tv Washington Journal CSPAN November 16, 2014 7:00am-10:01am EST
talks about president obama's authorization of additional troops to iraq. as always we will take your calls and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. washington journal is next. >> in the first day of open enrollment on healthcare.gov, over one million people did windowshopping on the shiite -- site. president obama announced -- helping developing countries do with the effects of climate change. to president is headed back the united states, expected back tonight. several reports this morning of another beheading of an american.
peter kassig worked for charity groups in lebanon and syria. in syria and ed october. this comes as the us continues efforts in iraq and syria. joint chiefs general dempsey was in iraq. our first 45 minutes, we'll get reactions to these claims. talk about isis's strategy. 202-585-3880 for democrats. 202-585-3881 for republicans. 202-585-3882 for independents. a social media channels -- twitter and facebook. and you can send us an email, too. here is the latest. press on associated
peter kassig, that american reportedly voted on video by the associated press reporting that the video was a leased sunday, in which black clad militant has claimed headed an us aid worker. us officials said they are working to determine the video's authenticity. the family said they are awaiting the outcome of the investigation. was posted on ch websites used by groups in the past, appears to be the latest messages to the us warning of further brutality if it is not abandoning your campaigns. casting of your country, the militants say near during the end of this nearly 16 minute video. speaks in an audible british accent, despite his voice being distorted. again, we will get your reaction to this. there are other stories as well.
chiefs general, martin dempsey, making an unannounced trip there to talk a look at and to take efforts, not only in iraq, but then isis also in syria. this is courtesy of "the new york times" this morning. you can give us your comments minutes ext week five on these numbers -- 202-585-3880 for democrats. 202-585-3881 for republicans. 202-585-3882 for independents. we'll start off with bruce. bruce is in florida, calling in on our democrats line. >> good morning. what i would like to say is i believe the american people are being played for fools. i would like for c-span to find where blackwater is at,
because this -- this doesn't make any sense. these people have got something going on. they have help from somebody that knows what they are doing. far as efforts overall, how do you think we are doing? >> we are doing all we can do. to send any more american boys or girls over there to die for these idiots. reports about these of t a possible beheading and american -- an american? >> i don't know if any of these beheadings have really actually been confirmed. >> that is bruce in florida. to glenn in ext florida, on the line for democrats. glenn, good morning.
>> good morning. listen, it is not surprising because it is hardy been done before. this is the common -- it has already been done before. this is a common thing they do. i see is that a u are not going to send ground combat troops because the only thing that isis would want is to have our soldiers over there so they can have a ground war. we don't have that. they just have to be concerned about airstrikes right now. not going to have a situation where you're going to in a knee-jerk reaction because it doesn't change anything. you don't -- you don't fall into the game and give them what they want. it has s not unusual, happened before, and it will happen again and it will happen some other time.
>> does this validate with americans are doing against isis? well, the point is -- to me, is not about validation, it is about the fact that they are doing what they want to do. they want to draw the us into a bigger fight. they want to bring us troops so that they can kill americans. you don't take the bait. they are going to be had people is going to happen, so there's no reason to -- they're trying to justify. no, no. they are going to be had a lot of people. so the bottom line is don't jump to conclusions. stick to the schedule that you have. i continue to fight them down the road. this is not a short-term thing. >> zachary in louisiana, good morning. >> good morning. like president obama --
troops in kept more iraq -- i would like somebody to say differently that isis would not be a strong as they are now. i think he hold some responsibility for not being a stronger leader. you know, he's -- he could have done better in syria if you get more involved quicker. they would it be as strong as they are now if he had more troops in iraq. you know, i want someone to answer those questions. i feel, you know, i feel like it has just gotten worse don't have the leadership with president obama. >> do the beheadings make it worse? what do they add to the foreign-policy? >> i think the beheadings enrage americans. i know americans don't want to witness a war, but i think mmake us more gs
angry, and willing to do the go the extra mile to do with them. i really believe that. >> 202-585-3880 for democrats. 202-585-3881 for republicans. 202-585-3882 for independents. let's hear from allison. mount n is in the pleasant, south carolina, also on our republican line. >> hi, i would just like to say muslims who are doing what they are them to do nstructs -- sstrike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them. >> so as far as us policy moving forward, what should be done? >> i don't know.
it seems like iit is all foretold in the bible that we are reaching and times. vermont, the m democrats line. >> hi. everybody who watches the situation in the middle east are carefully knows that clarke explained years ago tthat this is a campaign to conduct was across multiple countries. these videos are trying to incite the american people, but trying to topple assad is not in americans interest. are o as far as the videos concerned, you say they are used to incite americans. what do think the impact is, though, on the american public? >> none. they are highly professionally produced -- produced by the cia. >> we will hear from bob.
bob is in west virginia on the independent line. would like to comment about the caller three calls obama for riticizing not leaving the troops over there. people need to remember that it wasn't obama that caused all that -- to take those troops over there and stir up that whole mess over there. we need to go back in recent history and remember where that all started. >> what do you think about these reports of another beheading? >> well, i am sad for the family. i'm sad for the gentleman. but if you walk into a lion's cage, sometimes you have to expect to be dead. he put himself in that situation, which i'm not trying come you know, mitigate what the ice as people did and is kind of bbut it -- like i said, if you put yourself in that situation, it is kind of difficult to feel completely sorry for him. >> again, we just showed you
the video. 26-year-old peter kassig was beheaded on a video released on the website today. was that video that reports are coming that he was beheaded. your reaction to that how overall policy -- 202-585-3880 for democrats. 202-585-3881 for republicans. 202-585-3882 for independents. michael is in tulsa, oklahoma. the democrats line. >> good morning. they know what is going on over there. they behead people. are they over there? they should come home and they shouldn't even be over there. >> are you saying that if troops came home, the beheadings would stop? no, not if troops came home. journalists, , the the aid workers. if they went over there, they would not be in that situation.
>> martin dempsey was in iraq, and unannounced trip. him talking to the that he of iraq, saying arrived -- general dempsey told that gressional committee he would further recommend increasing those troops. there is video as far as this engagement is concerned. it was the general who testified in front of the house of services committee. he was asked to explain the circumstances in which you envision the need to have us troops there, on the ground in iraq, to defeat isis. some of the response. >> thank you, chairman. first of all, i want to make sure that i mention -- i have never been limited in my to make a
recommendation of any size or sort to the president of the united states. as we look ahead to the campaign as it evolves, there are certain operations that could be more complex than the iraqi n which the forces are currently involved. doing a better job, and i think we will be able to soon discovered as a good job. but there are some places along think will be i fairly complex to arrange for them. for example, mosul and eventually, as they need to between iraq order and syria. i'm not predicting that i those forces in mosul would need to be accompanied by us forces, but we're certainly considering it. >> you can see that full on our on c-span
website at c-span.org. reports talking about of this beheading -- reported american of an citizen, peter kassig. getting your reaction to this on how it might play out the isis policy. 202-585-3880 for democrats. 202-585-3881 for republicans. 202-585-3882 for independents. michelle is up next. >> i would just like to say that i don't think one more over there and i for people who won't stand up and fight for their own freedom. when they see their loved ones killed, maybe they will stand up and fight. everybody over there who thinks president obama is weak and not doing enough, they can go voluntarily go. >> what about the policy that was recently announced -- the
doubling of the advisors? >> i don't have a problem with advisors going over there. i don't want to see no troops over there fighting for people who won't stand up and fight for themselves. >> that is michelle in oklahoma. joseph in michigan, the democrats lied. joseph in michigan, hello. we will move on. mark in cleveland, mississippi. the democrats lied. >> good morning, how are you? >> i am good, go ahead. >> first of all, the struggle been going on for thousands of years -- nothing has come of our attempts, militarily, to change the struggle. now we are trying to do with cannot kes, and i imagine it -- as i have heard other people say -- that this is going to make any kind of different. should pull out
if they attack jordan after they take over then we go in , and we say we are going in and attack the country itself. to make a uly like point that the press has done a totally irresponsible job, i think. obama is doing what he is doing criticism he has received, aand the press never puts the people who rejects the policy on the spot. okay, stop criticizing, tell us what you would do. then we can put what they would do before the american people and to which policy is more likely to be favored. >> what people would those be? far as those e as critics? the es, i'm talking about critics of obama like john mccain, lindsey graham, and republican to say that obama is not doing enough. do for the would you
situation? a story that ou to was in the "washington journal" the wall s an op-ed in street journal, saying only about half of iraq's operational unit were capable of benefiting from the advice of us military trainers. more than $25 billion to beef up iraq security forces. president obama seeks $1.6 billion to help rebuild those forces. the obama team recognizes the importance of balance of political power in iraq, which why it was important for the us to press for a more inclusive government in baghdad before getting directly involved with airstrikes.
help ersonal aiming to iraq's security forces -- iraq and afghanistan these days, combat versus noncombat troops is often a distinction without a difference. up at 9:15 coming am, we'll talk about not only policy in iraq, but this latest analyst currently an and international policy will join us. that discussion will take place at 9:15 am. until then, we are getting your this hts on not only recent beheading, but the isis policies. from brooklyn, new york is on the line. you are on.
>> how are you? >> fine, thank you. >> okay, question for you. all, we are watching everybody blaming obama, blaming this one. we are understand why have special ops -- why don't we deal with this? why are we sitting here and blaming this one? >> let's hear from lloyd in massachusetts. independent line. >> hi. up just want to say that seems this point, it other terrorist groups are just say, we are coming to you, we are going to kill you. up until now, it has been -- we into countries to democratize people who hasn't for thousands of years.
spent trillions of dollars for what? so you could say hey, you over there, can you fight for us? stick up for ng to america and we are running troops not spending any on the ground. so you are saying -- you are saying that you are endorsing troops on the ground? >> i am endorsing as many general say we need. it just doesn't seem like the president said it is happening. >> what you think about the impact of the videos? i think that -- he is an american.
what are we going to do when someone beheads our kid? we need to wipe them out. >> todd is in illinois on our independence line. we're going to have two end up fighting them, and it might be cheaper to go for timber now. much money ding so and time. you say fight them, there should be specific ground troops deployed. >> yes. we're going to have to anyway. it would be cheaper to do it now. >> that is todd from illinois. we are getting your thoughts on the isis policy and the release of this video. 202-585-3880 for democrats. 202-585-3881 for republicans. 202-585-3882 for independents. york e pages of the new
times this morning, taking a look at isis' policy, specifically aiming at sunni allies. in the islamic states rapid sunni parts of f a aq, the jihadists have used double pronged strategy, while abundant cash -- cash, they have also eliminated potential foes, hunting down soldiers, police officers, government officials. of the islamic state success comes from its deft manipulation of tribal dynamics. there is also a continuation of thoughts this morning in
"the new york times". jeff in illinois on the independent line. go ahead. we will go to johnny in woodbridge, virginia. >> hello? >> hi, you are on. >> what i was wondering is if anybody could explain why we are sending our young people and the re to fight, young muslims are coming over here and buying our property aand moneymaking property. they are not fighting their own battle. getting our people killed? >> what about the us's role in the middle east -- why not? >> if i understood you read, say that again? far as efforts fighting
in the middle east, how are those efforts? >> well, they would have to kill a lot of innocent people. and i see that the innocent people don't mind being killed because they won't fight back. what they have to do is say, them arms, give fight back. young people our over there to die, be beheaded and stuff. these guys -- they are leaving their own country because they don't want to die. >> let's hear from john in oregon. john is on our republican line. >> hi. i don't think i would ever say agree with have to the president of the united states, barack obama. i don't -- isis is trying to into a ground war, him sending that by
these videos-- them sending these videos, i don't think should even broadcast -- i don't think the news media should even say anything. let the family know. don't broadcast them, because it is just helping their cause. as far as what is going on over there, i think tthe president to pull everybody out and just ignore them. sleep with one eye open. stand guard. i heard you correctly, i thought you said that you agree with the president on this effort. we have 1500 troops currently, and more advises right now. think about all that? >> i don't think that the you made a - i think on that point -- she made a mistake on that point -- mistake on that point.
let that whole region fight for itself -- because they want to pull us into a we get in there, the whole region is going to fire up. are going to have one big hell of a mess. the start of was enrollment into healthcare.gov. people enrolling and re-enrolling. there's a story in the washington post this morning, that the health and human services secretary people had 3,000 completed applications during the first eight hours. shortly after 1:00 am on saturday. in that same time lesher, only six people managed to enroll.
they also said that 1.2 million people had gone windowshopping, which allows people to look at plans, but not by them. when healthcare.gov open masher, can to could not go through the process. program, our kers guest is anne filipic, the of enroll america. here's a little bit of that conversation. have seen, you know, a preview of adjusting to the application. but the biggest thing that is noticeable to me is it is a much more streamlined application. had to read --
last year, they had to reenter information. this year, of course it looked different for different consumers because the is lication process is actually built around your situn -- but for a lot of you're going to see from 176 to reduced 16. the other thing to know is that talk about the website -- we always talk about user-friendly that is -- we found that a lot of consumers want in person assistance, no matter how user-friendly that website is. that is something i always want to make sure we don't lose track of because there are people across the country who are prepared to sit down with them through help that process. >> that is on "newsmakers" right after this program at 10:00 am. if you have to miss it, watch again tonight at 6:00 pm.
again, your thoughts on this video of another beheading of an american. you can talk about specifically, talk about isis policy as well. 202-585-3880 for democrats. 202-585-3881 for republicans. 202-585-3882 for independents. here is fred. fred is from huntsville, alabama. the independent line. >> i will be brief. from it this way -- suppose canada and/or mexico some kind of der attack -- from some foreign terrorist type people -- and we sat back and did nothing as those nations were being attacked. in t is what is happening the middle east. what we have to load up all our and all our troops and send them halfway across the world to fight people whose neighbors won't even help them? not only do we fight for them, we fought the bill, and we send foreign aid to the who won't fight --
countries who won't fight. on the democrats line. west virginia. >> hello, i just want to say that they need to take their masks off and show their faces. everyone should quit blaming obama. he is just a man. he is only human. this started before he came in office. that is all i have to say. >> the wall street journal this morning has a story taking a look at chuck hagel. he lays out a plan for weapon, as the story says, the pentagon outside the k traditional industry to find affordable emerging technologies. saying that those technologies would be looking towards -- one second be within budget constraints -- some leaders believe could reshape the weapons business over the next
decade. pentagon officials, the report looking to dy to tackle contractors long-term threats. lawmakers who are reluctant to agree to wholesale cuts in programs. defense officials have said that the primaries include long-range and hypersonic weapons. the fact that many of that most of the technology seem to take today are no the pipeline for traditional defense contractors. this is out of the wall street journal. from s up next new york. -- ed up next from elizabethtown
-- >> good morning -- the only solution here to the situation is to get someone, another saddam hussein -- unfortunately, when we had saddam husseinre, he kept everything in check. we didn't have isis, we didn't have lots of problems. have to be blems solved -- it is not us going over there to fight those battles. it needs to be resolved within. >> so you are saying that has to be y figure taken in order for it to be resolved, and my hearing you correctly? >> yes. that is exactly what needs to happen. needs to be someone -- maybe as saddam ical hussein -- but if people look back, saddam hussein had that region and check. not have problems with
iran. we do not have problems with isis. we didn't have a lot of the problems. he took of those problems. people feared him. so that is what the country needs. that is what they're used to and i don't think anything else is going to work. >> part of the reason we're colin this s to morning is the reported beheading. what you think about not only this instance, but overall what reaction you may have or other americans here in the united states? one likes to see or hear about beheadings. is clearly this terrorists' main focus. upset us, to -- do these hy these
things -- they do these things. it is terrible, we have had a of people blown up -- a lot worse than beheadings -- and vehicles over there, landmines, ied's. it is tragic. very tragic. over and lose know, people, young soldiers, contractors -- but i everybody ying, if will look back -- wwhen saddam hussein was in power, we do not have these issues over there. >> did you serve in iraq or afghanistan? that at the heard beginning. involved in s desert storm. you remember, we were 35 miles outside of baghdad. we were told to stop. and general powell and president bush said mission complete. are supposed to
do, which we did. but we stopped. then years later, we are right back over again fighting them again. so it is kind of frustrating, military standpoint, for soldiers, contractors -- we go over to that country and we do are supposed to do, but i think that if we get someone the kurds omeone from -- in power over there. as radical as t maybe saddam hussein. >> given your experience, what think about this idea of military advisers going over to the region? especially with the announcement of these additional 1500 troops. of people don't understand, we had military advisers back in vietnam. put military advisers --
they always are the first ones to go in. they are the boots on the ground. i don't -- i don't think anything ho knows about the military or whatever would say that advisers are not boots on the ground. with those rking folks side-by-side, so they are boots on the ground. so -- >> brian from pennsylvania, the independent line. >> good morning. when the nt to know world will learn to stop sending weapons over there. risk losing our soldiers with weapons that they got from our allies. it is just -- i don't know when people are going to learn. as far sending ground troops over there, imagine -- the said as many as 1500 militant groups
over there -- a football game teams on the field. the chaos, the confusion. a lot of them wanting to send our men and women into battle in the middle of that chaos. just like it would be a disaster in chaos to have 1500 teams on the field -- it would be a disaster to send our soldiers over there. machine gun ave factories and heavy machinery factories over there. if we didn't send weapons to them, we wouldn't have this. >> concerning immigration from the white house, this is the los angeles times reporting about the border crossings. according to customs and border control, in october 2013, those crossings were 4100.
fell in october 2014 to 2529. texas, the democrats line. >> yes, talking about the mess in iraq. it seems to me it would be so would asier if we threaten, at least, threatened to pull out people all around could help fight isis. over here ot coming right now. they will probably never do it. but if we threaten to pull out and say, hey, if we're going to all over your country, maybe they would get more into the fight and help us out of it. if they're not going to come we should just let them build up. they east we know where
are all at, and instead of using small army tactics, we tactics like b-52 bombers and destroy a whole bunch of areas at one time. at least we know they're all there. if they're not going to cross into nobody else's country, why leave them over there. we can bomb the whole country and not worry about it anymore. most of the people are running out of the country ssaying i don't want to fight. if they don't want to fight, at out of the way -- or if they want to fight -- out of ust bomb the hell all that. then, the ou support, to help iraqis train and fight against isis? >> sure. i was back in the military back in the 1980's. you have to keep fighting, regardless.
all the people that are running away, at least they are out of the way. the people who are stuck there, to come back d home, but they're not going to let them come back home. amass in go ahead aand that area, and if you are ready to fight, we can bomb the living hell out of them. >> kevin from massachusetts on the republican line. >> we fought for our country, we thought to be free. other countries should learn that also. the president allowing for the republicans to take over the white house allows for the chance to make those types of decisions. >> so -- we'll just leave it there. let's hear from brandon in wilmington, north carolina. >> yes, this will be heading really boils my blood. the government has to a type lly come up with
of solution to send in 50,000 or 60,000 ground troops. i think that is written on the wall. >> do think the beheadings motivate that, then? >> i know what motivates me! you know? i would volunteer in a heartbeat. -- my instinct is, send for 2 million ask volunteers, you'll probably end about 5 million rednecks from one end of iraq to the other. >> that is brandon in north carolina. if you hear the term undercover operation, you probably think it applies to things like fbi or the cia. on the front page this morning, there is a report saying those operations are conducted by other agencies, like the irs and nasa.
they underwrite sometimes dangerous activities. outside public you, changes in public policies and tactics of the last decade have resulted in undercover teams are run by agencies in virtually every corner of the federal government. convenient ts, are stores, for example, used aas decoys. at the education department, they infiltrate federally funded education programs looking for financial fraud. medical investigators sometimes pose as patients. the small ers at business administration and nasa do undercover work, as well. other sister channel, c-span3 is called "real americans".
this week's installment, it takes a look at vice president, nixon's vice president, spiro agnew. reaction to s a that speech, in which he talks about their influence and network news coverage. here's a little bit of spiro agnew from that speech. network news determines -- a small group of men, numbering perhaps no more upon the zen -- settle 20 minutes or so of commentary to reach the public. 90 s election is from minutes to 180 minutes. the americans at will learnof the days events, of the nation, and of the world.
we cannot measure this power and influence by the judicial democratic standards. these men's can create, national issues overnight. >> the impact of national news media on real america. that is on "american history tv". you can watch that at 4:00 pm. george in carbondale, illinois. the democrats line. >> good morning. >> good morning. comment about the situation, i think this is a situation for the president, and i think he doesn't deserve any negative -- nnegativity about it. i think -- >> why do think he doesn't deserve it? >> i think he doesn't deserve is because i don't think he actually the cause of the whole controversy.
to do with, as maybe, things that have happened the past. been really not logical, to me, as far as over there like reporters and innocent people and put themselves -- it posed to ery dangerous situation not be military personnel in those types of danger situations. >> the president heads back from his asian trip. during his time there, making an announcement to contribute the green climate fund. is a $3 billion contribution.
that helping developing do with climate change. the president said that he would dedicate a significant part of the marks. the money would help third develop new s some y plants and leapfrog of the dirty industries that run our economies. it would create jobs and at the same time reduce carbon pollution. from peter lake, indiana, the republican line. >> this just goes to show you obama should have listened when he arnings back ran -- this is all just blown up out of proportion. if we were that have drawn out of iraq, we would not be having this problem right now.
as far as boots on the ground, we need boots on the ground. we're spending all this money launching airstrikes against isis. is it working? couple e are entering a it is not eaders, but ddefeating isis -- we are couple of their it is -- injuring a couple of their leaders, but it is not defeating isis. >> later on in this program, at issues a look regarding isis. up next, though, a couple politics.ns about especially in light of the recent elections. our first guest aand how we should proceed in the new congress is terry jeffrey. later on, a discussion with adam green of the progressive change campaign committee.
all weekend long, we're featuring madison, wisconsin on c-span cities tour. all of madison's history's offering in one block, including the protests in the 1960's at the university of wisconsin. the mayor participated in one of the protests -- of violent clash between police and protesters. >> october, 1967 was often to as the dow demonstration. been at the l has -- had been at the university to recruit. they came back and they were notorious as the manufacture of napalm. so we planted today demonstration. we planned a two day
demonstration. be first day was going to an informational picket, then the second day was going to be citizen involving civil disobedience in the hallway of the commerce building, now known as ingram hall, where the dow recruiter was located. on the le gathered the famous l -- baskin hill -- and started sitting down inside, spelling. inside the -- became a building. it freedom movement, a freedom of speech, because the students who wanted to get the get to see couldn't the dow people there.
the campus was pretty divided -- >> madison, wisconsin the subject of the programming. not only on "american history but also "book tv". joining us now on our set, terry jeffrey. the editor and chief of cnsnews.com. good morning, sir. >> good morning, pedro. thank you for having me. we'll talk ally, about what the new congress means and what it means for republicans moving forward. oftentimes at midterms elections, there are on the president -- it was very bad on president bush in 2006. clearly, the country wanted different direction.
>> so you sent to the thought specifically on leadership. tell us a little bit about what you're hearing from them? the big question is hear them say -- basically, let's punt until after the elections. by doing that, the empower the lame-duck congress. they now have the power to come back and have a significant influence on policy. so the question is, will the on ublicans insist short-term spending bills that put things into early january when a new congress can have a say? or do they go through the rest ends e fiscal year, which on september 30? and lose the real lever to have what president obama does. >> when it comes to mitch mcconnell, the headline reads the no shutdown pledge faces
the first big test. >> i don't think there is an issue about the national debt. the question is whether or not the republicans put language in they for spending bill have to do -- that such a he sident from doing what to implement an immigration bill. >> that is expected this week, for all we know. >> that is what people are reporting the president may do. is the value -- first of all, when we think about a what should happen -- a shutdown, what should happen? >> the government would not be spending money for a few days the biggest thing is that
there would be a direction for a few days. the president has demonstrated a willingness to do this. way that the congress, wwhich was elected by the american people to actually make the laws, can stop him is by using the power of the purse. if, in fact, a republican congress appropriates, they become complicit in that. so if you are going to stop amnesty, they have to do it in the bill. any hey're going to have impact, they are going to have it in the bill. elected in a republican house of representatives. president obama has done in the past four years because john boehner's house has appropriated the money for him to do it. those are shared policies.
have ionally, republicans not opposed obama. in his press conference this week, he said all options are on the table. he didn't say he wasn't going to do it, he didn't say he was going to do it. so i think -- i think that there is some movement there. i suspect that republican a lot of re getting constituents m around the country, who want the to see them stop unilateral analysis. to have your t feedback, 202-585-3880 for democrats. 202-585-3881 for republicans. 202-585-3882 for independents. some of those reactions from people coming in, jjust to give a sense of it, says we are are here to get things done.
government completely, competently, maturely -- that the governor of colorado. we are ne thing to say opposed -- from oklahoma -- but a poster things means you still have the same problem. >> two years from now when they have the presidential election, obama care will be cemented in place. it will be a fact of life in america. it will not be reversed. they will have to make it a permanent part of american life. if they allow president obama unilaterally legalized aliens -- those residents who come will eventually be citizens. they know that. that if they send those things, they will happen. so there's some dishonesty here. the republicans on a symbolic fight so they can say that we
are fighting his amnesty, we're fighting obama care, when really they are giving him an avenue to do it. so if they don't actually use can one to they have that effectively stop it, it means they, like president obama, are also doing it. >> is there a potential strategy in putting a short-term effort in place? is exactly what senators are calling for. covenantal politico that they stuff o see them take the off the table. they are saying, okay, let's just do a funding bill at the first part of next year. all when you have an majority republican congress, deal with it. -- look, i did read the article senator said that
mcconnell was standing around the people showing the approval of republicans in polling and he found out -- i think the reason people don't approve of congress -- they don't approve parties are congress -- part of it is they don't believe these guys. simple. if the republicans play the shell game where they say, hey, are really against this, but next week we are going to give obama the money to fund it. that people are going to have and say that these guys are not telling us the truth. i think they need to take a stand. i think the other thing, the unilateral immigration reform, is to carry the debate to the country. they can win because they are right. if they were wrong, then they lose and they deserve to lose. if they are right, then you can persuade the country if you have a fight.
>> our guest is the editor in chief of cnsnews.com. is terry jeffrey, who to take your calls in question. joe from indiana on the republican line, go ahead. previous here was a color that suggested that a solution to our problems in iraq is that we should reinstall another saddam hussein. bush that what george w. tried to do? >> going back to our original question. you can expand on that as you wish. president obama did not try to reinstall saddam hussein. america had a mission to end tyranny in the world, and part of that was trying to establish a representative government in iraq. i think that was naïve. before we invaded iraq there needed to be more pretentious thought about to ctly how we were going
end the war, and how we're going to make iraq stable again. about a country was majority shia -- and that was going to be difficult to put that together, let alone that emerge ments like isis. so i think that president bush's policy was unwise. i also think that president obama's policy was unwise. december 2011, he went and said all the are taking troops out, but we are leaving a stable and sovereign iraq. i don't think he really wanted to do that. i don't think you wanted to go into 2012 without the promise to remove all the troops. we have seen the rise of isis. it affects not just the future the future of syria.
we see what an evil group has arisen there in the vacuum we created. it has created, in that part of the world, a problem that will be very, very difficult to solve. generations are probably going to have to deal with it. >> you sense that the incoming congress will make it harder president to layout strategy? the will say this, president did say he wants authorization for military use. i believe in is one. i believe the constitution makes it clear that the cannot use military force without the authorization of congress. boehner said r that the president has the authority to do that. that is wrong. there needs to be serious in congress about this. congress needs to be fully on board and fully responsible for the united states does in the middle east. regards to y in putting americans to engage in military activity.
>> here we have the democrats line. >> i'm of the opinion that we are flirting with another war in the middle east. have not encompassed anything in our going into the middle east to begin with. the only thing -- we need to sit down and figure out just exactly what we can do to help. we do not need to keep talking about fighting in the middle east. it is really nothing to do with that. who are we attacking? i don't think we even know who we are fighting against. >> she actually raises some important questions. george w. esident bush's foreign-policy run? it was wrong because the people that we elect -- they protect the liberty and prosperity of american people.
it is not to change the world. the if you want to change world, you can't. i think that is what president bush's policy proved. i will give you another one. after benghazi, people were paying attention to what was happening in libya. in eastern libya, the people to the islamic state. we -- nomar kadhafi was an evil guy. he was responsible for heinous terrorist attacks against united states. after he invaded iraq, we were able to engage in that neutralized him as a to the united states. to side with ded rebels we did not know, we can understand. power vacuum in created in we had
iraq -- we had created in iraq. this is something that has not been widely reported. their report on benghazi -- one revealed in s they their -- wwas in august 2012, a the attack on benghazi, the city had this emergency action committee before that y attacking benghazi, and that one person involved in the meeting told them about the of 10 ng medication terrorists -- including al qaeda terrorists -- terrorist camps in benghazi. within benghazi. that was a month before. so that is how policy affected invading syria. in these force regions, ultimately aare we advancing the liberty and
security prosperity of people in the united states? or are we increasing the risks to us and the people over there? >> mike in louisiana, thank you for holding on. >> good morning. thank you for c-span. i think the german here you have is you guessed it right on ahead. we have a congress that talks a plays a good game, but now it is time to act. the people have spoken. they don't want anymore executive action by the president. when you say the best way to handle this immigration amnesty we want to get -- the way to handle that is, i do not think it is through the purse. if you recall george w -- i a second term -- to pass a fetal tissue research executive order that was overturned by congress, by overriding the
underlying authority that it was predicated on. they did it simply just by a vote. they did it within a couple of weeks, i believe, and there you go. the executive order was nullified. now, the people voted. congress will have close to a two thirds majority. and that would force the democrats and the republicans vote to see if they are on the american people's side. >> i don't recall the specific problem with the that is that the speaker has to d they are going to vote appeal about care. happens is if they vvote on a bill to give obama he wants to y support obama care, then they are supporting obama care. it passes the house, it goes to sign the e, there they
reconciliation process -- the republicans do not have enough vote on their own to break a filibuster. even if they were to break a filibuster, then it goes to the president. so they know that that is completely symbolic. the members of,, i guarantee they know that -- the members of congress, i guarantee you that they know that. >> let's hear, on a republican line, ned in florida. -- the president signed the executive privilege. what he is doing is, number one, the schools are crowded. in that legal instance -- and the blacks who are already
losing in the us, tthat is number two. the are taking jobs from blacks when he commits the illegals. a so a lot of people use -- in of the illegal aliens the states -- the social security administration about a year ago that they thought there were 7 million illegal aliens actually working in the united states of america. they looked at it, and there that ertain industries tend to hire illegal aliens. there are -- there are businesses in the united states have built businesses on bringing illegal aliens into the united states and paying them wages. doubt that is happening. on that income level
where you are competing with an for a job -- in fact, you may not have a job because he does. >> let's talk about the new working relationship of the senate. harry reid, in a press about ence as we, talked efforts going forward, as far as working with his republican counterparts. >> this is not get even time. not intend to run the like the c caucus republican caucus has been run in the minority. i just told amy, wwe have a lot of bills -- bipartisan bills. list of ing to get a those soon, and we are going to republicans see want to agree to pass bipartisan bills. we are not for stalling. want to move on in the next congress with a record of a compass red.
>> very simply, if there is a vote in t the democrats the senate and the president signs, it is something the president will sign. reid is y, what harry saying is give the democrats what they want and they will sign it into law. thinking like tax reform and those types of issues that they can work on, your reaction would be? >> a lot of things they want to work together on is not good. there are all kinds of things that they never envisioned the federal government doing. the framers actually envisioned -- speaker boehner said they want to do school choice. is a enter of washington federal city. i think they should legislative bill creating total school choice in the district of columbia.
leaving aside puerto rico, the d.c. schools have the lowest out of any school in the country, bbut they spent more money per person than any district in the country. approximately $20,000 educating each child in the school. the parents they can educate their children at any school they want. when you what happens educate kids in this capital city that way, instead of having government schools. >> so you are saying that would be a model to possible use in other parts of the united states as well? >> exactly. there are communities and states were trying to try that. who hate it -- how could that be a bad thing to give the
parents a choice to send their to a good school? to say of what you had to say this he had week -- >> well, she is partly right. into epublicans, going -- the problem is not trying to nationalize the election. back in 1994, they said we're going to do this. they do not do that this time. so they do not necessarily get a specific mandate. but i think they could've done much better if they actually ran on positive things that they claim they're going to do. >> terry jeffrey is our guest. harold, go ahead, from kentucky. >> yes, mr. jeffrey. i have got irst time
are you, mr. how jeffrey? >> very well, thank you. >> i would like to ask about the republican party. set up a ue that tthey got in ee before obama was resident that they going to undo everything that obama has done? and they have a chokehold on the republican held house? >> well, the republicans, when house election in 2010 -- i mentioned earlier, has ything president obama done since 2011 has been funded by a republican house of representatives.
they are both responsible. >> from new jersey, good on the democrats line. >> hi, how are you? to read a ike statement. right now an american, the country is adding 200 jobs per month. unemployment is below 6%. the us gross national product best of the organizations. the stock market is near record high. gas and oil prices are falling. is no inflation. >> okay, you made your point. what is your question? >> all production is rapidly increasing. the deficit is rapidly declining. still e wealthy are making huge amounts of money.
this defies -- the only way you can accomplish this is if you don't elect -- >> i don't think that is to. i think there are some things economy is definitely doing better. is, thankfully, going down. there is a smaller percentage of the population exit time to work. i don't think there is anything happened in what the election. i think one of the great -- point of view -- one of about obama ings getting elected is that he was the first african-american elected, and that this country will elect an african-american. ridiculous t it is that when people elect
think about -- you the historical -- south carolina was the state that seceded from the union. it was the state that was most the ened and it's hard in perpetration -- heart and is perpetration of slavery. and it went to the united states senate as republican. i do not think there is anything racist about the selection. if anything, it shows real progress in that regard, where a southern state elected a conservative republican black senator. party influence was there those republicans coming in who were elected? >> i think people will correctly point out that a lot of the candidates elected by not republican party were tea party types. the new ngle one of republican senators that was elected promised to appeal obama care.
so, they were pro-life. so, they were taking tea party not they , whether or were a "tea party candidate". >> do think those senators who ran antiparty principles, on tea 016 -- ran party principles, coming up in 2016, how do think they will do? >> i think that you are going to see some of them run for president of the united states. yes, you will see some folks out of congress running. to see governors running, who were not in that tea party election. of o think that the values the tea party are not the people who come out to the republican primaries and caucuses.
mitt romney was a liberal republican governor of massachusetts. he was a guy who invented the -- the individual mandate for healthcare. the president talks about taking that idea from romney. did a 180 omney didn't turn -- people believe him -- but he has done the same thing in the selection. all candidates are going to towards those issues positions. the question is which ones really hold them. program, the our international community has a chance to participate. this is from manchester, united kingdom. aaron, go ahead. >> good afternoon. thank you for having me on the show.
i want to ask you, now that the and blicans have the house the senate -- you have to forgive me because i can only united kingdom prospective -- i remember when the liberal democrats came into the united kingdom, and they had very good elections prior to them having to go to with one another -- they actually dipped below the mark of what they were expected to do. danger that re is a the republicans -- now that years before two presidential election -- the the next couple years? >> we don't have coalition sir, but within the , parties we have coalition's.
other politicians say that their lectures conservative. in national elections, i believe it is conservative our collective issue still. of the i believe republican party, or anybody running for president, engages real fights trying to push are seen a s, and sincere, though senators are going to like what they're doing. is good in hting politics if you are fighting for the right thing. >> let's turn with that sentiment in mind to the senate -- the incoming minority, and elizabeth warren now elected into a leadership position. her first time to the cameras at this position. she talked a little bit about her vision. >> well, i believe in what the democrats are fighting for. you know, wall street is doing very well.
bringing in millions more, and families across the united states are struggling. we have to make this government work for the american people. i'm grateful to the leader, i'm grateful to the caucus for giving me a chance to be part of that fight. that is what we are all going to be here doing. every single day. >> terry jeffrey. >> well, she is from massachusetts, from the left-wing. over emocratic leadership the years -- he came from a more conservative state. harry reid was from nevada. pass ee this phenomenon through democrats -- remember the political liabilities when harry reid was defeated. i think you see mary landrieu, the election coming up, she is in a tough place because of her party --
and people in massachusetts want to go one direction. she is trying to go in a different direction. but i think in more recent history, we are seeing a more geographical polarization of the country. some states are going to be solidly republican, more than have in the past, and some states are going to be solidly blue, more than they have in the past. from that block, it is going be harder to elect a democrat from iowa. >> this is tom on the republican line. >> hi, i would like to ask. question. >> you are on, go ahead. a i would like to ask terry question because -- hello? >> time, go ahead and talk to listen to and don't the television. >> i would like to know, terry, you talk about policies, did bush have any policies whatsoever when we went into iraq? because most of our problems to go all the way back to the beginning. that is where it all started.
do know if he had any policies at all? >> well, he had policies. his main objective was to remove saddam hussein because they believed he was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction. but i do not think they thought to carefully enough the of g-term implications removing saddam hussein, and how they were going to replace saddam hussein and the state of government. before his father remove saddam from kuwait, he decided he wasn't going on to baghdad. it, well said, if you break you fix it. of trying his problem to reestablish a stable government in iraq and how we can we do that.
>> from tampa, florida on the democrats line. >> hi, terry. you doing this morning? >> very good. >> i have a few questions i would like to ask you. consulting with iraq -- starting with iraq. we're t think that what doing over there is going to help, i don't think it is going to make it worse. my belief is that it is not about national security, it is about the koch brothers security. okay? that is the only reason we are over there. the second one would be about 114th congress. to deregulate g corporate america again so they can have a free-for-all like they did during the stock market crash. i do not believe in that. be taught a lesson
because nobody to this day has to jail, been arrested. they have all fought their way out. >> okay, thank you. >> you know, it is the branch that passes regulations. and the -- it has been a while since we had talked about obama care, but people talked about how many pages the obama care act was. the two inal version, acts -- iif you pull it up, it is a pdf and it is 907 pages. but when you pull up the pages in the federal register, it is more than 10,000 pages. it is monstrous. it is really -- those pages, by the way, in the federal register have more than 1000 words on them. this u are talking about
massive thing -- and really, to be concerned. that the action is american people -- do and the newer congress do anything about it? >> i think they should have the men and testify and see how his point of view was part of the administration. this was blatantly out there on the record. the president said it was not a tax. went into first federal courts, they started losing courts. they flipped around, and it wasn't taxed. on one opinion, he said it wasn't a tax, and on the other parts he said it was a tax. so, clearly, there is deception there.
considering the magnitude of the policy, it deserves to be explored and exposed to the american people so they understand what went on. >> you mention the supreme court. case they hts on the are taking looking at subsidies. loss is one thing and they are implementing it in way -- the law says one thing and their implementing it in another way. be the subsidy anyway -- pay the subsidy anyway. can the administration just change the law? get a mbers of congress subsidy -- is congress really a small business? the way the law was written, it did not envision members of getting up to $10,000. but the office personnel
management set the regulation and said they could do it. the republicans in the house the bureaucrats and administration, they are from the same team because it serves their own interests. >> david from pennsylvania, you are on with to jeffrey. david, good morning. >> good morning, gentlemen. my question -- when does -- >> david, keep going. >> when the symbolism -- >> let me put you on hold so turn on your television. will go to randy in cincinnati, ohio. the independent line. >> good morning. i just want to say that i know lot on obama's plate, is just eems like there so much deception in the ranks going on with his decisions. it just seems like he is not good at micromanaging what is going on. hello?
>> go ahead. >> i'm sorry. just thinking, you know, i just want to see more decisive leadership in washington. it doesn't matter whether your republican or democrat, you know. you have these people talking about all the things involved, but we need to leave those things out. this is one america, okay? >> i think president obama is a decisive leader. he put through obama care. he wanted it, he pushed it, got it through using all kinds of, you know, manipulating techniques to do it. have the en was to unilateral amnesty, using executive power that he doesn't even have under the constitution. is exhibiting leadership, whether he is s doing it lawfully.
so what kind of leadership is a republican congress going to show? not e had him on the show too long ago and he talked relationship with president clintton that he had during the congress. think the relationship present and n the the congress -- president and the congress? >> i heard a little bit of the interview the other day. look, they both have to speak. the midterm election with george w. bush -- the national debt started rising up, the did things that with with consistently republican values. >> let's go to wallace. albany, georgia. the democrats line. >> yes, hi. you all talking
about about care. look, obama is a person that really cares. the republicans are always people know that obama cares. about how 't talk obama cares. he shows it. i wonder if the republicans are going to get in and show that they care, aas much as obama cares. that is all i have to say. >> i wish they would both care law and the le of constitution -- in the constitution. and if the republicans care, to stop these things president obama is trying to do. up over the e open weekend. is it here to stay, do you think? is obama care here to stay?
>> i hope the republican stop it. i think they have to defunded if they're going to stop it. if they let it go for another two years, i seriously doubt it will be removed. if it is not removed, it have tially means we created socialized medicine. more and more people will be -- subsidies you talk about? it is $90,000 for a family of four. remove that subsidy -- if you go one dollar over that poverty level, which means you are middle class person, you can have a $10,000 increase in your annual insurance premiums. so what we have done is put ourselves at the mercy of the federal government. one of the most important things in our life, health care, which involves life-and-death situations. and also, we are about to hit $18 trillion in debt. the country is headed towards
bankruptcy even without obama care. the costs -- the bankruptcy will be moved closer, and america will be fundamentally changed. not just because allawi care, but because the economic crisis we have gone through. scenario, there be a then, somehow resolved? >> before obama care was in place a year ago, there were systems in this country for taking care of people who didn't have the money to provide their own health care. first of all, we had a medicaid in place. you also had institutions around the country that provide free health care to people. and there were religious hospitals all around the country. they are not going to turn people away because they don't have the money. the mission was not about -- i don't think obama care was helping ly about people's health care. i think it was about putting the government in charge of health care.
>> terry jeffrey is a columnist chief of ditor in cnsnews.com. jeffrey, thank you very much. >> thank you. >> next, we hear from adam green. we'll continue our discussions about isis. as "washington journal" continues after this. >> the c-span cities tour takes traveling to us cities to learn about the history and literary life.
parted with , we charter communications for a visit to madison, wisconsin. >> bob la follette is probably the most important political figure in wisconsin history, and one of the most important in the history of the 20th century in the united states. he was a reforming governor. he defined what progressivism is. use as one of the first to the term progressive to sell for the fact -- self identify. he was a united states senator recognized by his peers as one of the five greatest senators in american history. he was an opponent of world war i. stood his ground advocating for his free-speech. above all, bob la follette was about the people. 18 spent the later part of -- the 1890's ggiving speeches all over wisconsin. if you wanted a speaker for your club or your group, bob would ggive your speech.
he went to every type of event imagine, and built a reputation for himself. by 1900, he was ready to run for governor, advocating on behalf of the people. we are sitting in the first studio of frank lloyd wright. wright was actually born in richland center, wisconsin, too far from here. his family took him to massachusetts for time. then they return to madison and he grew up in medicine. grew up in eenage -- madison. years, and eenage then he went to the university of wisconsin for a couple years decided to seek his fortune in chicago. came out to this side spent his ntry, he
teenage summers in these hills. that is where he got two things. he got his love of nature and his understanding of nature, and he also got his understanding of the topography of the sales. our events from madison today at 2:00 pm eastern on c-span3. "washington journal" continues. >> joining us, adam green, the cofounder of the progressive change campaign committee. >> good morning. >> for those who do not know, tell us about the progressive change campaign committee. is about a million-member organization to fight for democratic issues. raise 4, we are proud to over $1.5 million across the country, as well as make 4 phone calls for candidates like al franken.
>> how did you do, track record wise? >> it was quite good. but there's a larger point that we have coming out of the elections, which is that democrats lost the country because there was a failure to have big ideas. big economic ideas. whereas people like al franken, 312 hours ne bite by 10 -- points this time, one by 10 points this time. they won because, for six years they were proud, progressive -- the message to president obama at large is the time to pit bold ideas. >> elizabeth warren, now a member of leadership on the senate democratic side. >> yes, congratulations to elizabeth warren. it is really a thrill for her to be in their. she was the most popular campaigner for democrats in
2014. that is because her economic expanding social security benefits, making more affordable, reforming wall street, is popular among everyone. they saw her ability to fill beyond their wildest dreams, aand they want that was represented in the room. >> do think part of the reason is given that position is because democrats were not selling that message before -- during the election.? >> yes, absolutely. been -- d, there has this election somewhat filled in -- with somewhat filled in with nothing. there was not an economic agenda that was worth the voters while. their ability to have control if they went to the polls. you cannot motivate people with nothing.
elizabeth warren is out there with big ideas. her colleagues recognize that, aand they want her to help the situation. >> so the list of big ideas -- what is on top of that list? >> well, look, we have the republican congress right now. the worst-case scenario would be starting with the lowest common denominator ideas. that would just be horrible. to just also be that adopt -- democrats actually have a unique opportunity now, the ng the minority and in face of a residential election, with a bold d agenda. one of the ideas is break up wall street. two, college affordability. votes for her bill
this congress to, basically, really billions and billions of dollars for student debt. let's talk about free college education. let's talk about making public universities truly public. talk about things like extending social security benefits, instead of cutting them. this will change millions of people's lives. like the things employment act, which basically says that anyone who wants to work hard, the government will you jobs building bridges, working on the energy grid -- let's do that. these ideas are wildly popular, so let's talk about those ideas opposed to smallbore ideas and predicting what members of congress will agree to next. >> was up early because obama that selling big ideas? >> yes. wanting president obama to adopt elizabeth warren's ideas.
they cannot come down to one speech. small who won by very big in last time, by margins this time, they expect stick tto their streak. that is what will motivate them to vote. >> why do think president obama does not adopt or embrace those ideas? well, he has been sometimes catering to what washington dc wants. our point is that bipartisanship is fine, it just to be made straight by partisanship, not d.c. bipartisanship. these are ideas that democrats of and went on if they choose -- win on if they
choose. passed stion is, do just something washington for the sake of passing it? or is it because you have ideas that should be passed into law? it is the lowest common denominator versus big, bold ideas. >> our guest, adam green, the progressive the change campaign committee. the next alk about progressive ideas, and take your comments come as well. 202-585-3880 for democrats. 202-585-3881 for republicans. 202-585-3882 for independents. we will begin with dan in michigan, the democrats line. to make a just want comment about an observation i made while i was watching the senate for the other day. mitch mcconnell had the floor and he asked for any questions from his colleagues. at the time, a couple people
were not ready. mary landrieu said yes, i have a question. his mitch mcconnell turned back to her, until a couple republicans were ready. i cannot remember the man's name, i think he was from north -- he heads up the -- the bill for the keystone pipeline. mitch mcconnell totally let the led her, republican speak, and then left the floor with the rest of the republicans. that is an indication, to me, that the republicans are not willing to work with the democrats. >> yes, i think there are a couple symbolic things about what he has done. people are watching mitch mcconnell, like yourself, literally. that kind ll continue
of gamesmanship, aand the challenges for the democrats is to make sure that he walks the plank wwith that type of gamesmanship. let's not let him stutter over between the parties -- to just do what he will on the senate floor. if democrats -- if president obama goes forward with some of these executive actions, and republicans want to use gamesmanship in the senate to that, good, let mitch mcconnell say very clearly to latino voters that he is that with them. if elizabeth warren was to make to make college affordable for millions of children, and mitch mcconnell that kind of games, great, do it in open and to take that position. and let the american people decide whose side they are on. >> richard is up next to the republican line from kentucky.
>> that republican line is the key here. am a lifelong democrat who voted republican for the first time since 1972. a while ago number that 200,000 some jobs were created -- my son has three of those jobs. my daughter has two of them. my wife and i, we had to change our doctors. do remember that you can change your doctors if you want to? i will never, ever -- aand i am union construction worker -- i will never, ever vote democrat again. >> okay. well, first of all, i would be very interested to know your children, because them having three jobs is not what the american dream is about.
if you feel let down by the party in some respects, i think a lot of people are in your boat, including democrats. i'm very curious on what you would think about raising minimum wage. in red states -- my guess is that if it were not benefit your kids directly, it would benefit your area. people in red states of america who support that idea. what i ind of stick to am saying, democrats need to offer big ideas that regular people by. it is a change that the democratic party has left -- some of them -- bbehind. we need to remold the party, the path ink that is to success. on our l is in michigan independent line. go ahead. i'm talking about your
plans to d your destroy america -- >> what is your question? government to eed control our country and destroy the whole situation of america. we need freedom. freedom for the people. all of america, for the people. agendas and communism. >> thank you. we do need freedom. so let me tell you about one of the biggest shackles for them is -- student at. there are so many -- student debt. there are so many people who graduate college with thousands of dollars in debt. good in ho want to do the community have to take a job at a big bank to pay back the bills. there is a big brain drain in
the country because of student debt. i would hope at a minimum, you would support paying less for college. that is one of the big ideas we're advocating for the democratic party. one of the things shackling us down is wall street winning over our economy. wall street basically paying workers very little, shipping jobs overseas, really kind of polluting our economy. i do not know if you feel like side of wall e street, but democrats are it is not about -- to everyday middle-class families to have a job?om go to a e freedom to college with a choice? month, we had s
jonathan cullen, and how a more can should adopt moderate agendas, may be concentrating more on tax reform and things like that. >> so, i think that the democratic party has to think on two tracks. one is, what can you do, really, over the next 9 to 12 2016 really heads up. where you can find substantive ground with republicans. that is probably not going to be on the minimum wage, it is be on tax oing to reform, trade policy, energy are places hose where there is already well-established, bipartisan , ground. the second piece to what democrats into think about goes to longer-term message.
in 2016, if y -- democrats focus on a prosperity and agenda, there is not throwing people in life preserver, but fixing -- their prospects in 2016 and beyond will be really good. if the party sticks with the that they used -- the same economic playbook they the cycle, even though a presidential cycle is better for democrats, it is still not good enough. >> mr. green. >> so, first it is important to know what they're all about. the majority of the third-rate board 's corporate executives and people from wall street. the lion share of their funding comes from wall street, something that we actually just this past year -- wwe got them to admits that the
majority of their money is from wall street. we also got them to admit that there is no grassroots on their side. it is just a corporate funded think tank. not surprised that jahn would advocate for lower corporation tax -- john would advocate for lower corporate taxations. i would also not be surprised who he supports companies sent jobs overseas. you know, he talks about -- it that he talks that we shouldn't throw people like preservers. it is not about throwing a preserver, it is about saving lives. to make sure we have enough pay al security benefits to
for people's needs, a preserver them to live ws life. that is the choice the democratic party has to face. whose side are we on? do we side with the corporations, or do we side with millions of people? >> so the democratic party, when looking at wall street -- has that been enough in your opinion? >> no, it did not do enough. gone back to y consumers and save the millions of dollars. there were some -- some like that.reform the banks who are too big to fail before our bigger now. they are bigger and they will fill, unless you break it off
some point -- and they will off at nless we break it some point. what we need is an outcry around these ideas. the fundamental question is, side are you on? come s will be inspired to to the polls if they can affirmatively say, yes. >> this is chris from maryland. go ahead. >> yes, how you doing? >> good, thank you. my issue is that the you y has not -- see how they cater to the republicans -- and i agree with all the ideas they have set forth. of them is, unfortunately,
is obama care. gives millions of americans health and life. think the last caller had lies that are not true. obama care went to the congress. a chance to had present grievances. they chose not to. >> thank you for pointing that out. a lot of e has helped people, and we wish it would've helped even more people. if you have the opportunity to, you know, and $1000, instead in order to that earn $100, you earned that. people to buy
into healthcare was wildly popular. around the time of the health there was a poll over 70% of about 60% of independents, and even 50% of republicans wanted a public option. push that into law. be pushing to through these big ideas. i saw present obama the day after the election give a what he said was -- the ok forward to hearing public governing agenda, and i the republican governing agenda, and i will offer the democratic agenda. but i will offer -- and when you think about it, it is very scary the way things could go
we hear years -- all about is present obama's ideas going up against mitch mcconnell. to encourage democrats -- and i talked to incoming members of the senate and house -- they are ready to have a spine. they're going to push the democratic party to go in that direction. what we need is a contempt of you among the party that we are big, bold tand for economic ideas. we want elizabeth warren's image. we'll be talking about victory at the polls. >> a couple tweets to give you -- for all hear, who pays these programs that you talk about? >> let's start with the last one. right now, big oil companies get $4 billion in subsidies per
year. corporations that ship jobs overseas and have tax incentives to go overseas pretty much rabbit treasury of of dollars -- rob the treasury of millions of dollars every year. the loophole is how we pay for these programs. it is not a question of, do we pay for something? the question is, who side are you on, and where are you distribute in your budget? on the agenda for, this is a really interesting question. it is one of the greats we have with the democratic party, and taking bad republican ideas -- not fretting about them -- instead just into a rating them larger bill, stuttering over the ideas between the different parties and the different ideologies, and then tell the voters, hey, this is a democratic bill. who wanted to help insurance mandates?
the biggest insurance companies wanted to help it. not people. for people were of much for the public option. if you look at the stimulus bill, for some reason stimulus has a bad name now. why does have a bad name? of ause we took hundreds and ions of dollars republican tax cuts, and call that an economic stimulus. surprise, surprise, that idea the network. that is why we cannot start with a lowest common denominator approach. we need to say we are going to take big, bold economic ideas that are wildly popular in red, purple, and blue states. if the republicans use the majority to shut that down, then fine. we'll take that message with clarity into 2016 and we will win. on the from california independent line. go ahead.
are saying what you is that you think that the democrats progressive populist agenda is the way to go. it didn't work. although, elizabeth warren coming out for -- in agreement concept of a party fail is too big is spot on. be a think if you want to viable party going forward, to get my independent vote, i think you need to pay attention to that. the way i feel is that i am getting screwed on both sides. for that is because too big to fail is allowed to be there. agenda that you that is way, way, way too copperheads of. if you just start -- to comprehensive. just that with a
you know, basically, there was a path for populists on the republican and democrat side: people like yourself think you are getting it from both sides. what you really mean is the corporations have been funding our political parties, both of them, and as a result, exporting trade deals, lowering corporate taxes and stuff like that. you want someone to fight for you. i agree. >> clive iowa, republican line, fill ip caller: i have a question for the listeners as well as the guest the listeners, i want to give them a question to pose to progressives. the question is: what does a self-describe progressive progress toward? what is the mathematical limit that you can say, we are now progressive. we have progressed? what does that look like?
what does it look like with regard to private property rights and everything else? what is the actual goal of a progre progressive? you progress toward something at least to the point to where you reach it. if not, what does that look like? thank you. >> guest: that's a great question. i respect the intellectual honesty behind that question. >> we would stop progress is a little counter-intuitive but what are some bench marks along the way that represent progress? one easy one is that somebody who works 40 hours or more a week, a full-time job should not be living in poverty. right? >> the principle behind the minimum wage. one can debate should it go up $07,510? >> the bottom line principlen principal with progressives. i would say that people should be able to go to college and not be saddled with debt their entire life. all of their life's decisions for the next decade, two decades should not be driven by how much the college bills were. that would be a sign of progress
if we reached that point. there are many ways to do it. that would be one. do workers in our economy have the ability to both get paid more overtime and be assured that their kids will be able to get paid more than they do? that used to be the case. we have regressed and not progressed. >> that's partially because ceo did are paying themselves exorbitant amounts, shipping jobs overseas and not looking for american works. these are a few bench marks of success. progressive.org is where we have these ideas. >> birmingham alabama, democrats line, larry, go ahead. caller: good morning. first of all, i have your agenda a. a progressive agenda is the way to go. first of all, the republicans om this election, they came out with this white working class quote, unquote. black people work in america,
too. the message and everything that's around, it changed their agenda on this election and called for an hour. i am going to reflect their agenda here it's their agenda and you put the conservative republicans ain your senate and it's a message. president obama, let me make a point. you all know that we have when president obama ran for office in 2008. anyone with common sense know that this man brought the economy back to full force. if you had a 401(k), it's on solid ground right now. the republican's agenda is to keep it 1%. we are going to see it. i want all you of you voters, when everything starts going downhill, don't blame the progressive movement because we are trying to do that.
host: host thanks. >> guest: everything you said is pretty spot-on. >> that's why we need to fight together. we can't just debate it. we have to keep fighting. what can you do in your community? well, you know, if a presidential candidate comes to town or if your local member of congress or the senate has a townhall meet, go and tell them that. it's amazing how doing that, just two people in a crowd will make that be the big take-away from a local event. we need you to fight for big bold ideas. we need you to actually fight for us and, you know, continue moving the economy in the right direction. i encourage you to do that. please, i invite you actively to enjoy us, progressives.org. >> you mentioned senator warren. are you pushing her to run for president? >> in 2011, 2012, we raised over a million dollars for her campaign in small-dollar doane assess and overall were her number 1 grassroots ally. if she decides to run for president, we would be thrilled. we are not pushing her to run for president. what we are pushing is that any
presidential candidate, including hillary clinton campaign on elizabeth warren's populist ideas such as extending social security, more reform of wall street and making college affordable. what we are doing is actually very soon sending our first organizers to new hampshire to organize our thousands of members on the ground and a local coalition offun youngs and progressive ofrlingsz to ensure whenever a presidential candidate comes to town to ask whether they agree with elizabeth warren on key issues. >> how much of a progressive agenda does hillary adopt? >> to predict or currently? >> currently? >> three boxes. foreign policy, social policy and economic policy. social policy, she isb on issues of gay marriage and for a lot of people, she is fine there. foreign policy is a little bit back and forth. we will see where she comes out on some of these war and peace issues. i found poplism, president big
guy, little guy, when they are going in to each other that's the big tbd. the fact she joined elizabeth warren atacam pain event this cycle and paid homage to her agenda was a step in the right direction. part of our message to hillary clinton is that words will not be enough. it matters who she appoints to the economic team. will she continued the trend of goldman sachs for our economy or people like stig lits or a paul friedman time, dean baker or others. sheila behr. those will be concrete down payments on the. you know, economic ideas, siding with the little guy against the big guy. we will incentivize her. >> moving forward, should she become the democratic nominee, is there a sense that your organization might not endorse her if she doesn't embrace enough of those concepts that you hold on to?
>> well, you know, we take the word "endorsement" very seriously. any candidate would have to basically adopt an elizabeth warren style populist agenda to get our endorsement. partly for us, the question is prior to prior to in 2012 while many others are focused, our number one prior to priorities was electing elizabeth warren. she has been a one-person game changer. she has inspired her colleagues to have more back board to use the words of one of your callers, leadership. we are on goal to advance the popular decision. we hope that hillary clinton is part of that, and we will do our part to incentivize her. >> outside from hillary clinton and elizabeth warren, anybody else who might be running for president adopts your kind of fi philosophies going forward? does anybody stand out? >> we will see. we will see. you know, bernie sanders is probably going to run. he is a good economic populist. there has been murmurs of brian schweitzer who won in a
supposedly red state, take on the corporation. bo biden, the attorney general who takes on. >> out of maryland? >> mowrey, not sure where he stands on some of these issues, but we will find out. i think having competition is probably, you know, a helpful thing or even the processing expect of competition to allow secretary clinton to contemplate where she wants to position herself, and the one thing i agree with is they said hillary clinton's decision on some of these populist issues, should she side with the populist agenda or wall street agend. we are going to do our part to ask every candidate for president including hillary clinton and any of the others whether they agree with elizabeth warren on these issues like social security, more website reform and making college more affordable. >> jenk, independent line from north carolina. caller: yes. my observation
is, i think he made the statement that anybody that opposes the president's executive action on immigration does it to the detriment of the hispanic voter. but if they are illegal, they can't vote. and then you also commented on al franken winning in 2008 by 384 votes. how many of those votes were found under a church pew or came from the prison population that couldn't vote? and why is it that the progressive party seems to rely on the stupidity of the american voter? >> guest: that's a great question. right-wing talking points, they are still alive six years later including the al franken vote. he turned 312 votes victory margin in a high electorate presidential election year into a 10 point marge maintain low turnout year. the question is why?
the reason is voters aren't stupid. they saw him for six years and he has a populist vision. he put key parts to force insurance companies to give rebates to customers he ripped off. put at a time key provisions in the wall street reform bill that would stop corruption on wall street, stop some of the way they get a corrupt way. he has been out there for overturning citizens united and net neutrality. voters aren't stupid. they voted for him. >> that's where we disagree. >> married, tom, republican line. go ahead. caller: yes. good morning. i would like you to focus on keeping things simple. you may get through to more people if you slow your temperature o down. number 1, my litmus test for any politician is: will you support
food stamps? because anybody that will not support children and elderly who have benefits of food stamps to 70% of the program doesn't deserve to be in washington. and you said as a flash point, a land mine for these republicans. host: okay. well, first of all, i would like to say hello to my grandmother, barbara watching in new jersey, and i am often reminded to slow down a little bit. so, i appreciate your words of wisdom there. and i agree with you on the values front. something like food stamps, something that third way would call a life preserver and criticize that is a fair proxy for who's side are you on? will you give people the minimum basics in life like food?
social security is part and parcel of that same thing. the decision to expand social security idea advanced by tom harkin from the first presidential state of
iowa and marg begich from the red state of alaska already carried forward from brian shots and ohio. will we give seniors the minimal amount they can afford both -- housing, medicine and food? and i think that's a completely fair proxy to judge people on. >> austin texas. here is more on democrats line. >> hello. thank you for taking my call. i have two points to make. the first one, the first one has to do with immigration. and being from the state of texas, we are very sensitive to illegal immigration down here. texas has flagrantly disregarded the federal immigration law by allowing a great number of illegal immigrants into the state to the point where u.s. citizens -- i have four
university degrees and i can't find a job. and they are in the stem disciplines and i can't find a job. so first of all, i do
support the progressive movement. i don't support it with respect to injecting 4 million illegal immigrants into the workforce. and the effects that will have on social security. it will blow it up because every one of those who get a provitional work permit will also get a social security number. it will destroy that program. and i just -- i can't understand why that isn't talked about or even if you guys realize that. >> can i ask a question caller: sure. >> if the president adopts this, does it change how you vote or who you vote for? caller: in this past election, i voted for anything other than a democrat because of that, and if he does abuse the executive
order, i will support impeachment. >> from austin, texas. >> you seem like a good person and you have my genuine sympathy that you are struggle to go find a job. i guess i would ask you the honest question: do you believe that people who are illegally coming across the border are -- have the skill set that would compete with you in four degrees? do you think that they are actually taking the job that you are in contention for, or is it possibly a matter of american companies not creating jobs here because they have written the tax rules such that they are incentivized to ship jobs overseas, they have the ability to have your skill set, have it done in china for a 5th of the cost and they can write the tax laws in such a way that they can keep the profits seers and not have to pay taxes? might that be a little bit more of the caused of you not having a job than somebody illegally coming across the border? i would ask you to think about it. i think there is a lot of skate
goeping, picking on the little guy. democrats have been complicit in not calling out corporate abuse of our system. that's why we need to he let's not have the corporations. let's fight for fem like you. >> her sentiment about future votes concerned particularly over immigration? >> guest: in his executive order host: yeah. >> guest: there will be some right-wing push back to that. i hope he there are a certain set of people like laura who will be always open minded and look for the proper it scapegoat, not pick on those who have no power, and, you know, i think that if president obama helps millions of people by signalling who's side he is on and we have a robust debate about this, that will give us the opportunity to change some minds and set the democratic party in a trajectory where on this and many other issues, they answer the question of who's
side are you on and it's for the little guy. >> adam greene is the co foindzer for the progressive change campaign committee, allprogressives dog >> guest: that's right. host: wanted to check. adam green joining us for discussion. thanks a lot. >> guest: thanks so much. host: with news coming out concerning a possible beheading done by isis and in regard to isis policy, our next guest will join us to talk about what he sees going on, regard major of the u.s. marine corps and of rand corporation, first, ab updated news from c-span radio. >> we will hear more about that beheading reportedly from isis coming up on the sunday talk shows this morning. also, they will be talking about the healthcare law and immigration reform, and you can hear rebroadcasts of the five network t.v. talk shows on c a span radio. it begins at noon eastern time with nbc's "meet the press."
their guest includes sylvia burwell, also, louisiana republican governor, bobby jendall. at 1:00 p.m. here abc's "this week" reaired with illinois democrat louis getter alley and fox news sunday with senators john thune, a republican of south dakota and sheldon white, a democrat. tom cotton of arkansas and jame langford of oklahoma. state of the union follows at 3:00 p.m. eastern with democratic dirk durbin and al franken of minnesota. california javier bashera and attorney general alberto gonzalez. at 4:00 p.m., it's face the nation from cbs with james k4r57er. also israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu and former republican presidential nominee mitt romney and republican senator mike lee of utah, also democratic senator claire
mccaskill of missouri. the sunday network t.v. talk shows are on c-span radio brought to you as a public service by the networks and c-span. those rebroadcasts of the show begin at noon east earn with nbc's meet the press and abc's this week, 2:00 p.m. fox news and 4:00 p.m. eastern time, "face the nation" from cbs. listen on c-span radio 90.1 fm here in the washington, d.c. area. across the country, on xm satellite on channel 120 or download the free app for you're smartphone or go online to c-span.org. >> monday night on the communicators, tim woo, the columbia university law school professor who coined the term "net neutrality" on how to milk the internet. >> i long felt one of the things that is going overlooked in this debate -- not everyone is overlooking it, but generally action in the big picture is the question of what about all
people don't have broadbast, how are they going to get it? i would say no one's addressing that right now. title 2 does give the agency more power to try to do things like mandate universal service like we did for telephone service back in the 20th century. and it collects money which right now goes noelt subsidize rural telephone service which could be repositioned to try to create rural bradbast service. there are possibilities of title ii a future president or fcc chairman more specifically could say we need a universal service program and people all over the country need to have bradband. there is more power for that kind of thing monday at 8 eastern on the communicators on c-span ii. washington journal continues. >> our last segment will deal with u.s. strategy when it comes to the first to join us on the phone by skype actually, ben hubbard from the "new york times," their middle east
correspond events joining frus over there in iraq. mr. hubbard, welcome. >> thank you. >> could you tell us? we heard about the possible beheading of this -- another american this morning. what exactly do we know at this point? >> well, what we know for sure is that isis released a very sickening, gorey video about 15 minutes long that begins with very detailed footage of some beheading of a number of syrian government soldiers that they say that they captured at a battle in syria and it ends with showing us the same, you know, militant with a british ac-70 we have seen in some of these previous beheading videos with a severed head and officials haven't been able to verify this footage, but, you know, it bears things in common with the previous videos we have seen of discussions of western captives.
>> when was he taken captive, and how long has he been held? >> he's been in can can'tivity for a while. i don't remember when it's been but he is an aid worker, a young man who served, you know, within the american military in iraq and later decided more realtime that he wanted to go back and try to help. he went into syria, was picked up, i believe, in the prove incident in eastern syria and very little has been heard from him since other than pleas by his family and friends of his trying to get him released. >> ben hubbard, we wanted to ask you, a visit, a surprise visit by general martin dempsey there in iraq. tell us a little bit about the nature of this visit. >> well t seems like the main focus of the u.s. effort right now is trying to get advisors in place earlier this month that they were going to basically double the number of american military advisors here to about 3,000. so they are trying to get these
in place mainly to arm, equip and training missions for the iraqi military and also trying to get some of the tribal fighters on board from some of the sunni tribes, particularly in anbar prove incident. these are groups that people remember hearing about the sunni awakening in iraq when u.s. forces were still here. this was -- these were -- these tribes ended up playing a large role in cooperating with american forces to get rid of al-qaeda in iraq, the predecessor of the group we now call the islamic state. >> so there is a lot of effort going on right now to figure out how to get these fighters back on board and get them in a place where they can actually challenge the grit that the jihadist have in a large portion of iraq. >> that leads to your story we find in the paper this morning with the headline, iraq and u.s. finds potential sunni allies have already been lost. how do you -- how does the u.s. adopt a strategy to bring those on board especially in light of the announcements we hear in the united states with another 1500
advisors coming on board there? >> well, it's tricky because basically, isis, isis and the iraqi government have been -- one way to look at this is that there has been a competition for the aleakentions of these sunni tribes and isis has been working quite consist ently to try to turn tribes to its side. this is to talk about today, a two-pronged strategy where they are trying to co-opt tribal leaders by giving them money, guns, promising jobs to some of the young men in their tribes and get them to come under the banner of the islamic state even if they don't fully agree with it but not to resist it. at the same time, there has been a very aggressive strategy of hunting down previous enemies of al-qaeda in iraq and a lot of these people happen to be from the sunni awakenings that allied with the americans to fight al-qaeda before. we have seen lots and lots of cases of isis taking over the sunni tribunal areas and going in with literally with lists of names of people that they want and they tend to be former security officers, soldiers,
policemen. and they are really trying to the cleanse these areas of any sunni elements that are likely to join with an iraqi government effort to push the extremists out of these areas. we don't know too much about how the americans are going to assist in this. we know it's going to be much, much less hands-on than it was the last time around. the last time, actually, we have had many, many american forces on the ground who were fighting next to these guys, who were paying a lot of the, you know, putsing a lot of money in to this. now, american officials are telling us that they are here to advise and assist, that they are encouraging this process of reconciliation between these tribes and the central government but that the money and the weapons for these tribal fighters must come from the iraqi government, that the americans are not going to arm these fighters and not going to pay the salaries this time. >> ben, before we let you go, being there based in baghdad, tell us something or tell us things about the effort by the u.s. when it comes to isis that we may not be hearing reported
going on. things that, you know, that might be interesting for the americans here in the united states. >> well, i think that the biggest -- the biggest i know this that's been suppliesing is how quiet they are about it this time. you know, i think that everybody is very sensitive to the legacy of the american occupations here and you don't see the american advisors. they keep them hidden. as far as i have seen so far, they have never given any access to the media to see what exactly the advisors are doing, the american officials we talked to are very clear that they want this to be an iraqi-led effort. they want the iraqis to come in and figure out how to get the army organized and how to get the tribes on their side so that they can go fight isis and that these advisers are here not to lead the battle, design it, finance it but to provide advising on how this is supposed to happen. we don't really have a lot of detail on exactly what that adviseing consists of. but the americans very clear this is a distance -- this is a
very different process than what we saw last time we had american military involved in the battle here. >> ben hubbard is based in baghdad, reports for the new york times, their middle east correspondent giving us an update on u.s. strategy against isis there in iraq. mr. hubbard, thank you for your time. >> thank you. we will continue on, on our conversation here in washington, d.c. joining us, retired major ben conabel at rand corporation, served as a senior international policy analyst. welcome. just to let you know, if you want to ask questions about iraq, 202-5853. first and foremost, what do you think about mr. hubbard's assessment there in iraq? >> a pretty good description of what's happening. i think that is the objective of the u.s. military to try to shift the allegiance and use add advisories with a light touch,
light footprint and keep the iraqis in the lead and to ensure that they maintain that lead. it's really important that the iraqis take this on as their war, the government of iraq, the iraqi aerment and ultimately the iraqi people. this is their effort f they succeed, then they will own that victory. >> what's the u.s. role now in making that happen? especially with the introduction of these troops, more troops going to iraq. >> it's a difficult question because we don't have a clear strategy right now. instead, we have a military campaign which isgoing that involves, as ben pointed out, the debts struction of is target did, arming tribal elements and i am happy to talk to you about the term "tribe." i think that's a little bit overused and, of course, supporting the development of the iraqi army and ensure that they get back on their feet. you may recall several iraqi divisions have collapsed and several of them are near collapse in places like anbar prove incident. >> you said you don't see a strategy happening. why did you say that? >> 7 ario administration
officials have identified weaknesses or at least the absence of a cohesive strategy. any time the u.s. military applies a campaign, it is usually embedded or we had today a long-term strategy. what is it that the president wants to accomplish at the end of the campaign? right now, we don't really have a clear vision for what that might be. there are a number of reasons for why the president might avoid clarifying that. when you put all of the cards on the table, it is often detrimental to the military campaign. i think that clarity, though, clarity in describing the end state would be quite helpful to the u.s. military officers who are designing and implementing this campaign. >> you talked about the tribal aspect of it. since we are dealing with tribes in many cases, why do you have issues with the term "tribe" and how does that play into the overall strategy going on currently? >> "tribe" is an identity. the tribes are not these monolithic entities floating around out there in the rural areas of iraq. almost every single member of -- every iraqi is a member of a
tribe. so it is one of their identities. they are a tribunal member. they are businessmen. they are insurgents with one group and sometimes with a second group. so some of the tribal members who are fighting for the islamic state are also members of groups like jrtn of the 19 revolutionary bridge aide. some switch aleak answers very quickly. we have a lot of evidence of them doing so in the past. so, i think that's both a strength and a weakness and i don't think we have permanently lost anybody, however, it is very easy to lose those who are currently working with us. >> how do you change that mindset then? >> the only way to really change that mindset is to address the underlying sunni grievances against the government of iraq. i see i.s. or isil or whatever you want to call it as a symptom of the greater problems that the sunni have with the government of iraq. i think if i.s went away tomorrow you would have an ongoing sunni revolt against the government. until those grievances are addressed, you are going to have real problems. i think the best way to win actually is to address sunni grievances and let the sunni
defeat i.s. >> what are the sunni grievances, top ones? >> it was difficult for us to identify those from 2003 to 2011. i think they have done a much better job of enumerating those for us now. they want to have equal representation in the government. they don't want iraqi army units inside their cities. they want a lot of the bridge prisoners arrested during the december 2013 and early 2014 released. there is a long list of these grievances that they have enumerated. and i think, assumptions, the prime minister could go a long way towards addressing these grievances, maybe in one fell swoop just by the stroke of a pen. >> has he mind sounds or shown interest in addressing these grievances directly? >> he has made sounds toward doing that. the day that they identify the new government or announced the new government, he listed a number of these grievances and said his government would be addressing them. unfortunately, there hasn't been a lot of public movement towards addressing those grievances.
there have been some private things or quiet things that have been done. he really needs to make a loud kind of comprehensive statement about the sunni and it needs to have action behind it. >> our discussion will center around strategy towards isis by the united states with major ben connable. he serves as a policy analyst. we will begin with lou in tennessee, democrats line. lou, go ahead. you are on. >> good morning. conley, colonel, a couple of questions to ask you. the surrounding countries, why do they not put troops on the ground? what is the problem? and my other question is: when we first went in to iraq in
2003, i still have not gotten an answer to this, but i watched a special on television, not on the regular channels like cnn or any political shows and it had recordings regarding dick cheney making contact with all of the high -- you know, the oil companies, hall burton, exson, shell. you name them all. and he assured them that the military troops would first go in and protect all of the oil refineries, and they should send their people over to be prepared to run those oil refineries. >> thanks, caller. >> thanks, lou. the first question about troops from other countries, i think that's ramey important because the u.s. is trying to build a coalition in order to defeat the islamic state and that involves, of course, countries like saudi arabia, jordan and some of the other gulf countries. the problem you have here is that those countries have military forces that are not designed specifically for external operations.
they are usually designed, trained and equipped to protect the local regimes or to ensure that there is internal stability and so, that's the first problem. the second problem is that a lot of iraqis may not be happy with american occupation or british occupation. they would be equally unhappy with soudi occupation so there is no love loved between some of these other currents trees. i think there would be just as many problems if arab currents trees tried to put troops inside iraq or syria as the u.s. or great brittain or other western allies. >> mark from leesburg, virg, republican line, you are up next. caller: sir, i will same i am a vet and am i am a father of a son, two combat missions in the middle east. i don't care if we ever go back. as in the other lady, where saudi air abe yab, qatar they need to send their people on there. if this leads up to world warr iii be, so be it.
>> guest: they are helping. we need to be aware of that. i agree that they do have a key role to play in securing and stabilizing both iraq and syria. so a lot of these countries right now are either providing bases for u.s. or coalition forces flying into iraq. they are providing some advisors, i think, and they are also providing direct air support. in some cases, they are dropping bombs against i.s. target did so while they may not be sending troops in. we have gotten pretty good regional support, retired general john allen has been in charge of that. >> would you give us a sense of whan an add advisories does? what's a day-to-day for an advisor helping troops? >> that's a great question. up until recently, there hasn't really hasn't been a military specialty for advisor outside of the special forces or special operations forces. >> that's starting to change. we have tremendous experience inside the u.s. military now with advising iraqis, afghans and other forces around the world. so actually, i think the u.s.
military has some of the best, if not the best, add advisories in the world what time they do on a daily basis is they go in, provide advice to commanders about which decisions to make, about how to arm and train their troops, about how to handle difficult logistics issues. they play a liaison role between the local forces and u.s. enablers like logisticians, airport and in many cases, they will provide direct assistance in communication in helping to bring in airstrikes. >> let's hear from hope, indiana, more from there. democrats line, hi. go ahead. caller: yes, i think you guys need to get a bigger army because you need to use armor divisions if you want to destroy isis. that's the only way you are going to do it. you have to put armor divisions to destroy them. >> with that in mind, major, the joint chiefs of staff, mark testified recently before congress talked about situations where he may see more of a presence of troops in iraq. i want you to listen to what he had to say and get your input on
that, please. >> thanks, chairman. first of all, i want to make sure that i mention i've never been limited in my ability to make a recommendation of any size or sort to the president of the united states. as we look ahead to the campaign as it evolves, there are certain operations that could be more complex than the ones in which the iraqi security forces are currently involved. they are doing a better job, and i think, i think, soon, we would be able to describe it as a good job in al anbar, and moving north out of bad dad, the pesh moving south but there are some places along the path that i think will be fairly completion terration, including, for example, mosul, and eventually as they need to restore the border between iraq and syria. i am not predicting at this point that i would recommend that those forces in mosul and along the border would need to
be accompanied by u.s. forces but we are certainly considering it. >> i think it's important that the u.s. military leaves the door open for the use of additional force and that they not close it. one of the main reasons is that we have to keep that threat and that pressure on the islamic state. they have to at least believe there is a possibility that u.s. forces would be introduced. i think it's also important that the military not take any options off of the table for the president of the united states. both this president and the next president. so, if this war is going to last three to 10 years, it is the job of the chairman of the joint chiefs as you just saw to ensure that he kind of walks that delicate line and leaves the options open. i would argue against the reintroduction of u.s. forces because i think they would not be welcomed. we would then be incurring the requirement to rebuild the iraqi countryside and the syrian countryside probably again and find ourselves back in a situation like 2004, 2005 and early 2006. >> brian, good morning from michigan independent line.
caller: yeah, hi. thanks. can you hear me host: yes. go right ahead. caller: okay. first go-around, going back to the 'september did, i spent a lot of time in the middle east, the united states navy and this was going on when the iranian hostage crisis at that point. what some of us advocated for which would have been rejected is that we would jet set up our naval base in israel and be who we are as a people. i am a supporter of israel. definitely, we could hold more sway in that region and more cost-effective way. and obviously, that got rejected. it's not going to happen to this day. but i would have much better preferred over these last few decades we had indeed done that. host: thanks, caller. >> guest: i understand the sentiment. you probably know, the u.s. navy has a stronging presence in the
gulf in bahrain, and there are ship visits across both the mediterranean and the gulf. i think one of the big problems with tying ourselves that closely with israel is it makes it almost impossible to play honest broker between the israelis and the palestinians in that conflict. and i think it would expose the u.s. to force detection problems. it's an interesting idea but i think one that was probably avoided with good thinking. >> myo, go ahead. >> my comment is recently president obama sent a letter to the iranian leader. i think it was along the lines of looking for help on their part. i was wondering: why couldn't -- why do we hesitate so long to seek help from iran? i know it may not be copacetic but more pragmatic. their ground forces are pretty effective. given we have things like operation merli, wouldn't wet want to get them back on our side showing that we have been
acting against their vat gee and things of that nature? thank you. >> guest: it's a great point a tricky relationship with iran and the u.s. is in the middle of negotiating settlement to their nuclear power development efforts which could be nuclear weapon developments so that as kind of a really difficult aspect to the problem. iran has also been linked with terror attacks and we have had a difficult relationship with them. it is important to remember, though, that the iranians are already inside of iraq. they may already have iranian revolutionary guard corps force operatives and actually soldiers on the ground providing direct or indirect support to the iraqi army. so whether we have an agreement with the iranians or not, they are playing a role, and they are probably playing a military role. >> who is our strongest middle east ally right now in the middle east of the neighboring countries? >> i think you would probably have to put jordan and the united arab em rapts on part.
jordan has been a tremendous ally. we have been relying on them more and more. my concern with jordan is we have pulled them too far into our camp they lose their reputation for being a middle ground state. but the jordanians have been tremendously helpful. the emirates are coming into their own. their military forces are much more capable than they were and the qataris have provided us with consistent air basing support. the saudis have been supportive despite their frustrations with our actions in egypt. we have gotten tremendous regional support. >> inside the country, there was a story by david kirkpatrick that said that the prime minister replaced 36 military commanders. is that a good sign of -- what's that a sign of, going forward, i should ask? >> in very practical terms, it is positive because a lot were not jut corrupt but political appointees but had purchased their position and they were poor leaders. we saw the evidence of that poor leadership in mosul when the division crumbled in mosul, it wasn't the rank and file who
fled first. it was the officers. you have to purge the military of officers like that. >> that's a good step. it also demonstrates, perhaps, that abadi has more strength and influence we would give him credit for coming out of the shadow of it malaki who is still there as a vice president. i think the stronger he becomes, the better it is for everyone because he has an opportunity to break away from the rather poor reputation of prime minister malkey. >> from fredricks burg virg, virginia, randy, republican line. caller: yes. i just don't really see how we can have snuksz iraq basically because the people there, they put their religion before freedom and the values that we value. if they are not willing to fight for their own freedom, i think all we do is create a dependency, you know. we were over there 10 years and you couldn't build an army in 10
years and then, you know, as soon as we leave, they fall. so, i mean i just don't blame president obama for not wanting to get back involved over there. so that's all i want to say. >> guest: randy, i think i share a lot of those concerns but maybe you are not giving the iraqis enough credit. i know a lot of iraqis and some are my friends who risked their lives to try to support the development of a democratic state there. a lot of iraqis died, you know, everybody has differing motives for the things that they do but a lot of iraqis have placed their lives on the line to try to improve the lot of the iraqi people and to build a democratic state. it may not look like the u.s. they may have been failing so far, but i think we have to try to support them. i think it is an honorable goal at the end of the day. however, the question about whether or not we need to go back in there with ground forces, i think that should remain an open question. host: from massachusetts, janet up next for our guest major ben
connab connable caller: good morning, you two. ben, i would like you to address the question the woman posed to you before about dick cheney and the oil fields, number 1. no. 2, i don't think you will answer it, but would you like to talk about the military industrial complex? guest: okay. janet, oil fields, she was resides right that we did go in and secure the oilfields frooil ensure that the government of iraq we developed after we went in there or at least the one that we would support would have an economy and would have a baseline for stability, would have an income. i don't know whether there were deals cut. i can't speak to that. i wasn't privy to any of those conversations, so i'm sorry i can't give you more clarity there. in terms of the military industrial xleshings i think president ice en hour was probably right in identifying problems therecomplex i think president ice en hour was probably right in identifying problems there.
i am not sure what the specific question is but it's something we need to think about any time the u.s. military goes to war. >> the house armed services committee is where the defense secretary chuck hagel will appear. amongst things he talked about were setbacks concerning isis. as a coalition and as a nation, we must prepare for a long and difficult struggle. there will be setbacks, but we are seeing steady and sustainable progress, and mr. chairman, i think that's an important part of answering the question did we have. the questions we have about our own strategy. do we ask ourselves? the questions you have about our strategy: can we sustain it? can it be sustained a lot at some point we leave? >> a critical component of our strategy. asking that question and answering that question. we are seeing steady and
sustainable progress along dod's two main lines of effort: first we are seeing progress in degrading and destroying isil's war fighting capacity and denying safe haven to its fighters. directly and through support of iraqi forces. coalition airstrikes have hit isil's command and control, its leadership, its revenue sources, its supply lines and logistics and i am paragraphed it's able to mass forces. in recently weeks, these strikes helped peshmerga pus isil out of zumar in northern iraq and helped iraqi security forces begin retaking areas around major oil refinery abaji. last weekend, airstrikes hit a gathering of isil battlefield commanders near mosul: isil fighters have been forced to alter their tactics. we knew they would. they will adapt. they will adju manoeuvring in smaller groups. sometimes making it more
difficult to identify target did. hiding large equipment and changing their communications methods. sustaining this pressure on isil will help provide time and space, time and space for iraq to reconstitute its forces and continue goingoing on the offen >> he talked a lot of -- may not have used specifics but he said steady and sustainable progress. would you agree with that? >> there has been progress. i am not sure if it's steady or s sustainable. i am not sure of the long-term objective. there have been allotted of airstrikes. the united states and the col al list have degraded the it's lammic state. they have, as secretary hagual described forced them to operate in smaller groups. that's positive in a lot of ways. it can be negative. we have seen reports out of the hub or the capitol of the is isis caliphat. e where the impact of the
airstrikes has forced the is lighters to go under ground and there is a little less stability there, a little bit more chaos. the people are looking for something to fill that vacuum. if you kill or destroy the islamic state, there has to be something to fill in the vacuum that we leave behind. right now, the iraqi army is not ready to do that and the free syrian fighters are not ready to do that. there is a timing issue here, too. >> arty from louisiana, democrats line, you are up next. caller: good morning, gentlemen gentlemen. i spent 2 jeefrnz in the u.s. army and in combat, three sewers one of the things that as a veteran and a combat soldier, i don't think we have the general capable of mainlying a decision that is not politically correct. i disagreed with it in vietnam. why should we take a casualty before you can react to something that you know is going
to happen. and you have the same thing over in iraq. we are willing to let young men walk in, see people with guns and when they open fire on them, we do nothing except take the furualty. then we can shoot back in most cases. it's not always that you can react and go back. why not fight these guys one time, kill them, and keep moving? >> thanks, arty >> guest: you are talking about restricted rules of engagement in place in iraq and afghanistan probably, as you are pointing out, vietnam. >> is part and parcel of a regular warfare where you are trying to shift the support of the population. if you go around just killing everybody, unfortunately, you may be military -- you may be militarily successful, but you may fail in your ultimate objective of shifting popular support. it's very difficult to do that when the enemy is not wearing a uniform, when you can't count them, when you don't know how many there are. and so, yes, we can save american lives by simply using indisriminate or really
aggressive bombing and fire tactics but i think it undermine did our ultimate strategy. general did are in very tough positions. i am not giving them excuses. irregular warfare is incredibly difficult, and i think almost every decision that you make is a trade-off, and very few lead to a clear decisive victory. >> carmen from illinois, republican line, you are next. >> hi. my comment is aren't we to blame for destabilizing that area? we've spent trillions of doll s dollars. what's the end game? can we keep spending all of this money. this area has been fighting for thousands of years. they really don't have -- we have destabilized the country after we got rid of saddam hussein. aren't we to blame for all of their problems? >> guest: the issues with
stability in iraq and in the region, of course, date back to the pre-ottoman period, the break up ottoman empire after world war i. there are a lot of reasons as to why there is instability in the region right now. are we directly responsible for some of those problems? yes. we probably are. is it -- is it -- is this now a chance or an opportunity to simply step away and say it's not our problem anymore? i think we could do that. but i think it would come with great long-term costs. instability in the middle east has now global impact and the more connected and interconnected the world becomes, the greater risk we run if we disengage from critical places like iraq and syria. >> from massachusetts, mark up next, good morning caller: good morning, gentlemen. the u.s. strat industry toward i iisis is important and i guess major there has has been very insightful but to outline who is fighting and, you know, what the
different, you know, isis is the initially they started out in syria, hide, you know, i guess initially with the free syrian army who is against assad and turned their focus. basically, the pre-syrian army thought they were too ruthless kicked them out and they saw open boarders into iraq because the iraqis were distrust -- you know, just distrusting of malaki because he was supposedly oppressing the sunnis and you have hezbollah come in. there are so many -- i think one of the newspapers or one of the am newspapers should show a map and show who is in this. there are 10 faxes. you talk about kurds. >> caller, thanks. >> that was a great description. your attempt to describe all of the complexities probably mirrors all of our efforts. i
mean i think it frankly exceeds the capacity of the human mind to understand fully and completely and the problem that exacerbates that is we have a very limited understanding of who these people are and how they are actually interacting with each other. so you are absolutely right. this is incredibly complex, incredibly difficult. and i challenged the administration before about articulating an end state. i am not sure i could do it right now either because i couldn't think through all of the potential branches and sequels for the complex at this involved in this military campaign or in a potential regional strategy. >> how complex is syria in the larger fight? >> more complex than iraq and syria is incredibly complex. i.s. broke away from al-qaeda. you have the al-nusra front who also is affiliated al-qaeda but is somewhat separate. you have not just featuring army but all of the moderate groups all broken up internally as well. i.s. is not a monolithic entity.
a great number of members have identify i did with other groups and you have al-assad's government and they have internal differences as well. it is very, very difficult to see our way where you have a stable syria. roger, go ahead. >> i think a lot of people probably don't realize so much of this spreads out to so much of the rest of the world where you have the philippines mlmf, the people's army, you have president bush who instated programs where we would support those countries in the same fashion. i do believe this is a little bit different at this point because we have a much more serious situation and yet we are not providing ground support. and i think in the end, we will need to do so. thank you. i will take your comment off
air. >> guest: roger, i think if we want to defeat and destroy the islamic state in iraq and syria, i can't see how that would happen without large elements of u.s. ground forces going in to perhaps both countries. so, i think we have a real problem there unless we can address sunni grievances. so, i think we can change the political situation to the point where the sunni would defeat the islamic state or at least make them irrelevant. defeating and destroying an irregular force in a place where you have no direct military intervention other than through the air and through some advisors is, i agree with you extraordinarily difficult. >> clifford, good morning in maryland, democrats line. you are on. go ahead. caller: thank you. major, first i want to thank you for your service to our country, and that goes without saying. you said something a few minutes earlier, and and i realize you're mouthing the party line and that's been our position. you talked about wanting to bring democracy to iraq.
and, yes, i think here is where our policy has been fundamentally flawed from the beginning. look at the american democracy. it took us a civil war to end the slavery that our democracy had. it took another 100 years to get the most undemocratic branch of our government, the supreme court, to do what our democracy would do in regards to separate but equal for schools in america. i guess the bottom line is: what are we going to do? we defeat isis, set up what we want and we have democracy in the middle east? where outside of israel, where has democracy worked? >> guest: the great thing about being at rand is i don't have to preach the party line. i believe we would be better off if iraq was a stable democratic kwunth tree. >> doesn't necessarily mean they would have a democracy like
ours. her looking for protection of minorities as a baseline. where else have we succeeded? in very few places. i think that if we think about the united states or america more broadly in kind of a theoretical since as the shining city on the hill, why we exist and kind of in a theoretical sense, it is worthwhile to try to ensure that people action minorities are protected and people have a freedom of expression and speech, itself. from a more practical sense, they don't fight each other as often. they are usually more stable. they are usually more likely to contribute to the global economy in a positive way. it benefits us, i think, in a teeretical sense and perhaps you might say a moral sense and, also, in a very practical way. >> major ben connable of the randall corporation and marine corps. thank you. >> thank you. >> we will talk about strategy when it comes to immigration. planned executive action for this week. bryan bennett of the los angeles
times will tell us what potentially would -- might happen and the impact. we will hear from paul albergo, director of news coverage for bloomberg bna as he talks about congress returning to the -- to fund a debate, a funding bill for the federal government. remember that bill set to run out december 11th. and then we will learn about congressional pay, salary, staff and perks with bradford fitch of the congressional management foundation, especially as new freshmen are coming, how much they make and what their offices cost. we will look at the papers and take your phone calls as "washington journal" continues tomorrow at 7:00 o'clock, we will see you then. ♪ ...
IN COLLECTIONSCSPAN Television Archive The Chin Grimes TV News Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on