inspectors we had to resolve it by removing saddam. what actually happened was, we had time enough to do it. the problem was very simple. in the end, after 1441, in a sense, france and germany and russia moved to a different position and formed their own poll that was a power in a sense, that was essentially saying to america we will not be with you on this. >> we'll come to that in a moment, on the military timetable, we have heard from a number of witnesses, the american concern that it was unrealistic to keep the troops once mobilized and deployed, out in kuwait, in the gulf, for prolonged periods of time, and the military planning was, one way or another, bearing down hard on the diplomatic process. >> yes, that is correct. and in a sense, i think it is fair to say the only reason why saddam hussein was having anything much to do with the inspectors at all -- and they were getting drips and drabs of more cooperation is because he had 250,000 troops down there with all of their machinery sitting on his doorstep so you're always in a

saddam and weapons of mass destruction was not a counterintuitive notion.d them, and he definitely have done. he was in breach of, i think i'm a ten united nations them. and so, in a sense, it would require quite strong evidence the other way to have been doubting the fact that he had this program. >> sarah lawrence freedman will ask you about the september dossier. i would like to move on for a moment to another aspect and that is you set on a number of occasions in 2002 indeed in early 2003 that iraq was a test of the international community's ability to deal with both wmd and terrorism. if i could just quote from your monthly press conference on the 18th of february 2003. the stance that the world takes now against saddam is not just vital in its own right, it is a huge test of our seriousness in dealing with the twin threats of weapons of mass distraction and terrorism. can you tell us how you saw those links, and again, what evidence you had that there were links? because as you know, the butler committee has established that there weren't direct links

of saddam hussein. >> it started turning nasty fairly quickly.s you go through to the spring of 2004, you really start to get a big rise in the level of violence. now how did we react to this? was there a question of sending more forces in to reinforce the troops that we had there, which we had drawn down to a large extent? >> there was certainly a discussion about that. there was also a discussion about getting more contributions from more countries. overall there were something like 30 countries involved in the post-conflict dphase. each country took responsibility for its part of the operation. it was not simply for us to determine that in the south. it was the work that we did in the coalition. i think equally it is important that the problems that developed in security were not of one kind. the criminality -- letting some of that on said, releasing all his prisoners -- on saddam releasing some -- all his prisoners. some were against the institutions associated specifically with saddam. some were looted because this was the population getting

and -- saddam hussein, what? >> and all of those things will be on the agenda. >> things were there. so -- but, and was it not the u.k. and the u.s.a. that gave to different entities, to these rationales? >> possibly. i mean the -- the, there was a sense that -- that -- on the communications side, i had very, regular contact -- with my office numbers so therefore we were able to get, get a sense of where their public opinion was and our public opinion was. and they didn't feel the same source of pressure that we did. their public opinion was we were keen all the time to emphasize the importance of the u.n. and the american attitude as you all know is somewhat lukewarm to the united nations. to put it mildly. u.n was the emphasis different. but the prime minister didn't share the idea that saddam hussein had to be confronted. >> what did you think, there was a fundamental agreement on -- on , that saddam hussein had to be dealt with. that was fine but there were differences. they were say regime change. >> i have

in terms of the threat that saddam hussein posed.lso in terms of the continued defiance of the united nations. but -- so he was saying we shared analysis and we shared the objectives -- >> and the analysis were about the extent of the threat? >> the analysis was about the threat that saddam hussein posed to both the stability in that region, security in that region and also to the authority of the united nations. and the prime minister emphasized that the whole way through. and so what came out of -- i'm trying to remember what he actually said, the press conference afterwards. he talked about leaving iraq to develop wmd in flagrant breach of united nations resolutions is not an option. the response would be calm, measured and sensible, that all the options available would be considered. now, at the same press conference george bush restated, quote, the policy of my government is the removal of saddam. that was since bill clinton's time the policy of the american administration. but the -- >> but did the prime minister make clear to

troops to disarm saddam hussein over weapons she did not possess. he had to take the decision as prime minister. it was a huge responsibility. there's not a single the of the passes by that he does not think of that responsibility. faced with the charge that 100,000 i iraqi civilians lost their lives, he said he did not doubt that leaving who saddam hussein' in power would have ben

it referred to the saddam hussein, his continuing capability to produce them. referred to his covert attempts to acquire technology and materials which could be used in the production of nuclear weapons. none of that describes his actual program as growing. so was an accurate and to represent a threat from iraq at this time as growing? >> i have said he many times this morning that the reason the prime minister wanted to say the dossier in the way he did was because he had grown more and more concerned about the threat that saddam hussein based based on intelligence presented to him. .. the point i made earlier as to whether this unique threat would have actually been contained since 1991 -- scaap that is a judgment isn't it. >> am i trying to figure out it's very important to this inquiry with the judgment was based on that it was growing. >> of the judgment -- look, the prime minister is a made the decisions and i will say what i think he would say were he here that the containment policy wasn't working as effectively as it had been, that the september 11th h

none of that describes saddam hussein's actual program as growing. so, was it accurate to represent the threat from iraq at this time as growing? >> the reason the prime minister wanted to bring the dossier and the way he did was because he had grown more and more concerned about the threat saw hussein faced based upon intelligence being presented to him and yes there was the leftovers and so forth that had been there for an awful long time which were not in considerable in quantity more in effect of the intelligence picture he presented to him he says did show a great threat and it certainly did to him and the government to be more concerned. jack straw was making is likely separate point and he may well have been right if you are going to say which of the four had the most advanced nuclear and chemical and biological weapons programs but as i said this morning the prime minister did see i think iraq has a unique threat in part because of the history and use of chemical weapons and in part the means it deployed to obstruct, to conceal the weapons pr

saddam stayed out of previous eckert is relief flights. he was at least smart enough to not get engaged when the israelis and the feet of lebanon in 1982, so i'm not sure that would have been an issue. but what i am sure of that had saddam hussein endured, his regime would have continued to do horrific things to his own population and to have post a very significant threat and risk to the region to the international community and the united states. we will never know what shape that risk might have taken but to be incorrect for us to assume if we just haven't gone into iraq in 2003 everything would have been falling in the region. the most definitely wasn't fine in the 80's during the iraq-iran war and in 1990 when he invaded kuwait and what ever would have then it would not have been just fine at saddam hussein continued with a work. >> host: ambassador crocker, you didn't mention a relationship with al qaeda though had saddam hussein still been in power >> guest: when he have had a relationship with al qaeda? it is entirely possible. all

saddam hussein was a genuine threat.as in defiance year after year after year of the united nations, undermining authority. >> we know that. but what i'm trying to establish is, at what point did tony blair commit to bush about regime change? >> he committed, and again, bear in mind this is the prime minister. he is not doing this because george bush wants to do it. this was his genuine belief that iraq had to be confronted over its continued defiance of the united nations and over his continued attempts to develop the. but his disposition and that is a policy pursued the whole way through, right to the point of the house of commons vote, when you heard from mike boyce on the telephone to america. write to that point the prime minister was hopeful that the scripting could result peacefully. right up to that point. the whole way through, understanding that if it did come to military action, if that came the only feasible route to go down to make this discernment happened, then he would want to persuade the capital in parl

objectively the risk that change because contant kept saddam in his box.k that is a nice point and i would say by the way the sunday times has taken st of the website and was first i think published in september, 1974, the version i've got -- >> notte 1974 -- >> i'm sorry, 2004. [laughter] apologies. the version i've got here is we use american dates backwards. it seems to be the 18th of july, to those of five. >> is that accurate? >> yes, it is. >> now, by the time you wrote that and by the time you say you gave the advice you gave the prime minister had in the number ten already pre-empted you? because from the time of to stuff the axis of the full speech through march hadn't number ten been having private exchanges with a white house including when david manning went to washington in the middle of march and christopher mayer told us he perceived changes, fractions to carry out with others with paul wolfowitz and the line we are taking according to christopher mayer and others of that time was they were indicating that if the americans were going for reg

saddam had not allow the republican guard into baghdad, for example. we assume that is because he did not fully trust will work mostly perpetual -- professional soldiers. in the late stages of the war fighting, we deliberately did not target republican guard units, because we wanted them to be that force of stability in the aftermath. there was a debate i recall about where we likely to swap one dictator for another. that was clearly a risk. >> afterward we went into war, there's still a debate going on about what it would lead to? >> no, because by then it was clear that the ambition we shared was to have a democratic iraq. but you ask me about prior to that, and certainly there was a lot of discussion. i can recall people suggesting that iraq would fall apart, that the three elements would divide and we would end up with restage rather than one state. there was a great deal of speculation as to what this might lead to, but by the time the war fighting began, it was clear that we saw a democratic country as being the outcome. >> thank you. we will rig

it's not saddam is a nice guy. it's not should we do something about saddam. we have done this. a lot of people have died. is it worth it? good question. the only time that i know that it came up. madame then said, i think the price is worth it. i checked to see if anybody picked that up. i did a search. and no newspaper any place picked this up. they said we have the ambassador saying we've killed half a million peep in iraq and it's worth it. shouldn't we talk about that? never got talked about. the number is almost certainly too high. but she didn't argue about the number. what we have had is anti-proliferation has cost more lives than nuclear weapons have cost. okay. so let me -- by conclusion, basically, on proliferation is that although there's nothing wrong with making nonproliferation high priority, if they don't get nuclear weapons, that's fine with me. if we can browbeat them into not doing so, terrific. it should be topped with a higher one. avoiding policies that can lead to tens of hundreds of thousands of people of the worst-case scenario fantasies. if saddam had g

guest-- had saddam hussein still been in power.st: it is entirely possi. he had shown in the past are remarkable flexibility as to who his tactical allies were. i would certainly not rule out the possibility. host: austin, texas. caller: embassador, i would like your opinion on the myack report from the homeland security that was disseminated to police boards through the nation where they said that the right wing conservatives, christian fundamentalists, returning iraqi veterans were the biggest threat to homeland security and should be handled with care. guest: i have not seen the report, and frankly i would be a little surprised if it were couched in exactly those terms. look, america faces all kinds of threats, many of them and external, and some domestic. we have to take them all seriously. there had been attacks, horrific ones in this country. the oklahoma city bombing is a case where it was carried out by our own citizens. we always have to be careful to make a balance between security and the liberties we prize. you will see

had that contained saddam hussein? >> it had, yes. i mean, i think it had certainly stopped him from, for example, acquiring fissile material. he had an ambition earlier to develop a nuclear weapon. i think we were pretty confident that his ambitions had been constrained, if not -- they certainly weren't eliminated. i mean, there were many aspects of things that he was engaged upon that were contrary to the sanctions. he was -- he was trying to extend the range of one of his existing missiles. i think it was called an al-samod but i would have to check. he would trying to develop longer range missiles. i think inspectors had found casings and engines that were larger than was allowed under the rules. there was no doubt that his agents were trying to acquire a fissile material. so he was constantly pushing out and indeed breaching the rules. so it wasn't completely successful but equally i think in the spirit of your question, it wasn't completely a failure either. he was able to get around the rules. but for those -- but for that poli

is there sufficient cooperation by saddam hussein and his regime in iraq? are they cooperating with them? what are the views of the inspectors and so on. so that kind of discussion was taking place. >> thank you. that was as it were the big legal question. but there is a great deal of legal surround to operational and military matters. and i'd like just to ask a few questions. first about the no-fly zones. you've given us evidence today about the continuance of the is no fly zones as part of containment. what about the legal justification for their continuance? it seems clear that it was increasingly felt by initially the predecessor. that this was a precarious, an increasing precarious legal base because it had initially rested on humanitarian grounds? >> and that remained the chase i mean, there was not as far as i'm aware a specific u.n. security council resolution. this was based on the requirement to prevent -- i think the phrase was overwhelming humanitarian disaster. nevertheless, it did have an underpinning in a series of u.n. security council resol

it's not that is saddam a nice guy. it's not we should do something about saddam. but the question is, we've done this and a lot of people have died is it worth it? a good question. as i say i know that it came up. madeleine albright then said i think this is a very hard choice but the price -- we think the price is worth it. i checked to see if anybody in the united states picked that up. i did a lexis nexus search on madeleine albright and no newspaper picked this up. they said we got the ambassador to the united nations madeleine albright saying we killed half a million people in iraq and it's worth it. shouldn't we talk about it? it never got talked about. again, the numbers almost certainly too high but she didn't argue about the number. so what we had is antiproliferation has cost more lives than nuclear weapons have cost. okay. so let me -- by conclusion, basically, on proliferation is that although there's nothing wrong with making nonproliferation a high priority, if iran doesn't get nuclear weapons, that's just fine with me and if we can bribe them and br

none of that, describes saddam's actual program as, growing. so, was it accurate to represent the threat from iraq at this time as growing? >> i said to you many times this morning the reason the prime minister wanted to put the dossier in the public domain the way that he did because he had grown more and more concerned about that saddam hussein faced based upon intelligence being presented to him. and yes, there was the unaccounted for, leftovers and so forth that had been there for awful long time which were not inconsideredable in quantity or effect but intelligence picture being presented to him, he assessed it did show a growing threat and him and the government to be concerned. jack straw i think was making a slightly separate point. he may well have been right if you are going to say which of those four had the most advanced nuclear, chemical and biological helps perhaps, but as i said this morning the prime minister saw unique threat because of history and unique use of chemical weapons. in part because of means deployed to obstruct th

not because they were necessarily enthusiastic supporters of saddam hussein. we felt there ought to be a distinction between those who were enthusiastic supporters of saddam hussein and those who simply joined the party in order to gain position. not at least because we anticipated some of difficulties that ensued in administering iraq in the aftermath. i think is similar argument rises in relation to the army. we, as i mentioned earlier, saw the army as a force for stability. we had not attacked it in some places specifically in order to try and preserve its coherence. but as you rightly say, many of the people went home, but it could have been reconstituted relatively quickly. i think some of the security difficulties, particularly in and around baghdad were the result of disaffected people along no longer receiving their salary, joining the insurgency and indeed putting their expertise to use in the sense that, there was clear suggestion to me that some of the attacks became more sophisticated as some military people became involved, or former military peop

translated, transmogrified into sort of a general hatred of the things that supposedly saddam hussein represented which was extremism which was absolutely not what he represented that none of us that have become the focus. i think you basic problem in our society is that we can't focus unless we have a particular enemy to focus on. this is a difficulty for us and all presidents and the communist era has faced this problem and then of them have solve that and not because they are antonette but because it may not be entirely solvable for so long, for 100 years prior to that time the united states always had a main enemy to focus on and the post-communist era, we don't. if you look at the qvr, the quadrennial defense review in 2002 after the 9/11 and the obvious need to fight people in afghanistan and possibly in iraq, who is the main enemy? it is china and that hasn't come and the 2006 qdr, it is still there. 2010, look and see what comes up. that we see fit main enemy. i think that is not a good deal for us to have the main enemy at this point in time. i have probably gone beyond your

in iraq, baghdad was hit by a series of bombings on the same day that a notorious henchman of saddam hussein was executed. we have a report narrated by lindsey hilsum of independent television news. >> three suicide car bombs in baghdad today. all targeted at hotels where foreigners stay. the bombers didn't get right inside. but still managed to kill more than 30 people and injure 70 others. >> reporter: neighboring houses are were blown apart. firefighters helping survivors to safety. as iraq heads towards elections in early march, such attacks are expected to continue or increase. the americans say the perpetrators are probably al qaeda in iraq, a largely sunni group supported by some members of saddam hussein's now banned ba'ath party. today one of the most notorious ba'athists, better known as chemical ali was hanged. a judge read the sentence a week ago. >> thanks be to god, he responded. it was his fourth death sentence for genocide and crimes against humanity. iraqi army video was used as evidence in court. here he is seen presiding over the abuse of shi'a prisoners captured d

and all of a sudden he looked more like saddam hussein than anyone in baltimore. we begged, shave that mustache. i really can't now it would look like i'm shaving it because of -- and he really wouldn't shave it. and i went to the mall and i got my lipstick and i think life was perfect and we were followed to the car and thank god keyless technology made its way in 1991 and i remember hearing the way they were talking like iraqis, like total pleasure, you know, we're going to get them and, you know, rah-rah. the yellow ribbon which i used to always remember singing that song tie a yellow ribbon and -- and i like that song and then the yellow ribbon seemed to me a little bit celebratory. of something that i didn't really -- and even though that's not what it meant for other people, there were those sorts of things as a teenager really upset me. you know, obviously like today checking in i could not check in -- this guy is like where's your green card. i'm straight up american. a lot of a green card. this is my driver's license so, you know, he's okay well, there se

. >> sreenivasan: indeed, the former prime minister said there were strong fears that saddam hussein already had, or was working hard to obtain, chemical, biological or even nuclear weapons. >> so far as understanding the decision i took and, frankly, would take again-- if there was any possibility that he could develop weapons of mass destruction, we should stop him. that was my view. that was my view then, that is my view now. >> sreenivasan: the five member panel pressed blair on exactly when he offered to support then- president bush in the invasion of iraq. previous witnesses had claimed it was in 2002, more than a year before parliament approved military action. >> do you think you gave him any commitments? >> the only commitment i gave, and i gave this very openly at the meeting, was a commitment to deal with saddam. now, we can deal with it... >> so you were at one that you had to deal with...? >> absolutely, and that wasn't a private commitment, that was a public commitment. >> so you were agreed on the end, but not on the means? >> reporter: the former leader acknowledged s

sui muslims were dominant der saddam, and they s the purge is too broad. biden fl in this evening for a two-day visit. buan iraqi spokesman warned obody can interfere in iraqi affairs, biden oothers." britain today raisedts terror threat level from "subantial" tosevere". that'she second highest level on the british scale the country's home sectary provided no tails on what prompted the chang instead, he said an tack is "highly likely", but tre's no indication that one is imminent. airports across dia went on high alert today oword militants linked to al qda might hijack pnes. there were more armeguards outside aiorts, and passengers had to go through extra serity screenings once inside. in addition, extra s marshals were placed onlanes. thhome ministry said the focus waon air india and indian airlineslights. >> we suspect that therean ben attempt to target one of our airlines, eecially ose that fly abroad of india. and we have alerted our encies to be careful on an-hijacking measures. >> sreenivasan: india has be largely free of terror attac since litants

the krk dial hunter steve irwin is killed in a freak encounter with a stingray, saddam hussein executedt dawn in baghdad and on february 11th a story that the media still talks about three years later, vice-president dick cheney accidentally shoots and wounds his 78-year-old hunting partner, harry whittington while on a quail hunt at a ranch in texas. the hunting accident, it's sort of the gift that keeps on giving for main street media, isn't it judy? >> it really did. we went straight from the pictures of people stranded on roof tops in new orleans, the inability of the federal government to the bush administration to respond, straight, straight to dick cheney shooting his friend with a rifle. i mean, it couldn't have been better. >> shotgun. >> shotgun. >> there we go. >> na, na. >> i'm not an outdoor girl. >>, but you know, it really set the entire tone, anything was fair game now. >> and fair game, was the coverage fair? >> it was fair enough. >> i mean. >> yeah. if no one dies these stories are a lot more fun. >> if joe biden had done it he'd be center ice on "saturday night live,

sunni muslims were dominant under saddam, and they say the purge is too broad. biden flew in this evening for a two-day visit. but an iraqi spokesman warned "nobody can interfere in iraqi affairs, biden or others." britain today raised its terror threat level from "substantial" to "severe". that's the second highest level on the british scale. the country's home secretary provided no details on what prompted the change. instead, he said an attack is "highly likely", but there's no indication that one is imminent. airports across india went on high alert today on word militants linked to al qaeda might hijack planes. there were more armed guards outside airports, and passengers had to go through extra security screenings once inside. in addition, extra sky marshals were placed on planes. the home ministry said the focus was on air india and indian airlines flights. >> we suspect that there can be an attempt to target one of our airlines, especially those that fly abroad of india. and we have alerted our agencies to be careful on anti-hijacking measures. >> sreeni

obviously we didn't give al-qaeda or saddam biological weapons.r? guest: no doubt about it, of the differences, first we are not saying and i have never said or anyone at this point that terrorists have achieved wmd. we hope we still have time and with a determined effort to prevent it. it's different in that sense, we are not claiming that assertion to do something we want to do. expect take it seriously. and it's important to saying wmd any time, that's a problem with nuclear or weapons, people get scared. it's fear montorring and to perpetrate the psychology of fear, i don'túhave the answer but to stress to people that our goal is to put the facts out. and the goal of this report is to put a lot of facts, and i have to say i couldn't put it all. but that people can see there is a factual basis for our concerns and it's fear mongering. host: let's go to angela. caller: good morning and thank you for having c-span. i am a first time caller. this question is for your guest, for years we have heard of weapons of mass destruction and freeing democra

tony blair told -- said that saddam hussein did not become a bigger threat after september 11. prime minister blair is being questioned by allegations that the government exaggerated intelligence reports to justify the to sell in three -- 2003 invasion of iraq. the chairman of the joint chiefs talks today about leadership and strategy. he is participating in a discussion with john warner and chief of naval admirations -- operations. we will have it live at 3:00. this weekend, on c-span2 book tv, how the growth of the muslim middle-class and the middle east could and religious extremism. the political cartoons of dr. seuss published during the war years. also, presidential foreign- policy going back to the nixon administration. find the entire weekend schedule booktv.org. >> in the nation's capital, listen to c-span radio. in washington, at 90.1 fm. it is also a free application for your iphone. c-span radio, covering washington like no other. yesterday, in london, representatives from other -- other countries met to set goals for the future of afghanistan. president karzai told

saddam would probably engaged in warfare. third is the pottery barn china shop argument. you invade it, own it, and it'll be difficult to hold together these are the key planks of their argument. my time is up. this one looked best in hindsight. that said, it is very different in many arguments you hear now. it is -- nonetheless, it is relatively well in hine said. it is in some ways of these connected to the scholars on the theory. they disconnected themselves. they are not amazing it will have you believe it after the fact. it seems to be a constant issue that i have commented disconnect between general theory and explanation for your. i would say the implication [unintelligible] i think there have been many calls for humility. my paper would add weight to that. i think we can do better. i think we can actually provide our policy makers and colleagues with butter in said. it will evolve. that is the hardest of a scholar has to do >> thank you for this crow commons. thanks to those papers. we have a bit less than one hour. i feared we would have a lot less than one hour.

i have saddam hussein to king for the job. -- to think for the job. -- to think for the job. -- thank for the job. they wanted to go to more 24-7 coverage. they wanted more people of the microphone. he asked me to fill in. i was not with goodwill anymore and i just come to california from nevada. it just so happened that by june of 2003, a slot had opened up. the general manager asked if i would be interested in doing this. he carefully deleted the part about getting up at 2:00 a.m. in the morning. i said that that sounded kind of interesting. i have been there ever since. >> the time and you are on? >> 5:00 a.m.-9:00 a.m., monday through friday. >> the listening area that you go to. >> it would be the greater metropolitan area of washington, probably as far north as the outskirts of baltimore and as far south as washington. >> we took our cameras to your studios this week. here is a segment where you and and you were talking about haiti. >> when i was a member of congress in 1988, pat robertson made his first foray into iowa and a lot of the republican party. i said that this guy is

the autonomous # saddam tried to obliterate them. we have defended our region for years.t's from inside and outside iraq. >> the defenders of the kurdish people. once a renegade band of warriors, they remain a marginal fighting force. it's a mainly arab group. >> we're all iraqi people and will defend our people: the arabs in the south who run the country are undistrustful of those born and breadth in the north, to the point that america has intervened. u.s. troops based in the region have been preparing for new joint patrols. this will bring the armies side by side. top command believes tension in the north is the single biggest threat to long-term stability in iraq. very different issues. (inaudible) >> america and the kurds are on the same side. just as it is with the arab iraqis. it's extremely safe. i'm not wearing a flak jacket yet. the military took off their body armor. but this may not last should the joint patrols backfire and conflict breaks out between the groups. there is much to fight for across the sweeping land. natural fault lines run in every direction.

they took their operation to saddam.i think they discredited themselves in the eyes of the iranian people. the iranian regime has repeatedly asked the united states to close the base in iraq. they say this is a condition for better relations between the two of us. so we closed the base and what happens? nothing. the iranians continue to work withhgsdhuu agents in iraq that were running these networks killing american soldiers and planting ied's. we just released to them and allowed them to get out. we essentially told the iranians, you may continue to conduct terror attacks against u.s. troops with impunity. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i wish brian a lot of love to get cameras into the series of hearings on health care. i'm concerned about having -- our american service people fighting, dying, and coming back crippled from its worsthe wars. the media will not even acknowledge we're in pakistan. i would like to know where you get your funding for your democracy in iran group. do you get funding from the ci

they took their operation to saddam. think they discredited themselves in the eyes of the iranian people. the iranian regime has repeatedly asked the united states to close the base in iraq. they say this is a condition for better relations between the two of us. so we closed the base and what happens? nothing. the iranians continue to work with iraqi agents inside iran. the united states, in my view, quite dangerously, just liberated a number of high-value agents in iraq that were running these networks killing american soldiers and planting ied's. we just released to them and allowed them to get out. we essentially told the iranians, you may continue to conduct terror attacks against u.s. troops with impunity. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i wish brian a lot of love to get cameras into the series of hearings on health care. i'm concerned about having -- our american service people fighting, dying, and coming back crippled from its worsthe wars. the media will not even acknowledge we're in pakistan. i woul

she was still regularly saying that saddam hussein had been behind 9/11, and literally the next day herd when they asked her who her son was going to fight, she couldn't explain that. >> this book is a page turner. this is a new book by john heilm oo n ann and mark halperin. this is damaging to democrats. is that of great value to republicans to underline things and lay this out there. >> i think they were bipartisan in their criticism that they lay at the feet of a lot of failed candidates. i think so much of that book was based on interviews with consultants, and consultants and handlers of some of the failed candidates who are in effect -- >> the revenge of the failed campaign? >> that's right. they're trying to justify and get back to the trough in future campaigns. it's called staff infection. candidates sometimes lose, consultants always win and come back and feed on the next one. i thought what was really fascinating to me in this book -- let's face it, picking on sarah palin is so 2008. fascinating to me is the talk about how close hillary clinton came to running in 2004 and how

i have saddam hussein thank for the job. i had been out in california. i was between careers at that time. i had filled them for a talk- show host on our station from time to time. the guy that was on general manager, because of the war effort ramping up in iraq,they wanted to go to more 24/7 coverage. they wanted more people on the microphone. he asked me to fill in. i started doing more work. i was not with goodwill anymore and i had just come to california from nevada. i gravitated to it following the war. it just so happened that by june of 2003, a slot had opened up. and the parks had been doing it for years. -- andy parks had been doing it for years. the general manager asked if i would be interested in doing this. he carefully deleted the part about getting up at 2:00 a.m. in the morning. i said that that sounded kind of interesting. i have been there ever since. >> the time you are on? >> 5:00 a.m. - 9:00 a.m., monday through friday. >> the listening area that you go to. >> it would be the greater metropolitan area of washington, probably as far

[laughter] >> i suspect the often-used analogy is saddam is hitler on the tigris. as much as i want to use the munich agreement as the paradigm case for rotten compromise, i'm acutely aware of its obnoxious role in political propaganda. now, two pictures. the idea of political compromise is caught between two pictures of politics. politics as economics and politics as religion. roughly speaking, in the economic picture of politics, everything is subject to compromise. compromise is not always desirable, prudent but it is always possible. in the religious picture there are things in which we must never compromise. the religious picture is in the grip in the idea of the holy. the holy which is not nonnegotiable. one could not compromise of the holy without compromising the holy. conversely in the economic picture of politics, compromise -- it's the heart of politics and the ability to compromise is highly praised. that politics is a compromise is a tired cliche. it's based on the idea of ideas. the exchange leaves room for negotiation and where there is room for nego

administration to show the same respect for human rights as we were expecting the government of saddam or the government of sri lanka. so i think amnesty should be proud of applying the same standards of human rights across the world. we would like to see governments it away from double standards where they are very happy to point a human rights problems elsewhere, but not so happy when the light is shone on nonperformance. >> another question from the audience. is not a basic cause of paying the result of a deliberate policy and laws that benefit the rich? for example, in the lack of equitable health care benefits, the wealthy health insurance corporations fight poverty, don't we need to redistribute wealth and power by a radical change in laws and policies? >> well, laws and policies, it's interesting that you raise the issue of laws and policies. you know, laws and policies -- laws are there to protect all of us, but the reality actually shows that the law doesn't work in favor of the poor. very often. tarballs of commission of commission set up. it included madeleine albright, mary

saddam's invasion of kuwait. if these price spikes continue or accelerate, what is your confidence level? my frame with the federal government spoke in 2030. if the country and the economy face serious challenges, how confident are you that we can respond more quickly than a 10-or 20-year time frame? >> i believe that over the last several years, the effort around energy management sustainability has been ramped up significantly. as evidenced by our own goal and reduction with green house gas reduction. as we do that. as we invest more money in research and development to provide more energy-efficient products. i believe in the markets there will be ups and downs, but the need is there and industry in general have invested and shifted research and development monies to accelerate in this deal. i'm understanding what the core problem is. that's one of the things we're able to do is begin increasing awareness of how to resolve the issues. when the spikes occur, there is an expedited response. >> it is renewable ene

i mean, saddam had not allowed the republican guard into baghdad, for example, and it was assumed that that was because he doesn't wholly trust -- didn't wholly trust what were mostly professional soldiers. and, indeed, in the later phase of the war fighting we deliberately did not target republican guard units because we wanted them to be that force for stability in the aftermath. but then there was a, there was a debate i recall about were we likely to swap one dictator for another dictator? .. president obama to the caucus just a few days ago. frustration, of course, is part of public service. whenever when we see the ideals that are not in reach of our communities, the test is whether we can turn our frustration spoke something constructive. whether we can be passionately positive, if you will. and that is especially the case in 2010. as congress begins a new mission, as we gather to hear the state of the union address. this is a time of economic pain. pain for millions of americans. and fear for their family's future. and in 2010, many expect that economic pain to be translated in

debris, only to finmost of the dead and injured were police officers e blast follows the executio of saddam hussein's cousin known aschemical ali", and raisedpeculation that today's attacks were retaliaon by sunni insurgents. but the top u. commander in iraq, army gener ray odierno, said he saw "aolutely no connection" betweethe two. an american ba inside kabul was the target of a suide bomb attack. 14 people we wounded, including eight amerans. thbomber set off a minivan packed with explosivesear camp phoenix. the taliban claime respsibility for it, saying the bomber was aiming a civilian cvoy. it comes jusover a week after taliban gunmenaunched an assault on kul that brought e capital city to a standstill the los anges city council gaveinal approval to close most shops that sell medal marijuana. the are currently between 800 and a thousa pot clinics operating acro l.a. but undethe new rules, that number wilbe capped at 70. mayor antonio villargosa still has to give his apoval for the ordinance take effect. on wall stet today, stocks made early gai, but those fadein the closing minutes of

indeed, but one act of enforcement in recent times, the removal of the rogue regime of saddam husseinations of security council resolutions demanding disarmament, has been so widely and universally denounced the around the world that obama has spent much of the last year apologizing for it. as for this community of nations, this does not mean that there are no such communities. margaret thatcher and ronald reagan did not lack for a sense of community, and that was the community of free nations. these communities have a reality. they have their own norms and ideals and policies, and some like nato even the security apparatus to back it up. it is precisely this kind of community of democratic nations that the margaret thatcher center for freedom so courageously an effective lead defense and supports. it makes obama internationalism particularly troubling. as he stated that the u. n, " true universe reality involves denigrating these ideological some communities as mayor collusions based on an archaic provisions, such as those that created the cold war." he said so rather directly in his

anyone a few months before the gulf war he grew a mustache and all of a setting he looked more like saddam hussein. we begged him to shave the must negative and he's like i really can't because now it looks like i'm cheating because of -- and he really would achieve it and we went to the mall and i've got my lipsticks white light is perfect and we were followed all the way back to the car. we barely made it, think of for keyless entry making its way into technology we have gotten out of there. i remember hearing the way they were talking about iraq east like total pleasure, we are going to get them and in the chapter the same way for me as a dozen detector like the yellow ribbon which i used to always remember singing that song tie a yellow ribbon around -- and i like that song and all of a sudden the yellow ribbon seemed to be a little bit celebratory. even though that isn't what it meant, those sorts of things as a teenager upset me and obviously like today actually checking and i could not check in, this guy was like where is your green card i'm like i'm straight at american i don't hav

person with uncommon diligence and intelligence to be able to track this down, including the assets of saddamasury department to the national security council on where he was responsible for a major part of the government's counterterrorism strategy involving international security threats, counter-narcotics, maritime security, a hostage taking, organized crime, his portfolio is a very broad one. not only has he followed the money, he followed a lot more than that. he will become professor zarate on the 16th of may when he becomes the faculty director for the washington center's but week-long program that will run into the 21st of may in washington. we will fit him for his cap and gown when the time comes. juan carlos zarate, welcome. [applause] >> thank you. i am looking forward to being a part of the team. i want to leave us much time for open discussion as possible because there have been so many important issues in the news, including the president's meeting yesterday with respect to the terrorism threat in how it is evolving. i want to talk for a bit to set the stage but also make sure t