a number of immigrants to the united states from the former soviet union worked for decades in the soviet-run industries, contributed to the states' social security system and expected to receive their rightful pensions when they reached the requisite age. for a variety of reasons beyond their control they haven't received their pensions. and some of these workers were forced to renounce their citizenship when they moved to the united states. as many of the former soviet states refuse to pay pensions to those who are no longer citizens, these elderly individuals face a bureaucratic nightmare in seeking to reclaim their rights. this amendment expressing our sense of congress that we should work with the former soviet states to establish a worldwide -- workable system that enables the workers to claim pensions that are rightfully theirs is appropriate, it's right and i support the amendment and urge its adoption. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new york. the gentlelady has yielded back her time. mr. nadler: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself the remaining time. i si

the soviet union did get a grip on many regimes in the region. now jews are accused of disloyalty on account of the existence of israel. was kennan mostly right? >> no. i mean in fact one other thing we should say, one other argument which was a strong one at the time is that they all said war is going to break out between the new state and the arabs and the new jewish state could not and would not win. they were convinced of that. there was no way the jews would win and defeat any arab armies. 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 tra

the soviet union will not support partition.t's one week before grameco's speech and he gives a speech stunning everyone including the zionists and no one expected that. >> it was funny at the u.n. when the state department was playing all these games at the u.n. and trying to undermine partition, the assign spokesman would get up and denounce and mot supporting partition. it's ironic that they were the ones -- >> were there any people in the bowels of the state department democracy who supported partition and supported -- and supported truman's position or was the department lockstep against it? >> not as far as we can find in state department papers or the relationship series. you won't find anyone in the state department especially in the near east desk. near east desk is the one assigned to make policy for that region. and that was that total lock and step opposition to partition. >> was that pure realpolitik a diplomatic view or were there culture factors that affected the depth mindset, ambassadors, arab countries and kind

the reason he was doing that was because of the soviet union was caught trying to get ahead and theywere ahead. they started getting ahead of us in december 9th and by the time he took office they were way ahead and kept going further ahead. some people wondered why he didn't sit down and talk with them and his attitude was i will sit down with them when we have arms ready to go and that is what he did. he got enough strong weapons with him and finally said, look, you want to sit and talk let's do it. now, while he was doing that a lot of people got the wrong idea. i think that's it, but then when it turned around and went the other way i remember any of those people saying he had the right away. the summit else want to try something to? >> thank you. president obama right now has mentioned the desire to eliminate nuclear weapons and that kind of scares me. a country like israel without a clear weapons would be at the mercy of what ever happened to them, a lot of countries out there we could not trust. at all then we can trust south korea. i wonder if reagan intended to eliminate all

the soviet union had to concentrate most of its industrial base on creating operational weapons like their 26sh t-34 tank. so the united states helped them giving them a lot of the sinews of war. and that is an example. throughout the soviet union in the cold war period there was a tendency to minimize the american lend-lease contribution and begin to get rid of a lot of the equipment the americans sent them just as here there was a tendency to minimize the soviets and certainly begin to recognize how repressive the stalin regime was in the soviet union. host: earlier we had an interview with author and historian steven ambrose. he's talking about the importance of new orleans in d-day and the normandy invasion. let's hear what he has to say and get a response from john mcmanus. >> it was here in new orleans that the landing craft were built. every american who went ashore in the second world war, whether in north africa, italy, sicily or moral did i or guadal canal or all the way that you saipan and up to okinawa did so in a boat built in new orleans by higgins industries. dwight ei

the soviet union case in the cold war. -- in the iran situation versus the soviet union case in the cold war. caller: my comment on the speech -- the speech was a very warm speech, especially the one that he did i did not really listen to -- this is a good thing. he did not touch on the sedan issue because sudan is one of the arab nations, and on the sudan issue because sudan is one of the arab nations and -- host: i should point out that it did come up as a question this morning, the president did talk about the situation in darfur, and we will we talking about his meeting with angela merkel, the chancellor from germany, later on c-span. thank you for the call. guest: i think one of the point here that the caller alluded to -- yes, there was a change in terminology, but i think when the president was trying to articulate american values and interests, he said, look, this idea of 9/11 being perpetrated by al qaeda, some in the muslim world question that if it was al qaeda, there were lured rumors. he said this is the fact. 3000 of my citizens have been slaughtered. that is why we are in

stalin had determined that he would make the soviet union a military and industrial powerhouse to rival the united states and that he would do it in half a decade. one of the ways he tried to do it was by confiscating grain and other dietary staples from the soviet republic, the back woods soviet republic of ukraine. he would then see to it that this food was delivered to workers in the more technologically advanced soviet republics, so that they would be hearty and well nourished, will be able to work on the assembly lines and able to bring about the goals of stalin's five year plan. the result in ukraine was the worst famine in the 20t 20th century. anywhere according to some estimates, seven million people died, that is probably an exaggeration, the more conventionally accepted number is about half that. maybe between three million and three and a half million. regardless, three points are indisputable. millions of people died. second, stalin in effect murdered by stealing their food. and third, walter durante refused to report on the famine in the pages of the "new york times." at o

the opening to china, the arms control agreements made with the soviet union. these were magnificent achievements. we remember them as just that, even though he got really bad press for what he did with watergate. so, in the and good policy-- could presidents are remembered for their good deeds. some tate man's it takes time for that to unfold but in the and it happens. >> and if you could just bend a brief moment, because legacy, is interesting that is a function of history which does take time and sometimes we like to rush to judgment on things. even with lbj in historical times, wasn't that long ago. >> well, i think that is exactly right and i have a personal rule and i got to this rules your personal experiences. that is, i think you ought to wait at least five years before you try to make even a preliminary judgment on the presidency and i say that, and i'm kind of learning it the hard way. in 1989 i wrote my first book. it came out, ronald reagan had just left office than it was a book called the acting president. everything in that book is accurate, and

to defeat the soviet union. as to our relationship with china, it is a non-sustainable treaty relationship. it has and, and things eventually do. their economy is based on shipping without expecting -- accepting our exports. our lifestyle and economy is based on consuming without producing, and this can make us happy and make them happy for a few years, as it has, but we consume a lot of stuff. in one year, almost a trillion more that we produced. now, this is beginning to unravel, but no one has a clear plan for the future. we need a manufacturing base in this country and a trade policy that focuses on results, not just process. and the trade policy we have had for the last 10 to 20 years has made us the greatest debtor nation in history because every year, we bring in -- it is now down to something like $600 billion a year. we bring in more stuff than we export and we borrow the difference, and that borrowing builds up and built up and builds up. so you have to have some really bad policies to have the best wo

the destruction of nuclear weapons was tantamount in achieving his goal to bring an end to the soviet union. the ronald reagan presidential library in simi valley california hosted this event. it is 25 minutes. >> hello. i was just thinking it has now been about 34 years since we first met ronald reagan, and we always liked it when we first met him and we still like him. and, as is and said we worked with him for quite a long time. in 1988 i wrote one book explaining what reagan was like and i thought i really knew about him. but when people left come a lot ofeople talk to me about he was kind of silly and did not know what he was doing. all kinds of things. they call them names. the thing that i could not understand is telling god's name did he get all of that work done? how was he able to do it? and, that idea held up with a lot of people. for example, who was actually doing his work? he was pulling the strings? and, starting six or seven years ago, we began to understand who was pulling the strings. and the person was ronald reagan's-- what he is writing and we discovered that he could w

but you can look back at the soviet union and we were reminded about that yesterday as ronald reagan's statue was unveiled and it's a great tribute. but as he pushed the missile defense system and the soviets tried to keep up, they were spending up too much money and running up too much debt and people were nervous about loaning the soviet union more debt. do you remember the baltic states started rebeling? the soviet union would roll in with tanks. they could put it down, but for some reason, they didn't roll in with tanks and supress it like they had in years past. well, it appears there's information indicating that they were needing us to loan them $100 billion, which 20 or so years ago was real money, $100 billion to keep them afloat. and we got them word, yeah, it's your country, but if you roll in with tanks, we aren't going to be able to loan you that money. we owned their fute so we could dictate what they could or couldn't do. does it ring any bells that we keep selling our debt? we can't control the spending. we voted here tonight to spend millions and millions of dollars to

and the head of the soviet union restorations right after he was reelected and said we are prepared to seek most radical solutions which will allow movement towards a complete ban and eventually liquidation of nuclear arms. at that point, reagan had agreement that the soviets at least were claiming that they wanted to do the same thing he wanted to do, and he said let's take them at their word and say okay, you agree with us, let's work on a way to do it. there is one final document, we have the first page, this is from 1987. from september 8th, 1987. these are the minutes from that national security council meeting on arms control positions. the next page, in fact, is a summary of some of the things that reagan said in the meeting that we have selected. and i want to read to you as a conclusion before we take some questions, one of the things he said in that meeting, which of course is 1987, preparing at that time for gorbachev to come to washington to sign the treaty on the elimination of intermediate range nuclear missiles in europe, both those in the united states that we had place

well, that elections in the soviet union -- they had elections in the soviet union. it involves everyone. it is beyond one camp or another. it is not about those who are supporters of mr. mousavi, or those who are supporters of x, y, scorceor z. this theocracy has basically lost any last shred of legitimacy that it could have claimed by virtue of the final positioning of the supreme leader, the fact of the past has come off and the regime is pretty much moving into the direction of becoming a complete police state and dictatorship. it respective of whether it is religious or not religious, it is the ultimate nature. fluctuations may exist, as i said in my opening statement earlier, depending again on sustenance or not. in terms of the collective, grass-roots movement, it is moving, as i'm speaking to you today, more and more in terms of participation. that is the natural conclusion of the effect of people moving away from the regime had been lost completely its legitimacy. that is to be anticipated. >> i am just full of questions today. >> you won't let go, will you?

1987, 22 years ago this week, president reagan went to berlin and challenged our adversary the soviet union to take a step that would demonstrate that they were serious about peace. he challenged them to do more than just talk. he stood in front of the berlin wall that separated the free world from the communist bloc. and president reagan said, quote, general secretary gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the soviet union and eastern europe, if you seek liberalization, come here to this gate. mr. gorbachev, open this gate. mr. gorbachev, tear down this wall. now, like in france president obama took a different approach. he demanded nothing of our current adversary, iran. he challenged them to do nothing. saying instead, quote, we are ready for direct negotiations with the iranians on a whole range of issues without preconditions in an atmosphere of mutual respect. ronald reagan demonstrated the power of an american president standing firm for human freedom and liberty and against tyranny. president obama is pleading with the tyrannical regime that sponsors terror and has

it reminded me a lot of the soviet union. i traveled quite a bit in the soviet union in the cold war days. you have a whole class of people that are kiss-ups. they'll join the bureaucracies. they can do anything so their kids can get an inside track on education and get a steady job. when i had to get permission to go in that big mosque, they all looked like mahmoud ahmadinejad. they wore the same suit and had the same little beard. [laughter] >> i mean, this is kind of creepy. but these are the kiss-ups. in every society you've got those kind of people. even in ours. [laughter] >> not in ours. >> how would you rate the hotels you and your crews stayed during your trip? and also do they have western toilets? >> the hotels were great. we stayed in the fanciest hotels in town. they were no more expensive than you'd stay in a basic business hotel here. i didn't want the back-door experience. i wanted a safe place to leave your camera gear and i wanted to get online and all that kind of stuff. every city has an international clas

the outcome was the soviet union tax rolling into town.what allowed for the movement to flourish and become this big gigantic movement that led to the fall of communism was the climate of the moment. the other important thing, also is yes, mr. reagan did say that. he did call for ending the evil empires. but at the same time, we were engaged with the soviet union, we have been engaged with them since the second world war. that allowed us to say those things and sit at a time with them at the same time and discuss other issues as two superpowers would do. he saw a moment, mr. reagan. and moscow was having a difficult time coming up with leaders. they had leaders dying over in a couple of weeks before mr. gorbachev came in. we have to remember we have to have the proper climate and the right attitude and take that and not just use the historical comparisons. >> maryland, thank you for waiting. caller: since we're hearing this through interpretation, i'm referring to the ia tolla. i like to ask here if -- is the language correct? i know some

therefore i would argue north america became particularly with the fall of the soviet union and the end of the centrality conflict in the same way that europe had been the center of gravity for 500 years from 1482 1/3 1991 when the soviets collapsed almost exactly 500 years europe had been the. >> . now to become north america and as it happens, the united states is the dominant power from this century in north america therefore it is the center of gravity. that does not necessarily mean it is the eternal or that it is powerful by itself just means by the geographic facts the way the world works, it is in the right place. it is also an extraordinarily powerful country because it dominates a united continent, it has no continental enemies, it is not in the 100 some odd years have a domestic war to devastated to which almost differentiates us from all of the powers and therefore extremely wealthy. but we speak of all the crises of the united states that are serious but the fact remains the united states economy is larger than the next four economies combined, japan, china united kingdom a

in this case of see this now more like the soviet union in the early days of the 1930's when there were moderates, successors of london who wanted to make a revolution a little more gentle -- of lenin, more gentle with the world and then stalin his supporters who wanted to purge anyone who did not want communism. i worry that we see in khamenei a push like that of stalin for. it does not mean that we will have 30 years of this regime because things happen more rapidly in the world now but the struggle might last months or years. host: hears from the sunday news magazine. the first phone call is from st. louis on the democrat's lead. caller: this is nothing but another fine example of our government interfering in other governments, turn to overthrow the. we have a long history of our murderous cia of overthrowing governments and killing their leaders. the only reason we have this much attention on iran is because of the $500 million george bush allocated to destabilize the election. you people need to get off this. we need to overthrow this terrorist government in this country. haven't

well, the soviet union had elections, did that make them democratic? no. now it has grown. it is grown beyond a camp. it is not about those are supporters of one candidate or another. this is about all iranian people who support freedom and are by default and definition against this theocracy which has lost any last shred of dignity it could claim. the maverick has come off, and the regime is moving pretty much in the direction of it becoming a complete police state and dictator ship. irrespective of whether it is religious or non-religious, it is just the nature. in terms of collective grass root movement, it is movement as i am speaking to you today more and more in terms of participation. that is the natural conclusion of the effect of people moving away from a regime that has lost legitimacy. >> i am full of questions today. >> you are. >> i was wondering if you could speak about the trouble going on with the religious clerics and the whole idea of sanjani who went to move them and getting arrested? we have heard some of the items speak out against them. >> thank you fo

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 politicians in both countries have recognized the fact

and 1 years after his administration the soviet union disappeared -- 11 years. jimmy carter who was a sincere idealist was totally out of touch with reality. he lived in a world of fantasies. the result was a catastrophic failure. the clinton erra failures are similar. their passion for mistreating terrorism not as an act of war but as an act of criminal justice, their refusal to accept the threats to america, meant that they couldn't cope with the world trade center in 1993 which was in part plotted by a prison ica prison. -- in attica prison. or deal with the bombing in saudi arabia that they blocked the fbi from going and finding out what happened. they couldn't take charge of the two embassies bombed in africa. -- or yemen where the ambassador blocked the fbi from looking for people. therefore during the entire period of the clinton administration the ability of al-qaeda to plan 9/11 was never stopped, and the people who were doing it were never stopped, and as a result we were left in enormous danger. again and again the legalisms and self-deceptions of tre

anderson on why presidentx reagan believed destroying nuclear weapons would bring an end to the soviet union on "after words" nicholas schmidle talks about his%w two years in t&zpakistan. he sits downqb7;ç with ralph p. online withez great new feature including streaming video and easy to search archives. booktv.org. >> without disputing the existence of manmade climate change, university of virginia research professor patrick michaels and arizona state university climatology polling robert balling demonstrate why they believe the alarmist approach to global warming is unnecessary. the cato institute in washington, d.c. hosted this event. it's a little over an hour.ovx >> in the issue of global warming it seemsk6ñ either you on the talk show line in the afternoon and you say there is no such thing as climate change or you say it's the end of the world. and thisv÷ applies to both side of the issue. i'd like to talk about howo#w w- the facts appear to not appear. things go unchallenged in the climate of extremes. people accept the strangest things without really fact-checking. and i'd like t

reagan dared to call the great soviet union an evil empire. that moment made it impossible for anyone in the west to continue closing their eyes to the real nature of the soviet union. it was one of the most important freedom affirming declarations and we knew it. that marked the end for them and beginning for us, the beginning of a new revolution, a freedom revolution. reagan's revolution. . he warns, how a government treats its own people cannot be separated from how that government could be expected to treat other countries. how did the regime treat the family of neda, the student shot in the streets? her state executioners refused to tender her body to her family, buried her without a funeral, banned all signs of mourning and forced her family to flee from their tehran home. to defeat such a regime, this is the example, quote, ronald reagan had the moral clarity to understand the truth and the courage both to speak the truth and to do what needed to be done to support it. what concrete actions can we take today to aid the iranian people's

prosperity for the soviet union and eastern europe, if you seek liberalization, come here to this gate. mr. gorbachev, open this gate. mr. gorbachev, tear down this wall." last week in france, president obama took a different approach. he demanded nothing of our current adversary, iran. he challenged them to do nothing, saying instead, "we are ready for direct negotiations with the iranian, a whole range of issues without preconditions in an atmosphere of mutual respect." ronald reagan demonstrated the power of an american president's standing firm for human freedom and liberty and against tyranny. president obama is pleading with a tyrannical, radical regime that sponsors terror and has killed americans to please talk to us. he is offering to convey a tremendous benefit to them in exchange for no cost from them. president reagan knew there was no moral equivalency in america and our adversaries and he was not afraid to say so. he also knew that negotiating from a position of weakness could never secure america's national interests. after he left the middle east, president obama made a

it reminded me a lot of the soviet union. i traveled quite a bit in the soviet union back in the cold war days and you have a whole class have people who are kissups. they'll join the bureaucracy and do anything so their kid have an inside track to college and a steady job. they'll turn their neighbors in if they're violating some government dictate. when i got permission in the big mosque we went in the big room in the administrators they all looked like mahmoud ahmadinejad. they had the same suit and had the same little beard. this is kind of creepy. this is the kissups. in every society you've got those kinds of people. even in ours. [laughter] >> not in ours. how would you rate the hotels you and your crew stayed during your troop and do they have western toilets? >> the hotels were great. we stayed in the fanciest hotels in town and they were, you know, no more expensive than you'd stay in a basic business hotel here. i didn't want the back door experience. i wanted a safe place to leave our camera gear and i wanted to g

including the soviet union, recognized the state of israel. the day after the jewish state was established in 1948, it was invaded by six surrounding arab nations. a negotiated cease fire ended hostility, with jerusalem being split in the middle between israel and jordan. in 1967, israel was once again invaded by syria from the north, jordan from the east and jirpt from the southwest. -- egypt from the southwest. israel expanded its border by including the golan heights that was controlled by syria, the west bank controlled by jordan and gaza controlled by egypt. some would have you believe that the establishment changed the borders of arab states in an agreement that existed for centuries. that is incorrect. the boundaries of the middle east countries were fixed by western powers after turkey was defeated in world war i. the french took over syria and lebanon. the british took over palestine and iraq. the areas allotted to israel had been under the control of the on the man empire from 1517 to 1917. during this 400-year rein, it was only spar

developing and deploying nuclear weapons and in every case, whether it was after the united states, the soviet unionollow on nuclear states, governments and intelligence systems were able to provide clear indications that those developments were under way. there is always uncertainty about specific things like whether someone is going to test or not or when they are going to weapon nuys, build nuclear weapons. it is hard to hide that you are developing nuclear capability. >> i am a staff writer of a japanese newspaper. thank you for giving us this opportunity. i have one question. you mentioned that your approach is realistic and practical. is it possible to explain this a little bit more, which part is realistic and which part is practical? thank you very much. >> i'm going to in a moment turn the floor over to yukio satoh of our commission. but one thing that tells me it is realistic, if you look at the last page of this chart, you see one interesting reality is people may not be focused more knowledgeable of at, but we have been engaged in a fairly substantial nuclear build down or reduction for

whenever stop negotiating with the former soviet union. they invaded countries. they promoted unrest. we knew we had an opportunity to learn more, to discuss fully and to reach better understandings that we might have in the absence of such engagements. we pursued it. we are doing this out of what we view it is our interest. and the interests of friends and allies such as israel. now we are waiting to see the outcome of the internal iranian process these. our intent is to pursue whatever opportunities might exist in the future with iran to discuss these matters. thank you. >> president obama wednesday announced the extension of some benefits to domestic partners of federal employees. this new memorandum stops short of full health care coverage. here is the president announcing the changes at the white house. >> many of our government's hard working public servants have long been denied basic rights that their colleagues enjoy for one simple reason. the people they love all of the same sex. currently, some federal employees cannot always use 6 leaves -- sick leave

i have seen it with the soviet union. we think dictatorships are strong because they speak in a seemingly united way. we think we are divided and weak in democracy. dictatorships are fragile. so, everybody here, let us give deep honor to the men and women who have shown even more courage than they did in tiananmen by fighting off the feelings of defeat, the bad days, and still working with all of their hearts and souls to keep that flame flickering, just keep it going, do not be discouraged. dictatorships are fragile. and you will bring down those walls. it may come a lot sooner than you think. you are more powerful than you know. we are so deeply grateful to follow in your path. thank you very much. and keep fighting for my grandchildren. you are going to give them a wonderful life. thank you. [applause]

the same kind of effort we spent on the soviet union during the cold war, the cold war years. there is an area of, there is an area of other concerns. because the consequences might not be quite as catastrophic, we can economize a little bit on the resources there but then if one of them takes a turn that we don't expect, then we are going to have to pile on. dealing with things like these malls of national groups with a great deal of destructive power, with extremely tight security also requires a kind of a long-term effort. so, it is a constant balancing act. the trade-off is really between long-term, steady effort, years to pay off and the ability to flex one something pops up and you really have to take care of it, and i think that we have got the capability to do both. there will be, there will be surprises in the future, but i have a sense that the outfit that i inherited has the inherent flexibility to be able to move from the ones that we know are important and i think we do need to emphasize these enduring concerns, so that i can turn it over to my successor with bett

far more of a threat of terrorist getting their hands on a multitude of weapons from the former soviet union. what i call to mention, as a strong obama supporter, my real fear, given his muslim background was that it would create a political environment for any real attempt for addressing the issues. it would be undermined. i was very pleased when obama emphasized the settlement issue. while it may appear to sound just like rhetoric, given the political gymnastics and treacherous waters of american politics involving this issue, given the recent trends in american politics, just merely saying out loud addressing this issue is a major act in itself. guest: it seems to me that president obama has a cogent system of thought when it comes to dealing with the issues of the middle east. he intrinsically sees a destabilize middle east as undermining the interests of the united states. obviously, navigating some very treacherous waters. as he made very obvious in his speech yesterday, he wants all parties involved to do their part. we heard some very new things in what the president said. the caller

marcus, i know annually we have done a program since the breakup of the soviet union with students from the former soviet republic. it is always a fascinating session to see the whole gradation of how they have embraced freedom for that freedoms are still withheld from them. >> absolutely. the freedom and first amendment topics have been particularly resonant with close-up audiences. high-school students that come to washington are pretty attuned to it. i do not think there is any group in the country whose first amendment freedom are more regularly and routinely infringed upon than high school students. it is a resonant topic. >> we always talk and get fascinating feedback on "no child left behind" and immigration policy which is new announced by region. -- nuanced by region. >> the one thing you appreciate working for close-up all these years is that every area of the country has a different aspect and outlook on politics. it is one of the secrets that makes the greater close-up program work. we bring these communities together. in many cases, they are roommates for the week, two kids

the united states and russia and the soviet union destroyed 40,000 warheads. c-span3 ask for another 20,000. we are long way to zero. >> good point. >> how do you address japanese television? how do you address the nuclear weapon -- it is not clear, but some weapons affect the intention by some islamic countries that they're going to have another weapon in the future. i wonder, because the information of other countries, members of this organization, not a part of it, could you address that issue? >> that is a very good question. i can tell you that in the deliberations of the commission eaton yesterday and today, we are including israel in our plan. we are assuming that way will be found so that israel can and will participate in a process of undertaking reductions and elimination. i say that in full knowledge, just to repeat, we are realists here, we recognize there are regional issues that will affect our ability to get to zero, and that includes, i would argue, the ability to get israeli forces to 0 -- zero. i would hope that in the next 20 years, we will

orange revolution and the changes in governments in places like poland back when it broke from the soviet union and ukraine and georgia and all of the other places in the world where people finally broke free from the shackles of a government that would not permit free speech, what were they seeking to do? to exercise free speech in order to petition their government for more individual freedom. so the united states should jealously guard those rights in our constitution rather than, as mr. koh says, have the united states interpret its constitution more in line with the mainstream of thinking in the rest of the world. if you sort of try apply a mathematical formula here and you average what the rest of the world thinks about free speech, the right of religion, the right to assemble, the right to petition the government, the average is far below what we provide. we're pretty much at the top of the pile in terms of what we protect, but if we were to follow mr. koh's advice in order to be more accepted in the world, we would draw our standards of protection of individual rights down to the levele

there is no doubt that what reagan did in the 1980's helped to bring down the fall of the soviet union. ultimately, the people have to fight their own battles. the iranians are going have to fight their own regime. that does that mean that the rest of the world has no interest. when the greeks fought for their freedom in the 18 twenties, romantic poets for, there was a rally for freedom that help them to throw off the yoke. we have to be careful, the president has to be careful not to act against our own interests. i think the american interest is usually for people gaining freedom. guest: you can actually quote the original historian -- host: you can? guest: note, but i can read it. it is a very dangerous place. the president has got to keep the door opened. the nuclear issue is number one in that area, especially with israel going and going, getting in there, and the recent events in israel. speeches from netanyahu and all of that. it is a dynamic time. guest: i agree. every president's only responsibility is to american interests. the question is what is in our interest. if every pr

the forget about what the soviet union tried to do to the world during the cold war with communist domination of the world. it is a terrible thing, but sometimes you have to go and fight. sometimes it turns up good, but sometimes it does not. regardless of what anyone says about george bush and how much they still hate him, he will be remembered for this. it will turn out good. have a nice day. host: the front page here has the situation in the new york city courtroom yesterday, tears as madoff is still for 150 years. this concerns dick cheney during the u.s. troop pullout. he says he hopes that troops can deal with. he says he would not want to see the u.s. waste the tremendous sacrifice that has gotten us to this point. we want to share with you one of the moment we were able to obtain from inside iraq overnight. the iraqi government is calling this the national day of jubilation. ♪ host: u.s. and iraqi troops marching side by side in baghdad. jane arraf joins us from inside iraq. she is a reporter for christian science monitor. thank you for being with us

>> it started out as helsinki watch, which looks at the old soviet union, and help people were being treated there. if you look at our website, you can find out more about it. >> what is the name and number? it is outside on the paperwork. it simply states that the u.s. can only employ cluster munitions in areas that are not populated by civilians, and must have a scud rate of 1% or less. they have to work 99% of the time. it gets us about 90% of the way to the current treaty. if i may add, with germany and canada and the u.k., it is not just the industry. >> in iraq, can you tell us about the situation now about water and electricity and daily living? is human rights watch or you working with the obama administrations on conditions on guantanamo? >> we have people who work in iraq. i don't know the specific conditions now as far as electricity and water. as far as working on guantanamo bay, we have had people in guantanamo bay at the hearings since this began, sitting in on the hearings during all of them as far as we were allowed. we have been very active in that. just to think abo

should be no better in the united states and this takes place in london a man from the former soviet union is trying to eke out a living at a very bleak time in eastern europe. then the second book also takes place in the kitchen and it is called in the kitchen. this of course, is in paper and the road home is on hardback which probably makes a difference to people. finally, this book and segue and to my other favorite shawn bridges south asian books. i have two of them hear. one is here cutting four stone which is about a position it is very hard to describe because it is a very fact epic novel and lots of people have been coming into the store to say how much they love this book. the author is a position in the united states that immigrated here actually from ethiopia where his family were protestant missionaries. a lot of the book takes place in ethiopia and a lot takes place in the united states in a hospital and it is lush, beautiful riding about medicine and immigration and ethiopia it in bad times and 80 wonderful book. another book that takes place in calcutta and it is called an s

most sensitive secrets, the technological secrets of the time down there weight quickly to the soviet union via espionage. that is a fact of life. host: david, on our it democrat s' line from oklahoma city. caller: 01 to comment on health care and our social structure. social structure is dictating government intervention, like a drowning person. do we let the person drowned deaths is our country like that, or do we throw them a preserver? we are trying to help, save our country. that is why we have so many government interventions -- it is necessary. i think that the secrecy problem is that our country is a democratic society and we have always felt like openness and it divulging what is going on is important, but there are some things as secret, that are so important for the protection of our country that you cannot allow this to get out. you have so many people from our foreign countries who are enemies out there trying to get this as it is, so why give it to them free? we have got to have certain things kept secret. even though the american people like to demand an inquiry -- and inquir

so it was no great prophecy of my part to have saw decades before 1989 that the soviet union was going to fall apart. but it involved me personally because i never expected that. you know, i love english-language. i like in english. i think in english. i even dream in english which is extraordinary in some ways. but since 1989, every year a new book of mine is published in hungary. translated into hungarian. even though these books of mine, 14 books, 15 books of mine translated there, and only one of them is in my native country. so every year i go there, national book week, don't misunderstand me, there's a little money in it but very little. so it barely pays my hotel bill, but still i have never expected this to happen. so my life changed. my life is change in other ways also. my writing career became to some extent successful and so forth. and so i decided to write this other election, not the history of the last 20 years, but how my beliefs and ideas and everything changed in the last 20 years, hence the title "last rites." but you see there is a much greater, deeper change there.

the revolution of 1989 would set the tone for the peaceful breakup for the soviet union. the winds of change were bringing democracy in freedom to the oppressed. i look forward to honoring the peaceful revolutions of 1989 later this year. but i want to speak today about the revolution that never was, an event that took place 20 years ago this week in a country whose people remain subject to totalitarianism and tyranny. a peaceful pro-democracy rally that was snuffed out with the brutality the world hadn't seen since the invasion of czechoslovakia by the ussr in 1968. it started much like the revolutions of 1989. the sixth general secretary of the communist party of china was famous for supporting ideas like political reform and capitalism. not much different from lech walesa of poland or havel of czechoslovakia. when he died on april 151989, thousands of chinese students began a peaceful protest in tennessee square in his honor and call support for -- in tiananmen square. protesters called for nothing more than a dialogue with their government and party leaders on how to

we never stopped negotiating with the former soviet union. they invaded countries. they promoted unrest. but we knew we had an opportunity to learn more, to discuss fully and perhaps to reach better understandings than we might have in the absence of such engagement, so we pursued it. we are doing this out of what we view as our interests and the interests of friends and allies such as israel. so, now we are obviously waiting to see the outcome of the internal iranian processes. but our intent is to pursue whatever opportunities might exist in the future with iran to discuss these matters. thank you all. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> up next former president bill clinton and house majority leader steny hoyer had a dinner for al fromm who is retiring as the c.e.o. of the democratic leadership council. >> this week, california congress pete stark chair of the house ways and means committee on health discusses legislation working its way through congress. he talks about a proposal tha