the middle east did not have on the region did not have any oil. if there was no oil in the middle east, do you think that the united states would be so evasive and worrying about what we call human rights in the different countries? my basic comment is, i believe the united states has totally, absolutely been one-sided in this whole issue. we have not addressed with the united states has done with the shah because it was conducive to the united states. some people in the united states, we say that the muslims are terrorists. is in one man's terrorist another man's freedom fighter? when you allow israel to be able to do whatever they choose to do and to allow the palestinians not to have their own sovereignty, if it was reversed the other way, we would be, it is terrible. i feel that the united states should come clean and say that the arabs have basically been a tribal people. they have had battles with the jews since the beginning of time. they will continue to have battles. why don't we be honest and say that the only reason we're there is becau

that has always been the case in the middle east. incidentally, i really think that is part of the cultural diversity and richness. . guest: the iran ian's are persians. that sensibility does seem to unite people in the arab world. -- the iranians are persians. host: we are monitoring al jazeera right now. it is this what most of the world is now seen? this is what we're getting right now. this is al jazeera. is there one version around the world? is it different here than elsewhere? guest: we are seeing al jazeera international or al jazeera english. there are two strands. there is one in arabic that is broadcast on satellite. you can see that i set like anywhere in the world. there is al jazeera english that is broadcast on cable. it is still trying to put itself on cable on a large scale here in the united states. as of the first of july, they are going to beat on cable -- they are going to be on cable in the washington, d.c., area. these are two different strands. in many ways, they represent slightly different perspectives on th

that has always been the case in the middle east. incidentally, i really think that is part of the cultural diversity and richness. . has often described itself as a channel that sees the world through arab eyes. it is difficult to establish what those arab eyes are. but there is an error sensibility around big issues, like israel-palestine, like iraq, relations with iran fall in a different category. this is a more clear-cut difference between arabs and persians. that does basically seem to unite people in the arab world from the atlantic to the gulf when it comes to issues between iraq and palestine. this is what we're getting right now. this is al jazeera. is there one version around the world? is it different here than elsewhere? guest: we are seeing al jazeera international or al jazeera english. there are two strands. there is one in arabic that is broadcast on satellite. you can see that i set like anywhere in the world. there is al jazeera english that is broadcast on cable. it is still trying to put itself on cable on a larg

we will take a look at the middle east in our final segment. joining us will be -- he would join us from new york. he is neil macfarquhar. we will be right back. >> to a house subcommittee takes up the issue of insurance industry oversights. this could threaten the financial system. live coverage begins at 10:00 a.m. eastern. the senate commerce committee considers nominations for the federal communications committee. that will be live at 2:30. both hearings are also on line. >> discovered an unfamiliar side of our first president. we will be live from mount vernon estate on the assent of george washington. join our conversation on sunday, july 5. >> how is c-span funded? >> i have no clue. maybe some government grants. >> advertising for products. >> public money, i am sure. >> how is c-span funded? 30 years ago, it was created by a public service. no government mandate. no government money. >> "washington journal" continues. host: our guest joining us from new york is neil macfarquhar, author of the books "the media relations department of hi

host: david makovsky is the middle east peace director for the washington institute for near east policy. thank you for joining us. we appreciate it. abderrahim foukara will be joining us to give his perspective. amy walter is joining us from the hot line offices. the headline is "state to get a disputed $700 million." >> this long-running battle between south carolina's republican governor and the republican-controlled legislature is finally over. mark sanford had refused -- he argued that it would actually devalue the dollar and run up a deficit in the state. he had refused to implement the legislature's plan. they argued it was to fill gaps in the education funding for the state. the supreme court weighed in yesterday saying that the legislature, not the governor, is the one with the purse strings. the legislature wants to spend the money. it is their right to do that. the governor must help them do that. in other words, he cannot block them from doing this. in some ways, it was a blow to mark sanford, who had made this a very big cause. he even embroiled his attorney general, who is

it was not related to the middle east. host: are you with us? please go ahead. caller: i would like to make a statement about the anchor babies. non-registered citizens -- host: caller, i'm going to stop you there because we are trying to focus on the middle east. guest: we think that sometimes these broad templates of people saying it is all about linkage and everything is linked in the middle east and other people think that we can just sustain the status quo, we believe that this conflict needs to be solved. we do not buy into the idea that there can be -- it can be addressed through just a lot of pious statements. there has to be a relationship between what happens on the ground with building this to state solution and israel's legitimate security concerns. we think a lot of these myths are perpetuated. we certainly believe in the united states being involved in helping to solve the problem. we just do not think -- america thinks that you can't impose peace on the parties. we can help them, but we cannot do this for them. we do not believe you can impose pea

that has always been the case in the middle east. incidentally, i really think that is part of the cultural diversity and richness. . aljazeera has described itself as a channel who seized the world through arab allies. very difficult to establish what those arab eyes are. there is a sensibility are around issues like israel, palestine, iraq, corporations with iran fall in a different category because that is a much more clear-cut difference. that sensibility does seem to unite people in the arab world from the atlantic to the gulf when it comes to issues like iraq and palestine. host: we are monitoring aljazeera now. is this what most of the world is now seeing? this is what we are getting right now? is there one version around the world or is it different here in united states? guest: what we are seeing here is international aljazeera. there are obviously two strands. there is one in arabic which is broadcast on satellite and you can see whether you have -- where you have set alight in any part of the world. you have aljazeera engl

had the chance to spend time with young women in the middle east and i always come away so inspired by their dedication by their desire to change the future and to bring their nations into the 21st century and i think you all today have the same potential to be the leaders of the future. so i can't tell you what an honor it is for me to be here with you. i think it's become fashionable in some quarters to sort of talk about the demise of conservatism. and i think, you know, if you ask some folks they would even say the movement is near death. but one of the things i wanted to do today with all of you is tell you that nothing could be further from the truth. that you as young conservative leaders really are living at a moment of tremendous import for the movement and also for the nation. and that you'll have the opportunity over the coming years to make a real difference and i know that you will grab at that opportunity. in the first few months now of president obama's presidency, we have actually learned much. i think many of us hoped as he was elected and sworn in that he would be

middle east trip. there are only 24 hours in the day. there is nothing to get beyond us just trying to fit in what we could do on such a short trip. that is all that there was. so stop it, all of you. [laughter] i know you have to find something to report on, but we have more than enough problems without manufacturing problems. in terms of the issue of guantanamo, this is a difficult issue. it is difficult in my country. it is difficult internationally. we have a facility that contains some people who are very difficult to deal with. some of them probably should not have been detained in those facilities in the first place. they should have been processed and tried and convicted. if they were not convicted, then they should not have been languishing in a facility like that that became a symbol for many around the world of us not sticking to our ideals and traditions and rule of law. but it was done and that is the past. now we have to move forward. we have spoken to the european union about the possibi

iran is in the middle east where western intervention has a bad name."his is from a viewer, "could this be a cia sponsored color revolution? possibly a leftover bush project"? of this is the cover -- this is the cover of "time" magazine. adrian, good morning. caller: all of these people calling in, what is appalling to me is the fact that third-party candidates that ran for president in this country were not able to get their voice. they were not able to participate in the presidential debates. host: thank you for the call. our thanks to "the new york times." they have been able to oppose these photographs on the web site. muriel is next, from hanover, pa.. caller: good morning. our you? host: fun, how are you? -- fine, how are you? caller: i am still surprise that the level of coverage in iran. we have seen more on them and we have seen iraq or afghanistan in eight years. why is the media so interested in one country when these other countries have our men in women dying in them. this one woman cried about someone being killed in iran last week. the num

he challenged on middle east peace. he challenged the parties today and yesterday to take actions, the israelis and palestinians, things that have been asked to do for years. they agreed to do but still today remain even more unwilling or unable to do them. what are your specific next steps to try to break the stalemate? why do you think your approach is realistic? and to the chancellor, you talked about a time line the two of you discuss. can you be more specific about that? >> as i said at the outset of my speech, mr. abe was just one speech. it does not replace all the hard work that will have to be done. that was done before the speech and will have to be done in the years to come in order to solve what has been a 60-year problem. i am under no illusions that would ever statements i have put forward somehow are going to supplant the need to do that work. i think that what is different now is number one, you are seeing a u.s. administration and an american president engaged this issue almost on the day that i took of

a nuclear iran, they feel, will definitely destabilize the middle east. that school of thought exists more in the official circles in the middle east, in egypt and saudi arabia, some of the gulf countries. among the populace, it is different feeling. among the populace, they see is real cause nuclear capability -- israel's nuclear capability as the real threat. the president alluded to a nuclear-free world. when he talked specifically about the danger that iran poses in this area, without mentioning israel by name, i think he rubbed some people in the muslim world the wrong way. host: good morning. caller: good morning. just commenting on the previous discussion about the iran issue and nuclear arms, i think in a lot of ways, the iranian issue -- while it is a real issue, it is a diversion, the same way that the iraq war was a diversion away from dealing with terrorism. posted -- focusing so much on iran acquiring nuclear weapons has ignored the russian stockpiles, which are far more of a threat of terrorist getting their hands on a multitude of weapons f

we also discussed the broader middle east and the need for all parties to redouble their efforts for lasting peace. during our recent -- a recent visit, the chancellor spoke eloquently about germany's everlasting responsibility to the security of israel. they must reject violence and recognize israel's right to exist. we agree that confronting violent extremism and preventing terrorist attacks demands our continued commitment and a comprehensive strategy. this includes dismantling and disrupting al qaeda and its allies. we honor those who serve, including american and german soldiers that pay their lives there this week. as i prepared him as it -- as a prepared to visit moscow, we will work with the russian government on issues where we agree, and honestly confronting those areas where we disagree. in moscow, we will continue to explore ways in which we can advance our common interests, including our commitment to reducing nuclear arsenals and strengthening the global non- proliferation regime. meeting these challenges will be neither quick nor easy, but i am reminded of the blessed

they met earlier today in france and questions from some reporters on the middle east peace process,th korea's nuclear weapons and their policy towards iran. this is 35 minutes. >> i would like to say to the president of the united states of america how proud france is to work with you. for the second time this year, this afternoon we will be talking about the ceremonies and the commemoration of the d-day landings but i want to say in the strongest, most sincere terms that never in the history, perhaps, of our two countries the united states and france, have been so close to one another on major issues, major questions. i say to the president that we are determined to help him in his decision to close down -- shut down guantanamo. i told president barack obama to what extent we support his open, outstretched hand initiative to russia, that we improve and endorse this policy. i said to the president that we totally agreed with him. on the israeli and palestinian issue. two states that need to live alongside one another, an israeli state whose security we're very attached to and a secu

. >> i was wondering, you talking about the middle east, and considering where we are in afghanistan and iraq, where we should prioritize ourselves in the israeli-palestinian conflict. what do you think? >> that is a very good question. there has been an orthodoxy that many different people have tried to push, including some governments in the middle east. that is this notion that we have to have peace between the israelis and palestinians before we can pursue anything else. when i was working in the state department, i spent time working on democracy programs to bring market economics, to work on the empowerment of women in the middle east. . . the palestinians have the obligation to dismantle terrorist organizations, and that is an obligation that happens in the road map near where the same place that the israelis are asked to stop building settlements. it is not just say improve security. i think we need to work hard on this issue, but i think we need to be very clear about the fact we're not putting it at above these other issues and bring peace between israelis and palestinians,

policy in the middle east. she practiced law in the area of international project finance for three years and then served on assignment with the international finance corporation where she provided legal advisor on investments in the middle east and central asia. from 1989 to 1993, she served at the department of state at the agency for international development. during the 2000 and 2004 presidential campaigns, she managed vice presidential debate preparations and served as a national service for the bush-cheney campaign. she is currently collaborating with the father, vice president cheney, on his memoirs, covering four years of his career in washington. she earned her law degree from the university of chicago and her bachelor's degree from colorado college. like our organizations namesake, clare boothe luce, ms. cheney is a very accomplished woman an expert in the area of foreign affairs and especially middle eastern affairs. she has one other important role on a resume. she is also a wife and mother of five

al jazeera arabic as the bulk of its audience in the middle east. it caters to be specifically arab audience in the middle east and elsewhere. al jazeera english has a broader perspective. it is broadcast in english. it addresses so many different audiences in various parts of the world, including the american audience. host: we are talking to abderrahim foukara from al jazeera. jimmy is on the phone. caller: i have a concern about hypocrisy. barack obama goes abroad and talks about democracy. i find it fascinating because you do not have democracy in the united states. there is an issue in terms of the treatment of african american people in america. i wonder why al jazeera does not deal with the injustices for african-americans in the united states. guest: there is the issue of hypocrisy in the issue of what al jazeera covers in the united states. as far as democracy is concerned, i'm speaking as a non-americans living in the united states. the american political system is an amazing political system treat it is capable of redress corrections. it

i think it is warranted because many of the problems in the middle east have a long history. we should also stop and recognize the elements of the overall picture that has changed, include in iraq slowly but surely fighting its way out of the darkness of the recent decade, a positive political trends in places like lebanon, pakistan and iraq. last but not least the unprecedented cooperation between the nations of the gulf as you and we face is very difficult and dangerous threats to our common security. as i said at the outset, american administrations led by both parties going back some six decades have regarded the stability of the region as the vital interest to the united states. the president's i have been privileged to serve all recognized our security and prosperity were closely tied to the security and prosperity of the middle east. president obama is no different. he has president -- pledged that we will continue to be engaged in this part of the world. as we look ahead, let us pledge to keep these efforts strong and make them even stronger and cast aside old animosi

after he left the middle east president obama made an emotional important visit to the nazi death camp. the undeniable when some of the horrors of any of those death camps is evil must be recognized and confronted and defeated. that it cannot be compromised with. today, the greatest threat to the state of israel, possibly existential threat, is a nuclear-armed iran. yet president obama seems committed to be everything possible to compromise the mullahs who run iran today. but we have to understand the reality. iran will not be disarmed because we talk them out of their weapons or because we repeat the mistakes of the past apologizing for our support of a coup 50 years ago and failing to hold them to account for their ongoing support of terror. they will be disarmed because we pretend we have mutual interests or because our president finds moral equivalence. iran will only be disarmed diplomatically if they know we are serious about using military force if diplomacy fails and today i fear that if you believe that to be the case. the challenges of iran and the middle east are just a few

in the middle east, you can find in lebanon.can you elaborate on that? guest: i'm not sure i agree with that in the sense that lebanon is really unique. lebanon -- an example of lebanon. by the way, it's very hard not to fall in love with lebanon with all of its flaws. it's an amazing country, an amazing culture. it's hospitableable, it's tolerant. it's got a culture that is open. and it's, of course, geographically magnificent. that is why it is the closest place in the middle east of europe and it's still loved. but let's face it lebanon doesn't have -- [inaudible] christians who used to be a majority in the early 20th century now are a minority. they're still a significant minority. so it's much more sectarian than any other -- in that sense it isn't representative of the arab world what it is, though, is all the arab states have founded a place. this is not nearly. this is in part because the people of opposing views from radical left to the right wing to the israelis, the saudis. so it is a place where a lot of issues in th

it would be a blood bath and the the middle east would erupt in fire. that was part of their argument. in fact the main part of the argument, they were totally wrong on that. they didn't think they could defend themselves and they didn't think they could win. certainly the point is -- >> in fairness to the people making it it was an improbable victory. >> yeah. but to a lot of the jewish leaders and palestine they felt in fact they would be able to stand up against the insurmountable odds and they knew that they would be able to and that aside from the transjordan army trained by the british that the arab fighters would be relatively weak and without motivation would collapse, which is one of the jewish agency arguments. but in the long-range, from day one to the present, the arabs have held true to the argument, and you use the term palestine, and was jews, jewish palestine, there were no palestinians. there were going to create an arab state in the jewish state but the arabs than as well as palestinians now never accepted partition. that is why the ar

he is trying to set up a new type of relationships in the middle east and as we all know the middle east is controlled by the desire and i would like to know your take on that. >> guest: what worries me about the president's approach to the dispute is it seems to me on historical and unworthy of the united states to try to position itself as a so-called honest broker above the fray. brokering the differences between israel, a member nation of the united nations, and the forces, hamas and all the rest, who want to destroy israel. because israel is a salient of our values and an hospitable neighborhood it seems to me the united states isn't merely a disinterested arbiter between the two parties. the united states is an ally of israel. many rewards from its association with israel. >> host: as we are jumping around we are talking about policy in the middle east. what are your observations about what is going on in iran and the administration's approach so far? >> guest: it's thrilling and what is telling and interesting is in the run-up to the election, tweetering, i don't know -- tweeting

burton, the ranking member on the subcommittee on middle east and south asia. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from yun is recognized for five minutes. mr. burton: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: proid. mr. burton: -- without objection. mr. burton: first of all, let me congratulate our chairman on crafting a bill that in large part is very good. it increases the aid to pakistan by triple in some areas. and i think it's very positive. it deals with economic and humanitarian assistance that will help pakistan build schools, roads, hospitals, and help pakistan's economic infrastructure and all that's good. and i know that the president and the administration supports that as well. unfortunately, here comes the but part, unfortunately the chairman and our democratic colleagues decided to load this bill up with ill-conceived provisions to micromanage u.s. security assistance to pakistan as the ranking member just said. and this is not just my opinion. the secretary of defense, mr. gates, the chairman. joint chi

the middle east, they say i'm from the middle east. every say i hear the word "middle east" and there's some insult to me. why we live middle east by the british colonizers. we're middle relative to london and india with the far east relative to england. so we were named by our colonyizers. i say when i go to england, i say i'm going to the middle west. [laughter] >> when i come to the united states, i say i'm going to the far west. [laughter] >> you laugh -- you are laughing about a ridiculous language. but we use this ridiculous colonial language everyday, in our writing, in our academia, in the media and nobody laugh. so we have to change the language in order to be free because if we cannot change the language, we are not free. we are dominated by the big powers in the academia, in politics, in economics, in religion. i'm supposed to be brief because -- no, because i would like to have a dialog, and a conversation with anthony and maybe hopefully with you but maybe we will not have the time, but anyway, what i would like to say tha

that keeps things in the middle east stirred up. extremists use that as an issue to keep things stirred up. it needs to be solved. there are millions of people being hurt on both sides of that question. it needs to be solved. i know dennis ross. the other folks that were involved in that, senator mitchell, hopefully they can craft some sort of plan, that is probably number one. >> host: next telephone call from illinois on the independent line. >> caller: i stand and salute you for your service. >> guest: have a seat. >> caller: my birds are making too much noise for me to make a statement. i will try to get through this. i don't really have a question, i have a statement for the people of this country. whenever in the past there was a revolution, and i hope we never have that sort of a revolution, it is generally the wealthy are the first to be dispatched. most importantly, the second ones to go, if i am not mistaken, are the pundits, you know the sort i am talking about, they are the next ones to go. when the government in power r

we exchanged views in the middle east regarding iran. they need to comply with obligations to the security council. we look forward to iran in response to our engagement. we want to bring about a concrete -- a comprehensive peace to israel and the neighbors in the region. they're right to exist in peace and security is undeniable and non-negotiable. hothey should be able to live in peace and security. arab states must do their part to support the palestinian people as they develop the institutions that will sustain their state. they must recognize israel's legitimacy and in doing so choose progress over a self- defeating focus on the past. the u.s. will never do anything to undermine israel's security. we do not believe that these two objectives are incompatible. we believe they are critical elements of a comprehensive and effort to secure peace. i hope you enjoy your first visit to the united states. i look forward to continuing our conversation and working with you more on these issues. >> madam secretary, i like to say to you how much

we do need to understand the culture of the middle east. i'm not trying to suggest that the iranians are involved in isolated acts of vie leps which have killed americans. they have and that's wrong and they should be brought to account for that, but the fact is i believe a constructive relationship with iran in the long term is within reach if the western world, united states, in particular, and iran want it. there are now major reasons for distrust, huge disputes, but those are capable of resolution over time. host: was mosadde a puppet of the soviet union? was the u.k. asked to help the iranians in 1953? >> there were groups that were interested in having united states and u.k. help but it went beyond that. it was a broad-based appeal for help whichs was the thought, but that was wrong. the reason why mosadde fell out with the united kingdom and united states is because it might lead to add sapgs to the soviet union, but also to the fact that he had nationalized u.k. oil interests are in iran, so it was a bad episode in u.s. history, and

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 position. on hope that answers your question. >> and king abdullah? >> you know, what i can say about that is the leaders across the region and pundits here at the u.s. and israelis as well are always talking about the next war to come and how can be worse than the last and that disaster awaits. this is a part of the world where such predictions are commonplace. i would place a lot of stock in it, we like to see i think that if there is a confrontation between iran, yes, we have a lot of trouble on our hands but that is not 18 months, that could be six months to 10 months from now. so i think it's a little bit of an exaggeration but there are real dangers ahead and i think those stem from primarily iran. >> let's follow up with a iran for a moment. i guess put it this way, start with this anyway -- in iran were to get nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them, has that change

my reason for turkey is considered how you bring order to the middle east it will not be the united states. and one country has a vested interest to stabilize it and the power to do so. that is turkey and poland is simply a store called and geographical accidents where russia meets the west and therefore the place where the americans will play the game they play the best which is technology transfer and kickstart the necessary economies. the united states power will grow continually since 1870 the single most important factor of the world has been the continual growth of american power measured in every way from where it was in 1870 mischa's earned two today is an extraordinary story. when you sit down and grasp the economic growth during this period it is interesting those in the great depression is a ball, not a major event. from the point* of view of 100 years, things that are enormously significant such as the spanish-american war, really are not and you should have read about that it was in all of the papers, elections ran around it, it was a driving issue. things come and passed away

we can eliminate our ability to depend on the middle east for oil by using the natural resources we have here in this country. so many of those are blocked by hurdles placed here in washington. things that we have on the books, policies that stop us from using our own resources. let's create the millions of jobs and billions of dollars of revenue we would bring in the economy just by using our own natural resources. because the debate paunch shifted so much -- because the debate shifted so much, people realized the technology has advanced a month that the things that might have hurt the environment years ago and not exist anymore because companies operate in a different way, the restrictions already in place are pretty severe and actually have led to us being able to do this in an environmentally safe way. host: us hear from callers. on the democratic line, we have jerry from north carolina. are you there? caller: congressman, a real good spiel. question for you. why haven't we done what mr. roosevelt did in 1941 and do a thing called rationing? it seems all of you are afraid of that wor

powell and the middle east. and colin powell is someone that the republicans should have in their party. an enormous distinction and achievement and strong feelings. i am a much more conservative republican than he is. but i am what they call a big-tent republican. and wil'mton where my favorite is from. host: where the government contested distention. you wrote a strong column about the president's speech in cairo, would you tell them of your concerns of what he said? guest: the concern, all presidents but particularly this one, tend to think their personality is an irresistable force, and there are a lot of immovable things out there that won't find it irresistible. the president had a theme in the 40's, if we would just talk and harmony would break out. this is the old belief that the natural continue is harmony, i tend to be more like hobbs, people getting along is difficult. in the 30's, when we got to know the empire of japan, we had an irrepressible conflict on our hands. i thought his view was "a," optim

democracy as it gets around in the middle east was very encouraged initially. now i think it is becoming the view that middle east governments are harsh to democracy. nothing we can do can change at right away. host: we have someone calling on the democrats' line. caller: the morning. i had this idea for the last couple of weeks. just as martin luther king took lessons from gundy and his struggle for civil rights -- ghandi and his struggles for civil rights, i think iran could take the same lessons. i remember the iconic photos and films of the alabama protest and the civil-rights protests. i remember ghamdi pantages people -- ghandi and his people sacrificing hundreds of lines for machine guns to gain independence. i think -- the iconic photo of a young student being slain. i compare that to the point of a person being cradled in the arms of iran. those are the kinds of images that will turn not just heads of around the world, but also create a pressure on the brutal regime. any thoughts on that? guest: i agree with you that learning lessons on how to make non

it we are trying to get some peace in the middle east situation. it is probably one of the most failing questions of our time policy-wise. .

our children are put in the conflict in the middle east. you should focus on africa and cuba.give us other perspectives to see other opportunities. host: we will take your request into consideration. guest: i can understand your caller's concern in regards to why i'm here today has to do with the fact that there is somewhat of a crisis in a given part of the world. i think the one point that i would make, maybe not directly related to the caller's concern, there is a great deal of thought about change in iran and whether how far the change is going to go. i doubt that there are that many people that expect, as i have seen or suggested that there is a good time that the regime is vulnerable and may be a good time to change the regime and all. i want to caution to the degree that the regime is going to take place. after all, we're talking about a country of immense political importance. the country that is sitting between iraq and afghanistan for still unstable countries. i doubt that anyone would want to envision an unstable iran as well in the middle of that. i hope one thing

. >> but you have been all over the middle east. been in israel several times and indeed, i want to know note, that the royalty that he receives from this book will be divided equally between a medical fund to help wounded and disabled iraqi children and iraqi palestinian reconciliation projects. >> and jerusalem. >> i'm sorry, israeli palestinian. thank you for the correction. and so what we have here, if i may say so, i'm a principled man who speaks against this war as he has spoken against other wars, you know. >> i'm just a human being, and once i entered the country a year ago, you have to say what you do, your job. and i'm not an entrepreneur as they suffer so we are selling software things, internet thinks. so i had to write what i am and i wrote because i was a little bit confused. i couldn't say human being. and they didn't allow me to enter. they said there is no such thing. [laughter] >> and a lot of people would say that your book is a little bit belated because, after all, the war is practically over. what would you say

he was also stationed in brussels, covering a small be, russia, middle east, south africa, and you are a. he demonstrated versatility as editor of the book review sessioction. he is the author of several books, and the reason c-span is here today televising this session. given his business better, it is a special honor to welcome him to the conference today. ladies and gentlemen, our keynote speaker, columnist for "the new york times," david brooks. ♪ >> thank you. "the times" is way cooler than "the journal." i am not used to this level of enthusiasm, except for the time was a student at syracuse. i was actually a student at florida state. i am going to talk all about washington. you have come here to our capital at a unique moment when we are like the business center of the universe. i used to cover business. i try to cover culture where ever it is going. in the 1990's i covered silicon valley when it was the business center of america and maybe the world. i used to hang around places where all the ceo's had these water guns, places where people had luxury cars that came from compani

both in the middle east, but also here in the west. as i said in a speech, i think that freedom of religious expression is critical. that is part of our liberal tradition, both in france and the united states. and that we should not have two standards for freedom of religious expression and one for muslims and one for non-muslims. that does that mean that each country is not going to be working through these issues with its own history and on sensitivities in mind. i don't take responsibility for how other countries are going to approach this. i will tell you that in the united states, our basic attitude is we are not going to tell people what to wear. if in their exercise of religion they are impeding somebody else's rights, that is something that we would obviously be concerned about. but my general view is that' the most effective way to integrate people of all faiths is to not try to suppress their customs or traditions. rather, to open up opportunities and give them a chance for full participation in the life of their country. wit

they talked about our policy in the middle east. if you think about it, most of the policies are determined in washington. the u.n. does not determine what our foreign policy is. it does not determine our economic policy domestically. it does not determine how we deal with china or others. we determine that. what beijing does has little to do with what the u.n. says it should do. conservatives like to use the jargon that is not helpful. host: here is a tweed question. does your guests think obama should get certain things down to size? such as the defense budget. guest: it requires certainty that it can accomplish its mission. all government programs, large corporations, universities have a lot of waste. it is the nature of bureaucracy. unfortunately, when it comes to building of the military, i am with barack obama on that, although i do not agree with some specifics of his policy. i am not a defense expert. host: we have someone else on the line. good morning. caller: can you hear me? host: we can hear you. go ahead. caller: there

of continuity and commitment to all of america's friends and partners in the gulf region and the middle east. today i would like to discuss with you the most pressing security challenges faced by the united states and the nations of the gulf and other arab states, and offer some thoughts on how we can deal with those challenges during greater resolve. since my career in government began more than 42 years ago, security and stability of the gulf region have been a central consent -- concern of every u.s. administration. i was on the national security council staff of the white house in the 1970's when the carter doctrine was formulated, based on the tenants that america would do what was necessary to defend our vital interests in the gulf. this policy was adopted by subsequent administrations. during the 1980's, the united states stood with the cooperation council to keep vital sea lanes open and then the coalition that came together in 1992 to repel aggression against kuwait. in short, america has been a steadfast and reliable security partner for our friends in the gulf and middle east for

in context it is desirable that the peace process in the middle east gains progress. that sends out a positive to those forces in the middle east who are not really to be faceful. >> germany and america will work closely together on those just as questions related to arms and reductions. we would like to wish you, president obama, the best of success during your visit to russia. partnership is very important for germany and the europe union, but we have an interest in seeing a good relationship between the united states and russia. we need help with iran, and we want to forge good relations with russia and china. we have done that over the years in the format of the juningses. we dealt with the preparation of the g-8 meeting that is upcoming and also the meeting of 2k3w-0. i think that has been progress. you have made very important steps here in the united states to financial regulation. we in the europe union are also working on that. we can take stop and see where these regulations meet and try to create a level playing field. we are very grateful that we are also

in the middle east. days later they understood the elections in lebanon for the hezbollah-backed coalition was supposed to win and lost largely because there was a large turnout, much larger than expected for the pro-u.s. coalition of parties. they understood that immediately to mean something. they could not quite bring themselves to say publicly, gee, we think that he had a big influence on these elections. now we see something in iran. they are trying to walk the line behind it taking credit for something happening, a new, diplomatic opening in that part of the world, and not antagonizing the authorities in iran or inserting themselves into a debate that they still insist is a iranians debating their own future. it is impossible to say whether or not, how much influence about events that his congress be chad. host: what is holding back the president and his team? the president has said already that some of his statements have been misinterpreted or miss translated in the arab world. guest: that is an

we were using the middle east as a gas station. -- i am tired of these oil wars. thanks so much for your time. guest: i did read that. it was reported in several places. the white house was telling democratic freshmen if they did not

it destabilize the middle east, create the basis for a middle east arms race -- egypt, saudi arabia, turkey are all going to be states that want a nuclear program. there is a greater chance of proliferation. if it can throw its weight around the region, it could intimidate moderates and emboldened extremists. so there are sets of concerns. i think the caller was referring to the fact that the president said that the united states did not object to iran having some -- civil nuclear power. is that a change in american policy? if i'm correct, secretary of state condoleezza rice said if the issue that iran wanted was in power, we could solve the problem. but i do not think there are any differences between the president and the former administration on the need to stop iran from getting in a car bomb. what is crucial to point out are the people that are the most worried, are not just israel, but it is all the arab states due to a historic enmity with iran, these regimes are very nervous and quietly working with united states. when the president was trying to see yesterday as we have got