Skip to main content

tv   Political Programming  CSPAN  August 9, 2009 9:30pm-11:00pm EDT

9:30 pm
stay. >> these answers are deeply divisive. how is it honest or dissent to say that soldiers who have served 20 years can come and live in this country when he knows full well that the majority of the soldiers only served 15? how is that honest or dissent to say that those soldiers have to prove that their illnesses were caused from their military services when he know full well that the price list veterans cannot do that? can he not see that there was a simple moral principle at stake, if someone is prepared to die for this country, surely they should be allowed to live in this country. >> the debate was under way and the hostility to the new guidance even from his own benches became apparent. >> i rejoiced that in my constituency there are over 400 gurkha families. they enrich the borough and network and pay taxes.
9:31 pm
that would be an enormous benefit to the united kingdom. the thing that really upsets me about this from bits is the -- from this from bits, why don't you embrace it now? you would understand i just policy or a popular policy. >> why are they trying to stop gurkhas from coming here? because i fail to spot some any less deserving people from coming here and staying here. there been on long list of failures on immigration policy that had driven the minister to his present position. >> the home secretary made some concessions. there would be a review of outstanding individual gu rkha cases. despite all that, the government lost. >> 267th ayes, nows, 246.
9:32 pm
>> order. the ayes to the right, 267. the ayes have it. >> a government defeat by a 41 bus. the results were not binding but it represented the quarter brown's first major defeat. he met ms. longley that there had been a change at all. he went to the commons to announce that all gurkhas that served for more than four years could apply to settle in britain. in mid june, for granting to the commons to make a normal announcement of an inquiry. it would be headed by a formal white hall mandarin. it would cover the period from
9:33 pm
2001, and it would have complete access to official ministry documents. it would also be held behind closed doors, like the factory, which investigated the falkland islands. >> taking into account, military -- national security, evidence will be held in private. evidence given by serving former ministers and officials will be as full and candid as possible it. >> i francs inquiry reported in just six months. this should take until july or august 2010. by delaying the start of the inquiry, by -- what everyone conclude that this has been fixed to make sure that government of boys having to face up to inconvenient conclusions? >> everyone knows that the
9:34 pm
invasion of iraq was the biggest foreign policy mistake this country has made in generations. the single most controversial decision taken by the government's sense. the prime minister today is seeking to compound that error, fatal for some many british sons and daughters, by covering up the path that led to it. >> the iraqi conflict has led to a loss of 1079 uk personnel, 4600 coalition personnel, and 150,000 iraqi civilians. many of us want to know the cause of this war and why it failed. if the session is held in private, that may not be possible. will the prime minister think again in holding a secret inquiry? it is the wrong thing to do. >> later the man in charge of the inquiry announced that he believed as many as the hearings as possible should be held in
9:35 pm
public. but that was not the only change in heart forced on minister appeared here in the house of lords, when lord came to the house to announce that the government was shelving its controversial plans to privatize the royal mail. the bill had cleared the lord's was facing problems in the house of commons. he told appears that in the current economic crisis it had not been possible to reach an acceptable bill. >> my lords, market conditions had proved impossible to conclude a deal for the royal mail on terms that we can be confident. there is therefore no prospect in current circumstances of achieving the objectives of the postal service's bill. when market conditions change, we will return to the issue. >> he was promoted to the first secretary of state in the summer reshuffle.
9:36 pm
the government had to do some strategic repots. while it is tried to push its own agenda with constitutional reform, and a document called "building at britain's future," it also failed to grab the headlines. i ask that bbc's chief political correspondent whites. dollait seems to have run out ot no matter what it tries to do. things don't quite go its way. >> a lot of the members of the government have reached that point. everything they try and do, it i think it's negative publicity or no publicity or blows up in their faces. they feel that the wind is against them at the moment. there's not much that they can do about it. but talked-about new policy documents, building britain's future, that the government
9:37 pm
announced and it hardly got any coverage at all. it's sort of drifted. some people complained about that. the reason that it does not is that there is no merit in it. there's no sense -- with at a private change of policy recently that in some elements was quite radical. and yet it was a drop in the ocean. nobody knows how it fits into the big picture. add to that exhaustion a sense of a government that is pretty old now. you've also got a government that has been riven with the vision for some time. all leadership that was status quo established recently following problems, but tensions are still there. there are still lot of bruised egos. and dim bulk permit fatality at
9:38 pm
no. 10 shows -- and in the bunker mentality at no. 10 shoji the clumsiness of decision making, the way that the inquiry of the iraq war was announced, whether it that hearings would be held in public or private, just one example of those things where the right decision had been made. there should be an inquiry into the way that the war was conducted, but a slight mist judgment over precisely how that inquiry should take place. that is just a function of things not thought through the way that they should be. if you talk to anyone at #10 during the later days of john major's government, that is the way he does every few shed staff and start moving toward organization. the decision making sometimes suffers. >> what about cameron and his conservative party? are things falling into place for them? >> every one makes that assumption but i think it is a mistake. we have to be mindful of the
9:39 pm
scale of the challenge facing david cameron. if he wins a majority of a handful of seats, he has to win her over 120 seats more than he has at the moment. it is a huge task. you saw in 1997, the over -- where overwhelming lead the country voted for tiny lever -- tony blair. the polls are consistently below 40% as opposed to tony blair, who in the run-up to 1997 was always in the 50%. david cameron, if you ask him, he has not used the phrase sealed the deal. the reason they have not is because it is a function of the expenses account, which has left many voters disillusioned with all parties, regardless what a day -- no matter who they are.
9:40 pm
and there's a sense of uncertainty in the mind of some voters that people are unsure what the conservative party stands for. it is different. they know that they like david cameron. but there is all little uncertainty about other ministers and other policies of the conservative party. there is less certainty and less knowledge about them. >> and what about nexick cleeg and a liberal democrats? can they be squeezed out altogether? >> the liberal democrats could play a huge role in whatever cooperation takes place in that scenario. they have a lot to pay for. they picked up a bit of a profile predicted well over a gurkhas issue, where they were very early on that issue. they make sure that there are
9:41 pm
recruited and forced the government to change its policy on that. on certain issues, cleeg has picked his point. he still struggles in prime minister questions to get his points heard. there are still other areas where the liberal democrats struggle to make their distinctive voice. >> in all of of row about expenses and reform, the state of the economy had dropped down the act and it -- the agenda. by alistair darling unveiled his budget. britain would have to borrow 175 billion pounds this year and a similar amount next year. there was tax excises for those on a higher income but more money for pensioners. there would arise in the price of cigarettes, and petrol. the stamp duty holiday for the cheapest on spirit there was also revised projection on growth. mr. darling said it the economy would come out of recession this
9:42 pm
year and that the help the growth was down . a few days later, after the dust settled, alistair darling and his conservatives that it faced each other for the first time. some economists had accused mr. darling of being over optimistic in his forecast. this is a point picked up by george was born. >> as the chancellor knows, the numbers in the budget last week which predicted a return to a boom in two yes and staying in those levels, were greeted with near universal prison. they were that the action on which he constructed every other forecasts. it now that the imf was planning to flatly contradicted just an hour and a day -- a letter to r >> yes, and they do take a more pessimistic of not just our economy but of every economy across the world. we insure that our forecaster based on the information that we
9:43 pm
have. if you look at the imf and its forecasting of a last three months, it is ashley downgrading three times since last october. that demonstrates the uncertainty there is in the system. i believe that because of the action we are taking, because we have low interest rate and inflation would be coming down this year, and because of the action that most other countries are taken to look after their economies, that will happen at that which is why i remain confident that we will see growth returning toward the end of this year. >> mr. osborn said that the chancellor's budget had unraveled in just a week. he pointed to comments made by the former cabinet member. >> his tax plans were up rates up promised damaging not just in albour party but to the economy. and the prime minister getting a lecture in prudence while he adds and warsaw. -- while he was in warsaw.
9:44 pm
we are not used to the polish prime minister doing this as well. as the collapse of the budget last week and that damage to its credibility make him an independent -- make the case for an independent budget hawks us, so that the assumptions of the budget are believed by the public? >> this solution is to stand back and simply let nature take its course. that is the price that i am not prepared to pay. i sat out the budget, not just measures that help people, especially those facing unemployment and need help to get back in the work quickly, but also businesses in this country. if we had insured of the past year years never went into this position with i did pat -- a plan to reduce interest rates. we have taken action to help the economy now and the action set out to get borrowing down again are realistic and sensible, given the situation that we
9:45 pm
favored the question he will have answer, sooner rather than later, what exactly is he proposing in relation to public spending? what exactly is the proposal did it help people and businesses in this country? at the moment, that is absolutely an update. >> quarter brown made a different appearance. -- gordon brown made a different appearance. he admitted that job -- tough choices on public spending would have to be made in future years but denied press reports that whitehall was planning for massive cuts after 2011. >> we all hope that we will be recovering next week from the recession. and then we would be faced with some difficult choices. we will have a budget deficit of 40%, where every four pounds that we spend, we would be borrowing 1 pound. there would be some difficult choices that would have to be made.
9:46 pm
should we have an open debate about what we need to do with our public services and in particular where cuts should fall? >> first of all, we have got to get back to growth and we have got to get back to a private and -- a thriving economy. the major determinant of our deficit and debt is the level of our growth and indirectly the level of employment. the first priority is to get growth and employment into the economy. that is why we are spending additional money now to make sure that we come out of recession. >> he wanted to look to the future. >> the sunday times says secret tuesday plan for cuts and public spending are being prepared by senior civil servants, confronting the scale of the budget by col. they have created detailed
9:47 pm
dossiers. is this going on? >> edward, you must believe everything in the newspapers. >> that is not quite true. >> it is quite ridiculous. there is uncertainty about what is going happen in the next few months for the next year to the economy, you cannot predict absolutely what level of growth is going to be, and therefore what resources are available two years it appeared >> was the lord wrong when he said that there would be choices and a greater need for efficiency across the boarding and less spending in some programs? he is the first secretary of state, your right hand man. what does he mean by less spending and some programs? >> when i said they cannot ideologically determine outcomes, if you do not say if it -- we have had this been it is, it does take this money out of recession. we are having some success in doing that.
9:48 pm
the profile of public spending will be difficult -- different in the years to come and there will be trusted that have to be made. real choices have to be made about how you get more if this is he said that you can spend more on the front line services, how you change the balance of priority in your public services, how we enact a program, and yes there are tough choices to be made, and it is right to say that we're spending money now to take us out of recession. therefore the profile of public capital will be different in and years to come. but you cannot say in july 20009, that you know exactly what the group level of your economy will be in 2011 and what the level of unemployment will be. it will be clearer over the next few months that the action we are taking is taking effect. but you cannot say absolutely now what you think the right level of allocations for particular service in 2011 will be very >> the committee turns
9:49 pm
its attention to afghanistan where there had been eyed recent spate of british truth deaths. tommy asked for 2000 troops according to reports. >> did the chief of defence staff recommend an extra 2000 troops to go to afghanistan? >> we've got 8150 troops now. no one is suggesting to a dozen trips. >> i am trying to get to a yes or no year. >> you have to allow me to explain that a variety of options were considered. for the mission that we're doing at the moment, we have the troops on the ground. obviously, as anyone says as a commander, but would like to have more troops and more equipment and more of everything, but we are equipped to do the job that we're doing at the moment. i am sorry. we have agreed that we will
9:50 pm
consider that after the elections, probably august, but possibly october, and that is where we are. we are determined to do everything we can to equip our forces properly and intend to make sure that the decisions are made in a light of the commanders on the ground as well as discussions with our allies. >> there are two as ways of dealing with select committees. you could answer the questions or you can appear not to answer the question. i am only trying to get an answer of whether the chief of defence staff recommended an extra 2000 troops? and i am not getting an answer. >> you're not, because we looked at a number of options. if the number now is 9000 >, 9150, i repeat, there was no
9:51 pm
recommendation for 11,000 or 150. we discussed a variety of options. it is the right thing to do. i think i have been giving you more information than you might have expected me to get about the situation. because i am sure that we have done our best by those troops that are on the ground at the moment, and i think people are wrong to suggest that the operation we are involved in at the moment, that we do not have the troops that we need. >> and it was a big anniversary for a big british semple, a big band. the world famous landmark celebrated as 150th birthday. i ask a historian by its architects have been so keen on a clock tower. >> of building -- it is a very modern building in terms of its construction. lots of modern material, in terms of circulation in the way it was heated, and a clock tower
9:52 pm
was the pinnacle. it was a skyscraper 69 meters high. an incredibly modern building. high-technology, and capture the spirit of the whole building project. >> you mention it being modern at the time it was built. how the think it is standing up to the test of time now. it is at topics crutcher. is it a symbol that we want for the future? dollars for me, absolutely. it remains modern in many ways. it talks about the pedigree of the past, and we no longer see the need to reference the past, but it was absolutely essential that have a cultural building. bear in mind there was a lot of
9:53 pm
irons, lots of cast-iron and concrete used. it has a veneer of the past, respect for tradition, and it has been completely wonderful. >> and that is it for now. we will back on october 12, when the parliament returns. i remained alicia mccarthy. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> this is c-span, public affairs programming courtesy of america's cable companies. coming up, two reporters talk about the significance of the watergate break in 35 years after president nixon's resignation. also on "q&a," drank rich.
9:54 pm
and another chance to see bbc's "the record review." next, two reporters who covered the watergate story talking about the significance of the story. this last about an hour. now. he worked for "boston globe" and for "u.s. news" -- where were you on august th back then? guest: a wizenei was on the jery shore. all those covering the situation but there would be a hiatus until the full house voted and then there would be a trial and the senate, but the smoking gun appeared and within
9:55 pm
days nixon was told by republican leaders in the house -- i mean, the senate -- and he was gone. so, i hustled back to washington. i was with "u.s. news" at the time which was a weekly, so we were kind of behind the coverage. covering the house hearings and various, my colleague, stuart loory, working for "the loss angeles times" and other papers highlighted this case. the news magazines were often playing catch-up. host: also joining us is stuart loory, former white house times reporting of what was 1974 august 8th like for you?
9:56 pm
guest: like john, i was also on vacation. i was in cutty hug harbour with my family when a chartered sailboats and we were listening to the resignation -- we were on a chartered sell books and listening on the radio to the resignation. -- on the sailboat listening to the ready. we had an electric bull horn and i got up on the deck and urged everyone in the harbor to go back to their radios and listen because the president is resigning. actually, i have not cover the white house for quite awhile before watergate. i left and right after the pentagon papers story to take a job as a visiting professor at
9:57 pm
ohio state. host: why was everyone on vacation? was it unexpected? guest: sure, it was going to take some time. once the judiciary committee had looked at all the articles, we figured at least one week to 10 days before went to the house. people who had been working around-the-clock figure this was the one time to get away. little did we know that it would break loose the following week. host: stuart loory? guest: well, august has always been a big vacation month in washington. i had a boss ones who said that the reason that the government did not work during the summer was because washington years ago was unairconditioned and was better to get out of town and back to the constituencies. host: what was washington like
9:58 pm
back in 1973 and 1974? guest: first of all, there was a bad feeling in town because of the watergate situation and the manner in which the administration had discredited itself. also, the way it was necessary for congress to bring this situation under control. of course, there were things like the saturday night massacre in which nixon tried to fire the special prosecutor who was appointed to investigate him. he went through the attorney general and at least one deputy attorney general who got the job them for him.
9:59 pm
it was a bad time. guest: yes, it was a bad time, and get it showed the resiliency of our democracy. he was a president who had been reelected carrying 49 states, yet there were no tanks surrounding the white house, no shots fired. it was a peaceful transition. nixon left office and gerry ford was sworn in as president. how many countries do think would have it happened in that way? host: when did it become inevitable to you that the president would have to leave? guest: as the watergate hearings went on, particularly after john dean, his counsel testified about there being a cancer on the presidency, that i think then it really drifted into a most likely ending.
10:00 pm
nixon fought it. nixon thought that, but the situation kept deteriorating. the cover-up is usually worse than the crime, and i am still of the opinion that very early on, if nixon had come out in the national press and taken the blame, and as the american people for forgiveness, i think we are a forgiving country. i think he would have survived. but they kept resisting and resisting, so that i think deep into the watergate hearings, the time is coming up. guest: john is absolutely right about that. nixon could have saved himself. congress certainly did not want to impeach and tried to president for high crimes and misdemeanors, and yet he drove congress to do that the way that
10:01 pm
he was acting. . columbus, ohio, correct? guest: that is correct. what was that like in columbus when all that was happening? guest: well, columbus is the epitome of middle america. in columbus there was always because of this story a great deal of interest. before that i arrived in columbus just after, just before spiro agnew resigned, and at that point the people of columbus and ohio state university did not seem to care very much about it. but by the time watergate got more and more intense, the people of columbus were really riveted to that story. guest: i was going to china and
10:02 pm
to say that ford's -- i was going to chime in to say that ford's first address to the people of california -- our long national nightmare was over. many nixon people were upset over that line, but it was a long nightmare. within two months for did pardoned nixon which casts a cloud over his presidency, although he barely lost the election and 1976. guest: am i correct in recalling that a friend and colleague of our ours who worked for the detroit news became ford's press secretary, and he resigned because gerry ford did not tell him that he was going to pardon nixon? guest: that is right, jerry was ford's press secretary and
10:03 pm
covered him all the time. they were friends as a reporter and -- but he was so upset over the pardon that he went and on the sunday and told the president he had to resign. as typical of ford he was taking it like a man, but was displacethis pleased. -- displeased. guest: you're asking how washington had changed. the change was exemplified by the nastiness in the town at the time of watergate. before that we used to have was called the ed adn jerry show in washington which was a great, good time when a senator and representative for got together and would talk to the press.
10:04 pm
there were always at jokes and some sort of camaraderie that created a good feeling in washington of the time. guest: he is right. the stability on the hill was so different than now. those of us who have lived this long have seen that evaporate. host: what was it like not having a 24 hour news cycle, that everything is instantaneous today? guest: that is a good question and hard to answer. i do not think it would have affected -- it may have hastened nixon's departure. we did not have it, so it did slow the news process. host: did either of you have a chance to speak with nixon personally? guest: i did not. guest: not at that time, but
10:05 pm
there were periods during a photo opportunity or at the western white house when you could have a very short conversation with the president. it was always kind of uncomfortable because when the president was talking to you you never understood quite quiet. there -- you never understood quite why. there always seemed to be a hidden agenda. host: how have your reflections changed? can you put a historical perspective on how you felt then? guest: history for me as meaning that we went through another impeachment. it went to trial with clinton under four different circumstances. but again, this is repetitious,
10:06 pm
but it shows they're probably the worst thing politicians can do is cover up wrongdoing. -- that was under far difference circumstances for clinton. because the press will jump all over the. if you will not come clean, the press will be after you. that is a lesson that is still not learned. guest: yes, i'm sorry to have to say that my attitude toward richard nixon after all those years of really has not changed. richard nixon was not a good man. he was dishonest to put it mildly. even after all these years he is gone, he worked very hard to rehabilitate himself, but i just do not think he did.
10:07 pm
not as far as i'm concerned. host: let's take some calls. lynn, in n.y., a democrat. caller: thank you, i think you're wrong about that lesson -- people trying to cover things up. what about calling ronald reagan into account on fox news -- i remember because i was on a kibbutz in 1964 sleeping on the ground with my friends and people came over to me and asked me if i was american. richard nixon is resigned -- in 1974. it was a big news story then. but we will come to recognize this occasion as the
10:08 pm
anesthesiology to american politics that allowed bigger crimes of ronald reagan and george bush to perpetuate. this is a big story that the 24 hour news cycles do not address. guest: there was no cover-up with ronald reagan concerning the iran contra. i do not think there was a cover-up in the bush white house, either. the voters spoke up against bush strongly last november. but i disagree with the caller. i do not think there was a cover-up. the american people spoke out. host: mr. stuart loory, you're still very active in journalism and with the missouri school of journalism now. what you think about that
10:09 pm
callers' comments? guest: i think he had a good, if he was talking about how the press has made -- i think he had a good comment if he is talking about how the press considered others and someone just whispered into my year gordon liddy -- but on the other hand, the idea that the press was covering up the story just was not so. the press was all over the iran contra affair and covered it well. the press has also been covering after the lead up to the iraq war, covering the war and these days afghanistan. host: what did it mean to be on president nixon's enemies list? [laughter]
10:10 pm
guest: it was a mark of honor. as john might remember, art buckwaqld, the hoohumorist, wast on his list and brought a column saying he would bring in a defamation of character suit for not putting him on the list. host: and you were on the list? guest: yes, and in robert's memoir, he published his diary, he talks of bom how was the bad boy of the press. that was because -- he talks about how was the bad boy. i was working for "the los angeles time" which was nixon's hometown paper. but it really did not hurt me. once when nixon was making a
10:11 pm
trip around the world and the assignments were put out for the white house press ahead of plum a son of. i was on the aircraft carrier when nixon was called upon to review the fleet. -- i was on a plum assignment. i was asked by ron how i liked it. i said was tremendous and asked how i did get it. and he said that he had to tell them that i got violently seasick to get the assignment. but it was ok. i had put up with that, but it was ok. host: what was the list and how was it found? guest: it was john being who did the list, the deeds list was what it was called for a long time. -- it was john dean who did that list. it was discovered during the watergate hearings?
10:12 pm
guest: that was right. those of us who were not on the list wondered why. but it did dribble out for a while and then finally all the names cannot. host: frank, a republican from new york city. caller: let's put things in perspective. one gentleman was absolutely correct when he said if there is a cover-up the press would jump all over you, and if not, the press will keep looking. but putting things into perspective, no matter who is president and the oval office, if someone comes in and said a bunch of our the zealots who felt there were doing the right thing were caught breaking into a hotel room, a democratic headquarters, the first thing you or i or any president would say is gee, don't let anyone find out. i lived through watergate and to
10:13 pm
meet it was nothing more than givenchy in the fashion world the spine on st. laurent. yesterday all of nixon's accomplishments were expelled on the real and it was clear that he was one of the greatest presidents we have ever had. guest: guest: i don't know where to start on that, talking about st. law rent. these were public officials, paid by the taxpayers, and it continued on and on. yes, nixon had accomplishments, opening the door to china, probably couldn't have come with a democratic president system of nixon certainly forged that relationship. but to say he's one of the greatest presidents we've ever had, a man who had to resign in
10:14 pm
disgrace, that's too much. guest: even if you ignore watergate and look at the rest of the presidency, nixon came into office saying he had a plan to end the vietnam war. when in fact he had no plan. more people who weren't american soldiers were killed after he came into office than before that. i don't count that as an mishment. i think it was a serious, serious matter for the american people. watergate was not a bagatelle. it was part and parcel of the persecution of dan elsburg, the pentagon papers, breaking into elsburg's psychiatrist's office, there were audits, income tax audits of people who were
10:15 pm
thought to be against nixon, there were some -- there was some wiretapping of telephones throughout washington, i mean, it was a bad, bad time and i think you have to hold richard nixon responsible for that. michael: richard nixon on august 9, 1974, spoke to his staff in the east room of the white house. >> i think the record should show that this is one of those spontaneous things we always arrange whenever the president comes in to speak. and it will be so reported in the press and we don't mind, they've got to call it as they see it. but on our part, believe me, it is spontaneous. you are here to say good-bye to us, and we don't have a good
10:16 pm
word it in english, the best is au revoir. we'll see you again. [applause] host: akron, ohio, an independent. caller: yes, i recall that i was on summer vacation going through my fourth and final year at kent states. even though i did not care for nixon at all, in fact, i was about to turn 21.
10:17 pm
unlike most of my friends i commended gerald ford for giving him a pardon. i felt that ford was the closest thing to and edmund ross who acquitted andrew johnson. as for those concerning clinton and his impeachment to look back at johnson's impeachment. there was no place then for ross. he resigned as speaker of the house because he had an affair, too. it was a poor excuse. guest: i think he is right. at the time, of course, ford's popularity really diminished after the pardon. but in retrospect it was the right thing to do. by the way, when ford lost to jimmy carter by a very narrow margin, i can say as ford has been known to say to other reporters, that it was the lack of support from ronald reagan --
10:18 pm
and he took him away from the primary to keepthe convention, that the herd and more. but in the speech you just heard from nixon, it was such a rambling, long, self-pitying, talking about his mother raising him -- you felt very uncomfortable. the man was leaving, but you felt uncomfortable listening to it. host: you refer to that line about the mother. here is a little bit more. >> nobody will ever write a book probably about my mother. well, i guess all of you would say this about your mother -- my mother was a saint. and i think of her, two boys
10:19 pm
dying of tuberculosis, nursing four others in order that she could take care of my older brother for three years in arizona, and seeing each of them die, and when they died it was like one of her own. yes, she will have no books written about her, but she was a saint. host: what was your reaction to that speech? guest: as john says, it was very uncomfortable listening to that. i think at that point you probably had to have some feelings of pity for the fallen
10:20 pm
president. as far as the pardon is concerned -- gerry ford could have gone either way on that. but to bring him down because of the pardon i don't think is necessarily right. it was a decision that had to be made and he did and he lived by it. host: john from florida, a democrat, good morning. caller: yes, i would like to say something in favor of richard nixon. i am a democrat and i was 26 years old when he resigned. so, i know something about what happened. i do agree with the two gentleman that he did lie right through the beginning as far as
10:21 pm
the vietnam war. he had no plan. i just have two brief comments. i will let the gentleman talk. by the way, i am sorry to see two people who are the same philosophy on this. also, i would like to say first of all, richard nixon was far ahead of his times. you have to look past his narcissism and look at what he proposed. his policies or very sound. he was in favor of health-care long before any other democrat came. jimmy carter did nothing. harry truman did something. you did not hear about anything wood johnson put through medicare, but nothing for universal health care. host: healthcare, gentleman,
10:22 pm
legislative initiatives by richard nixon? guest: the caller is somewhat right, but to say that stu and i have the same philosophy -- we are reporters. when you are opinion-makers, then you can sell your opinions. again, we go back to the same thing. nixon came in with a huge backing from the american people and he forfeited it almost immediately when the watergate hearings started. stu recited a litany, wiretapping, bombing cambodia. host: did richard nixon push health-care reform? guest: if he did i really cannot remember that. as far as i recall, almost the whole agenda was a foreign policy agenda in the white house. the one thing that he did push
10:23 pm
was a clean environment program. that i remember very well. i remember walking along the beach in santa monica with john ehrlichman and he talking to me about how important the environment would be in the future and how we had to start doing something right now. but beyond that i do not remember healthcare being a big issue. host: joining us by phone is richard nixon's younger brother, ed nixon. he joins us from seattle. he has written a book recently on the nixon family. where were you on august 8th and 9th? give us a general sense of what was going on. guest: hello, i had my family with me in the cascade mountains
10:24 pm
at a camp set. i did rather expect something of this sort coming down the line, knowing the dick would do the best thing for the country, regardless of what it did to him or anyone else in the family. it was something he felt -- before the senators came to visit him, he and his speechwriter were already working on something. but i did not really hear anything of this until i came down the mountain from the campsite and stomped in at a barber shop. it was the talk of the shop. host: so, you did not know until after the fact? he did not alert you ahead of time? guest: no, no, he did not alert me. it was something he had to decide from his own mind, probably. it is always fun and amusing to
10:25 pm
watch the accounts of some reporters who lived through that time and could never see through the one issue that began with john dean's actions. host: mr. nixon, when did you next talk to your brother? guest: it was later as he was pretty much in seclusion for some time. my brother don was the first to check in on how he was doing. he was still suffering from a condition. my visit was remembered. we talked about a number of things concerning the future. host: when these anniversaries come up, does the family talk? the you have any reunions? guest: no, we do, but it was in
10:26 pm
honor of my brothers don's wedding anniversary host:, in 1942 sir, i have two guests here. john mashek who used to write for the "boston globe" and stuart loory who was with "the los angeles times. guest: i would like to ask if in 1936 when your brother was elected to the congress, if you have any feeling at that time, or can you tell us about his feelings about whether or not he might someday become president of the interstates? guest: i think not. i was 16 years old. -- if he might become president of united states. guest: he was mainly interested in doing the best he could for
10:27 pm
the country, a country we all loved and still do. the idea of a higher office was perhaps in my grandmother's mind come millhouse. if you read the story in my book -- obviously, you two gentlemen have never read it obviously, but it does clear up some things. guest: well, i applaud your family loyalty. i dispute the were hate there. -- the word hate. when he was the running mate of eisenhower and the speech came up, could you give us a little background on that? it solidified his place on the ticket when eisenhower was advised by some backers to dump richard nixon. guest: harold was foremost among them because he had his own desire to become president, but on the other side of it, i watch
10:28 pm
all that from a distance and try to read it in newspapers. the television was barely awake in those days. the checkers speech was heartfelt and sincere. and did make an impact. the appeal to the voting public to write to the republican national committee and the say yes or no. whatever you decide i will abide by it -- that is why i think back on this that richard nixon resigned not in disgrace, but an honor of the office. host: mr. nixon, have you read a host: mr. nixon have you read a lot of books about your brother? >> no, i've read my brother's books and the books about my brother are strictly psychobabble and i've read parts of them, as referred to by monica crowley and others.
10:29 pm
they're interesting. they just show a blindness to, oh, let's say an ins against that's difficult to -- an entrance against that's difficult to remue. >> there's a new book out, "inside the secret service," he quotes secret service agents as saying both president and mrs. nixon became heavy drinkers toward the end of the presidency and at san clemente. do you agree with that? >> it's really amusing to see everyone trying to make something out of something that's not there. it's almost like the "frost/nixon" movie, which is entertaining, well done, but it's entertainment for a public that's -- that doesn't know anything about nixon or his family. i would probably look at some parts of those books and see
10:30 pm
what they're trying to say and what their evidence is and were they a witness or just repeating something other people have said. host: finally, if you go to booktv.org, you'll be able to watch mr. nixon's interview, it's there at the top under featured programs. also our book notes site, booknotes.org, richard nixon, in 1992, i believe it was, did a two-hour "book notes," you'll be able to watch that online. mr. nixon, thank you for your time this morning. >> thank you for your balance. host: augusta, mississippi, you are our next caller, karl. caller: hi. i want to thank you for taking my call. i want to commend mr. nixon, for coming on and standing up to his
10:31 pm
-- standing up for his brother, that took a lot of courage. my short point is that mr. nixon, mr. president nixon, was a standup guy for doing what he did. he knew that he made a mistake, and he took the national interest first. he took country first and decided to resign. can you imagine how hard that was for him, because as bad as he wanted to be president for him to resign? but he did the right thing. this is what i want all the politicians that are out there right now, democrat, republican, independent, you know, look at the situation like this, where he did the right thing. that's all i have to say about this i was a young guy when he was elected, i didn't know anything about politics and he had that kind of charisma, i don't know if you remember the peace signs and the comedians were making fun of him, but he had that kind of charisma and
10:32 pm
got a lot of media attention, i think that's how he got elected, people thought he was great. host: let's begin with stuart loory. guest: well, i commend the caller for his attitude. however, i think that if nixon had not resigned, he was going to be convicted by the senate in just a few days. that was going to drive him out of office. guest: i dispute too that he was a stand-up guy. nixon did not give up until very cold water, the senate's leading conservative, and other senators came down and said you lost the votes. he was willing to fight it out to the end, but stu is right, he would have been convicted and had many republican votes against him as he did in the
10:33 pm
house judiciary committee. host: let's return to 1974. were your editors pushing this story? were you both pushing it deaths guest: "u.s. news" was considered a more conservative magazine and we were not pushing the envelope, but we were covering it. when you say pushing the store, how could you not? yes, the post was out in front of it, but this was a store you cannot ignore. host: mr. stuart loory? guest: you have to keep in mind that at the beginning of the washington press corps was not really pushing this story. even the washington post national staff did not want to push this story. it was carl bernstein and carl woodward working under their
10:34 pm
editor who pushed this as a good, important crime story. the news business is sometimes slow to react on the major story. in the beginning this story was poorly covered, and then as time went on and the press corps began to understand what it was that these reporters were doing, they also jumped on it. guest: i would just add that his red, political reporters did not touch that story for a long time. they thought it was a cops and robbers story the woodward and bernstein broke. host: anything else? guest: the only other thing was that this happens from time to
10:35 pm
time on major stories. the build up to the iraq war was similar. not everybody, not absolute, but the washington press corps generally was believing that saddam hussein was building weapons of mass destruction. they really did not go after that story in a hard, disciplined way. host: there is a debate on iraq war, or on health care, when that happens it seems all of the business in this town gets shut down. was it shutdown during watergate? guest: not really. but you're right. we do live in a cocoon here. we live and breed on the next debate up on the hill and
10:36 pm
people out in columbus and seattle and other cities are not as close to the situation. they are not following every debate or fight. but yes, the city was enveloped in this piece. guest: well, that happens with the stories in washington. i can recall a few years before watergate in the pentagon papers were there was the march on washington. it was huge. it was the martin luther king speech at the lincoln memorial. i was covering the limited nuclear test ban treaty which was also a major. myself and a reporter from the associated press were the only people, the only reporters at the capitol when the senate foreign relations committee had a major vote on that treaty.
10:37 pm
senator fulbright came out of the committee room and saw only three reporters there and was very disappointed. host: conn., you have been very patient. caller: i am very excited. but no one knows this and it is a mystery. i was in denver a couple of years ago -- c-span in your archives noted a priest and the judiciary committee that wrote the articles and was going to be the smoking gun. it was not watergate, but rather the bombing in cambodia. this priest was then yanked from the congress. both the pope and washington agreed never to have a priest in congress again. this priest was a real hero. it is on your archives. i made a copy, but lost it.
10:38 pm
i wish that someone would look into that. guest: the lady is talking about the late jesuit priest, father drynan, a member of the house from massachusetts who later had to resign because the vatican said he could not hold public office. he was a very good congressman, liberal, but represented his district. but i do not think it was over cambodia. that certainly was an attempted article of impeachment, but the smoking gun was when it was revealed that nixon was in the oval office when the coverup was being discussed. host: and father drynan, was see an active anti-nixonian? guest: yes, he was liberal and an outspoken critic of nixon's. caller: good morning. i like that last caller
10:39 pm
concerning the father -- people should remember things like that. i would like to offer more context about nixon and the republican party. the southern strategy, we have had a succession of republican presidents elected -- and i do not want to put down southerners who but for these awful people, but racism, resentment. it comes up now with the whole health care thing. people who are just reaching they are being manipulated by a very corrupt corporations. the nixon i certainly reach more than ronald reagan who was a very demonic figure. the government is a problem -- people should wake up to the fact that the government is us and it can be bad or good. unfortunately, in this country we have had a succession of awful government.
10:40 pm
war-mongering. vietnam was terrible. after nixon came in another 35,000 kids were killed. bush -- well, it is unspeakable. people have to wake up about what has gone on in this country. host: what is your reaction, stuart loory? guest: i think the caller makes an excellent point. we certainly do have to do more to monitor our government and make sure it is performing properly. we have been let down. we bear some of the responsibility for that also. the news business tries to do its job. sometimes it does very well, and sometimes unfortunately it does not. but john made a point early in the program that this is a
10:41 pm
resilient democracy. it was resilient during the 1970's. it was against showing its resiliency just last year. host: terre haute, indiana, a republican. caller: yes, you're speaking of health laws. when nixon was and i was working in indianapolis as a physician's assistant. we had consumer price index placed on health care and on our salaries. you could not raise the salaries above the consumer price index. i was under that and ask for a raise and they said no. i remember in the paper reading that the president had signed it into effect. nothing could be raised above
10:42 pm
the consumer price index for the time. guest: that is really interesting. you're talking about nixon in the early 1970's, is that correct? that was a time when the inflation rate was 1.5%. the nixon administration got really concerned about that. they did impose some price controls. guest: yes, controls were imposed. john connally was nixon's treasury secretary and someone nixon really admired. the both admitted later that it was foolish to try. they've repealed it. host: that was done by executive board? guest: it was. host: here is a message from twitter. guest: you know, i do not recall
10:43 pm
that specifically. it has been 35 years ago. you know, he testified which was incredible for a sitting president to come up to the hill and testify that there was no deal made with alexander haig, nixon's pr host: if you covered congress prior, how well did you know ford? guest: pretty well. you know what you see is what you get. ford was an easy man to admire. politics aside, anything else aside, he liked reporters. that made a big difference. as stu pointed out earlier about nixon he disliked reporters, and you can say, well, he had a right to. ford admired reporters, knew they had a job to do, and even when you wrote, as i covered the ford white house, if you wrote a story they didn't like you didn't hear a word from them.
10:44 pm
host: time for two more calls. first, richard in clayton, georgia, independent line. richard, you with us? caller: yes. good morning, "washington journal" thank you for taking my call. what interests me, i remember reading the book jimmy breslin wrote about the nixon resignation. what concerned me was the way the media handled the nixon presidency and his problems, then they way they handled clinton. i thought clinton's, if anyone should have resigned, it should have been him. you remember the f.b.i. files, 1,000 files that hillary brought in, these two guys, these two thugs, the guy named livingstone, i believe and another guy, they were going through the files making a a hist list. then we had travelgate and whitewater.
10:45 pm
whitewater cost the taxpayers deleast $60 million. jim mcdougall went to jail and of course clinton says he was yim mcdougall's partner. he said he didn't know he was his partner until later he was told that. it was just one lie after another. guest: it all depends. the caller makes some points. the clinton presidency had its ups and downs. he was certainly focusing on the downs. there was nothing impeachable in what he did. yes, do presidents mislead? certainly they do. host: last word from butch in wyoming. caller: thank you for taking my call. i remember back then, i'm 64 years old, i was watching the news that -- i was so ashamed of our press back then.
10:46 pm
because i think the american people are way ahead of the press. number one if -- if you just listen to nixon's tapes, you know what kind of human being this man was. he was prejudiced, self-important type of person, here's a man that went and bombed hanoi an christmas. how many people did this kill in cambodia. now you have george bush who killed all these innocent people in a war, and nixon was talking about his mother, his brother dying? they have no heart. that's -- liberal or conservative, that's interesting. host: final word? guest: the only thing i can say about that is, as your calling was speaking, it occurred to me
10:47 pm
it wasn't only our presidents. it wasn't nixon and george bush, but it was also the people working for them. it was the henry kissingers, the donald rumsfelds, who were also very involved in all of this. i think that as one of the callers pointed out, we don't say enough about how our government, our administrations have gone astray. guest: i think the last word, it's interesting to me, steve, that the callers show that the range of emotions -- emotions of the nixon presidency still exist. people can get pretty uptight about it. host: john mashek, stuart loory, thank you for being here on the 35th anniversary of richard nixon's resignation from the presidency. >> tomorrow on "washington
10:48 pm
journal," patrick kilbride discusses trade relations between the u.s., mexico, and canada. keith epstein talks about why health insurers are winning. brad sherman examines the u.s. policy toward afghanistan and pakistan. alexandra and philippe cuse toe discuss planet green's blue august special, examining the sustainability of the world's oceans. that's on "washington journal," live at 7:00 a.m. eastern. beginning tuesday, august 11, washington journal will hear from four mayors about how the economy is affecting their city. tuesday, phoenix mayor phil gordon, on wednesday, youngstown, ohio,'s jay williams, thursday, indianapolis', greg ballard, and friday, fort myers' jim
10:49 pm
humphrey. we'll take your questions for the mayors beginning tuesday on "washington journal." iran's president mahmoud ahmadinejad has been sworn in for a second term, this event is courtesy of iran's state-run tv. it's about 20 minutes. >> i, as the president, in the presence of the holy curran and in the presence of the -- holy koran and in the presence of the iranian nation hereby swear in the name of almighty god to protect the official state, the system of the islamic revolution, and the constitution .
10:50 pm
and to use all my expertise and all i have in my power in the discharge of responsibilities that i have undertaken and to devote myself to serve the people and to the glory of the country, to the promotion of religion and morality and to support righteousness and to spread justice. and to refrain from being autocratic and represent the freedom and dignity of individuals and the rights the constitution has recognized for the people. i will not -- i will spare no effort in safeguarding the freedoms of the people and through assistance of god and
10:51 pm
following the guidelines of the holy prophet of islam and the imam, i will guard the power that the people have entrusted to me as the sacred trust. i will safeguard it like an honest and faithful trustee and i will later entrust it to the person elected by the nation after me. >> now we invite the president to address -- to give his address.
10:52 pm
>> in the name of god, praise be to god almighty and blessings of god be on the protet of islam, muhammad. and his pure household. i praise god almighty for giving
10:53 pm
the iranian people the change who came to the theme and created an unprecedented epic on the 22nd of the election day, the epic that without a doubt is a failure to break developments in iran and major changes on international levels. all these people who have helped the -- those who are thinking of the great aspirations of the nation and i respect members of the parliament, i would like to thank them all. the people of iran have always been active and have had a mavenlg role a great role and
10:54 pm
today, too, they are fully present on the scene and they're actually giving rights -- giving rise to a humane government with divine characteristics. for 30 years, we have been fearing the -- hearing the flag of justice and dignity. in recent years, with more experience and ever more determined the people have been present on the scene, the latest election, the presidential election, was a clear manifestation of this -- of experience and people's faith in following through the intlime aspirations of the revolution. the epic of 40 million votes, actually casting 25 million voted to their elected person,
10:55 pm
is another source of pride for the iranian nation. the magnitude of this can be seen in the anger and outrage of the enemy, the sworn enemies of human values. you can see these for yourself. it's quite obvious. there's a lot of dust in the air , they have raised lots of questions. prospect in the future for the iranian nation. people are vigilant and aware and rely on god, they are present on the scene. they have shown their will and determination, they have exercised the power. the victor is all the people, the revolutionary values, and the establishment and the islamic establishment.
10:56 pm
people's vote is the continuation of the path of the revolution, the candidates of the past four years, all these have been civilized by people's votes and confirmed. prevailing justice, fighting concessions and run, national dignity and defending threats and persisting and resisting against the demands of our fully prevailing brotherhood of justice are the major basics of this. people through their presence have one more time stressed the capability, self-reliance, and the great capacity on national level for moving toward their
10:57 pm
aspiration piece. they have stressed this through their presence. in the election made for maintaining independence and dignity of the people, as well as national unity, all these were demanded. this epic, stress was laid on protecting iranians and islamic culture, arts, and human resources that are purity, serving the people without expectations and protecting human dignity and moral and spiritual values with affection and love for other people, freedom and actually, acting independently from world powers,
10:58 pm
we are what are -- these are what are demanded by the people and endorsed by the people in the election. they want mo no theism -- they want monotheism and a model government, this is what they voted for. respected brothers and sisters, i do not have any incentive other than serving the people think that anything but progress and development of the nation. i'm committed to all these commitments and aspirations. i have sworn in the presence of god and you people, i'm committed to all these points, and i have no doubt that you respected representatives of the people, you also feel committed to the same principles.
10:59 pm
the outlines of my plan, i mentioned them, i respect the people in the presidential campaign and people strongly endorsed these. the endorsements, i briefly highlighted those and the leader of the islamic revolution also confirmed them. >> for more international events and information, log on to c-span.org. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> tonight on "q&a," frank rich, kohl emmust for "the new york times," on his writing career. we'll show you bbc's "the record" and take a look back at the last term. and former chair and c.e.o. of godfather's pizza talks about in

143 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on