you probably heard of saddam hussein. the leadership of saudi arabia, they were smarter because they brought in ships with skimmers throughout the world. you need tt do a story of what they did compared to what we are doing. i agree with the independent caller who talked about the minions whooare paid. do you know how much money british petroleum gave to barack obama? host: can you tell us how much? caller: it was about $1 million. that was about his biggest contribution. host: where do you get that information? where can folks find that information? caller: just check it out. host: thank you for the reminder about the story about afghanistan. u.s. begins to tap d in the gulf spill. the .s. has submitted its second request to the european union for specializzd equipment to contain the oil seeping into the gulf of mexico. they accepted the canadiaa offer of 9,480 feet of bone. they are soliciting bom and others skimmer's from other countries. eagle river, wisconsin, democratic caller, go ahead. caller: i usually lead democ

ronaldeagan creed saddam hussein. case - he gave him tens of millions of dollars in military aid and when the monster got out control, pap bush added to take them out.. that is what started al-qaida and the jihad movement and that has gotten us where we are. the fact that you can casually sit there and defend your ridiculous behavior. we have streth in iran and almost destroyed america and the process with thesezú" ridiculos illegal foreign wars that are against what this country was founded on we have no business interfering. we aresing is real as our hezbollah over all these years. host: majoroint, let's hear from the ambassador. guest: that is a point of view. i was present at the timeof the 1990-1991nd desert shield and desert desert storm event. i was director of the iraq- kuwt apart from the state department. i would take a different point of view on that. president george h. w. bush's decision to use u.s. military forces to liberate kuwait was a critical step not only in and of itself but also in establishing

terrorists, and she was part of the team that developed the intelligence on the whereabouts of saddam husseina boss at the time said, "many officers in the cia were unwilling to serve in this deteriorating, high-risk and thankless environment. mrs. prouty did not waver." while in iraq, prouty's bulletproof vest had to be altered for an extraordinary reason. you were pregnant at the time? >> prouty: correct. >> pelley: people watching this interview right now are asking themselves, "why would she do that?" >> prouty: yes, and i ask myself now, looking at my child, "how could i put her life in danger?" but that's what i wanted to do. i couldn't look at our marines that are standing outside guarding us and tell them, "hey, i'm pregnant, i'm shipping out." i knew what my contributions were. and i wanted to protect the lives of our soldiers. >> pelley: nada prouty was born into war, growing up amid the conflict in her native lebanon. at age 19, she came to the u.s. to get a degree in accounting. >> prouty: those were good years. >> pelley: and years later, while studying for a masters, one of her

jim baker, in the days before we went into kuwait was talking to saddam hussein to see if the matter could be resolved. on the one side, as i said, is that policy of engagement. this engagement reveesed years of diplomatic silence during which iran's nuclear program grew. it showed the world our patience, tested iran's willingness to negotiate in good faith and built international support for sanctions. sadly, the time limit for engagement has come and gone. it is time to pursue the second prong, pressure. the international atomic energy agency tells us that iran has now enough low-enriched uranium for two bombs. iran has attempted to hide nuclear facilities and refused to cooperate with the demands of the national atomic energy agency and the u.n. security council to suspend enrichment. let's be clear, iran has defied the will of the international community. this is unacceptable. that is not a partisan position, it is an almost unanimous position of the administration and of this congress. that is why this is the right time to bring strong economic pressure to bear on the iranian re

jim baker, in the days before we went into kuwait was talking to saddam hussein to see if the matter could be resolved. on the one side, as i said, is that policy of engagement. this engagement reveesed years of diplomatic silence during which iran's nuclear program grew. it showed the world our patience, tested iran's willingness to negotiate in good faith and built international support for sanctions. sadly, the time limit for engagement has come and gone. it is time to pursue the second prong, pressure. the international atomic energy agency tells us that iran has now enough low-enriched uranium for two bombs. iran has attempted to hide nuclear facilities and refused to cooperate with the demands of the national atomic energy agency and the u.n. security council to suspend enrichment. let's be clear, iran has defied the will of the international community. this is unacceptable. that is not a partisan position, it is an almost unanimous position of the administration and of this congress. that is why this is the right time to bring strong economic pressure to bear on the iranian re

you will regard that james baker met with saddam hussein's days before we went into iraq in 1991.whenever the character rears its head, i look at the president's strong record in think, what president are they talking about? our founders spoke deliberately of the common defense, because the threats we face make no partisan distinctions. they are common to us all. secondly, the force is at times clearly necessary, and i have supported that use. we learned from the cold war that force alone does not win ideological struggles. then it was the promise of a better life that led some need to abandon ccmmunism and its faulse promise of progress. today, there is the hatred of a modern world that seems to have left too many behind. chronic oppression of women and girls condemns nations to poverty and abandons young men to extremist ideologies. and the failure of institutions in distant states, as we have seen from somalia to afghanistan, is a direct threat to our own people. so a strong development policy must be a pillar of our national security. enter national development reflects our mo

i did see the october 2002 pational ntelligence estimmte that concluded that saddam hussein did have weapons of mass destruction like a lot of others involved in government at the time. i had no reason to questioo the intelligence. the intelligence was wrong. there were not many voices at phe time being raised that said and there were no weapons of mass attraction. we made changes in the house intelligence is put together and evaluated that will ssrve as well in the future. the community just got that one wrong. great question on iran. of all of the challenges we face in the coming years, iraq, afghanistan, pakistan, perhapp onn of the greatest may be the prospect of a new clearly -- a nuclear armed iran. there are several ways to deal with this. severrl of them begin with an "a" -- accept or attack. i think neitherrof those are good for us or israel. i think we need to do exactly what we have been doing, first under the bush and administration,,and now with the obama administration making this an international problem and to read and not a threat or problem just to the u.s. and isra

central iraq and the son of a revered and distinguished grand ayatollah who was assassinated by saddam hussein in 1999. he has been in iran studying theology since the beginning of 2007. he has taken himself out of the political discourse in the r iraq. %+e longer he's there, the less influential he will become. is a proud state. they have limited affinity towards iran against whom they fought in a bitter ground war from 1980 until 1928. the longer that he is in iran, the less politically influenced he becomes. host: michael on our independent line. caller: my question -- you have worked in pakistan and work with the government'. at the time, we needed the government to crack down on the talbot coming in -- on the taliban coming in. what has been the tone of dialogue with the government that rose toopower in less than democratic fashion, you could say. our relations with pakistan -- is it aimed solely at fighting pakistan -- and fighting terrorism or about autocracy and nuclear non-proliferation, guest: that is a great question. i do believe that that relationship does have to be a broad one p

you will regard that james baker met with saddam hussein's days before we went into iraq in 1991.henever the character rears its head, i look at the president's strong record in think, what president are they talking about? our founders spoke deliberately of the common defense, because the threats we face make no%% partisan distinctions. they are common to us all. secondly, the force is at times clearly necessary, and i have supported that use. we learned from the cold war that force alone does not win ideological struggles. then it was the promise of a better life that led some need to abandon ccmmunism and its faulse promise of progress. today, there is the hatred of a modern world that seems to have left too many behind. chronic oppression of women and girls condemns nations to poverty and abandons young men to extremist ideologies. and the failure of institutions in distant states, as we have seen from somalia to afghanistan, is a direct threat to our own people. so a strong development policy must be a pillar of our national security. enter national development reflects our m

people are trying to make this time the sanctions on iran against the ones that were placed on saddam hussein and iraq were blanket sanctions which really hurting the iraqi people. there was the oil and food scandal within the united nations. sanctions against tehran, they are trying to make that has targeted as possible. the want to target the leadership instead of the people. it is very difficult to carry out. that is the goal. that was a lesson learned from the failed iraq sanctions host: we are joined from redmond, ore.. caller: think you for taking my call. i was wondering if the gentleman could please address iran's hard tower in regards to brazil, turkey, bahrain, yemen, sunoco se --n senegal, and i could go on. they have an incredible uranium supply being placed on rivers that ave ports to go to the atlantic. i would also be interested in having him go in a little more detail between the relationship of a russia and china in regards to miron. -- in regards to iran. by the green party and has been so ignored by this administration because that is why we're going to get change. host: ca

laughter] he told us that anybody who is reasonable knows that his top -- anybody who knows is saddam husseinat to the international community because he has weapons of mass destruction. those were our liberals. they did not exist. for somebody like me who began the site and quickly filled an audience, i realized there was a definite market niche that was not being filled. people wanted strong, progressive voices and they did not exist. that didn't mean there wasn't a progressive movement th time. this is the beginning problem. people like me would look out and see the environmental movement and the women's movement and labour and so on and there were all in these little segmented silos doing their thing. we were divided and the conservatives were united and we were getting our asses kicked. there's no way to sugar coat it. everything we've looked at showed the what we were doing was not working. the people who were in charge of those organizations did not seem to understand that the world was changing and they needed to evolve. by world is changing, i'm not talking about -- talk about a cons

if we go to war in iraq, and defeat saddam hussein, only about 5% of the world knows about it.cer is played in the most remote jungles and villages of the world. by bringing the world cup in to the united states, you will have children in very remote states thinking that the united states won the world cup. it is a good feeling. we can actually do something that they appreciate. believe me, that is very important. guest: i think that ngo's certainly understand soccer. the u.s. military understands3 when we invaded iraq, we distributed soccer balls. i think the idea that we are going to win this world cup is one that i want to believe in with my mind and heart, unfortunately, i think we are still a ways away. host: there is a post about the u.s. bid to get the world cup. arizona is in contention to bee the host city. at the same time, they are dealing with the immigration law. guest: one of our bloggers had an interview. we put together a bid to host the world cup. one of the cities would be phoenix, arizona. there is some anxiety that the arizona immigration law will be a hindr

negotiate, but we must never negotiate out of fear here you will recall that james baker met with saddam husseindays before we went in to iraq in 1991. whenever the character rears its head, i look at the president's strong record and think -- what president are they talking about? our founders spoke deliberately of the common defense because the threats we face make no partisan distinctions. they are common to us all. second, though force is at times clearly necessary, and i have supported the use, we learn from the cold war that force alone does not win ideological struggles. then, it was the promise of a better life that led so many to abandon communism and its false promise of progress. today, chronic lack of opportunity drives the appeal of the jihadism of islamic extremists and its hatred of a modern world that seems to have left too many behind. chronic oppression of women and girls condemns nations to poverty and abandons young men to extremist ideology, and the failure of institutions in distant states, as we have seen from somalia to afghanistan, is a direct threat to our own people, s

laughter] he told us that anybody who is reasonable knows that his top -- anybody who knows is saddam hussein is a threat to the international community because he has weapons of mass destruction. those were our liberals. they did not exist. for somebody like me who began the site and quickly filled an audience, i realized there was a definite market niche that was not being filled. people wanted strong, progressive voices and they did not exist. that didn't mean there wasn't a progressive movement that time. this is the beginning problem. people like me would look out and see the environmental movement and the women's movement and labour and so on and there were all in these little segmented silos doing their thing. we were divided and the conservatives were united and we were getting our asses kicked. there's no way to sugar coat it. everything we've looked at showed the what we were doing was not working. the people who were in charge of those organizations did not seem to understand that the world was changing and they needed to evolve. by world is changing, i'm not talking about -- talk