they both ended up fleeing the united states into very unpopular wars. -- leading to the united states into unpopular wars. there is a difference between the two men in their mind set when they have left office. by the time robert mcnamara had left he was beginning to have doubts and express them concerning the vietnam war. not so with donald rumsfeld, but he may in time come to express regret. he did not with me. i pressed him on a particularly in our last interview last fall. he left office the number -- i mean, he left office older than it robert mcnamara was when he left office. robert mcnamara has had more time to reflect. so, we will see where donald rumsfeld finally comes down. host: and he is working on his own autobiography? guest: he is, he is. it is a little surprising because for many years he showed little interest in that kind of book. in fact, he often denigrated other memoirs, particularly those that go with events in which he was involved. he felt the authors did not quite capture the events as he remembered. he wants to write -- he is concerned about writing a book th

popularity which was looking back around the time of the afghan war where he was the face of the united states war at that point and people by the millions would tune in and watch the news conferences. the president nixon named him and it was at that point that his wife, joyce, when talking to a group of military wives tried to bring in a certain sense of modesty to the whole situation and talked about she titled her speech the rock star and the coat and her point was sometimes the same person can be a rock star one day and go to the next because the public perceptions can change and sheep was certainly quite clear way and with regard to her husband. >> host: how much of the plans for those wars or preemptive planning was done before 9/11? >> guest: for the iraq war point it was the altar of the iraq war was thrown out the window at the time doug u.s. started planning the invasion. there was very little planning for the afghan war and in fact it was a cia plan that the president first embraced to link up with the afghan militias and the alliance against the taliban. >> host: here is cleveland. goo

which was looking back around the time of the afghan >> reporter: where he was the face of the united states war at that point and people by the millions what to in and watch his news conferences. the president nicknamed him and at that point his wife, joyce, when a talking to a group of military wives tried to bring in a certain sense

we saw that with the germans when war broke out in a georgia. and the united states pressed forward with the argument there should be nato expansion. and chancellor merkle went to st. petersburg where she met with president medvedev and declared she had no current interest in nato expansion and the russians were very thoughtful about that and please and i only cut off guest for three weeks of this time. [laughter] undoubtedly they wanted to influence the ukrainians and if the europeans got the message that the russians have them in a very uncomfortable position, through the administration they did not really object to that at all. the russians and americans are going to be competing again. that is yesterday's news. i don't think you what they should they will survive so let me go to the radical parts of the book and what other great powers of the 21st century? the bear in mind when in 1900 the predictions would have been the same as well. i am not impressed by a chain and -- china it is a third growth current tree with a majority of people a vast majority third less

a very long time and very bravely in times when it's been extremely unpopular in the united states, opposition of warally unpopular in the united states but the intensity of that unpopularity has changed from time to time and quakers really have suffered -- subjected themselves to enormous suffering for religious reasons in order to disconnect themselves from the peace. >> i remind you of your father. what happened to father, you know, in ghana? >> well, he was locked up. but my father -- i think my father would have said and i'm sure he would have said part of what motivated him in his resistance to what he thought of, i think, correctly, as an oppressive regime was his faith, his christian faith in justice, in human equality and in the equality of all people. >> he was a freedom fighter. >> avenues freedom -- he was a freedom fighter in part motivated by his religion, which is one of the examples which makes me resistant to the idea that the problem is religion in itself rather than particular forms of religion. i'm happy to agree with you, of course, but the -- i'm deeply opposed to the taliban an

united states. they have aspired for that as an ally. could you explain to me one thing is real has done to help the united states in any war outside the past intelligence to get to their means. host: what you mean that israel has attacked the united states? caller: they have attacked the shield of the united states. guest: he is referring to the liberty incident. i hope there is no attack on iran. if you want a difference in iran, it has to come from inside the country. if you attack them, you will cement that regime in place for 100 years. it plays into the thought that martyrdom is the greatest cause and it will all band together. even now with the elections, the whole world says you have to do something and you would see an adverse reaction in iran. if you change, it has to come from inside the country. in terms of israel, it is a double standard. people point that out where i worked at the un all the time. the united states bush's heart and other countries and kind of ignores the nuclear weapons from israel. in the era of communism, israel was always seen as a ball worked -- as a bullwork in defending those interests. but there is a ne

war ii. over 400,000 of them in the united states. never was it thought that they had all of the rights under the constitution. but this question has basically been treated by federal courts in the past with this perspective. the connection you have to the united states is what determines your coverage under the constitution. that's why someone coming over the border illegally doesn't have the right to all of the constitutional protections because the only connection to the united states is trying to get in illegally. here we have people sitting at guantanamo whose only connection to the united states is that we have reason to believe that they wanted to kill americans. anywhere in the world. and so now what we are saying is , if we take them from guantanamo and put them in the united states, they have a connection to the united states. they were brought here involuntarily and the legal arguments that for years have presented a barrier from them obtaining all constitutional rights, that barrier is pulled down. so while this bill has l

about george washington having a lucid dream that he shared with lafayette that the united states was going to win the war of revolution and see the borders of the united states extend all the way to the pacific ocean. is that true or that ms. ology? >> i think that is just methodology. washington certainly looked to the west. he owned 60,000 acres, he had fought to win in the ohio country. generally the midwest, what would later be ohio, indiana, illinois, michigan, wisconsin, washington's certainly hope that the united states would gain that area even after yorktown. washington proposed to rauchambeau a joint invasion of canada, rights to congress, in his letter he talks about all that great land in canada, securing the frontiers, securing the american national security by keeping great brittan out of canada in the postwar years. most southerners, i think, they were quite interested in what they called the southwest, what we think of as the southeast, alabama, mississippi, and whenever. i don't think very many people, at least anytime soon, thought of going beyond the mississippi river. they hoped to ge

wars in iraq. i don't think have served for imperialism, but to increase security for the united states. in my first war certainly for the people of kuwait when i helped to expel the army of saddam hussein. he remained a threat to world peace and security throughout the region. his weapons of mass destruction program it now appears that he had terminated. not long after desert storm we did not know that. whatever the merits of the decision to go to war in iraq in 2003, the fact remains that we now have a responsibility to try to help iraq be as secure as it can be, not to disintegrate. not to present a threat again. and also not to provide a base for al qaeda in iraq. i fought against al qaeda, which is dedicated to starting a broader war. so, whatever the merits of the decision to invade iraq in 2003 -- and rational people can disagree on that, i think it is hard to make any argument except that an american commitment to maintaining and preserving the stability we bought at such great cost of the past several years is in the interest of the 19 states and of the world. host: the me ask yo

war. this is what the people of afghanistan and pakistan really want from the united states. if we provide smart assistance to them, madam speaker, we will defeat the violent extremists. we will bring peace to the region and we will make america safer. this strategy is at the core of my smart security platform for the 21st century. this is legislation that is described in house resolution 363. madam speaker, i encourage all of my colleagues to consider resolution 363 and to support it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: mr. jones of north carolina. . mr. jones: madam speaker, i want to thank my colleagues in the house from both parties for joining me as co-spon or of h. are r. 24 legislation to redesignate the department of the navy as the department of the navy and marine corps. as of today this legislation has 278 bipartisan co-sponsors. for the past seven year the language of this bill has been part of the house version of the national defense authorization act. each year, the full house of representatives has supported this change. this year, i am grateful to have the

it is possible if the suggestions had been followed there might have been no civil war in the united states and the problem of today wouldn't be so perplexing to economists. years later and african-american educator named booker t. washington was traveling through europe and stalked and wrote in the memoirs i knew from my school history what kosciuszko had done for america in the early struggle for independence. i didn't know however until my attention was called what kosciuszko had done for the freedom and education of my own people. the polish patriot is buried under the cathedral which is the westminster abbey of poland and filled with memorials of the honor of the country. kosciuszko lies in a fault beneath the marble floor of the cathedral as i look upon his to my thought how small the world is after all and how curiously interwoven are the interests that blind people together. when i visited the tomb of kosciuszko i placed a rose in the middle of my race. thank you very much. [applause] i would be happy to take any questions and there is a microphone in the back for anybody. there is

seriously -- could have serious kpwhr*eu indications to the united states -- serious implications to the united states sovereignty in prosecution on the war on terror, gun rights, abortions and being, many other issues. koh believes a nation who goes to war should have, must have united nations security council authority, going as far as writing that the united states was part of an access -- axis of disobedience by invading iraq, or should we say by liberating iraq. in october of 2002, koh wrote -- and i'm quoting now. he said "i believe it would be a mistake for our country to attack iraq without explicit u.n. authorization, because such an attack would violate international law." additionally he supports ratification of the international criminal court which could subject our troops to prosecution in a foreign court. implementation of this interpretation of the international law raises a number of alarming questions. if the united states is required to gain u.n. authority for military action, what punitive actions might the united states be subjected to if unilaterally uses preemptive force? would our navy seals have had to wait for au

and after the american revolution, there was a quasi war between the united states anm france because much like we have with the somali pirates trying to capture ships and commerce off the horn of africa and they captured american ships because they didn't want americans to do business with british. jefferson needed someone who knew well and kosciuszko was an honorary citizen during the french revolution, jefferson sent kosciuszko back to try to free, help win the freedom of these american sailors and so he help get the freedom of these soldiers but while he was there, he also met napoleon bonaparte. napoleon had been running around with all thighs different conquests. he had just returned from egypt where he'd stolen a bunch of artifacts. and murdered a bunch of egyptians in doing so, and when he got back to paris, the first person he wanted to see was kosciuszko and he walked into his room in paris and said i urgently wanted to meet the hero of the north. and kosciuszko replied, and i'm happy to see the conqueror of europe and the hero of the east but after talking for a while kosci

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 eisen hour toic eisenhow time i met him, he wanted to talk to me about writing his biography which i agreed to do. but he

experience, of course, in the eye iran-iraq war which is a traumatic experience and gave a lot of lessons here and they have also had experience against the united states and the tanker war in the late 1980's and have been impressed by a u.s. air and naval superiority know they cannot possibly stand up to the u.s. naval and air capabilities and then have watched in lebanon and iraq and afghanistan as insurgent groups and terrorist groups have been able to make inroads against more superior conventional power and have gained a lot of lessons from those kind of observations. in the key focus for them especially given a look at the u.s. as their main adversary from a kiefer of this is defending their regime and encountering what is a superior adversary in the u.s., so did terence is of great importance. it is a matter of public statement and exercises and those are all geared into word from a very high cost if they are attacked. it may have a per feel defense which they look back and recall of a ford the plans whereby they used proxy is and militias and other types of kind of unconventional capabilities to project their power and as a defense against inva

had experience of course in the iran-iraq war which is a dramatic extremes for them and gave them a lot of lessons. i also had experience against the united states and the tanker war during the late 1980s. and have been impressed by u.s. air and naval superiority, know that they cannot possibly stand up to the u.s. naval and air capability. and have watched in lebanon and then in iraq and afghanistan as insurgent groups and terrorist groups have been able to make inroads against more superior conventional power. and they have gained a lot of lessons from those kinds of observations. the key focus for them, especially given they look at the united states as their main adversary. a key focus is defending their regime and countering what is a superior adversary in the united states. so deterrence is a great importance. it is a matter in public statements and exercises, those are all geared towards threatening a very high cost if they are attacked. they have a peripheral defense which they look at, we could call it a forward defense, whereby they use proxies and militias and other types of kind of to project their power. and as a defense, a forward

united states and the islamic republic of iran. for many years iran has defined itself in part by opposition to my country. and there is a tumultous history between us. in the middle of the cold car, -- war, the united states played in a democratically let elected government and this history is well known. rather remained trap in the past, i made it clear to iran's leaders and people, that my country is prepared to move forward. the question now is not what iran is against, but rather what future it wants to build. i recognize it will be hard to overcome decades of mistrust. but we will proceed with courage, reckitude and resolve. there will be many issues to proceed on, and we will move forward on the basis of mutual respect. but it's clear to all concerned, that when it comes to nuclear weapons, we have reached a decisive point. this is not just about america's interest, it's about creating a nuclear arm rags -- race in the middle east that could bring us down a bad path. i understand that no nation should pick and choose which nation should hold nuclear weapons. and that's why i strongly believe in the affirment that no nation should hold nuclear weapons. and any nation, including ira

when the united states was entering the second world war and at that time the director of the red cross -- who had not invented it was possible to save millions of lives in the second world war so he was the director of this part of the red cross and he said i will not obey the order because black blood doesn't exist. there is not such a thing like blood black. and he was of course resigned. he was expelled. he was black himself so he knew perfectly well what he was speaking about. and this is a story that is not very well known here in the united states but is important. >> host: in the punch line in your story there is no such thing as black blood, all blood is red which is total common sense and of course led to his being dismissed. one of the things that is remarkable about the way you tell the stories in how they have the structure very often of a joke and there is a lot of humor room, so i picked out one particular couple examples where i thought you'd developed the one it is echo. >> guest: the greek god. >> host: maybe you could read that. >> guest: she was not exactly a novice,

who were of similar mind and manner and they both of course in the pleading of the united states into very unpopular wars. there is a significant difference though between a mcnamara and rumsfeld in their mind set when they left office. by the time mcnamara left, he was beginning to have doubts and express regrets about handling of the vietnam war. not so rumsfeld. he may in time come to express some regret. he didn't with me and i pressed him on it particularly in our last interview last fall. he of course has left office number than -- unsury, he has left office older than mcnamara was when he left office. mcnamara has had more time to reflect. so, we will see where rumsfeld finally comes out. >> host: former secretary rumsfeld is working on his own autobiography. >> guest: he is. he is. you know, it's a little surprising that he is because for many years he used to -- showed little interest in that kind of book. in fact, he often denigrated other memoirs particularly those that dealt with a sense that he was involved in because he would feel they didn't capture the events as he remembered and he was a

united states has, in itself, no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility of muslims." since our founding, american muslims have been -- have enriched the united states. they have fought in our wars. they have certain our government. the exit for civil rights. it started businesses. but they have taught it universities. they have one noble prices. they built our tallest building and lit the olympic torch. when the first muslim american was recently elected to congress, he took the oath using the same holy koran that one of our founding, funders -- founders, thomas jefferson, kept in his personal library. [applause] i have known islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first reviewed. that experience guides my conviction that partnership between america and islam must be based on what islam is and not what it is not. i consider it part of my responsibility as president of the united states to fight it and negative stereotypes of islam wherever they appear. [applause] but that same principle must apply to muslim perceptions of america -- [applause] just as muslims do not think and stereotypes, america is not the crude stereotype of a self interested empire

united states. whereas slavery was not officially abolished until the ratification of the 13th amendment of the constitution to the united states in 1865 after the end of the civil war. whereas after emancipation and 246 years of slavery, african-americans soon saw the fleeting political social and economic gains they made during reconstruction, eviscerated by racism, lynching, disenfranchisement, black codes and racial segregation laws that imposed a rigid system of sanctioned racial segregation in virtually all areas of life. whereas a system of racial segregation known as jim crow which arose in certain parts of the united states after the civil war to create separate and unequal societies for whites and african-americans was a direct result of the racism against people of african descent and was engendered by slavery. whereas a system of jim-crow laws officially existed until the 1960's, a century after the end of official slavery in the united states until congress took action to end it, but the vestiges of jim crow continue to this day. whereas african-americans continue to suffer from the consequences of slavery and jim-crow laws long after both systems were

war ii. their history is one of many surprising and impressive stories that helped define a generation. the early 1940's, as it became apparent that the united states could not avoid the wars that plaguing europe and the far east, many accomplished pilots volunteered their services to our country. they were thanked for their offer but refused because they were women. their argument that women -- female pilots could free up male pilots to serve in combat roles was initially dismissed by the army air force's leadership. yet two of our nation's most female pilots, jacklin cochran and nancy harkin love, persevered and continued to lobby for the ability to use their exceptional skills in service of our country. as the nation mobilized it became clear there were not enough male pilots in the country to fight the war and man the home front. as the iconic rosie the riveter began to build her tanks and planes, the army set up two squadrons of women pilots to assist in the war effort. in 1942 mrs. love became the commanding officer of the ferry squadron in new castle, delaware, which ferre ideaed planes around the country from factories to airbases. not long

for instance, in 1942, the pentagon, the transfusions of black, when the united states was sent to the second world war, and at that time the director of the red cross in these islands, was charles view, very important scientist who had not invented the plasma but almost invented it because thanks to him it was possible to save millions of lives in the second world war, and so he was a director of this part of the red cross, and he said, i will not order these stupid order because block blood doesn't exist. there is not such a thing like a black black. and he was, of course, resigned. he resigned. but he was expelled. he was a scientist, very important, and he was black. he was black himself. so, he knew perfectly well what he was speaking about. and this is an history not very known here in the united states but it's important. >> host: the punchline of your story, because of story is in "mirrors" there's no such thing as black blood, all blood is red. which is total common sense and of course led to his being dismissed. one of the things that is remarkable about the we you tell these stories is that

action war united states was going to other countries and regulatory agencies in europe and elsewhere asking them to take certain actions. the big difference now is the u.n. security council resolution that calls for the designation of certain entities for financial sanctions makes much more of a multilateral effort and i think it becomes much easier to gain cooperation among other countries regulatory agencies and banks. the second point that i want to make again addressing some of the questions in the earlier recession is this whole question of the inspection regime. to me, although we don't know everything about the u.n. security council resolution, to me what is most interesting is a strong effort by the administration to develop an inspection regime to counter the proliferation potentially of weapons or fissile material by north korea. this is a very important step and institutionalizing some sort of inspection regime what i think have even more value on the counterproliferation side than the financial measures themselves. uscm the financial measures would be taken after the nucl

united states has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of muslims and since our founding, american muslims have been-- enriched united states. they have fought in our wars, they have served in our government, they have stood for civil-rights. they have started businesses. they have taught at our universities. they have excelled in our sports arenas. they have won nobel prizes, built our tallest building and lit the olympic torch. when the first muslim america was recently elected to congress, he took the oath to defend our constitution using the same holy koran that one of our founding fathers, thomas jefferson kept in his personal library. [applause] so, i have known islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. that experience guide my conviction that partnership between america and islam must be based on what islam is, not what it isn't. and i consider it part of my responsibility as president of the united states to fight against negative stereotypes of islam, wherever they appear. [applause] but, at that same principle must apply to muslim perceptions of america. just as-- [applause] just as muslims do not fit a

number having the demonstrators themselves see the united states calling for regime change, a loaded term in that part of the world following the iraq war in becomes more complicated. it answers the united states into something that would complicate the demonstrators' cause. host: guest: let's go to the phones. -- host: but the to the phones. caller: i would like to talk about the history ofiran. we overthrew the government in 1973 by the cia and we install shah was a mass-murder. look at what we have done to those people? what you talk about what is going on ingaza, send all your news people there and to what is happening to those people in gaza. we spent $500 million to destabilize the iranian elections and what you see now with all the cellphone and twitter -- that is where our money when. when will america stop being one big hit agree? i'm sick of these elected officials and so-called expert to get on tv and have no, have no idea of the history of this country and what we have done tuesday iranian people. host: historical perspective can be a big part of this. guest: yes, the caller raises a good point. obama raised couthe question

in the middle of the cold war, the united states played a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected iran and government. since the islamic revolution in iran has played a role in act of hostage taking and violence against u.s. troops and civilians. this history is well known. rather than remain trapped in the past, i've made it clear to iran's leaders and people that my country is prepared to move forward. the question now is not what iran is against, but rather what the future it wants to build. i recognize it will be hard to overcome decades of mistrust, but we will proceed with courage, rectitude, and resolved. there will be many issues to discuss between the two countries and we are willing to move forward without preconditions on the basis of mutual respect. but it is clear to all concerned that when it comes to nuclear weapons, we have reached a decisive point. this is not simply about america's interests. it's about preventing a nuclear arms race in the middle east that could lead this region and the world down a huge lead dangerous path. on the understand those who protest t

war on terrorism. instead, the president called for a new beginning between the united states and the muslim people. he renewed his pledge that america is not and never will be at war with islam. he called for cooperation instead of conflict. he courageously acknowledged the mistakes of the past and called for an end to mistrust. the president marginalized extremists by saying and i quote him, the enduring space of over a billion people is so much bigger than a narrow hatred of a few, unquote. he defended israel's right to live in peace while recognizing the palestinian people's right to a state of their own. on iran, president obama urged diplomacy and reiterated his call for a nuclear-free world. and he advocated for democracy, for religious freedom, economic opportunity and the rights of women and girls. madam speaker, everyone listening to the speech had to be inspired by the president's eloquence and good well, but the president also acknowledged that the speech was just the start. now we face the hard work, the work of making peace a reality, especially in iraq and afghanistan. on this issue, i

headlines and on the basis of no evidence whatsoever that spain had been responsible, the united states have to go to war now. absolutely had to. but what of the spaniards had not been responsible for the destruction of the main? president william mckinley was in short and so what he did was convened a naval court of inquiry to look into the matter which made william hearst livid. he was so impatient to get a war started, a war that he had covered than a month and a half after the maine exploded he published the findings of the naval court of inquiry. according to the journal's article, the court of inquiry quote, finds that the spanish government blew up the maine. ..

adams wrote the united states has in itself no character against the loss, religion, tranquility of the muslims. american muslims have enriched the united states. they have a thought in our wars, served in our government, stood for civil-rights, started businesses, taught in our universities, excelled in our sports arenas, won nobel prizes, build our tallest building, and lit the olympic torch. when the first moslem america was elected to congress he took an oath to defend the constitution is in the same hole in dhahran that one of our founding fallers, thomas jefferson -- the same holy koran that one of our founding fathers, thomas jefferson, had in his library. [applause] i have known isislam on three continents. that experience? my conviction that a partnership between america and islam must be based on what it is not what it is not. i consider part of my responsibility as president of the united states to fight against negative stereotypes of islam wherever they appear. [applause] but that same principle must apply to muslim perceptions of america. [applause] just as muslims do not fit a stereotype, america is not the crude stereotype of a self interested empire. the unit

and they both of course ended up leading the united states into a very unpopular wars. there is a significant difference though between mcnamara and rumsfeld inner mindset when they left office. already by the time mcnamara left he was beginning to have doubts and beginning to express regrets about the handling of the vietnam war. not so with rumsfeld for may at times have come to express some regret. he didn't with me, and i pressed him on it, particularly in our last interview, last fall. of course, he has left office younger then-- i am sorry, he has left office older than mcnamara was when he left office, and mcnamara has had more time to reflect. so, we will see where rumsfeld finally comes out. >> host: former secretary rumsfeld is working on his own autobiography? >> guest: he is. it is a little surprising that he is because for many years, he used to, showed little interest in that kind of a book. in fact, he often denigrated other memoirs, particularly those that dealt with events that he was a vulnerable because he would feel that authors didn't quite capture

but before that they were pilots for the united states army corps during world war ii. they are heroins, women air force service pilots, or wasps, were the first women in history to fly america's military aircraft. between the years of 1942 to 1944 these courageous women volunteered to fly noncombat missions so that every available male pilot could be deployed into combat. more than 25,000 women applied for the program, but only 1,830 qualified women pilots were accepted. unlike their male counterparts, women applicants were required to be qualified pilots before they could even apply for the army and air force military flight training program. all together 1,102 women earned their wings and went on to fly over 60 million miles for the army air force, equal to some 2,500 times around the globe. their performance was equal in every way to that of male pilots. with the exception of direct combat missions, the waspps flue -- flew the same aircraft and same missions as male pilots. women pilots were used to tow targets to male pilots, for searchlight missions, engineering t

the matter is some of the policies he put in place did contribute to the yunus-- united states basically winning the cold war and the collapse of the soviet union. you could not know that in 19881-ish tup the book, so if i had written the book five years later i would have taken a slightly different tack on that. i think that is true and all presidencies. you know, if iraq winds up being a stable, successful democracy in the middle of the melodies, where only israel is now a democracy, we may come to have a kinder view of george bush then we have right now, but we don't know the answer to that question right now. >> during the program we are going to pull students from the close-up academy and the washington center, get their reaction to some of the issues being raised on the program. our first poll program is this. is the influence of the news media at on our society good or bad? this is one of those questions. how many of you feel the media influence generally speaking good on society? let's see bishop hands? how many feel right now we are going for a period where the media influence on society is negative

the past four years i can confidently state no foreign citizen has done more for the united states and a time of war since colonel thaddeus helped army liberated shores some 200 years ago. the two davids will discuss for about 30 minutes before turning to questions from you, the audience, about another 30 minutes and once the australian is thirsty we will adjourn to the foyer. having known him a while. [laughter] when he is really thirsty dave is going to sign books in the back and the rest of us will have a beer and if everyone could help him and make sure that he always has a beard, too, that would be much appreciated. gentlemen. >> let me start by thanking john and the center for new american security for putting that even on and particularly shannon, i can't see you, hiding behind the killer. set out from the shade for a minute. [laughter] sheehan and worked hard to put this together and i appreciate the effort of the whole team. david is going to ask questions. i just got back from columbia where i delivered possibly the worst counterinsurgency conference keynote address in history. the reason

guest: only because the germans declared war on the united states a couple of days later. guest: and your that fdr made a heck of a martini. guest: he would it add one part removed to report gin. host: will go from the food network -- in the early 1950's the shah takes over and iran and in 1970 the revolution put the cleric into power in hostages were held for 140 days. now nearly 30 years later there is another change inside the country.

for instance in 1942 the transitions of black blood when the united states was entering the second world war. and at that time the director of of the red cross was a very impressed scientists we had not invented but almost invented because they see him it was possible to say it millions of lives in the second world war. and so he was the director of this part of the red cross and he said i will not obey the stupak order because black blood does not exist. there is not such a thing like a black blood and he was, of course, resigned. he resigned, but he was expelled. use a scientist and a very important and he was black. he was black himself so he knew perfectly well what he was speaking about and this is a story not very known in u.s. but is important. >> host: in the punch line of your story because the story is in "mirrors", there is no such thing as black blood, all blood is red appear in a which is total common sense and, of course, led to his being dismast. one of the things that is remarkable about the way you tell the story is is that they have the structure very often a joke and there

united states force. general mcchrystal, you and i talked about it. even in a war zone like afghanistan, same thing. it's now it's not just the united states military. the military can take the lead but it's all the other agencies of government to work in projecting our power in order to secure the interests of the united states. now, one area in your future command that is just still a basket case, i thought i'd ask admiral stavridis on this is haiti. and then let's pick up the conversation, general fraser. >> well, senator, of course, you and i have spent some time on the road together, including haiti, and it is indeed a nation in extreme distress. it's the poorest nation in the americas. it's one of the poorest four or five countries in the world. it was devastated last summer by three separate major storms, two of them high-level hirks. it has a big problem with soil erosion. i could go on and on. what am i encouraged by there? i'm encouraged by the nation' peacekeeping force which has done a superb job with very little u.s. military engagement. i'm very encouraged with what our ambassador has d

starter for the united states and has to be a nonstarter for and nobody else and that means specifically israel. it is in on starter for the united states because we already have and how war and afghanistan and unfinished war in iraq. we could have military coalition in korea and there's nothing good for america in having a military coalition with iran over this issue. the consequences of that would be extremely damaging in the region and extremely damaging to the interests. the iranians will have the capability to retaliate against us in iraq that can make our life more complicated in afghanistan and they can certainly interfere within limits but interfere nonetheless with the transportation of energy through the strait that can mass of the impact on the price of oil escalating in dramatically beyond 150 up to 200 so dollars per barrel with disastrous economic consequences for us with even more damaging consequences for china which raises an interesting question what political elite would see its own state interest advanced the most that were to happen? now it doesn't address all the issues connected with the war in this area but if these things were to happen the russia

the united states has spoken to the soviet union during the worst excesses of the cold war but diplomacy, diplomacy cannot, cannot, be the only option that the united states pursues with iran. the president knows this and has reaffirmed that other options are open to the united states on multiple occasions. any effective strategy toward iran must offer the regime a leer choice whe -- clear choices nuclear program. here is the choice: come into compliance with multiple u.n. security council resolutions and reap the benefits of economic engagement and warmer diplomatic ties, choice one; or, choice two, for the iranian regime: face continued economic sanctions and international isolation that will steadily worsen if iran continues to engage in illicit nuclear activities. either one or the other the regime has a choice to make before the world. effective diplomacy is successful if it can fully convey, fully convey that choice to the decisionmakers in iran. the congress can also play a useful role here in showing the consequences iran faces when it makes its choice on the nuclear program. som

known the american people would not standstill for a protracted war of indeterminate nature with no foreseeable end to the united states commitment. he further stated in the article, general palmer thereby distilled into a single sentence the lessons of vietnam to embark on an open-ended war was to forfeit public support, thereby courting disaster. the implications were clear. never again. i further read from the article, the dirty little secret to which few in washington will own up is that the united states now faces the prospects of perpetual conflict. we find ourselves in the midst of what the pentagon calls the long war a conflict global in scope, if largely concentrated in the greater middle east, and expected to outlast even general palmer's 25-year war. the present generation of civilians and officers have either forgotten or inverted the lessons of vietnam, embracing open-ended war as an inescapable reality. madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent i might submit this entire article for the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. jones spks i further read and want to close and make a few comments

united states and it has to be a nonstarter for everybody else. and that means specifically israel. it is a nonstarter for the united states because we already have one.5 wars, in afghanistan, and an unfinished war in iraq and we could have a military collision in korea and there is nothing good for america in having military collision with iran over this issue. and the consequences of that will be extremely damaging in the region. and extremely damaging to our interests. the iranians will have the capability to retaliate against us in iraq, they can make our life more complicated in afghanistan, they can certainly interfere with in limits, but in fear nonetheless, with the transportation of energy through the straight of hormuz, and they can massively impact on the price of oil, escalating it dramatically, beyond 150, up to 200 or so dollars per barrel with disastrous economic consequences for us. with even damaging consequences for china. which raises an interesting question, what political elite would see its own state interests advanced in most if that were to happen. now this doesn't address oall o the issues connected with a war in the area, if this w

later this week legislation promoting tourism and travel to the united states and work on the additional war spending bill. now lives that coverage here on c-span2.

other terrorist groups should be treated as what they are, america's enemies engaged in a war against the united states. giving terrorists constitutional rights is like giving a burglar the key to your house. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? >> i ask permission to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, republicans are committed to health care reform and we have and will continue to offer alternatives to achieve health care for all americans. unfortunately, as democrats sat behind closed doors to develop their plans, it appears they failed to answer some troubling concerns about what seems to be likely an unwarranted government takeover of the health care system. in the spirit of honest debate, i ask my democratic colleague house they expect to pay for a government insurance plan without raising taxes or driving up the national debt. how will a government-run health plan not lead to the same rationing of care that we have seen in other c

in 2007, he argued that foreign prisoners of war held by the united states armed forces anywhere in the world, not just enemy combatants held at guantanamo bay, are entitled to the same rights as american citizens under habeas corpus law as applied by our federal courts. perhaps most timely, professor koh appears to draw a moral equivalence between the iranian regime's political suppression and human rights abuses on one hand and america's counterterrorism policies on the other. professor koh has written -- quote -- "u.s. criticism of iranian security forces who monitor the social activities of citizens, entered homes and offices, monitored telephone conversations, and opened mail without court authorization is hard to square with our own national security agency's sustained program of secret, unreviewed, warrantless electronic surveillance of americans and citizens. and residents. furthermore, he said," the united states cannot stand on strong footing, attacking iran for illegal detensions when similar charges can be and have been lodged against our own government." mr. president, the

war. that means as the president acknowledged, as the united states supreme court has averaged, we have a right to hold them until the cessation of hostilities so they don't kill anymore people. you can't just turn them loose. now, the president, in his speech, made the point that at least 60, i think, is the number used, of these prisoners had been released and they were released by the bush administration. that's true. the bush administration was under a lot of pressure to try to release as many of these people who were being held as possible. and so they held determinations. they have a determination once a year and initially as to what the status of the individual is and whether he is still a danger and eventually in many of the cases they decided that the person could be released back to their home country or to a country that would take them and it wouldn't pose a danger to the united states. the problem is, there's a very high rate of recidivism among the terrorisms. one in seven are believed to have returned to the battlefield and we have evidence of many of them, specifically by

the united states, zionist movement -- the new nation of israel supporters constantly attacked truman to lift the embargo. and the left in the united states used the analogy with the spanish civil war. there's an embargo of arms to the republic of spain during the franco years and we're doing the same thing with the israel because they are continuing to get arms from wherever they can. the embargo, nobody is stopping them from getting arms. lift the embargo, truman wouldn't. on the other hand, again, truman was afraid that would bring the u.s. too closely on one side. it was not until kennedy as warren bass points out in his book a few years ago that militarily the relationship with israel began to change. and that israel would begin to get arms from the united states, but, you know, truman did not want to get involved militarily and he thought that kind of thing would lead to u.s. military involvement he wanted to avoid. on the other hand, they gave israel to truman the first economic loan they desperately needed in order to be able to settle jews in palestine and truman put through that economic law. so, you know, truman was not really a zionist. even afterwards. he didn't do eve