in the soviet union, they shrug it off. and if they get lucky, they're able to buy this or that, it's good fortune. but you wouldn't begin to see irritation like you would in the united states. >> have you seen any change in the russian people since the wall came down? >> they had a taste of freedom. there's still a certain resignation. and they probably accept what's imposed on them much more readily than americans. but i am so glad americans don't have that trait. we do get mad, thank goodness. we get mad, and we fight back. and we have a political system that allows us to say we don't like the way we're going, and we're americans and this is a government of the people, by the people, for the people. and we say, "we're the people," and we really start asserting it. and there's still a difference. the russians don't quite believe it, but one thing i do think is universal is the entrepreneurial spirit. and it's not just about making money. i agree with what i said then. if you're resigned, in any society, it's not just beca

let's see what you said back then. >> what do you think of the soviet union? i think it's an idea that went wrong. economically, i think it's doomed. i don't say that with glee. i've been to the soviet sof yet union for a couple of weeks. i like it had very much. i was treated very nicely. i like russian language and literature. one problem with the book is that i've had this sense of people thinking that i want to so the soviet union to collapse. i don't like the sof yet government and the emphasis on military strength as its claim to scoop ever power status. i think it's misplaced. f >> i still like rish r russia. what they found out is you cannot remain a viable country and surpresident individual pursuit of prosperity. it's funded by congress to the state department with an independent board. who runs it? >> the board and our staff. what we do is take grant money. approximately $110 million a year. we have over 1,000 projects. we never tell people in another country what they should be doing. we think the best formula for people is democracy. that is fair e

and soviet union. clearly american technology advance played a seriouj role.ing that's what called them to the table in the end. we all be getting access for the period do imply that this was a powerfu& argument and he could use in order to do what we would do any way to open up further contacts with the world. he could turn this against his own military and say, like he said with regard to afghanistan. you know, if you had allowed them to stay strong to stand tall. if you had the same level to push back i would not be in the position i am in today. that's an argument he could use in both direction as it were in terms of what he wanted to achieve. it was important. it was a decisive problem. >> so we're going to take three more questions to you and professor cummins and the ambassador would like to make a comment if you could identify yourself. >> i'm a poliáics graduate student. think is a question for the professor. to what extending can the national values framework help us understand u.s. strategy in that he talked about implore the inner polar moment. >>

and there was debate in the soviet union how much to open the intelligence weapons. and at one point khrushchev wanted to accept president eisenhower's proposal. because they were afraid of the united states because we were a powerful country. the soviet military wanted to support it, and khrushchev lost his job over it, he said you are out of your mind, you are going to give american generals the evidence they need to know how weak we are and they will launch their first strike. what held up deep arms control until the 80's was the unwillingness of the soviets of verification and the unwillingness of an american president to sign a treaty. >> let me add a point to that, when we went to moscow it was that we would have a comprehensive test ban treaty, not a limited one. to cover underground as well as atmospheric and so on. and it was clear from the first day that the soviets weren't going to do that, that they wouldn't tolerate it. it was perfectly clear that the idea that the inspections required of the test ban treaty was intolerable to the soviets. >> thanks to ou

by december of 1991, the soviet union was no more. i think that the soviet union decided to go with a big bang theory. the net result was that instead of solidifying the money first, they try to do everything -- tried to do everything and gave the russian people a bad taste for capitalism. the russian people ended up thinking that this was the way for people who have access to the political elite, they will get bigger rewards and the rest will suffer. russia was grasping with disaster. it was only when vladimir putin came to power that russia started making money because of oilthe people said that it is better to have a strong, tough leader. they were willing to give up those freedoms that they thought were important, but it turns out they were worse off under so- called capitalism. i think, even now, if your currency has integrity, you can build on it. it is a foundation. russia ended up having a disaster in 1999 where the ruble lost one-third of its value in a matter of a few weeks. there was a complete default. it put russia on the

and that was clearly a lot of the tension was to make the people singing these things that the soviet union was so all of those who help the soviet communist party's were traitors, those people to look themselves repulsive was a lot of what was going on for a sample with chambers. but i want to switch now a little bit to yourself and who you are. it's very exciting to have someone from a slightly different field coming to this field. you're not a soviet always just, you are a professor of literature from so many years at princeton with so many students i should add who love you. you have an expertise in some of your other titles earlier what i found an introduction to the franciscan literature of the middle ages i found a book about the allegory, and in addition to writing about this period you also are i would say a lover of books. "the new york times" once reported to have an addition to a grand piano in your living room at least two old printing presses that you had metal type, i.e. it understand you find books. >> guest: that's right and that is the way i got into this project. in my pr

recognized the soviet union. it doesn't say we approve of every aspect of it, but we respect it as a sovereign nation. 1930s, among other things there is a purge trial. the reign of terror in the soviet union putting the revolutionaries stalin's own peers go on trial. that's what kessler is running out in darkness at noon. 1939, stalin makes a pact with hitler and hitler instantly invades poland. so they are both together and we are watching most on the other side, but watching. 1941, hitler invaded russia. suddenly soviet russia switches from an enemy to perhaps an ally, becomes an ally. we are allies in world war ii. these great conferences setting how europe will be after the war. we are working with russia in this period and then after the war, from 45 on the world war ii is over. the cold war is beginning. we are beginning to realize russia is not the kind of ally we would imagine. the point is, the u.s. the only relationship, flip-flops a lot. and americans are going through this trying to figure out what t

and the soviet union. i do not like the whole attitude that the carter administration had in vienna, where he said that president brezhnev and i bring the same dreams and have the same aspirations for the world, which is absolutely false. >> presidents do look into souls and see all sorts of things. [laughter] >> one of the contributions of the reagan administration, and i think it was a contribution of the kennedy administration, too, was that they saw the soviet union realistic terms, not that they saw the same dreams and had the same aspirations for the world, but they had a different basic philosophy of whether the state predominates over the individual, or the individual determines the fate of the state and elects his and her own leaders, and that we, the people, preside in a political system. i think that to realistic presidents of the postwar era were john f. kennedy and ronald reagan. reagan by and large de legitimize the soviet union, a tremendous difference between what kennedy and kissinger had

let's do one on the soviet union.up of people in and dick cheney loved it so much that that -- he would say to get them to round up the usual suspects. they included two terrific cia people. they would be much more frank in these discussions than in the sanitized memos. there is a virtue to getting down to the people who know what they're talking about. a lot of academics -- one of the things that came out of these was just how much the strengths of these central forces in the soviet republics and the strength of dissatisfaction within russia. the point is, overtime and somewhat ahead of the curve, i believe, we understood there what is -- there was an enormous desire for change. one point where i believe this help it the right conclusion was when the failed coup happened in the soviet union. the early reaction -- the early morning reaction if you look at bush's press conference in kennebunkport, it was more in the spirit of we may have to work with these guys. if you have to work with them, they will have to work wit

for the soviet union we had one answer. for the united states, with a three, because the air force and navy could not agree so we have the air force of view, the navy view, an average of the two, meaning our pretense is with the soviet answer better than winning the american was kind of strange. my favorite example which most of you sensibly forgotten, hope you all have forgotten -- some of you may also have forgotten the long-range cruise missiles and pershing ii's in europe. we know because the germans said the requirement that there had to date -- germany would take some but i had to be another european country that would take some, and england didn't count. england was not european enough. what we really -- did realize was the italians were easy. the italian communist party was in favor of doing it. we did not know that. that is an intelligence problem basically of a whole might have an interest in what you were wanting to do, or who might have an interest in stopping it. to be fair to my original answer, my disdain for

shot, that this is possibly the first shot in what could potentially be a confrontation with the soviet union. what do you do in that moment? what choices do you make? i know what i would do. i would hyperventilate and pass out. that's why i'm a professor and not a president, but it allows the individual, the people reading this book to allow people to go back in that moment in time and experience it and experience the same type of situations and the same choices that lyndon johnson confronted and not only is the framework different, but if terms of the issues, there are new sources that are available, and i am very gradeful to the family of william manchester, who gave me access to all of the research materials ma there manchester used to -- that mr. manchester used to write his controversial book "the death of a president" was published in 1967 and these materials were opened up for the first time last year and these materials, almost all of these people, with a few exceptions, are now dead, but you go back and you look at the interviews, manchester i want viewed all the major players if 19

the cold war against the soviet union. the cold war. the cold war against the soviet union. are we got a similar time, but the time of some form of conflict -- are we not in a similar time? the time of some form of conflict? how do we have bill ourselves domestically? ? there is some sort of a conflict or struggle with terrorism that is done in the name of islam. i'm not particularly wild about the metaphor that suggests that military instruments, soldiers, battlefields -- none of those things seem to be right. one is for people that have made a career choice to be terrorists. we have got to stop them. the best analogy i am able to think of is disease. attack it where you can. you've got to build recovery mechanisms. we're likely to see another -- that is part of what we have to do. we have to go after terrorists in the country's -- counties. that is easier said than done as we see every day with pakistan. pakistan is a painful reminder. the bigger challenge is to get to people before they make a career choice. we want to somehow interrupted the recruiting chain because ther

and lyndon johnson finds out this man lived in the soviet union. he was somehow connected with the cubans. so he, what johnson is so afraid of as he's speaking back to washington about to try to assemble a government for the first time is that he's going to be pressured into a war with the soviet union. weather also acted alone or acted as part of a conspiracy lyndon johnson is afraid that there is going to be such a public backlash against a man who once lived in the soviet union and pledged out fidel castro that he's going to be forced into a war get johnson remember had been in washington a long time. he remembered the days of joseph mccarthy and wondered what the assassination, whether austal was a part of a conspiracy or not his sample biography and the facts of his life could produce the same result which is tremendous public outpouring and desire to go to an war with cuba or the soviet union. over here. wheat for the microphone there. >> as far as the continuity of the executive authority wasn't lyndon johnson in the house of representatives

because of the profound change in the soviet union and indeed other changes.eople have mentioned that the the profound change with the eend of apartheid which was coming in south africa and a variety of other things. and central to this, to the administration was the question of russia. because i think in general, the administration came into office thinking foreign policy -- although important -- would be a secondary consideration. but i think they also saw that there was an opportunity. and one of the themes of the paper that i've done is that sometimes crises of the opportunity are more difficult to deal with than the crises of challenge. 34 of you have probably been exposed to these talents. if you look at the way people make money or choices, they are most interest d n preserving preserving as well. but it was clearly a recognition she's the -- the foreign challenge the administration would face, and that it was very much in the united states' sfwroast try to sthape future. the objectivity was russia that would be internally democratic, economically succe

big issues never resolved is containment forever or as a way of leading to the collapse of the soviet unioni guess now everyone says it was the latter but it wasn't. but it had a lot of meaning in one word. and the statement about german unification as our objective. a lot flowed from defining that objective. these long turnidocuments that don't think they do much but without making too big a case, but we tried to imply choices. you read carefully there are choices implied there and some important sense of directions set. but i think too often we get the government tied up in we are going to have this grand document and make them do it every four years and when they do it we will watch every day's progress to make sure we don't do anything they don't like. forget it. >> let's take two more questions or maybe a question and have responses. >> down front, please. >> thank you very much. i'm kate sanger in the department departments, a graduate student this. i'm imagining that in these transform active and fluid moments we're talking about that a key to strong planning to readiness is identify

that this is possibly the first shot in what could potentially be a confrontation with the soviet union. what do you do in that moment, what choices do you make? i do what i would do, i would wd hyperventilate and pass a. that's what i am a professor and president. but to allow people to go back in that moment of time and experience in the same type of situations and choices that lyndon johnson confronted. not only is it the framework, but i also interpret the issue, there are new sources that are available. i am very grateful to the family of william manchester who gave me access to all of the research materials that mr. manchester used to write his very controversial at best selling book, the death of a president. it was published in 1967 that if you go back, these materials were opened a plaster for the first time. i was the first one to use them. these materials, almost always with a few exceptions, are almost all did. manchester and get all the major players back in 1964 and 1965 when this material was still fresh. these people, like you can also comes alive are the human dimension

the cold war against the soviet union. are we got a similar time, but the time of some form of conflict -- are we not in a similar time? the time of some form of conflict? how do we have bill ourselves domestically? ? there is some sort of a conflict or struggle with terrorism that is done in the name of islam. i'm not particularly wild about the metaphor that suggests that military instruments, soldiers, battlefields -- none of those things seem to be right. one is for people that have made a career choice to be terrorists. we have got to stop them. the best analogy i am able to think of is disease. attack it where you can. you've got to build recovery mechanisms. we're likely to see another -- that is part of what we have to do. we have to go after terrorists in the country's -- counties. that is easier said than done as we see every day with pakistan. pakistan is a painful reminder. the bigger challenge is to get to people before they make a career choice. we want to somehow interrupted the recruiting chain because ther

the opinion of the state department cuba with the political economic and military backing of the soviet union has provided widespread support for armed violence and terrorism in the western hemisphere. cuba maintains close to 40,000 troops in various countries in africa and the middle east and support hostile foreign policy. therefore we think there's an adequate basis under the due process clause of the fifth amendment to sustain the president's decision to restrict travel. general mccaffrey, are we faced with the same conditions today? >> are there still 40,000 cuban troops all over the world? >> my take on the island right now is it is one of the poorest places on the face of the earth in my time in the military. >> the time from the gentleman from arizona has expired. >> just before questions i want to this bill something that is then brought up a number of times here. a deskmen said that people want to go to cuba. i believe mr. cason mentioned the tourists go there for rum, sex and what leveler else, there are a list of pejorative send i have heard from others as well that seem to indica

the cold war against the soviet union. are we got a similar time, but the time of some form of conflict -- are we not in a similar time? the time of some form of conflict? how do we have bill ourselves domestically? ? there is some sort of a conflict or struggle with terrorism that is done in the name of islam. i'm not particularly wild about the metaphor that suggests that military instruments, soldiers, battlefields -- none of those things seem to be right. one is for people that have made a career choice to be terrorists. we have got to stop them. the best analogy i am able to think of is disease. attack it where you can. you've got to build recovery mechanisms. we're likely to see another -- that is part of what we have to do. we have to go after terrorists in the country's -- counties. that is easier said than done as we see every day with pakistan. pakistan is a painful reminder. the bigger challenge is to get to people before they make a career choice. we want to somehow interrupted the recruiting chain because ther

in the afghan war between the soviet union and the afghan people we empowered many of the people who are fighting now. then we just left the playing field once the soviet union was defeated and left the bunch of weapons there. i think that the mission really has changed. host: as far as the president's speech has concern does he have to provide some notion of an and the game? guest: of course. whether or not he will concede that the mission has changed i do not know. nation-building has become a dirty term. nobody really wants to talk about defeating the taliban. you need to create a civil society in afghanistan. host: how specific does he need to be? guest: i don't think he will be very specific. presidents usually are not. he will set general goals, increase the troop commitment. he will have to explain why it is important that we fight. " we hope to achieve there. the problem is, those issues are very complicated. more fundamentally, the degree to which we can achieve those goals -- i am not sure that afghanistan to return then to what we want to turn it into in short order, much

the soviet union were far superior in spring to what iran is today.s me about our national discourse. a lot of people are assuming that if president obama fails in diplomacy, we have war. i hope we will be able to convince them not to have nuclear capabilities, but war is not inevitable. >> i want to ask you a question first because you have been following the debate about whether to engage or confront over many decades now. what is your assessment about where the best thinking about this issue is now? has this debate evolves over the years with respect to specifically how to deal with iran or north korea? it is such an old issue. >> the debate has not evolved. it is still ridiculous. you still have the right wing making charges that scared the hell of liberals and democrats and prevent them from doing sensible things. the evidence has accumulated quite substantially. nick burns just recited it. if you look at the states that have caused this problem over the last 50 or 60 years, like russia, like the soviet union, like china, like libya, like the pal

>> internet perhaps the soviet union. he was not a fan of the soviet union but he idealistically believe that you could create sort of a egalitarian society that i would argue that his vision would have the same conflict that we do in the soviet system. is our unit was that we need to the greater egalitarian system, and the way you achieve that is by going after the major institutions, including the banks. his argument was -- >> redistribution of wealth? >> exactly. >> he believed, who did he influence? i assume it seems from your book that he was kind of the apex, and again i didn't get the theory is a conspiracy. >> not at all. >> you are talking that people agree on ideas, agreed on philosophy, people who agree on and results? >> it is a worldview of. >> so if you have solved the leading and essentially reduced vision of wealth and anti-capitalism, who were those believers? here you have acorn. was that the sole architect speakership a lot of people were influenced by him to get acorn, high officials, international uni

the soviet union, as we heard earlier on today, drew on this quite correctly, that there was a sensethat the soviet union was not capable of keeping up with the american technological advance, and not gist in military respect, this also has to do with consumer technology, it has to do with creating the kind of technology that makes up a society that people would really want to live it. the problem i think is that as we move into the 2000's, particularly after 9/11, this emphasis on technology became narrower and narrower. it really came to me if one employed the american technology advance, both in military and civilian terms, and could achieve results that otherwise would not be possible to achieve, that one could push history along by using the technological edge that the united states possesses. and in both of these cases, both in afghanistan and the iraq, tell that to them for two reasons. one is particularly with regard to water, that the united states can counter interesting, and then increasing in afghanistan, simply cannot be dealt with effectively by using technological mean

. >> her paternal grandparents were communists who began to turn against the soviet union. in 1942, grandfather phil klein, an animator at disney, was fired as an agitator after the disney animators strike and went to work at a shipyard instead. is all that true? >> it is pretty much true. i do not know the exact years. i always double check with wikipedia. i was saying that this feeling that the state was watching, in order to be a conscientious objector, you have to prove your credentials. having been the child of the blacklisted man, it was just too close for him to think about proving his familial credentials as a leftist and a pacifist and the idea of turning on his family and giving the state information that they would use against people he loved. >> i hear the canadian accent. are you aware of that? >> people tell me i have a very neutral accent. >> he comes from a similar background. he is a tv journalist and documentary filmmaker. michelle landsberg. the reason i am doing this is that this is your wikipedia site. is this good or bad? >> this obsession with my fami

the result of that was the soviet union began building up the arsenal.t the end of simy carter's era it would succeed. the illusion is that if you have more you have an advantage. the rest was a high image ma cal game you have more than enough. after that, it's politics. it was as much >> inter producing the soel problem that we are discussing right now >> and the utsz during the cold war build. does it come as a result of the worning first as the spirit. the same computer models that made it possible to look at because they would be used on cities. .kñ the >> there was eye group that believed in proly care yab they are both thinking about different tactics which lead to different strategies. we have power and trying to did it when the utsz collapses jo the number of weapons. r there wassage unkree atity >> they are juflt cranking them out as fast as we could with we could have con veefable >> talking about that. he was of the view that george marshal had enormous potential on him. and number two that he would become a memo on the jelous. >> it must have

many said that our form of government was different than the soviet union, but it was not necessarilyter. we had to learn to live without, not to mention the rising price of oil, the emergence of the middle east cartel, the first bout of hyperinflation, high unemployment, and the idea of stagflation was going. then came the 1980's, and almost everything went in precisely the opposite direction, which is why this panel is not called america in decline. i am not suggesting that last time was an anomaly or that this time will necessarily be different. but tonight, the question will be what our esteemed analysts think about the future of the united states as we stand here at the end of 2009. we really have an extraordinary group of panelists. let me just share their introduction so everyone knows who they are. i have learned that people like introductions. certainly, i like it louise gives me that wonderful introduction. we will first hear from richard haas, counsel for relations, who has worked with two presidents. as council president, he has truly been an entrepreneurial leader. it has

her paternal grandparents were communists he began to turn against the soviet union. in 1942, grandfather phil klein, an animator at disney, was fired animators strike and went to work at a shipyard instead. klein's father grew up around ideas of social justice and racial equality but found it difficult and frightening to be the child of the communists a so-called red diaper baby. is all that true? >> it is pretty much true. i do not know the exact years. i always double check with wikipedia. >> did you talk to him about this? >> that is what i was saying earlier. what he came to canada. -- what he came to canada. -- why he came. i was saying that this feeling order to be a conscientious objector, you have to prove yourhaving been the child of the blacklisted man, it was just too close for him to think about proving his familial credentials as a leftist and a pacifist and the idea of turning on his family and giving the state information that they would use against people he loved. so he just prefer to leave. >> i hear the canadian accent. "against." are you aware of

so catholic church, soviet union, those are the two great threats to america's freedom. after a long litany without mentioning kennedy's name, baxter concluded, it would seem wise and even necessary that all non-catholics oppose the further growth and spread of roman catholicism until such time as the roman catholic church changes its doctrine of intolerance towards other religions. so note the irony here. in the name of religious freedom you want to deny the religious freedom. no sense of irony that shutting down a church was a violation of anybody's religious freedom. the iconic baxter was one of the leading ministers in the churches of christ at that time, and hillsborough was an upscale and prestigious congregation. chet huntley of nbc news had sent a crew to film baxter preaching this sermon to an empty sanctuary the day before he actually delivered it in church. nbc also filmed ramsey pollard at his church over in memphis, but after the sermon congressman joe evans from the fourth congress canal district in eastern tennessee who was in attendance that sunday appare

strategy after the collapse of the soviet union. >> on this vote, the ayes are 60, the nays are 39, 3/5 of the senate is duly sworn, and the motion is agreed to. >> with that vote, the senate moves its healthcare bill to the floor. starting monday and through december, follow the entire debate and how the bill would affect access to medical care. , the public option, taxes, abortion, and medicare, live on our companion network, c-span2, the only network that brings you the senate gavel to gavel. >> special middle east envoy george mitchell wednesday announced a decision by the israeli government to temporarily limit settlement construction in the west bank. the palestinians so far have said the offer does not go far enough. special envoy mitchell speaks with reporters about the middle east peace process for a half-hour. >> good afternoon, everybody. welcome to the briefing. as promised, senator mitchell is here, and he is going to give you an update on the recent announcement by the israeli government with regard to settlements. so without further ado, senator mitchell. >> good aftern

is forever, and before 1967, the left everywhere in the world, including governments like the soviet union, the czech government, were pro-israel, for one reason or another. and as i pointed out, it all changed. it began to change in 1967, conceivably something will happen that could provoke another change. i wouldn't bet the ranch on it, but it is not out of the question. but in the meantime, i would recommend -- i mean, i spent a lot of time in this book trying to explain in historical terms how jews have wound up in the position they have. and i begin way back, at least in the mid- 19th century, and i see a trace of progression there, a commitment to marxism in its pure form in the early days, to democracy, democratic socialism as it got watered down as marxism got watered down in this country, particularly in the labor movement to which so many jews were committed. and finally, with the progressive discrediting of socialism as a socioeconomic system, it morphed into liberalism. and from liberalism there is nowhere to go but apostasy. i mean, which is like, you know, that's it. that's t

this led to the dissolution of the soviet union itself within two years. in 1989, is 23, i could not have been more optimistic about the future of my world, my countries and the prospect for democracy. i would not say this with any embarrassment at the time. as stories of successful dissidents emerged from these revolutions, it became clear that the new communication technologies we have invited into our lives had played a part. the proliferation of facts machines and eastern europe and the soviet union received almost instant credit for facilitating activism and awareness among dissidents. one business writer, voiced the fall of communism in eastern europe is the direct result of new information technologies. to naive young american such as myself, fascinated by new technology, devoted to the belief that free. -- free speech can be transformative, the connection was irresistible. such an optimistic story tracked well with other simplistic accounts are held in my mind at the time -- that the reformation and the enlightenment were made necessary by the emer

even during the darkest days of the cold war our citizens could visit the soviet union, yet the vast majority of americans are still prohibited by law from traveling to cuba. it is the only country in the world where our people are not allowed to go. i am no fan of the castro brothers. in my book their dictators and despots. the cuban people are still denied the right to choose their own form of government. they are jailed arbitrarily. they are denied a free press, freedom of assembly and of expression. at the recent beating of the renowned cuban blogger as she walked to a peace march says it all. but face it -- by any objective measure of the nearly 50-year- old travel ban simply has not worked. this fact is clearly understood by the american people. recent polls indicate 64% of americans and a full 60% of cuban-americans support allowing all american citizens to travel to cuba. it is clearly time for a change. this hearing is not about ending the entire cuban embargo. when president obama abolished travel restrictions on cuban- americans earlier this year he made it clear that the

it makes a four books that fluented the way people viewed the soviet union and the cold war. he discussed with senior fellow on the counsel of foreign relations. :

not into the soviet union. but idealistically coming he believed you could create the egalitarian society. i would argue his vision would have the same consequence to the two a soviet system that we have a greater system and you go after the major institutions of capitalism including the bank. >> host: redistribution of wealth. >> host: who did he influence? i assume he was at the apex and did did not get the sense this is a conspiracy of of people who agree on ideas or philosophy or on the end results. >> so if he believes is essentially an redistribution of wealth, who were the believers? here you have a corned? who else? >> guest: a lot of people influenced, acorn, service employees international union, and hillary clinton, sure senior thesis and it was favorable and she thought he made tactical decisions and was supportive of it. the president, he rode 10 sa and a book honoring him. >> president obama worked as said an attorney for acorn? did he or did he not? >> guest: was he a paid staff lawyer for acorn?

from the soviet union because of ronald reagan. that itself should qualify him as a.hink he is overrated at all. do not take my word for it. take the word of two liberal historians. -- that is so should qualify him as a great president -- the fact that soviet missiles are not pointed at us. look at a couple others who are also rank as great presidents. the criteria is that, get these men, great liberators -- the answer obviously in the case of all four is a yes. that, by the senate of liberal historians -- they rank him as a great president. host: a couple more phone calls. the republican line. guest: happy thanksgiving. caller:yo you too. i want to tell you why there are some like me who are really fascinated with sarah palin. she is down to earth. she does not lie. i would also like to inform the democrats that they were in power for 40-50 years before 1994 when the republicans overtrick congress. they cannot blame everything on the republican party. host: what advice would you give to sarah palin? guest: keep doing what she is doing, round out her appeal with her v

prisoners of conscience, we have been in gulags in china, gulags and indonesia, gulags and the soviet union including the infamous 35 which is where natan shcharansky has spent his time. in the late 1980's he got to the human rights commission, a weak organization, to focus and bring scrutiny to the prisoners in the gulags. they sent a fact-finding team. since then the international committee for the red cross has been denied. there was a travel ban on the icrc going to cuba and going to the presence. there is a travel ban on the human rights-- from the united nations and that mandate has ended but there was a travel ban on his investigations. i would ask the general mccaffrey have you ever ask kester to permit the icrc to visit cuban political prisoners? what specific individuals have you raised with fidel castro and others in the government? have you left him to lead you to visit those prisoners of conscience yourself? i don't have access. those of us to raise the issue can't even get in the door and you certainly could do an enormous amount of good on that. yesterday the superintendent o

response nl manner and not -- not in aye and way that e are flects or reminds people the way the soviet union in the late 1980's where they cut and ran. >> this issue is the cover of c.q. weekly. and pinning out that the war in afghanistan, the death toll approaching 1,000, we could see there within the next couple of weeks, according to c.q. weekly and mary joining us in georgetown south carolina. good morning. >> good morning and thank you so much for taking my call. my name is mary thomas. i'm calling from georgetown south carolina. i would like to commend mr. hoh, for taking his stand to decide to step down from that particular job. he was there, and he saw what happened. and what i want to really say is that -- i empathize with people that on -- have children and sons and daughters that is over there fighting and many of them have lost their lives and --ee and many people don't know how it feels to have children to -- to lose their lives in battle and i also agreed that being over in afghanistan is not really proving anything and i really respect president obama for taking his time and h

the former soviet union was a division of labor.g out into the cat 610 was used for agriculture. and in the winter, you could actually move power in so that people could get warm and have some heat during that time. today, with the breakup of the soviet union, you find that the kazakhstan's are using the water or electricity in the winter. because it is sometimes 40 degrees celsius minus up there. and so there is no water available for the summer. for agriculture. which means that there is no food produced. and people have to close down their farms. this is the reality and this is creating a tragedy at the very individual level, but it also creates tensions between countries, real tensions. i think this is the type of things you will see more and more as we move forward. that's why i think this is, this study, the study by the 2030 water resource group and headed by mckinsey, is so important. it lays out the magnitude of the global scarcity issue as well as provides a framework for practical solutions to the problem. and it provides

he will fake and he can't it by irbe and the gold medal is won by the soviet union >> joe: he was a starviet elite league but the nhl posed its own set of challenges. at only 5'8", he played much larger. >> if you think this guy can't get both legs to cover both post, look at this. that hurts to watch. he is amphibious, too, right and left foot >> joe: he was en dering himself to the sharks fan base. when asked how to describe his play, he replied, like wall. he played 74 games and set what was then a league record for minutes played by a goaly. in their first playoff appearance, he led san jose to within a game of the western conference final helping to lay the foundation for a bright future for the young franchise. >> joe: artus, irbe, the guy he coaches now can do the slit >> craig: we saw a ton of him in north carolina with the canes. always had those big white pads. that was the trademark and his quickness post to post. >> reporter: the thought process was all the white leg pads blending in with the meshing of the net. >> craig: trickery. >> reporter: if you are not cheating, you ar

many believe the end of the soviet union as well. >>> it could be a tense meeting tonight twnt presidentma and israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu. you might remember here netanyahu rejected president obama's demand that israel stop building settlements in the west bank. president obama has said it is a necessary step to restarting peace talks with the palestinians. >> now it falls on the united states senate to take the baton and bring this effort to the finish line on behalf of the american people. and i'm absolutely confident that they will. >> a lot happened this weekend on health care. president obama yesterday speaking, as you saw there, congratulating the house after it narrowly passed a $1.2 trillion health care reform bill. it calls for a public option which might not get enough support to survive in the senate version as they try to put their two ideas together. a senate vote has not been scheduled yet. those are some of the stories we're following for you on this monday. hopefully, you're having a great start to your week. >>> you know the accused ft. hood gunman major n

this treaty was put together in 1991 at a time when we and the soviet union are facing -- thousands ofarheads on alert. in the intervening time the russian systems have gradually been less-well taken care of, so the threat is not there. but we have to keep the treaty in place because not everyone else is looking at us. if we and the russians can agree, then you will have a better movemt@@@@@ host: you write that a more contentious issue has been reducing the number of nuclear capable bombers on land and submarine based missiles with the president cutting for deeper cuts on the u.s. side. why is the u.s. reluctant to give and why is russia pressing for more on that particular issue? part guest: it is a numbers issue. part of it is that our system, some of them delivered nuclear weapons, strategic nuclear weapons from the united states into a target 2000 or 3,000 miles away. we can now target much better with precision strikes. they do not need a nuclear weapon to carry out the mission. host: as with these predators drones? guest: no, these are icbm's. missiles with conventional warhead

they started in 1940 especially as they advanced in the soviet union there were not sure what to do withll of these jews and there were not sure what to do the end but it served three purposes, kept them under control, they were not given a lot in the terms of food or medical care, all lot were killed off in that way 1.2 million died within the ghetto and and keeping them under control and allowed them to work for the german war company. >>host: how many have you discovered? >>guest: 1200. >>host: how have you done the research? >>guest: we have not done that much. we depend largely on outside contributors. saying that, there was 30% of the first volume we had to write ourselves from secondary published sources. that proportion will probably increase as we go along because most categories have not been thoroughly research. right now three or four people who were working for us right teeing injuries are doing research for injuries. it is not a huge team to be doing something of this scale but over time we were able to manage. we depend on local experts working with auschwitz and other con

he became one of a tiny handful of people who thought ronald reagan was too soft on the soviet union.not only applauded the invasion of iraq but thinks the war was a success. in fact, he doesn't even think it was a war, nearly one front in a new world war against the force he refers to as islamofa c islamofascio islamofasciosm. he is now common for us to bomb iran. the liberals control everything. have i gotten past gilligan's island yet? where was i? he is calling for us to bomb iran. and soon. if you think the question and answer period is getting too tepid ask him if water boarding is torture. through his long political march to the right he has been puzzled that other jews did not come to the same conclusions he did about liberalism in general and the democratic party in particular. what liberals mainly see when they look at this country is in justice and oppression of every kind, economic, social and political, podhoretz wrote. by contrast conservatives see a nation shaped my complex of traditions, principles and institutions that has afforded more freedom and factoring in period

soviet union tried state administration and found themselves to be very efficient, and productive, and very -- very inefficient, unproductive, and very unhappy. we found ourselves successful because we had a government that understood that it must protect contracts. it must protect private property. it must enforce lawfulness and respect for one another in the neighborhood. it must provide for the common defense. it must provide for certain capital. and governments that have these disciplines and do these things must, of course, levy taxes. it should have the decency to do so admissible, correct, and honest manner. -- in a simple, correct, and honest manner. the observation i give you is that division of labor works when people lie to their own business. that is a problem for governments because they exist for the purpose of minding other people's business. you are disciplined in your private transactions in that you will go out of business unless you make your customer happy. governments have the power to compel you, whether you like it or not. where is the discipline? informed, intel

she's not in the soviet union. the government is on her side in this country. why does she say things like that? >> i think she's speaking to an ethos that exists now where people are a little nervous about where the country is going. it's leaning left. it's been right for eight years. >> it seems like it's tilting back to the right a little bit. >> wiell, at least to the cente. >> that's all right. >> i don't think there's anything more juvenile about her calling out her haters than there is about obama attacking a fox news. >> that was a mistake. i agree with you on that. >> political mistake. it looked unpresidential. i mean, you call out the people that are calling you out. eventually you have to defend yourself. >> she wants to run for president. if she does. she doesn't say it. >> i think she will. >> which party is she going to run in? she's thrown everybody under the bus. she's thrown the republicans under the bus. the democrats she's thrown them under and then backed up again. >> she just backed up this conservative party candidate in new york 23. whic

she's not in the soviet union. the government is on her side in this country. why does she say things like that? >> i think she's speaking to an ethos that exists now where people are a little nervous about where the country is going. it's leaning left. it's been right for eight years. >> it seems like it's tilting back to the right a little bit. >> well, at least to the center. >> that's all right. >> i don't think there's anything more juvenile about her calling out her haters than there is about obama attacking a fox news. >> that was a mistake. i agree with you on that. >> political mistake. it looked un-presidential. i mean, you call out the people that are calling you out. eventually you have to defend yourself. >> she wants to run for president. if she does. she doesn't say it. >> i think she will. >> which party is she going to run in? she's thrown everybody under the bus. she's thrown the republicans under the bus. the democrats she's thrown them under and then backed up again. >> she just backed up this conservative party candidate in new york 23. whi

this treaty was put together in 1991 at a time when we and the soviet union are facing -- thousands of warheads on alert. in the intervening time the russian systems have gradually been less-well taken care of, so the threat is not there. but we have to keep the treaty in place because not everyone else is looking at us. if we and the russians can agree, then you will have a better movement broadly of cutting down numbers and making it less of a desire by other countries to build nuclear weapons. host: you write that a more contentious issue has been reducing the number of nuclear- capable bombers and land or submarine-based missiles with the russians pressing for deeper cuts than the u.s. side. why is russia pressing for more and reluctant to give? guest: part of it is a numbers issue. our systems, some that deliver strategic nuclear weapons from the u.s. to targets three dozen miles away -- we're thinking of putting conventional warheads on them. we can now target much better with precision strikes. they do not need a nuclear weapon to carry out the mission. host: as with these preda

rout war by the state of israel, the united states will be subject to a nuclear attack by the soviet uniond china. this will help establish their one world government. my question is how can you somebody who is knowledgeable on the middle east failed to mention how israel is trying to get rid of and destabilize all of the countries in the middle east that they perceive as a threat to israel. why have not you commented on that? guest: we did not get a chance to talk about israel and their relations with iran. i think israel would rather leave in eight peaceful middle east and be surrounded by enemies. i do not see any sign -- i am not an expert on military issues. i do not see any sign that at this stage the united states is interested in waging war against iran. on the contrary, i think the united states has been trying to reach out to iran and encourage them to sit at the negotiating table. host: omaha, neb. on the independent line. caller: thanks for taking my call. i am very interested -- he mentioned the fact that you were held eight months by the iranians in one visit from her mother.

we can do so in a responsible manner ennot in a way that reflects or reminds people the way the soviet unioneft in the late 1980's, where they seemingly cut and ran. host: this issue is the cover of "c.q. weekly." lives, money, morale. the death toll approaching 1,000. you could see that within the next couple of weeks. mary is joining us from georgetown, south carolina. good morning. caller: thank you so much for taking my call. i'm calling from georgetown, south carolina. and i would like to commend mr. hoh for taking his stand to decide to step down from that particular job. he was there, he saw what happened. what i want to really say is that i empathize with people that have children, sons and daughters, that are over there fighting and many of them have lost their lives. i agree that being over in afghanistan is not really proving anything. and i really respect president obama for taking his time. hopefully in the future, they can do as mr. hoh suggested, get together at a table and try to talk about peace. regardless of how people worldwide may feel about the people of afghanistan, th