to buy it and i'm not happy to sell it to them. we have to tighten this belt down and slow down the spending and got to get back to balancing our budget. and i believe that every one of us here on this floor voted for a balanced budget this year in the face of all this economic crisis. those of us on the republican side of the aisle, many of us supported a balanced budget. it's hard to put one together in this tailspin that we're in. we voted for it. and that sends the right message and every year, we have to put a balanced budget out there. i yield back and i thank the gentlem

that is not logical. i think there is going to be some healthy debate in congress about the shape this takes. there can be some legitimate concerns of private insurers about if any public plan is subsidized by taxpayers and leslie, overtime, they cannot compete with the government printing money. there are going to be some legitimate debates to be had about how this plan will take shape. but the notion that all of these insurance companies who say they are giving consumers the best possible deal, but they cannot compete against a public plan as one option, with consumers making the decision, that it defies logic. that is why i think you see in the polling data overwhelming support for a public plan. >> some republicans have set that up to this point, your response on iran has been timid and weak. today it sounded stronger. it sounds like the speech that john mccain has been urging you to give. you referred to an iron fist in iran. were you influence by john mccain accusing you of being timid or week? >> w

that's not logic. now, i think that there's going to be some healthy debates in congress about the shape that this takes. i think there can be some legitimate concerns on the part of private insurers that if any public plan is simply being subsidized by taxpayers endlessly that in over time they can't compete with the government just precipitationing money so there are going to be some legitimate debates to be had about how this private plan takes shape. but just conceptionly the notion that all these insurance companies who say they're giving consumers the best possible deal, that they can't compete against a public plan as one option with consumers making the decision what's the best deal, that defies logic, which is why i think you've seep in the polling data overwhelming support for a public plan. >> that's nonnegotiable? >> chip. >> thank you, mr. president. following up on major's question, some republicans on capitol hill, john mccain and lindsay graham, for example, have said that up to this po

there's a very rational logical reason for believing in god. this book takes up where that book takes up. life after death talks about why it makes perfect sense, logical sense to believe in heaven, the after-life, miracles and things that are not particularly consistent with the atheist point of view. and he takes a very logical rational approach to proving why it makes more sense to believe in the after-life than to dismiss it as a fairy-tale. .. this book is partly a media bias a book, the media's role both complicit and accomplice in solving crime but also in that are sort of obsession with crime as entertainment. in his point is that we have probably gone too far in treating crimen as entertainment in reality tv, and how that gets in a way of solving crime investigators and police detectives doing their job and what it means for us as a society so it should be a very interesting book and hopefully another good best seller for regnery. >> marji ross, president and publisher of regnery publishing. >> thank you, a pleasure to see you. >> this

it should be replete with logic friendship and convergence and brotherhood. at the beginning, i would like to make some complaints about some unfair, let's call it cruel attitude and approach is in great why -- lies and sat atolls and against the government. in the previous revolution we never had this to be it in the term of one's symbol government or the course of an election, we never saw heavy attack with criticism launched against any government. i think the reason is the friends who decided to enter the stage felt maybe they could never compete with this government and any other construct especially in the field of excellence of services of the government which is unprecedented. any we enter, they also render valuable services, but the function of the government and performance of this government has been tantamount to the performance of several governments. on the international level, unfortunately great success of the people have been ignored. the services of the government were totally eight milward. i wish they would instead of launching this propag

it's not logical that every fraudulent registration would be a fraudulent vote. but it's clearly logical that with over 400,000 fraudulent registrations you are going to get fraudulent votes. how many is the question, who were they, we don't know, because a fraudulent vote is almost the perfect crime. if you can walk into a vote -- a polling place and the poll worker says who are you and you answer, my name is joe schmo and let's use a previously used address, 2609 canale street, new orleans, and they hand you a vote. no i.d. required, no picture i.d. required. in fact, in new mexico, and this is part of the congressional record with the secretary of state of new mexico testified before the judiciary committee about three years ago, it comes down to this. if i am working as a poll worker in new mexico registered to vote in new mexico and someone walks in to that polling place and says, i am steve king and i live at -- names the address that i live at -- even if they say they are me and i am working the polls, by law in new mexico i can't challenge that fraudulent

if one accepts this logic, then one must also accept the concept of slavery. that some people actually divide to be slaves. that one human being actually has the right to tell another human being how to think, how to pray. the absurdity is quite evident. freedom in democracy may indeed have many faces. but a freedom democracy in whatever form have a common foundation. that foundation is truth. we are here today to call for truth. without truth there is no basis for any relationship between people and between nations. we are here today to ask why the chinese government is so afraid of the truth. we are here today to call the government of china to confront and acknowledge what happened on the morning of june 4, 1989. we call on the chinese government to end the black list of people who participated in tiananmen. we call on the chinese government to end its harassment on a variety of citizens who dare to speak the truth. in particular we call on the chinese government to release the founder of the china way, and another person who is in con -- solitary confineme

-- the logical point in these debates were kind of undermined, and the destructive aspects would prevail at times. depicting the status quo, looking on the dark side of things, it could be seen during these debates and also casting doubt on the performance of the previous government's -- previous governments. they were never approved anywhere. sometimes, they relied on rumors and sometimes unjust remarks were made, both regarding this government, with all of the services it has rendered, and sometimes unjust comments regarding the performance of the previous governments over the past 30 years. the candidates kind of lost their temper during the discussion. and it is some positive points, they also raised some unpleasant issues and-points -- amid some positive points, the also raised some unpleasant issues and negative points. i enjoyed the freedom of expression and watched it. in those debates. and the fact that the islamic establishment has managed to go to the help of the people and help them to decide better. this is what i enjoyed. but the parts, the deficiency, made me sad. for supp

this is to me i just don't understand the logic of it. i understand how the figleaf of peace could help with the sudanese as a mentioned before, that the sunni arab states and the saudis and egyptians could get behind israel a little bit more and events that israel seized the decision and has to bomb iran. but i don't see this as, i don't see how you can leave one with the other parent you should in my opinion, both should be pursued it independently and obviously in everyone's interest to see peace brick out of the middle east but again and we've got these problems of trying to figure out who speaks with the palestinians but at the same time you got iran which is pushing toward nuclear weapons, edging closer every day. it will only be up to the united states. we have seen a pretty much every international actor and cliff can talk about this as well, backed out of the iranian challenge. it will be left up to the u.s. and israel as always in the middle east. and for this administration to say that it can't do anything until peace talks whi

this is to me, i don't understand the logic of it. i understand how the figleaf of peace could help with the sudanese as you mentioned before, that this unique arab states and they saudi egyptians to get behind israel or in the evidence that israel seized a decision in test tube, iran, but i don't see this as, how you cannot leave one with the other. in my opinion both should be pursued independent and is in everybody's interest to see peace break out in the middle east but we have these problems of trying to figure out to space for the palestinians but at the same time you got iran which is pushing toward nuclear weapons, edging closer every day. it will only be up to the u.s.. we have seen in every international iter and clinton talked about this well back down from the iranian challenge and will be left up to the u.s. and israel as it always is in the middle east and by this administration to say that it can't do anything until peace talks which are hinged on a lot of factors out of israel's control to me is not a very logical posi

the absurdity of this logic is evident. freedom and democracy may indeed have many faces, but freedom, democracy in whatever form, have a common foundation. that foundation is truth. we are here today to call for truth. without truth, there's no basis for any relationship between people and between nations. we are here today to ask why the chinese government is so afraid of the truth. we are here today to call on the government of china to confront truth, to acknowledge what happened on the morning of june 4, 1989. we call on the chinese government to end the blacklist of people who participated in tiananmen. we call on the chinese government to end its harassment of the best and brightest citizens who dared to speak the truth, in particular, we call on the chinese government to release the signer of the charter and to another person who is in solitary confinement for his lifelong advocacy of democracy. most of all, we call on the u.s. government and like-minded defenders of freedom to support truth by supporting an open an

that is not logical.the washington post" has this article concerning president obama turning to grassroots to support the reform. the author writes it remains unclear whether that will make a difference in the struggle. his toughest legislative challenge since reaching office -- campaign tactics have not been tested in the policy arena where clarity is elusive in success depends on the calculations of the 535 elected representatives. do you think his efforts at health care reform is gathering steam? how you feel about a public auction for health care? our first call will be from atlanta, georgia on the the democrats line. caller: good morning, ed thank you for suspending new i think you are the answer to us ultimately getting public health care, so we so appreciate you. i just wanted to call this morning and expressed how important that it is. i think that democrats and republicans as they go back and forth, i think they have lost any sense of appreciation for the struggle that goes on for everyday workin

why it makes perfect sense, logical sense to believe in heaven, the afterlife, miracles and things that are not particularly consistent with the atheist point of view. and he takes a very logical, rational approach to proving why it makes more sense to believe in the afterlife than to dismiss it as a fairy tale. >> finally, mark furman, the murder business. >> another regnery best-selling author. he did his very first book with us about 1 years -- 12 years ago. of course, that was the brook that -- book that broke open the o.j. simpson murder case. he's come back to regnery with a very, very interesting book. he's, of course, best known as an analyst of crime, and he has solved a lot of the biggest crimes that we have seen. he is a fox news contributor, he talks a lot about crime and justice and detective work on tv. this book is probably a media-biased book. the media's role both complicit and accomplice in solving crimes, but also in our sort of obsession with crime as entertainment. and his point is that we have probably gone too far in treating crime as entertainment and reality tv

can regulation do it although the regulators get caught up in the logic. >> i happen to think when it comes to risk-taking partnerships would be a good idea simply because you need to create incentives inside banks or brokers to actually try to monitor each department to monitor the other department with this sense of collective scrutiny and i think it is interesting but the banks appears to be better at docking of the bullet is goldman sachs where there is actually more sense of one department looking over the shoulder of the other departments, they are not all operating as silos and fierce competition with each other and actually secretive with each other as they are with the outside world and i think that is largely because or partly because goldman sachs partnership history still managed to view some of the corporate culture even today's wedding the partnership is one way to go down. i think unfortunately though that although people would disagree i think regulators need to get much more hands-on and involved and, you know, having a system whereby eckert finance years, bankers are

that would be the logical think to sksm first thing is, how big is our atmosphere? our atmosphere happens to be, they measure there in rhett meth rick tons, 1.50 qua drillon tons of metric atmosphere. there's a lot of air in the atmosphere. what is the cumulative total of all the co-2 that's gone into the atmosphere emitted by the united states of america since the dawn of the industrial revolution. 45% of it goes away, they don't know where, 55% hangs out in the air. that sounds big, but not compared to the overall atmosphere. it works like this. madam speaker if you draw a circumstance that will represented the size of the atmosphere of the earth and have that be an eight-foot circle so roughly the size of the wall in your house, two four by eight sheets of drywall, that big in iam ter that would represent the earth's atmosphere. draw a circle in the middle of that to demonstrate the size, the very dwhrisme co-2 that's accumulated in the earth's atmosphere since the dawn of the industrial revolution emitted by the united states. your eight foot circle is the atmos

that just doesn't seem logical to many of us here or logical to many of the people who are out there in our communities about to become jobless or who have become jobless because of the decisions that have been taken. so i'm interested in hearing about that. and i'm also interested in making sure and hearing the commitment, hopefully, from the companies, about how we're going to keep the market share that is of cars that are being sold in the united states from the companies, at its present level or increase it. so that we're not selling more cars from gm or chrysler that are imported because again we haven't been taking these actions to save the brands. we've been taking these actions to save our manufacturing base, strengthen our nation, and to preserve the jobs of so many that are in our districts and across the country. and i yield back. >> thank you, ms. sutton. and the cars act that she mentioned is cash for clunkers as we call it. she was the lead author, as well as myself and mr. dingell. in fact, it went through the committee. we website to the floor and we had votes on the

justice expressed the view that judiciary nominees should not be expected to provide detailed i'd logical information during the -- i'd logical information during the confirm, process -- since judges are expected to be impartial in hearing the case that is come before them. i agree with the chief justice. but i want to say more. the process for picking federal judges is totally broken, and it badly needs to be fixed. i think there's a great deal of merit to the editor in the los angeles times on february 8th calling for an end to the judge wars, and to move beyond parties in battle over nominations to the federal courts. the los angeles times observed that if president obama wants to deliver on the bipartisanship he promised he should focus on the process for selecting federal judges. i was nominated in march 1987 in the partisan fight in the senate over my nomination lasted six months and ended in a political compromise that allowed my nomination to be brought to a floor vote just before the senate recessed in november 1987. but that six-month fight over me pails in comparison to what oc

, it does seem logical to a lot of people that if the government is offering a cheaper health care plan, then lots of employers will want to have their employees covered by that cheaper plan, which will not have to be for-profit unlike private plans, and they may possibly benefit from some government subsidy, who knows. and in their employees will decide if this public plan which would violate what you are promising the american people that they will not have to change health care plan if they like the plan they have. >> your pitching, i'm catching. i got the question. first of all, with the reverend of spock, is that a crack on my ears? [laughter] >> i would never meet one of your ears, sir. >> in answer to david's question which you co-authored, we are still early in this process, so we have not drawn lines in the sand, other than reform has to control costs. and that it has to provide relief to people who don't have health insurance or are underinsured. those are the broad parameters that we have discussed. there are a whole host of other issues were alternately i may have a strong o

i am convinced they will because if anything happens to either of them, what is the logical conclusion francs? that we can't have any dissent in this country? i mean, i know they wouldn't be fired by government, it is not a censorship issue, but it would violate spirits of censorship. censorship only involves what government prohibits you from saying. ncmec decided to do something like that it would be a huge, huge mistake and i don't think they will, i think there save. >> thanks for being here peridot yesterday morning and think it was rushed i was listening to and i know you said there is no conspiracy and i believe you, of course,, rush limbaugh was saying that there is a conference call in the morning from -- in in all that goes out to george stephanopoulos and james carville camisole is there any --? >> i heard about this several weeks ago. for those of you who don't know there is a story on politico which is a very good on-line newspaper and it was paid to buy other side that says every morning rahm emanuel and stephanopoulos and cargill -- and james carville talk on the phone a

i reclaim my time to try to clarify my logic, mr. speaker. i think the ntleman and i both agree that we have heard the speaker indicate her position that she is not being told the truth and if she continues to have the briefings, has something changed, has something been restored to the process that there is integrity in these briefings and if so, does that mean that the speaker of the house has retracted her position that somehow we've been misled by the c.i.a.? and i yield. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. the gentleman continues to state his position. i continue to tell him that his reasoning confounds me and therefore i find it not worth while to repeat it for a fourth time. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman for his patience and would say again that we have still not given the american people the transparency on this issue that they deserve. the speaker of this house has made ases in a very serious way -- allegations in a very serious way about our intelligence community. this house has given the yore sigh -- ov

clearly there is one place jpmorgan in a few others who are resistant but this seems like the logic of these marketplaces is to move to the point where everybody x release stupid. in and what is -- to go back to partnerships for these firms? and regulation to it? all the regulators get caught up in the crazy logic. >> have been do think when it comes to risk taking partnerships would be a good idea simply because you need to create an incentive inside banks or brokers to try and monitor other departments and then used to be a sense of collective scrutiny and it think it is important that one of the banks seems to be better in this where they're actually more of a sense of one apartment looking over the shoulder and there are not operating as silos which are in competition with each other and a secretive with each other as with the outside world and i think that is largely because of goldman sachs partnership history which is still managing to abuse some of the corporate culture even today so i think partnerships are one way to go down and i think unfortunately although people with it d

there is no logic in this majority party except in the idea that we have go up to rules committee and sit down for three hours and wait for an opportunity to ask that stacked rules committee for an opportunity just to offer an amendment here on the floor of the house of representatives. there's no way you can go home and say to your constituents. i didn't have an opportunity even to offer an amendment, let alone perfect something and get a legitimate debate or a vote. so i analyzed these 124 remaining amendments after that fiasco last night and came with these statistical data that is interesting to this congress. out of the 124 amendments, 20 to 23 were about money approved by the rules committee. that would tell me that democrats don't mind voting for more spending. that's a clear conclusion that one can draw. because of the 94 amendments that were rejected by the rules committee, none of them can be characterized as spending amendments exclusively. they are policy amendments. and in that includes amendments that would have blocked federal funding for acorn, an organization that has

it i am right, and it is struck down, it will be an interesting shows logical experiment -- shows logical payment to see what happens to minority voting power without section 5. my own prediction it, it will have virtually no negative impact. you might see a fewer minority offices but you'll receive alet more districts where people are responsive to minority voting interests and i think the net of it is probably going to help the democratic party and i think help minorities, but i certainly don't see any of these kind of dramatic predictions coming true, and it will be interesting to see what happens, if you do try to struggle by if 2008 without this kind of washington oversight. thanks. [applause] >> all right. you've been very patient. i would like to give abbey some brief comments i before i turn e microphone over to you. >> i'm going to make it very, very brief. i loved what both of these people said. when rick said that i'm -- that there's a kind of ambivalence that runs through the book on redistricting, he's perfectly right. it bothers me actually. i told him, he whispered to me, p

morgan and others that were spared in resisted but they'd logic of these marketplaces is to move to thepoint where everybody acts really stupid. and, do we go back to partnerships for these firms? can regulation do it? although regulators get caught up in the crazy logic. >> i happen to think when it comes to risk-taking partnerships would be a good idea. simply because we need to create an incentive inside banks or brokers tex would try monitor each department to monitor the of the department and the needs to be a sense of collective screen may. i think it is interesting one of the banks appears to be better at ducking the bullet is goldman sachs. whether it is more of a sense of one department looking over the shoulder, they are not all operating in fierce competition with each other and as secretive with each other is that are the outside world. i think that is partly because of goldman sachs's partnership with history which it managed to npo some of the corporate culture even today. i think partnerships are one way to go. unfortunately, all the people would disagree, i think regulat

all the regulators get caught up in the crazy logic. >> i happen to say when it comes to risk-taking partnerships would be a good idea. simply because we need to create an incentive inside banks or brokers to actually try and monitor each department to try to monitor the other department and there has to be a sense of collective scrutiny. one of the banks appears to have been better at ducking is goldman sachs where there is more of a sense of one department looking over the shoulder looking over the other departments. they are not operating inside which is fierce competition with each other and actually as secretive with each other as they are with the outside world and that's largely -- or not partly because of goldman sack partnership with history which manages to imbue some of the corporate culture today. so i think -- one way to go down it. i think, unfortunately, that although people those who would disagree that i think regulators need to get much more hands on and much more involved and, you know, having a system whereby, you know, a group of financiers or banks are allowed t

he was interested in a buy owe logical survey. he's applying between 1901 and 1909 what we areas custodians in our country. new mexico was a territory, arizona was a territory. he could use the power of the executive office >> how old was he when he was president? >> he died when he was 60 years. he was at that point our youngest american president. later, there's always a trick. john f. ken di was the youngest elected. there's a psychiatrist that wrote a book he argued that he had a form of manic depression where he couldn't turn his mind or energy off. he would hike sometimes 40-50 miless >> if he entered a room, he took it over. he have found a lot of relief from nature. i go on nature hike was my kids. i'm living in austin. we go to a place called the wild bay son a lot. my parents were high school teachers. we had a trailer and used to go around the country and camp. i am like t.r. for my love of animals. we just had a kid of ra queues born under my daughter's bedroom. i like to have wild life around me. the bad lands there h

in some cases you could see in these debates that the logical kind of undermined, then the emotional and the nervous aspect would prevail, the destructive aspect would prevail at times. it's depicting the status quo, looking upon the dark side of things could be seen during these debates and also casting doubt on the performance of the previous governments could be seen. they were both negative. such allegations were raised. they were never proved anywhere. . . i, like many other people, never watched all of these tv debates i enjoyed the freedom of expression. and the fact that the -- they have gone to the people and help them decide better. this is what i enjoyed. the parts, the deficiency made me sad. for supporters of the candidate, again, those parts in which negative aspects, supporters did not like those parts either. it worried them. it was done on both sides. hear, in this platform a part of the prayers i should reveal the facts. both sides, both candidates in the debate had their own problems and deficiencies, unfortunately. on one hand, they were explicit against the incum

chief justice -- they approached the case, they said that the law is not an exercise in mathematical logic. what we do with judges we could do with computers, i never want to see that day. a chief justice with real-life experience, he made certain that this would be a unanimous decision. if they could accept this -- in contrast to the roberts scored, and desegregation decision, they said they would depart from the precedents of the court. the supreme court will issue one of its most important decisions in years, the constitutionality of the voting rights act. the voting rights act is a time- honored way to prevent discrimination. the court has always of held the constitution, i have to tell you, i listened to that argument, i am worried about -- students are taught that there is no more exclusive power than the 15th amendment, that gives us the right to vote. the passage of the voting rights act was the result of a struggle for civil rights. when this reached a crucial turning point on march 2, 1965, i was 15 years old. i was 25 years old. i wish i was 15 years old. on the bridge in selma,

will highlight this case because of the numerous and inconceivable outcomes and rulings that defy any logic, and more so any rule of law. and again, i'm talking about my father's case. sure, it's dare to my heart, but there's some very concise and clear things that we must understand. it's inconceivable to me that we would wait. the department of justice would not move immediately. first of all, as in the siegelman case, there was no crime. there was no crime. what started off as a political search for corruption and kwid pro quo ended up being an investigation of my father's personal businesses. how did it get started? my father beat out the current governor of georgia sonny purdue, his friend for the senate majority position. he switched parties, and it is documented, because my father became senate majority leader. he held a press conference in front of our businesses and stated that my father was the poster child of cronieism and corruption and was the best friend of the governor then roy barnes. he ran for election. his friend then conducted an investigation on the current governor bac

five years of market exclusivity to buy logic, the same as that provided to other prescription drugs. then they would be eligible, the manufacturer of the biologic, for an additional three years of market exclusivity for beneficial changes to their products and even more exclusivity if they conduct pediatric tests on their products. this tiered approach, which i hope to include as part of the health care reform bill moving through the "help" committee, would provide needed competition, long-term savings, and an opportunity for consumers to have safe, effective, and affordable medical treatments. biologics -- and i credit the manufacturers and the scientists and thank them -- the medical researchers -- for this they provide great promise and they provide hope to those suffering from devastating diseases and chronic illness. but absent price competition, how can -- countless americans will be unable to benefit from these medicines because they're just too expensive. when you're talking about tens of thousands of dollars a year just for this drug treatment, this biologic treatment, let a

in some cases, you can see in these debates that the logical point in these debates were kind of undermined, that the emotional and the nervous aspect would prevail, the destructive aspect would prevail at times. it's depicting the status of looking upon the dark side of things to be seen during these debates, and also casting doubt on the performance of the previous governments. they were both negative. such allegations were raised. they were never proved anywhere. sometimes they relied on rumors, and sometimes unjust remarks were made. both regarding this government with all the services as rendered, and sometimes on just comment regarding the performance of the previous government in the past 30 years. the candidates kind of lost their temper during their discussions. amid some positive points they also raise some on positive issues. i also like many other people sat and watched all these tv debates. i enjoyed the freedom of expression in those debates. and the fact that the islamic establishment has managed to go to the help of the people and help them to decide better. this is what i e

in some cases it would be in these debates that the logical points in these debates were kind of undermined. the emotional and the nervous aspect would prevail. this destructive aspects would prevail at times. it is depicting dayjet status quo -- it is depicting the status quo or looking at the dark side of things to be seen during these debates and also casting doubt on the performance of the previous government's. they were both negative. such allegations were raised. there were never proved. sometimes they relied on rumors. sometimes unjust remarks were mate, both regarding this government with all the service it has rendered and comments regarding the performance of the previous government for the past 30 years or unjust. -- were unjust. the candidates kind of lost their temper during their discussions amid some positive points. they also raised some unpleasant issues and - po negative points. like other people, i sat and watched these tv debates. i enjoyed the freedom of expression in those debates and the fact that the islamic establishment has managed to go to the help of the people

it does not make logical sense. host: thank you for your call. front page of "the financial times" -- the bernie madoff story. that win andee twister, and from a viewer -- susan is on the phone from four words. -- from fort worth. caller: i have been watching these clowns in congress on c- span and it is amazing. everything is run by the corporations and a lobbyisthe l. health-care reform is run by the insurance companies and the pharmaceuticals, so we will never really get a good change. i wish i could have gotten on with the gentleman from the service. i would love to have known what his company that he worked for is their -- if they are in the profit business with the service now. host: t is not. he is now with a think tank. we will let you take care of the dog. caller: i'd like to know how much did cheney and bush made of this war. host: thank you. it is the center for the new american security. as always, the links are available on our site, c- span.org. the front page of politico -- the energy bill aftershocks. and also, some of the behind-

justice and logic demand the problem must be resolved outside israel's borders. on i believe that with goodwill and international investment, this humanitarian problem ican be permanently resolved. i have spoken about the need for palestinians to recognize some things. i will speak about our need to recognize their rights. but first let me say the connection between the jewish people and the land of israel has lasted for more than 3500 years. judea and samaria are the places where abraham, isaac, and jacob, david, and solomon, uzziah -- isaiah, and jeremiah were. this is not an alien land. this is the land of our forefathers. [applause] the right of the jewish people to a state in the land of israel does not derive from the catastrophes that have plagued . true for 2000 years, the jewish people suffered expulsions, pogroms, blood rivals and massacres which culminated in a holocaust, a suffering that has no parallel in human history. there are those who say if holocaust had not occurred, the state of israel would have never been established. but i say that if the

you have to understand the logic -- twisted, but understandable. gulf leaders have been very disappointed by hatami, in the sense that these were a business-minded people with whom they could talk. hatami was soft-spoken. there were good relations. i am not going to overstate debt. in the 1980's, they were very concerned about iran's agenda in the gulf. saudi arabia and other places. they were building that relationship in the 1990's. they realize something in 2002 -- that iran had pushed ahead with its nuclear program, and that the good face of iran was hiding a more determined security policy. still very aggressive. they were trying to rebuild confidence between the two shores of the gulf. this still has an impact about how the gulf is upset at iran today. in a way, but they were relieved that ahmadinejad 1. a mousavi presidency would have had an impact -- a positive impact on the u.s.-will let -- a u.s.-iran relationship, and some believe that iran's interests and that washington's interest and in washington's heart is closer to the arab capital

and brand new major entitlement for long-term health care and yes over the first ten years, it is logical to score positively, because premiums will come in and people who are able to take advantage of the long-term care coverage will not have moved into long term care facilities over the first ten years, the majority of them. so it is very unlikely that there is a significant drawdown on that account, but if you go outside of the ten-year window and you look ta 40-year life of the program which is the context that you put programs like medicare and social security in, and this is an adjunct essentially, a brand new part d premium type of event, you are talking about independent actuaries who have looked at this saying it will cost $2 trillion in new unfunded liability. we already have as a nation somewhere around $60 trillion of unfunded liability. unfunded liability. just in medicare, medicaid and social security. this bill is suggesting that we add another $2 trillion to that. in my opinion, that is totally irresponsible. the debt we are putting into this country and on to the children

i think that is the logic. host: we're joined on the democrats' line from newark, new jersey. caller: thank you to your balanced response to the questions coming your way. as a person who watches c-span consistently, it is a pleasure to hear you cannot avoid questions posed to you. my question to you as a reporter for "the washington post" regarding john mccain and lindsey gramm attacking the president's response to the situation iniran, do you s a writer for net to be out of hand on their part and only politically motivated? do you think -- what are we supposed to do in response, technically, to what is happening andiran? should we sit back, observe, and be the third party like the rest of the world was to our own the elections? be thankful that there was a process seat that the people are responding to change? guest: it is a good question. on being out of hand i do not think so. i think the debate taking place captures the two wings of foreign policy thought. republic hawks believe and voke ronald reagan and the cold war has been unambiguous in their criticism of authoritari

he asked about a logical stopping point for having the voting rights act and having things like affirmative action to correct discrimination and the lingering effects. we have an african-american president now. at what point is raised not going to be as much of a factor as it is now in our society? i will hang on and listen to the answer. guest: i hope it will over be a factor in terms of acknowledging that people have different racial and cultural backgrounds that we will all respect. as far as making decisions about employment and things of that kind, i think the obama presidency is very important. it does not answer the whole question. if it did, the employment discrimination complaints at the eeoc would not have increased exponentially. most of them are about race. if it did, you would not have the asset gap between blacks, whites, and latinos increasing. there are signs that all is not well on race. i would think that mr. roberts from his line of questioning in the case we just talked about, that this case probably will come out in a negative way on these matters. i do think we should

that is why you have directors the the evidence is overwhelming as is the logic. the relationship between boards of directors at ceo as is necessary fairly intimate ongoing one. they've selected each other. they work together. it simply doesn't work to say one or two days a year this group that works closely together will now assume the arm's length position of labor and management and bargained with each other as if there was that independence. therefore, this is an accession to the normal rule where shareholders ought to have a role. board of directors ceos are all going to be able to do that by themselves. say on pay entitles the shareholders and that is where the questions on the amount would come in but what we should do now is deal with the structure, which should diminish the extent to which people get these incentives. i must say i am somewhat puzzled when the influential highly paid people in the country who present very important institutions come to me and say they need these bonuses to allied interests with those of the company. while the ceo of a majo

therefore, justice and logic demand that the palestinian refugee problem be solved outside israel's borders. on this point, there is a broad national consensus. i believe that with goodwill and international investment, this humanitarian problem can be permanently resolved. so far i have spoken about the need for palestinians to recognise our rights. in a moment, i will speak openly about our need to recognise their rights. but let me first say that the connection between the jewish people and the land of israel has lasted for more than 3500 years. judea and samaria, the places where abraham, isaac, and jacob, david and solomon, and isaiah and jeremiah lived, are not alien to us. this is the land of our forefathers. the right of the jewish people to a state in the land of israel does not derive from the catastrophes that have plagued our people. true, for 2000 years the jewish people suffered expulsions, pogroms, blood libels, and massacres which culminated in a holocaust - a suffering which has no parallel in human history. there are those who say that if the holocaust had not occurred, th

they are, think of the testing industry, for example and an insur agency motivated by a different logic. make up the rules as you go along, paul said. and -- in different words, adapt to local conditions, and as long as you remain true, to the root christian principle of loving your neighbor, as much as you love yourself, things will work out, whatever you do. the political establishment of paul's day like the school establishment of our own, had a recipe for everything. it was pledged to certainties. you find a thief, you cut off his nose. you find an adult truss, you stone her to death. when in doubt, don't think, just follow the rules. but the new insurgency traveled a different road, which most people can't understand today. even people who believe they are good christians. what the new insurgency said, if somebody steals your coat, give him your cloak. if somebody hits you, on the left side of your face, turn the right side. too be hit as well. pay the working men who labor only for the afternoon the same wage as those who work from early sunrise. rule book people find these pronou

that seems to have found itself and a young starting rotation that has been remarkably good, defying logic good. obviously, you would have loved to have won this game 3-1 for ross detwiler's first major league victory. that didn't happen. he pitched well enough to win. he had a situation tonight where kip wells came into the ballgame and he had not yet allowed an inherited runner to score and sooner or later it was going to happen. it happened tonight. bottom line, they won and willie harris hit a homerun to win the game. >> johnny: we'll take a break and continue the celebration here at national park with a great crowd on hand and willie harris celebrating his two- hundred homerun in the bottom of the 12th.  . >>   . >> johnny:  nats xtra poe g show brought to you by verizon fios. this is big. fans continue to celebrate. great to see you guys hanging with us and staying all 12 innings, incidentally in a 5-3 walkoff homerun by willie harris. the nationals go on to win. they have now won four in a row, a second consecutive ser wise. when yo