tv Washington Journal CSPAN September 25, 2014 7:30am-10:01am EDT
>> good morning. yes, thanks for taking my call. i think that the people of the united states should support the president in this situation. the congress, the, they need to stand behind him. the people of the nation need to stand behind him. he's probably the more all forceful knowledgeable president in my memory, maybe going back to kennedy, but i think that congress needs to do their part incoming together and working as a unit to support him. >> host: okay. tack a look at roll call web site. their headline. congress in no rush to return for isis war authorization and they report that the ups has begun a bombing campaign in syria but don't bet on congress returning to vote on a new war authorization any time soon.
shortly after air strikes starts, some lawmakers start to push again for authorization vote but so far, leaders are not gearing up to bring members back to town. it says that speaker of the house john boehner's office deferred to the white house when asked about the issue. the speaker said he thinks it would be good for the country to have a new authorization for the use of military for the but traditionally, requested by the commander in chief and president obama has not done that. from role call, their story about congress not likely to come back to vote on isis authorization. richard in georgia, democrat, good morning to you. >> caller: good morning to you. >> host: go ahead. >> caller: okay. what is your confidence level? >> caller: i think he's done everything in the world to try to help the united states in all the countries, allies. he backs everybody up. and he's tried to get the
congress to act. and he ain't washing away. he's not turning his back. as far as the level about the troops that was lost all over seas and for no reason, the last 22 years -- i'd be damned that. all these veterans that give themselves and give their time to do what congress needed to do and what we had to do and now they, some of them are gone, know, lost their life forever, i just -- you just can't throw that away. i understand what the caller meant is that we threw thousands and millions of dollars away but we didn't. we didn't throw nothing away. >> host: okay. all right, richard. let's listen to a little more of the president's speech yesterday morning at
the united nations. here he is talking about islam and the role that middle east countries can play. president obama president obama it is time for the world, especially muslim communities to explicitly, forcefully and consistently reject the ideology of organizations like al qaeda and isis. it is one of the tasks of all great religions to accommodate the faith with a modern, multi cultural world. no children are born hating. no children anywhere should be educated to hate other people. there should be no more tolerance of so-called clerics that call upon people to harm innocents because they're almost jewish or christian or muslim. it is time for a new compact
among civilized people of this world toker rat cade war at most fund mental source and that is the corruption of young minds by violent ideology. >> president obama yesterday in his speech. we get your reaction today. and your confidence level of the president's strategy against isis. laying it out there in his comments before world leaders. if you want to watch the whole thing, go to our web site. c-span.org. u.s.a. today weighing in. in their opinion, the air strikes degrade isil but can they destroy. southeast man ticks aside, he has already committed to one and once you're in, there's no sense in tying the hands of the generals charged with winning it. obama can hope that success could be obtained by lesser means but odds are that is wishful thinking. he better be prepared to move rapidly to plan b. other are view by a democrat
from massachusetts. the ranking member of the house armed services sub committee for oversight and investigations and the congresswoman writes this. ultimately, u.s. military action is not the solution. all the military might in the world will not eliminate this threat. the adjustable players must take the lead in reestablishing the stability and security of their region and if not willing, we have to ask if we should have been fighting that fight for them. answering that question requires a robust national dug and congress must have opportunity to debate the administration's overreaching strategy. that in u.s.a. today. financial times, their editorial board weighing in. saying president obama runs the risk of miss creep in syria. financial times editorial board with that comment. levi, illinois, republican, go ahead. >> caller: yes, good morning.
i'm trying to mention that the air campaign, any air campaign you have needs clear targets. which are usually brought out by a ground campaign. in other words, there's a war going on, if there's a battle going on, there are tanks, artillery, stuff like that. now they've come out in the open, that's where you can hit them. obama is not paying any attention to the generals. and he's worried about like everybody else, worried about getting bogged down or mission creep and stuff like that. shouldn't worry about cleaning up the mess. we should worry about our air mates -- we need. and once we've done enough damage, we just get out. everybody says everybody might be mad at us but don't worry about it. the world is blowing up because we're not doing what
we should be doing. >> host: on twitter. isil has destabalized the misand provoke 0 a war. obama is heading it off. in other news. politico has this web site. republicans okay war money. white house plan to tap into war funds to pay for the u.s. response to ebola cleared important hurdle in congress wednesday as republicans in the house appropriations committee' glide it was acceptable use of dollars. a total of 1.06 billion is at stake comprised of woman to requests on september 8 and 16 to fund the role in providing hospital equipment, personnel and air lift capacity in west africa. that have money cleared and important hurdle yesterday. "new york times" this morning has a lengthy piece about liberia and fight
against isis and the role the united states is playing with the headline in liberia, deaths in homes spread the serbcal of contagion for ebola. take a look at the picture here. members of a burr yelp team removing body and there are six teams of burial teams and they report in the "new york times" that every day each team reat leaves to half a dozen to a couple dozen bodies, delivering them to a crematorium at the end of the day. 18% of patients are cared for in medical centers. only 18%. this from the "new york times" if you're interested in that story. also from the front page. "washington times." the obama administration approved excessive pay for top executives in bailouts. reporting that the obama administration approved excessive pay for top executives at general motors and allied financial ink as the at two companies were falling behind in repaying
taxpayers for being rescued after the wall street collapse. says the special inspector general that overseas trouble asset spending says the treasury department office of the special pay czar ignores president obama own stated goals of limiting salarieses of executives. 11 executives of ally made at least one million more than comparable executives at similar companies. that in the "washington times" this morning. also yesterday, we talked with the national institute of health, to its director, dr. francis collins and he talked about security at labs, nih labs in bethesda and across the country. the headline this morning is that the white house issued new regulations nor dangerous biological research, this for specifically the national institute of health.
if you midnight that yesterday go, to our web site and the washington journal web site and watch it there. darren, tennessee, i want, talking about the president's isis strategy. what is your take on it? good morning. you're on the air. what is your take on it? >> caller: good morning. i'm glad that for wong the president is taking quick action. do i support? not sure. but how is my confidence level? i sure don't have any confidence in the president or congress running a war. i wish they would adopt don't ask, don't tell. they won't ask the military what to do and the military doesn't say it. let them go over there and do their job and that's my basic idea here. >> host: okay. we'll go on to tony in texas. democrat. hi. >> caller: good morning. i have about a 90%
confidence level in the plan of the president. now the execution is something different. you know, because i see a couple of countries want to provide air strikes and training and those kind of things to support the president in this effort but unless somebody can put boots on the ground, it's not going to work. >> host: okay. all right. john in washington, republican caller, what do you think? >> caller: i think it was a great speech. the only problem is it doesn't have anything to do with the agreement they signed. had to do with taking away everybody's rights, right to go between borders and all that. i think he went there, sounded great but i don't think it accomplished anything good for us. >> host: okay. what about swaying countries like britain to get more involve. the prime minister david cameron calling back parliament to vote on getting more involved, more air strikes. >> caller: i guess that is good, try to get other feel
do the war now because he wants to get out of it. i guess that's good. >> host: let's listen to what david cameron had to say yesterday. >> the defeat of isil will only come about if we use all the weapons at our disposal. yes sanctions against isil and i believe we should do more but we must use our aid to feed and help the apresident-elected and use our diplomacy to settle the countries of the region and governments that represent all of the people. the united kingdom is committed to meeting this challenge. only a coordinated effort. one part of a comprehensive strategy to dismantle and destroy isil. must work in tandem with arab states, in support of local people n line with our legal only dayses and patter of a plan that involved aid,
diplomacy and military. we need to act and we need to act now. >> david cameron at the university security count i will talking about the role that countries need to play. he tweeted out he would be calling back the parliament to vote on more action from the united kingdom. here's ban key moon out of the united nations. saturdays say free and i want societies free from such erring oppression and occupation will kill tropical storm and the leader of iran tweeting isis born out of destruction of iraq and afghanistan did not exist prior to at 2003 and would likely not have come about in absence of invasion. that is what the iranian leader had to say on twitter. your take on president obama's strategy against isis. what is your confidence level. part of the strategy is bombing the financial resources of isis and the u.s.a. today front page this morning, obama united against terror.
below that the headline coalition strikes isil oil refineries in syria, including 12 modular oil refineries. used fighter aircraft and street cents to tarts in the remote eastern part of syria. another strike hit islamic state vehicle. latest attacks early wednesday. five targets connected to the islamic state. white house had seen social media reports that the allied air strikes killed the leader of cover don in these strikes that -- khorasan but they did not have confidence. theory lying on social media reports. tim in lansing, michigan. what do you make of the strategy. independent. >> caller: i think the country has to get together. we should declare war on isis and since this war is so expensive and the weapons
are so expensive, go nuclear like we did in world war ii and that red area that is isis, turn it to glass and those opium poppiness afghanistan, do the same thing, poison that earth for 1,000 years because that is where they're getting their money from. >> host: okay. carol, democrat. florida. >> caller: let's face it. president george w. bush not only blew up the economy but blew up the middle east by invading a muslim country that did not attack us. as far as the strategy, president obama, i give him 100%. he inherited total chaos and also a republican congress blocking him from day one. i think the man is a saint but it would help if israel was held more accountable. you know, muslims for many, many years have been angry because israel given a green
light by past administrations. 2,000 dead in gaza. made a land grab three weeks ago. 1,000 acres in the west bank, yeah, muslims are angry, but let's hold israel accountable when they put our security at risk by their actions. >> that was carol in, a democratic caller. we'll keep getting your thoughts on the president's isis strategy but also want to go to campaign 2014. many article in the newspapers this morning about that. out of north coast, reporting for the "new york times," kay hagan showing surprising strengths in at this race. leads her republican challenger in nearly every survey over the last three months by average of more than 3% age points. suggest that she has compensated for turnout problem fearing well among voters 65 and older. goes on to say the idea that she may be doing well among
older people isn't completely inex applicable. democrats still have a voter registration advantage as they do across much of the society. goes on to say about tom till list, her opponent, not a lot of recent data but a u.s.a. today poll from august found 24% of respondents had a favorable impression and 39% unfavorable. despite her lead and his weakness, she has only a 44% of the vote and getting 48 performs or 48.5%. probably magic number in a race where minor party candidates are poised to fare well will be a daunting task for her around the "new york times" saying that she is a modest favorite heading into november. and then in north carolina, here's a headline from the "new york times" as well. the former governor of florida, jeb bush is
visiting north carolina to campaign for tom till list, the republican there but the two disagree on immigration and common core and the candidate there trying to distance himself from jeb bush on those two issues. also in campaign 2014, pat roberts race in kansas getting a lot of attention. this from the "washington post," a picture of the incumbent talking with a voter, giving his pitch for november and says that many are on the fence in cass are kansas about re-electing pat rockets to the senate. many more want him gone, even if it means replacing him with a wealthy investor running as an i want who declined to say whether he would caucus with republicans or democrats. the backlash knots from any issue but from a widespread feeling he has grown too insular in washington and fallen out of touch. in the last paragraph of
this piece, they report about boesch does, former senator from kansas, campaigning for pat roberts recently and while they try to look chummy, tried to appear chummy, dole calls robert my go-to guy. but theirs is hardly a brotherly relationship. in late 2012, doel personally urged roberts to -- and came on the floor in is wheelchair. rockets voted it down. people thought gosh, why couldn't he are are have done that for bob. a among some prominent republicans, she said that just triggered emotional disappointment that carried on has not been changed. that from the kansas race.
and george will weighing in on the kansas race as well. in his column, saying the kansas senate check dilemma, saying greg orman very smart. senate intellectual voltage would be increased by his election but improving 1% of the senate less important than taking 100% of the senate control from harry reid. his column about kansas this morning. by the way, c mann coverage of campaign 2014 very robust this season. trying to cover minor than 100 debates for the control of congress. tonight we have a debate, the nebraska second house seats there. the debate there between brad ashford and representative litery tonight on c-span at 9:00 p.m. then we go to oregon for the governor's debate on friday. 2:00 p.m. other than time and sunday as well. 6:00 p.m. eastern time,s
iowa senate debate. let's go to c-span.org. for more of our coverage of campaign 2014. sam in mississippi, republican. you're on the air. what is your confidence level in the president's isis strategy? >> caller: sear good evening zero confidence. i don't evening think he believes his own rhetoric. i bet the guy is completely overwhelmed with this job and another thing too, the lady from florida, she needs to quit watching sponge bob square pants and start paying attention to what is going on. she is a low information voter and i think this guy is completely overwhelmed with his job. >> sheila, interested caller from los angeles. >> caller: i want to say to the american people, we're going over there bombing isis. don't you realize that isis is likely already here. we have people here that we don't even know who are in this country. our borders are wide open. no, i don't support it.
a lot of money and will make things worse and i also think people need to be concerned about him sending 3,000 troops to africa. they're going to bring that back over here. are people not concerned about that. >> host: decke democrat in florida, ken, what is your take? >> caller: 100% in favor of what we're doing. the only problem i have is i think congress, the people. country should get rid of every congressman that does not come back and support this. i'm an army veteran. retired. and i'm tired of hearing all the republicans whine and cry. that's my take. >> host: all right. we heard from the previous caller it is cost going too much. joining us, pentagon correspondent with bloomberg news. what is happening? >> right now, the u.s. is still assessing the strikes
from last night that i a tacked up to 13 with what they call module small oil refineries in eastern syria, that isil has been using to refine crude oil into usable gasoline for their vehicles. and also to sell on the black market. attacks are having no impact on world oil prices since there is a glut but it is symbolic because choir going after the source of mobility and source of what could be up to one million and two million a day in revenue. >> host: do we know the next steps on air strikes? >> guest: well if i was in the intelligence world or the military world, i'd be shot for telling you the next steps but a logical person following this, i wouldn't be surprised if they start at striking at the oil trucks or tankers that have been traversing
between syria, turkey and other bore dense terse as an additional raspetting up of the campaign against the oil revenue. >> so far, these air strikes in syria began on monday. what has the u.s. accomplished? >> guest: one major thing to the arab world that we're trying for galvanize into helping us that we are using our best equipment to attack isil. we're raining down on them tomahawk cruise missiles that cost about $1.1 million a piece. these are our best tomahawks. they can loiter in the air and be reprogrammed. we used our f-22 aircraft for the first time in 11 years since it has been declared ready for combat. it's symbolic. what it attacked was unarmed headquarters or command and control center so i wouldn't make too much of what it
accomplished but symboly, the us it putting into the fight the premier fighter. a message to arab nations and not lost because saudi arabia and kuwait have been sold great u.s. equipment over the years and apparently, the uae is using. f-16s, better than the united states air force. i don't think the message has been lost. from a tactical standpoint, i got to figure it's going to cause isil to disperse more and make targeting harder but if they disperse, they're less mobile and capable of standing ground in iraq. >> has yesterday to destroy isil as we know but has it degraded them? >> impossible to say. i have to first quarter that because they dispersed, it's going to impede their mobility so that degrades one of their primary war fighting combat
capabilities, the ability to move fast and strike with shocking effectiveness so if they're hunkered down, by definition, less effective. a question now of ferreting them out that will take ground troops and -- to gain ground. >> host: and do the iraqi forces have what they need to be on the ground and fight effectively? >> guest: the u.s. will help retrain and reequip the iraqis. viewers should realize welet in 2011, they trained 200,000 army troops. spend about $25 billion training them so not like we're starting from scratch but a reasonable person would have to ask what did we gain for all that money and it's not readily apparent now even though they are apparently eif i cantively defending baghdad. >> what about the missions
that the f-16 pilots, the drones that we're using? how difficult are these missions that the u.s. soldiers are undertaking? >> guest: they're difficult in one respect in terms of the ability to discern small isil targets from civilians. that's difficult but the united states basically has air supremacy over syria and iraq. they're not being shot at basically. so they're crisscrossing the nation now with intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance, drones, surveillance planes and also the sensor pods on the fighters themselves. there have been about 200 air strikes in iraq. to support those, the united states has flown over 3300 sorties of tankers, support aircraft and isr. so basically, the task is to traverse the nation and syria, look for stationerynary targets, mohr
mobile targets and distinguish friend from foe. that's the difficult part. the presession weapons we have, the physical act of putting them on target is a lot easier than a decade ago but the hard part is discerning and we have an air umbrella over iraq and part of syria that is picking targets using hi-tech equipment. >> host: does that mean the syrian air defense has been jammed or syria government is standing down? >> guest: it looks like they're standing down. general mayville told reporters the other day that the radars have been passive. means they haven't really been turned on or locked on. they have a sophisticated air defense network soviet supplied after israel attacked syria targets a few years ago. they spend millions to beef up the air defense systems but they haven't been used yet and part of prudent planning by the ups is that
we have aircraft in the air that would be capable of jamming those systems if they were turned on and firing against the university. >> were you talked a little bit about money. how much is this costing? do we know in general so far and is the pentagon going to need though go to congress for more money? >> guest: we need to put this in perspective. tomahawks cost about $1 million. and joint direct attack mew missions cost about $26 of this a piece. we're dropping. 14 pound missiles called griffins that costed about $99,000 a piece. these are against the budget of over half a trillion, base budgets passed by congress for this fiscal year and another up to $80 billion of war funding that has been passed by congress for the fiscal year 14. this is not a lot of money
i have a low confidence level in the house. mcconnell, boehner, and mccain need more of a backbone. ben, all right, independent in ohio. what do you think? caller: this is just regarding the nine nations -- the united nations. being a minister and very patriotic, the reaction after the speech, if that speech were done within the house and senate, everyone would be on their feet applauding. the paper is reporting nobody interrupted that speech with applause. the look on peoples faces was tepid. there was a polite ovation at the end of his remit speech, but
to your point, he was not interrupted with applause. also, after the speech, everyone would have been out of their seat because it was such an excellent speech. you can see h amend its reserve on the part of other countries just looking on at it or birds -- on at observers. host: democratic caller. has been think obama treated unfairly. it is important to remember they hadl documented, personal reasons. bush said, this guy tried to kill my dad, and cheney implied that hussein had something to do with 9/11 and he did not. we spent $1 trillion, we are war
and now obama is in a situation where in islamic state , hell-bent on attacking us, he must act and must stop the extremist militant state. also, you know, he was criticized for not giving arms to syrian rebels. over the weapons we had in afghanistan. being smart and cautious to not do that and that is my comment. >> less listen to what the reaction was from other world leaders. >> decisive affirmation of
among respect within and peoples. the teachings of chu islam are clear. conflict and strife are utterly condemned. islam prohibits violence against christians and other communities that make up each country. again, arabnce christians are an integral part of my country's past, present, and future. i call on muslim and other againstto work together falsehoods and divisive actions. >> yesterday at the united nations, talking about i say yes and is on.
we are getting your thoughts on the president's strategy against isis. stephen in georgia, a republican caller, you are up next. go ahead. my comment is i am generally pleased with the president's direction. as we look back at the passive ministration, where there was probably an overreaction to the 9/11 attacks and that led to tos criticism in my opinion overreact to be overreacting, if you would, where he did not do enough. once the positions were what they were, which you knew when you got into office, then he did not do enough.
us here.nation let this strategy of getting a coalition, of the arab nation, take theg sure we lead, something different than what he had done before, i think it at least has promised. >> coming off the sound we just , this is from the washington times, that arab states risk backlash by joining airstrikes. perhaps most honorable is jordan, which borders syria and has a strong community of those who have sympathies with the islamic state. jordan was the homeland -- so jordan was the most at risk according to the washington times of joining the coalition with their own population. steve, michigan, independent caller.
i have 0% of trusting in obama that this will work. just the planes and bombs and missiles is the first step. they have hit a number of empty buildings because they showed their cards. they just hit empty buildings and you need tanks and troops, not boots. troops. a derogatory term. obama is a liar. he lied about health care and gm and lobbyist. i hope c-span does a program. do people know that you he and his life both lost their law licenses in different criminal suits? it was set on the radio last year. twitter, miley said of course obama's strategy on isil
is going to work because he is a thinking president. where is the republican party? good morning, you're on the air. caller: it is not about right-wing, left-wing. it is not about democratic or republican. ofis about us as a nation people fighting against the forces of evil. israel -- isis israel. real.s is i love reagan. i love son bush. i supported bush when he went to iraq. understand,do not when you're in the drive receipt, you have got to do what you have got to do. we need to support the president because we're all in this together. the decisions we make right or wrong, we will still be affected by. we need to pray for obama likely
pray for bush and all the other presidents. of next week's meeting with the white house. mr. obama said the situation in the middle east was bleak and .aid down a marker for talks the status quo is not sustainable. agenda next week meeting with dutch in the white house to the israel he prime minister. to what the french president has to say. he talks about the need to confront terrorism. tragedy going to rate following the assassination of one of our compatriots. france will never give into pressure, to barbaric acts. expected.ws what is
it knows it carries these values and it has a role to play. france will never renounce this role. of -- against terrorism will be pursued and celebrated as much as necessary with respect for the law and the sovereignty of state. we will make no mistake when we act. we will always do so with respect to the principles of the united nations. >> talking about the need to fight terrorism. part of this 40 nation plus coalition that president obama put together to fight isis in the middle east, the french taking part in an airstrike in iraq but rule them out in syria, in iraq.lying weapons let's go to michelle, independent caller. >> i would like to make a couple points, please. i think president obama is
acting illegally. there is no clear danger for our country. just know that what this is about, essentially, is arrested israel. they want you to get the property back. also, he put back part of the congress can make all these arms deals. host: where did you read that? knowthisinfo.com. host: ok. about whether the president has the legal authority to be fighting isis, domestically and internationally. in michigan. rick
a democratic caller. caller: yes, ma'am. i am concerned. the president 1000% on what he is doing when it comes to isis. not just isis. al qaeda for that matter as well. we cannot afford it. we cannot afford not to be involved. waitare we going to do, until florida or the key west? as far as the cost, a minor detail to what needs to be done. say, [indiscernible] in the words of willie nelson and toby keith, we will raise up against evil forces thank you.
all right. democratic caller, hi, dan. back in the 90's, clinton proved you could take out what you need with air power. can do it. we did not lose one truth in there and it was a just war. is the warng on now that bush lied us into that we should not have been in in the first place, to the previous caller's comment, both obama's still have their law license. do not listen to right-wing nonsense. it is garbage. thank you. >> coming up, we will discuss the legal debate over this fight in iraq and syria. later, our college tour we will talk with their president there, and
assignment. first, c-span's campaign 2014, as we work to bring you over 100 debates from top house senate and governor's races. debated district race to to the stage on issues of education and transportation. here is a little bit of that debate. >> why you voted against governor mcconnell's transportation. anwas hailed by some as infusion of money for transportation in a state and certainly in a region. a transportation significant, and moment ago, your opponent referenced it as a game changer. can you tell us why you voted against the bill and would you today? was would note there bipartisan opposition.
and we worked together civilly on it. you know in the business community that i did meet and discuss this with you. i was concerned about the disproportionate tax in virginia. we got a higher tax than anybody else. ofre were all kinds additional attacks and businesses in northern virginia. i know a tough call, but that was the call i made. in virginia, unlike washington and what we need to do, instead of name-calling, is we really came together and that, how now will we make that the work? an important part of the bill, was to focus and make sure that money went to congestion relief, not like the arlington trolley folly, with tens of millions of dollars, and those who were concerned about this said this would happen and i you see it going forward. thatw need to prioritize
and i will work with my state and local college to make sure the money does not go to things like that it comes to places here where we are getting shortchanged on transportation money. i will fight with you every day. that is why all of these is the scripps who supported the transportation bill still supported me. they know i am the person who works to get things done. >> one minute. >> thank you. this transportation bill is a game changer. costs more in northern virginia because we get a whole lot more. opponents has now apparently taken credit for it after voting thinkt it and wants us to she is somehow making this work. let me tell you. to supportelps
dulles rail. she did not support funding for that. this is the type of thing you have to look for. are you willing to be there and take on a challenge and meet the challenge, or are you just willing to show up after the fact and cut a ribbon and take the credit? that is on acceptable. transportation is too important to play political games with in northern virginia. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] are back. our discussion now is, does president obama have the legal authority to fight isis. joining me is a constitutional law professor at american university washington college of law. we also have chart -- charles, a senior legal fellow at heritage foundation and also served as former deputy assistant defense -- defense secretary. thank you both for being here. let me get to you. a lot of debate about whether congress should come back and vote for authorization of war.
does the president have the legal authority right now? >> i think he does. you have to really divide the seconds -- three sections. is there a statute on the books that currently exists that gives him domestic legal authority above and beyond his article to powers under the constitution as the commander in chief. is, is there an international law basis for strikes in iraq and syria and third is, does he have the political backing of the american people and congress. the third of it is clearly yes. american people want to see strikes against isis. the focus of today's discussion is on the first bucket. maybe the other two, but i think really he does. but there is a robust debate among the academy of lawyers. is a viable discussion, one that has to take
place. but the administration has to make the case legally for why they believe they have the domestic authority to do so. >> where on the books? what are you .2 that you think legally he has the authority to do it? less clearly, the 2001 authorization for a use of military wars, past a week after september 11, gives the president the express authorization from congress to go after those folks he planned, authorized, aided, or abetted the 9/11 attacks. after -- as the discussions play out this morning, you will see basis grew directly out of the core al qaeda folks, even though they were created in 2004. that is the argument for the reliance on that 2001. >> i think i agree, but i think we are jumping over a fairly important threshold question. we are jumping over why president obama has legal
authority. it might help to start with what force we are talking about. i think the why question depends on what we are doing. if we are talking about individual scattershot strikes against senior members of isis who have ties to al qaeda, that is a very different legal question and easier than some kind of coordinated extensive that perhaps introduces even ground troops into parts of iraq and syria. i think there is a tendency, especially in washington, to jump right to, what legal authorities can we rely on. we have to start with, what are we trying to do and what are the uses of force that president obama is contemplating and what is the endgame? only then do we have the conversation about which legal authority we can use. 2001 gave usnk the a little bit of leeway if we except the factual etiquette that isis really is the
successor to al qaeda. that is debatable based on what we know. it is plausible. but we're getting ahead of ourselves. the real question before we get to that is, what are we trying are wewhat kind of force talking about, how widespread, what kinds of strikes, and only then can we really get into the domestic and international law question. >> what you're saying is the strikes we have seen in yemen, john strife, those individual, pinpointed strikes, when a guest to syria and doing airstrikes, the mf is not covering that? >> depends on which strikes you're talking about. we know from what the obama administration said publicly, some of the strikes acknowledged have been against folks identified as senior al qaeda leaders. qaedafied as a senior al leader. i do not think there is any hastion the president multiple authorities to use force in that case, both under the 2001 and if there really is
an imminent font against u.s. prisons or u.s. territory, the president of his own constitutional power as commander-in-chief and self-defense. the problem is the line in which -- where the president is acting in self-defense may be elusive, but not illusory. constitutional significance for the conversation. >> let's talk about the 2002 iraq war resolution. the white house in july said to congress that you can resend that and we will not rely on congress anymore. in a letter on tuesday, the speaker of the house pointed not only to the 2001 authorization, but also the 2002 iraq war resolution. i want to show our viewers .ecisive action authorizing the president to use forces to defend national security and enforce u.n. resolutions. take necessary actions against
terrorist organizations, including those who planned authorized, committed, and aided the terrorist attacks of september 11, 2001. it does not say they have to be part of al qaeda. >> right. in may of 2013, the senate armed services committee held a hearing in which senior administration officials testified. i was on the next panel of non-senior officials, and the president made clear shortly thereafter he ultimately wanted 2001 aumf.he the fact is, the enemy is the enemy. the enemy has a say in what they will do. and by the way, i agree with everything steve just said here fact is, when i testified in may of 2013 before the senate and armed services committee, said it would be unwise to ,rematurely appeal the 2001 unless and until the threat from al qaeda and its affiliates is substantially diminished.
what we have seen, and i pointed to al qaeda and iraq, which is now isis, among other groups. look. is, i think the president did the right thing. i think the president is taking the necessary actions against this enemy, which the director of the national counterterrorism center is -- set is a dangerous threat. legality andte the i agree with steve we are jumping over key steps. but what happens is when congress leaves town and the ministry does not engage in debate, we are in a void. and we are in that void right now. >> you agree the steps are appropriate for the threat? >> i think, again, it depends and information we do not fully know. part of what is frustrating about the conversation is that it is really hard for folks like us and folks watching at home to assess all of this without all of the information. how widespread? we heard in a news report two nights ago there were 47 missiles launched over the weekend. to me, atlarge number
least if we're talking about scattershot, limited use of force. i think the larger point bears underscoring, which is, i do not think this is the ideal situation. i do not think it is ideal that president obama is forced to look back to 12-year-old statutes that were not designed for this, whether or not it is a plausible argument, it is certainly not what congress had in mind. i do not think that is ideal situation for president obama or the separation of power. i do not think it is ideal for us. when congress leaves town to go run for reelection without actually considering dozens of proposals already out there for how to have in the more specific statute crisis, i do not know what obama had left. host: how can you craft legislation when the fed appears to be changing? all the sun, the president meant since -- mentions a group for the first time. how do you taylor legislation
for a specific threat when you do not know where the next threat is coming from? but there is a great blog post on steve's outstanding blog and it talks about, essentially, and i think it is your response to a law professor from harvard's piece, is one thing to say, ok, we want to narrowly tailored toward isis and other clearly identifiable groups that have core ties to al qaeda. it is another thing to say, as others are saying, look, they can change their names and they change them all the time. but they essentially flow from the same root. we should have a broad scale authorization use of military force against islamic terrorist groups, loosely associated to al toda were closely associated al qaeda. the question is a question of ,ow narrow and how broad knowing that the threat is eve
all thing. it is a healthy debate and a good debate to have. we only declared were five times in our country since the ratification of our constitution. american war, the spanish-american war, and the war of 1812. eithert has then expressed authorizations from congress or presidents acting on their own. gethe tricky question if we into that debate is, what is our goal? 9/11,lar myth that after the president popularized a war on terror. if you read the statute, congress was much more specific by theected language bush and ministration that would have had war on terror. people should think about this when they go vote in november, do we want to be at war with every extremist terrorist group everywhere in the world, or are we specifically worried about groups that pose concrete and imminent threats to our
interests? >> let's get our viewers involved in the conversation. from virginia who wants the debate on the floor both houses gave a speech at the center for american progress where he said what you just said. that when president bush first tee -- first came to congress, he was too broad language and they said, go back and narrow that. caller. democratic go ahead. >> i the question. it is ok for us to go to war ice is killeduse two reporters, and then we say, ok, go to work because they killed these boys, but this killed our boys and are constantly killing black boys every day. is it ok for us to go to war in america? when our boys are in danger? in america? michael, that is a different topic.
let me move on to george, republican caller. caller: i support mr. simpson all the way. i think president obama has no other choice but to go in there and take these guys. we know they're all haters. there's one other thing i would like to say. -- over are only billion and they say, only a few were terrorists, i wish they would police their own. we did with tim and -- timothy mcveigh. lock them up. if there are such few terrorists, why can't they take care of their own? one other thing, why did president obama act out of iraq? can anybody tell me other than a political reason? >> let's start with you. >> it is worth pointing out how much president obama has expressed his view that this is a regional problem and that the other countries in the middle east, whether they are arab countries were any countries whatsoever, all have
responsibilities to help. part of why isis is a perfect storm is because they control .ide swaths of territory the notion that those host usuallynts who we would expect to exercise ordinary law enforcement powers to contain the threat by themselves is exactly what rope down here. iraq clearly cannot respond to isis by itself. assad regime in syria cannot handle devices threat by itself, and that is part of what we heard president obama say in his speech after general assembly yesterday. it is because ice is has all this territory and these countries are either unwilling or unable to deal with the threat themselves, there is -- it is imperative for all these countries around the world, especially the countries in the
.egion >> go into another sovereign country like syria and start bombing? >> it depends. we have taken the position that by assad'sther comments or reading the -- reading between his comments, that he is either unwilling or unable and we have tacit approval to do that under this long-standing doctrine of because wess, and are acting in collective self-defense because iraq has asked us to help them, and the fighters are coming from syria and iraq that we have a basis. anddeputy prime minister the australian prime minister yesterday after obama's speech made comments suggesting they were not necessarily in agreement. said,puty prime minister
for military operations in syria, there is currently no international agreement on the internationally illegal mandate. point, i's broader think president bush and president obama have been consistent in one way in particular. that is that the vast majority of muslims are terrorist. everyone knows that. affected by isis and al qaeda affiliates know that those organizations kill muslims in addition to western allies. countries have skin in the game and a vested interest in defeating isis in al qaeda. that is why i think it is wise for president obama to work the international channels to get them to have a major part in solving the problem. it will not be over in a few weeks or a few months. it will be a long struggle. that goes back to the earlier
point of how you define this. jersey, independent color. you are on the air. caller: yes. i agree with what president obama is doing. the problem i have is that all the television stations want to know everything the president will do. when you get all that onlymation, we are not the ones listening. al qaeda is listening and isis is listening. so they know what our strategy is. a country has to have the ability to keep some of the information secret. host: let's take that point. guest: i like her. she is correct. we have to have the ability to keep national security secrets secret. is i people who disclose our national interests without legal authority do a great disservice to our country and
our traders, mean -- traders. firsorts -- traitors. i am not concerned about having an open and free press. i think that is one of our strengths. i am concerned about the disclosure of national security secrets like snowden did. guest: there is a fairly different thing between keeping our operations secret and keeping the war secret. the american people have a right to be involved in public debate about who the enemy is, where the enemy is, about how on the campaign will go on, how much it will cost, and what the endgame is. the biggest mistake united states as a whole made when we went into iraq the first time in 2002, and this was said quite openly, is that we do not have an exit strategy. over thequickly ran regime, we did not know what to do next.
about thatbama is question, what happens next? what is the second wave of operations and what do we do with assad regime and the unstable government in baghdad? i do not think those are matters properly kept secret when the american people will be footing the bill for the conflict and when americans are the ones in the middle of the conflict. agree withd percent what he said. people want to hear is, what is victory and what does that look like? that is what they want to hear in the context of everything else we are talking about. >> on twitter, this to say. -- what theewers resolution has to say. approved by congress november 7,
1973, over president nixon's veto. he is still within that 60-90 day window. >> yes, but not for long. this will increasingly be a math problem for the obama administration. these were power resolution letters are seven different notifications to congress about different escalations and different uses of force in iraq and syria against isis. the theory behind these seven different letters is that each one of them starts the clock the new. the resolutiont was meant calm push. it was to create this congressional restraint, that there is an automatic off switch. if the president could just reset the clock, the off switch becomes pointless. >> seven new letters the since this was again in august and iraq and request the first were
over the summer in june and july. there have been five more letters since august. i think the war powers resolution provides at least ambiguous cover for the initial operation. it does not necessarily authorize them, but it does seem to come -- contemplate some. those 60 days, no matter how you count them, will be up long before congress was back in november. >> it is not survive -- not surprising that every president since nixon has taken the position that it is unconstitutional. but that president reagan and clinton. reagan and clinton did not get express authorization for -- from congress from the following actions. gulf., persian clinton, bosnia, the middle east, kosovo. i frankly think the thenistration in congressional calendar in september relied on the 2001
aumf in small part to stimulate this today and that there would be a debate -- postelection. thus far, this does not look that different bomb -- different, but it will soon. >> robert, a republican, thank you for hanging on the line. >> please do not cut me off. i'm surprised you brought on two professors who totally agree with each other on the issue. republicans lost control of congress in 2006 because of george bush's unconstitutional invasion of iraq for no reason. guys neednow, these to check out the constitution. president shall be commander in chief when called into service by the united states.
it means congress has to issue a declaration of war. it is completely unconstitutional. congress does not have the warmaking authority. a tensionre is between article one section eight clause to, the claire were cause, and, out of two, section two, the commander in chief cause. a long-standing debate. a secondjust published guide to the constitution where we outline each and every clause and there is a long and robust discussion back-and-forth jousting between the branches of government. it will not be resolved today or in the obama administration. is it -- a tension the framers put in place so they could diffuse power horizontally, across the federal government, and vertically across the state government. i'm sure there are a lot of things we disagree with your i am not a law professor. i'm a military officer who served 23 years in the navy and at the heritage foundation.
there are probably some points we disagree with. off thel just jump cliff. i think we probably disagree vehemently about where the line is and when the president has to go to congress. it is just, that is not where we are today. the reason is because you have two older statutes and more you have no question that congress and the american people support some kind of action against isis. this is not the kind of constitutional controversy that would raise the fight that we would happily get into if this were an academic conversation entirely because there is no dispute on that principle. the issue is why we are going and what the endgame is and what exactly the terms of the authorization should be. that is why it is particularly problematic that -- then rather than gate -- engage with the
debate, congress washed their hands of this and went home. that is why you see so much widespread agreement between more aggressive commentators and more conservative commentators because everyone agrees congress acted completely irresponsibly by leaving this for the president even though they support his actions. >> independent caller in maine. hello. caller: good morning. i agree with the woman in new jersey. the less known, the better. 2003 whennk back to we do not have cell phones. had to remember that. , i believe i saw him say it myself, that we knew what was going on because we were tracing osama bin laden with his cell phone. so he stopped using his cell phone. that is my memory, anyway. is, doesuestion i have
forody there no was not authorization of the iraq war until dick cheney told him things that were not true? i am sure he influenced other members of the senate once dick cheney did that or does anybody know if that is true? >> do you know the back story question mark guest: i -- back story? guest: i don't. host: ok. caller: why don't they start gathering up for the ground were before they do the air were? -- war? guest: i take the president at his word that he has no taste in introducing ground troops back to iraq and there is no taste in the administration's palette
either for ground troops into syria. that is two-part thinking. one is air power and precision strikes come along with coalition partners, is the best way at the first phase to address the threat. how it evolves, to steve's earlier question, is an open one. are there legal issues with airstrikes versus ground troops? guest: you would not think so, but i think the answer is yes. what few supreme court decisions we have have never suggested a distinction based on what kind of force we are talking about. there is an i think enormous distinction between he and yet of congress troops and scattershot airstrikes. i think we have seen that. the perceivedsus need for some kind of real congressional by in the second
we're talking about ground troops. i do not know if that is a legal reality, but it is an undeniable pattern of our practice that if we talk roundtrips, we talk congress. if you talk airstrikes, maybe not. another tweet from our viewers. in that writing congress should address u.s. fighters with passports that could return to the united states. >> congress has addressed that. no question, we have bolstered all of our counterterrorism laws to give the u.s. government that much more authority to do with individuals, special u.s. citizens, who are believed to be involved in terrorism. we have expanded the territorial statute so it is now a crime to engage in support of terrorism, even overseas, something that was not sure 9/11. we have had far greater success overseas and bringing them back
for criminal trial in a civilian court. i do not think there is any question we have bolstered our border security to do it the we havehere it and that plenty of criminal remedies if we get our hands on these guys. is, if you have these 100 or so american citizens who are in syria and iraq, how do you go get them? that is the problem and that is where all of this conversation is focused. >> butch, a republican. where to restart about all of this stuff? of the authority to fight, i am a vietnam veteran. i into this mess before and i've heard the same kind of rhetoric. it is now called counterterrorism. we called it counterinsurgency. we did not get a declaration of war. that was one of the main things that the antiwar crowd, including mr. kerry, mrs. clinton, mr. clinton, and the rest of the people, raised tell about whenised hell
i was in the war. now, it is the same rhetoric. it is unbelievable to me they put the powers in their to keep that from happening again and here we are doing the same thing, fighting people we already beat. the whole thing is ridiculous. i was a marine. to see a marine died because of crap really this boils my butt. guest: thank you for your service. i totally understand where he is coming from, frankly, as a third-generation navy officer. i think people on the right were happy to hear president obama talk about, destroy isis. what many on the right have felt about this administration is that there is a lack of appetite to talk about victory and what it looks like. the precipitous withdrawal from iraq that many people on the right thought was engaged in by
the obama administration, the hand wringing engaging in a surge in afghanistan that many on the right lame the president not, people, especially vets, with mayor ordered into battle, if it is lawful, they do it. like butch and all his fellow devil dogs did. but they want to have faith and trust in the commander in chief regardless of party that there is a mission that can be accomplished and that victory is the ultimate goal area host: let's go to nathan next. to know why we still have a constitution or just a -- just a dictator. i do not care what patriot law that you have. it is not trump the constitution. a majority of americans, you still need congressional approval to go to work. guest: that is true but why did president obama not have that
approval? he has a plausible argument that the 2001 aumf that congress passed. and ik everyone agrees think president obama would be at the front of the line saying, we would all be better off with a case specific statute from congress. but not a constitutional matteau -- matter. it is a prudential matter their constitutional, i think the president has all the authority he needs. we are still obsessed with the legal conversation that we are missing bush's point, which is the question of why we're doing it in the first place. as a political question and a moral question. we jumped over those questions overt right to the fight legal authorities. this is a red herring. there is no real fight here. >> that is our discussion. a debate that is happening in
washington and everywhere else, should congress be giving the president authorization for this, does he have the legal authority? i want our viewers to weigh in on that. let me give that phone number again. we have two guests here with us this morning. , a law professor at american university washington college of law, and fellow atimson, legal heritage foundation and served as defense secretary for detainee of affairs. part of this conversation this morning. you both have said, congress washed his hands of this and went away. but the speaker of the house as recently as yesterday told put ago that the president has come to us and asked us to vote on this type of action. he has not done so.
why not lay this at the feet of the president? guest: this is a little dance peopleppens between two at the eighth grade dance. we have the girl on the one side, congress, waiting for the handsome boy across the dance floor to ask to dance. he is too scared to ask. part of this, and i want to be cute about this, this really goes back to syria last year. the president asked for authority and congress did not give it to him. the president does not want to be burned for putting something on paper is that congress rejects. and i think there is a political aspect to it as well, if that is not political enough. that is, this president was elected twice, in part because he wanted to end the wars. for him to put his name and then send it up the hill and have him pass it means that this president is not only not been
on were president, he is the president with his own aumf. guest: there is a school of thought that it is not a separation of parties but a separation of powers. the notion that congress should institutionalits responsibility to occupy the space and pass legislation because president obama did not honor a debatable norm of protocol, that confuses little fights with big ones. the question here is if congress believes it has a role to play, it should play the role my matter what the president says. i do not know why any remember -- any member of congress should care whether obama has or has not proposed his own legislation, if you believe, as senator mccain clearly does, that the far more responsible thing to do is for congress to pass a much more specific and limited authorization. who cares what the president did and did not do?
host: this tweet -- next ino to richard florida. an independent caller. all, we have af president, a commander in chief, that does not believe in victory. he stated such, that the way we won world war i and world war ii was fraught. and that it should have never happened that way. he also does not believe in the constitution. that theo as much constitution is a flawed document, as we have seen by his policy, his immigration his use in government entities like the irs against especiallye groups, with obamacare, changing it the
way he does without it going through congress. putting pressure on the supreme court. all kinds of stuff like this. this is what we are dealing with. >> all right. want to tie richard emery passes point together. there has been an ongoing series of action by the administration that have, at least to those on the right, have caused at least some misapprehension or concern about the president's fidelity to not only enforcing the law and all of the laws as written. obamacare, thein irs, the list goes on and on and we do not need to relitigate those because then steve and i probably will get into a fight. perception is out there. but i have never questioned whether or not president obama thinks we should be victorious. i've never questioned the fact that i think he wants to win. what president would not want to win?
i do not question his patriotism. he may deliver speeches in ways that some on the right to not find satisfying, but that is a political question. other discussion. -- left for another discussion. guest: the reason why he thought it was so important to scale down and eventually withdraw troops from iraq and scale down eventually with that at and is because it is not in our interest to be in prison -- perpetual wars with most countries around the world. that is not about victory or defeat but national -- security at home. it makes us less safe and is counterproductive from a foreign policy perspective to be engaged in wars that may drag on forever and ever and for generations. i do not think it is fair to say president obama does not believe in victory. i think he believes in trying to get us back to peacetime. unfortunately, the rest of the world is not always willing to comply. we should hope we have commanders in chief who are
aware enough and conscious enough of their role that they recognize the long-term goal of peacetime must at some moments be put aside for the short-term goal of preserving national defense. host: the new york times reporting another part of the president's strategy is cutting off the funding crisis's treasury, announcing they imposed sanctions on one entity that said they are sending financial support to terrorist groups, including the islamic state. mo, democratic caller. caller: i support president obama. i am a muslim. i think the media should stop using the name islam on these criminals. these people do not fight for islam. ted bundy, david crèche, these are all christians. they were criminals. i think the president has all
the right anyone who messes with the united states, they defend themselves and we should start protecting the homeland. but my point is, there is nothing the president has done that people would support this guy. i seen the president people disrespect. they do not call him mr. president. they call him obama. all right their independent caller. are you there? i'll put you on hold. turn on your tv. dean. -- turn off your tv. dean. caller: it is like a game of chess and you have to make your move carefully. it seems some people think victory is wearing boxing gloves
and playing chess. it cannot be done that way. you have to be methodical. my question for my two guest is, if saddam hussein was toppled and removed, do we think the situation in iraq and serious would be the same today or would it be different? i will hang up. thank you. think the situation in iraq would be very different. that is not to say it would be better. there is nothing to commend about the brutal regime. is one upside to dictatorship, it is too much control, i would say. for all was unraveling long time. it is entirely possible the conditions that allowed isis to flourish and spread in eastern syria have been exacerbated by the presence of a not so opposed strongman just a thought -- just across the southern border. i think we would very much be in a similar situation, perhaps not
so much in iraq but syria even if the saddam regime had been toppled. where would we be politically had we not gone to the experience of the iraq war? i do not think there is any way to answer that question. many contingencies and what if's and assumptions. it is impossible. a great question, cannot answer it. host: another question on the yuan resolution pushed i obama yesterday, voted for unanimously. the new york times takes issue with it today on their editorial. ity say another problem with is that while it specifically mentions isis and al qaeda, it refers to other unnamed foreign terrorists fighters, leaving the term open to different interpretations in nations. this is not a new problem --
including -- guest: i think that is true. the question is what this will look like on the ground. part of the question is we are already there in many regards with regard to our own domestic laws. these laws are enforced especially against muslim communities. muslim communities where the excessive weight. the real question about the resolution is not what it says but what it actually does. how will it actually change what
countries are doing on the ground? already, we're doing stuff. the question is not, this is a new problem, but are we going to be more aware of the problem now that we are sharing in overseas? this has been a real complaint and shortly after 9/11, all these muslims rounded up, how do we are goingt after the right threat and not exaggerating and sleeping in into two broad of a net? >> i grew stephen, and we will go onto the next question. let me draw out one of his points. i do not think the resolution will affect one way or the other what we do here at home. we have had a lot of growing pains in terms of how we address i've a c and civil liberty and yet at the same time have robust counterterrorism and national security policies in place. there have been a lot of amendments to those policies and there have been supreme court cases.
i do not think the resolution will affect how we do business at all. to steve's point, the focus should be on how those other countries, those coalition partners, effectuate on the ground those principles. go back to louisiana, independent caller. you are on the air. i have three questions. first question, the prisoner has been released and they have not yet arrived. where are they? the republican has to stand up and say why they were not informed about their relief. my question is, 195 remaining they areuantanamo bay
beenuslims, and they have fasting and they have been treated very badly. asia, it has been getting information-- i will jump in at this point. you are shaping your head. -- shaking your head. five: where are the taliban detainees released from guantánamo in exchange? cutter, -- there in qatar. where we go after that, i do not think we have a ton of clarity on. insofar as her question relates at guantanamo, that
has happened essentially from the very beginning. it is not unique to guantánamo. prisoners and other places in the united states and jails and elsewhere the balance is this. we allow them the freedom, the right to protest in the form of a hunger strike. at the same time, both administrations have determined we will allow them to protest, but we will not allow the political protest to get to the point where they kill themselves because we believe in the sanctity of life come even for people who are incarcerated. it's a tough issue. both administrations got it right. i want to ask about isis. what happens if these isis fighters are captured by the united states? guest: i started a twitter debate right after the isis
situation came to for. what is the plan that the administration has for when they capture isis fighters. ,oday come in the miami herald carol rosenberg has a piece where she quotes me and others and the administration saying we are not bringing any isis fighters to gitmo. that opens a can of forms. -- a can of worms. if we get to the point where we capture them or we are forced to take custody of them because of or we areion partners in joint operations with them and we don't necessarily want to hand them over to some of our coalition partners who have less than stellar human rights records, and we put them on a ship? do we reestablish detention facilities in iraq? back to thethem
united states for a prosecution in federal district court? we have the statutes that allow us to do that. does the obama administration set up a attention facility in the united states -- detention facility in the united states? these are all open questions. we don't have any answers to them at all. on the question of what to do if we capture isis fighters, that is only going to happen if we start putting troops on the ground. i want to disagree with one premise. i think the criminal laws are fully capable of dealing with individuals who we have any reason to connect isis in iraq and syria. i have no concern that the obama --inistration would indeed we have not sent any new terrorism suspects to guantánamo since 2008. i don't think there's any reason why that would change now. part of that is because we've evolved his laws -- these laws
. are of what the detainees protesting are changes in their conditions. harsher search procedures. make --hey can you can even make a phone call. att's been litigated here the federal appeals court. i would not assume this is a benign -- this is a real, new problem at guantanamo. point.s a larger the fact that we still have 149 underscoresanamo statutes, open-ended are a bad idea because 13 years later, to give us a problem we can solve. whites. it did not look back at the 9/11
statute. there potentially limitless. we don't want to have an isis -- it guantanamo for isis. that's why we need congress to pass much more specific -- how long people can be held, where they're going to be held. which is something congress never did back on 9/11. guest: if you want to follow what's happening on guantánamo, carol rosenberg has been covering this extensively. the guantanamo page of the miami herald. islamic state prisoners to guantánamo? white house says no. richard in florida. democratic caller. whyer: i can't understand --y always blame president
they wore the president about wars and whether we should go everybody why is believing the president does this by himself? host: you think it's the pentagon? way allit's been that my seven years. you have a military joints chief of staff. they all have four stars on their shoulders. it's their job to know about wars. -- we i don't know what have civilian control over the military for a reason. our country was come in many ways, a reaction against other countries in europe and great britain where the head of the state was also the head of the military. we wanted a dividing line. that is good and true. the fact that a president,
whether obama or bush or fill in the blank, disagrees with the military advisors come at the end of the day, it's his political call. military leaders have a different set of issues that they are dealing with. that is proper and right and it's never going to change come hopefully. guest: the civilian control of is alsotary congressional involvement. congressional oversight, congressional buy-in, congressional support. it's right to be concerned that, without that strong voice coming from congress saying, wait a second, let's make sure we're not overdoing it, the president will be more inclined to listen to his military advisers who have a different set of priorities in response billions. the whole reason why our system works is when everybody is pushing against each other, ambition against ambition, that's what's missing in this current conversation.
there is a lot of noise on the executive branch site. host: independent caller. about -- was calling i'm a veteran. i was calling about the current situation we have going on. i have experience in that area. we just opened another can of forms. .- can of worms we have to protect the homeland. i feel like the president is going about it the right way. getting the world involved in the current situation and everything. we are not getting the support like we are supposed to. ashave to come together americans and stand by this president and do what we have to do. host: daniel in tennessee. caller: i was calling about the isis situation. is,uestion to you guys
knowing that isis is an american threat, knowing they have beheaded two american civilians, then telling us, hey, we are not saying theyu, then will come to america and raised their flag, knowing they're not why not eliminate the threat now before the threat comes to us? sending combat troops, sending people on the ground, treating it like the severity it is. the resultn't doubt of the administration and congress and the american people to take on isis. there has been consistency there. it's what they are proposing. nowthere is this void right which we are living in at the end of september. congress is out of town, the
is not goingn anywhere because there is a president and he is the commander-in-chief. know, i don't think the debate is going to change with respect to whether there is a result to take on isis. , whenture of the debate they come back from the elections in going forward, will be the question that we pose. how narrow should be? what is the endgame and what is the strategy? who are our partners? not whether we should take on isis. we have a whole array of i atterterrorism apparatus our disposal to focus on the 100 people who have gone to join isis. the 10,000 europeans who have passports would have joined isis. we're going to take them on. the question is, how? guest: and the question is why.
the undertone to that caller's question which is the assumption that if there is any group anywhere in the world, we should preemptively go in and take them out. that cannot be our foreign policy. our military strategy has to be that we only engage in this kind of military force when we passed the point of other alternatives. when we passed the point where we can rely upon civilian law-enforcement and local governments in those parts of the world to take care of the problem. we have to make sure we as american people are convinced of the why here. they pose a threat. this is what we have to do. host: has that been proven? when intelligence officials are saying we don't have evidence that isis is a threat to the ad states, to the homeland directly . guest: the question is has it
been true and if so, to whom? the it ministration is the burden of proving not just of the american people, but specifically to congress. congress has the burden of being skeptical. of saying, wait a second, i want to see the intelligence. i want to understand why you need us instead of relying on your existing authorities. in of the day, that is the question -- conversation we have to be having. caller's one of the earlier points, the congress is in possession of classified information about this threat we don't have or should we have. that come in some part, fixed the debate with respect to the legal authorization. do you see lawsuits? guest: not successful lawsuits. guest: there is a question of should there be. the question becomes, where would be the opportunity to test
the legal limits? historically, it's been difficult. at the end of his opinion, the big guantanamo case from 2008, justice kennedy said we've been lucky that we haven't had to intervene when it comes to disputes over war powers. that may change. i wonder if the longer we see this kind of i won't do it and you won't do it, the longer we , thehis non-engagement more that might force the courts if congress is not going to do its job, someone has to be there to make sure the powers don'tthe run amok. there has to be something and maybe we are the last resort. host: one last phone call. kenny in utah. independent caller. caller: i agree with both of these gentlemen.
what are you going to do? it's like a game here in the united states. you can't just take them all out at once because you want to. i'm ok with the airstrikes and everything. the one has to be involved -- has to get involved. host: let's talk about the legality of the u.n. getting involved. tendency, ands a it's not new, to go to world natos like the u.n. tornor and drum up support. by a state inion self-defense and they have to take it because they can't -- they don't have the time, that's understandable and people get that. but i will, just to make the
previous caller happy, i do proceed -- i do disagree with steve. it would be a sad day at the that theyurt decided should step in and become the nine commanders in chief, that would be a sad day for america. in theion may arise detention of isis fighters. issues related to other criminal litigation. yes, we have the statute. how do you collect the evidence and how do you put together a case? it's not easy to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt, especially when you collect people on the battlefield far away. host: we will have to end here. guest: the statutes are so broad -- they would appreciate how little they would have to show.
it would be a sad day for mayor cut at the supreme court were getting involved in war powers. it would be a saturday for america if we go to war again based on incomplete intelligence. whoever is going to resolve these questions, these questions have not been resolved yet. for as much as there is a drumbeat, let's not make sure -- let's all make sure we understand what that threat is and why it can't be quelled through other, less invasive, less intrusive means. let's have a question about how -- 13 years from now, we are talking about 25 world statutes authorizing use of force that congress could have never contemplated all in reaction to one terrorist attack. host: pink you both. -- thank you both. stephen vladeck and charles stimson. you've talked about the twitter
debate. what?log is guest: just security. host: great. you can follow them both there . coming up next, the big ten college tour continues. we are talking with the president of michigan state university about higher education issues. right after this news update from c-span radio. >> it is 9:20. war on isis this hour from sky news. , british airstrikes on iraq could start within minutes of parliamentary approval should be given on friday night. if tornadoes are given the order, they will be in the skies saturday morning at the earliest. flying at 400 miles an hour, they will reach the theater of operations in a matter of hours. what happens next is a decision for u.s. ordination.
david cameron has summoned parliament to a special session to consider action against isis. u.s. officials are telling americans in turkey to be vigilant against possible terror attacks in retaliation for u.s. air strikes against islamic group. turkey says it is joining nato allies and fellow sunni muslim nations to destroy isis. the u.s. says it is still waiting to hear exactly what turkey will contribute. turkey is long resistant to being used as a launching pad. ,urning to economic news jobless numbers in this hour show the number of people seeking unemployment aid increased last week after falling sharply two weeks ago. the total number of people receiving benefits picked up by to 2.4 million. that's a sign hiring will marine
-- will remain healthy. --ufactured goods sailed sold by a record amount in august. this weekend on the c-span network, friday night on c-span, the values voter summit. paul.uz and rand saturday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern, a national town hall on the critical and historic impact of voting. sunday evening at 8:00 on q&a, sally quinn. friday night on c-span two, daniel green and william mullen talk about their experiences in iraq. isis and the use of american force. saturday night at 10:00 on book richtel onrds, matt
technology's impact on society. the ninth annual brooklyn book festival. ander chiefs of staff advisors to recent presidents talk about the relationship of the commander-in-chief and how he makes important decisions. saturday night at 10:00 p.m. eastern, jonathan white on the role of the union army in abraham lincoln's 1864 reelection. sunday afternoon, exploring the evolution of first ladies fashion. find our television schedule on c-span.org. and let us know what you think about the television you are watching. call us or e-mail us or send us a tweet. join the c-span conversation. like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. debate coverage continues
tonight at 9:00. nebraska's second congressional district debate between incumbent lee terry and brad ashford. the organ governors debate and dennis incumbent richardson. sunday, the iowa u.s. senate debate between bruce braley and joni ernst. c-span campaign 2014. more than 100 debates for the control of congress. >> "washington journal" continues. host: c-span bus has been on a tour of the big ten colleges across the country for the past the weeks. along the way, we've been talking with university presidents about higher education issues. this morning, the c-span buses on the campus of michigan state university. joining us aboard the bus is lou anna simon. thank you very much for being with us.
let me get started with the challenges you see in higher education. guest: good morning. it's a beautiful day. the promise for the value of higher education is as bright as today. i'm a first-generation college student. i understand the value of higher education for creating a terrific life. part of our challenge is to be sure that we work in a way to be as cost effective and relevant as possible so we make people's dreams bigger. that means we have to be able to not only be at the forward edge of innovation and discovery, but also be able to translate that discovery into a life for our students. host: how are you doing that? when it comes to tuition and room and board? guest: if you think about michigan state, 75% of our students are very middle-class.
families of $125,000 or less. our number of students who leave with educational debt is 44%, which is well below the average. it's about one years. stub attendance with our tuition being about $14,000 for in-state students. we have to be sure that we do everything we can to reduce costs. one of our platforms to be a high-performing organization. we have to produce enormous value for our students when they leave michigan state. we are focused on value. host: how difficult has that been given this headline from may that michigan budget cuts are some of the deepest in the nation since 2008? declining 28% after 2008. guest: it's been an extreme nearly difficult task.
2001-nowok at between and do the combination of tuition and state appropriations, for us, that's only growing $65 over inflation in that entire period. unfortunately, the burden has been shifted. as business leaders have pointed out to students and their families. we are pleased that our educational debt rate, our default rates are well below the national average. at the same time, we've picked up additional financial aid for students, including state programs to make michigan state as successful as possible at the same time, we've had to grow value, which means you have to make difficult priority decisions because our students deserve the best and that's what they come for. host: how much of your time is spent to go shooting with -- negotiating with the government? to them about budgets?
how difficult is it to raise money for private donations? guest: michigan state was very late in the game. believe that we should keep our public card and not raise a lot of private dollars. we are two generations behind in fundraising. we're are going to be launching a capital campaign. it's taking more and more of our time. the story is the same. it's about value and creating the opportunities for students across class. when we talk to people, we try to be genuine about our aspirations and genuine about the things we need to do to be better every day. host: there is this story from the detroit news. helpoins alliance to
low income first-generation students. you will be among 11 public universities across the nation that will be part of a collaborative effort to win sure that these low income and udentsgeneration st earned degrees. guest: michigan state was, if you look at u.s. reports, one of the institutions that had a plus number in terms of predicted graduation rates for our low income students. we have to be better because the biggest loss to our society is students who come to universities and don't exceed. we believe every student who submitted -- we are using our neighborhood concept, integrating the fabric of the classroom and out of class experiences in new and innovative ways to provide the incentives and the support for students, including using big data.
our pilot last year showed a 20% increase in the persistence rates of our lowest income students. they are already achieving at a higher rate than nationally. it's a commitment to the future. -- host: we are talking with lou simon, the president of michigan state university. we want to get our viewers involved in the conversation. ,e want to hear your questions concerns about higher education. students, dial in at (202) 585-3880. parents, (202) 585-3881. educators, (202) 585-3882 . michigan residents, (202) 585-3883. i want to you show you a column in "the washington post,"
"college priorities adrift." "colleges and universities are taking part in a trend for competing and roman based on student amenities, whether lazy rivers or elaborate dining facilities -- for compe ong enrollment, based student amenities, whether lazy rivers or elaborate dining facilities. of scarcee best use resources, given that these facilities are ultimately underwritten by tuition and by federal and state taxpayer funding, and that colleges are supposed to be, you know, educational institutions?" guest: since i have not seen the entire article, let me comment. research came out with the finding that students who engaged in a healthier lifestyle, which includes exercise, actually were more successful in the classroom, but
there is a balance. we have not embarked on a major recreational project. we have included exercise facilities in the residence halls as part of our renovations , but it is important to put those together. for us, it is not about using amenities to attract students. it is about using what we are person, ourt-shaped outcomes of education to attract the student. out of that is to make sure they have a healthy lifestyle. we have two big initiatives right now on student success. we talked about that a bit earlier, and on lifestyles. about developing a lifestyle through college that will make you successful in life. we think those that together very well. host: do you feel pressure as the president of msu to attract a better student or more students to the university with these types of amenities? because a lot of your competition is doing it.
are not aht now, we part of the common application. when you apply to michigan state, you have to make out a .eparate application our applications are growing, we believe, because we are focused on the value of an education, not simply the experiences you have on the campus, but your success when you leave michigan state, the fact that you are part of a network of spartans for life to support you. we believe that parents and students understand that there is value in our efforts to appreciate the value of their degree over time and it makes the difference in the recruitment, not some sort of latest fad. we are the persistent, consistent way of looking at the value, particularly with all of the students from middle-class families that we have. our slogan in 1880 as a pioneer land-grant was "good enough for
the proudest and open to the poorest." that's the motto we use today under the rubric of empowering extraordinary students across social economic -- socioeconomic class. host: on the front is an argument for why college is worth it, why kids should be going to college. why is that right there when you go to msu's website? guest: we know that a number of families, particularly if you are from michigan and have experienced the epicenter of the recession, you know with families who were educated and had a very difficult time -- we have to be clear about what we believe is important for the future and why we believe we are a good value. it is not just about accessibility for us. it's about the value and making sure we are doing everything we
can to enhance the value of our education and our degree for our students. people can analyze it. you can go to our website. are andg on who you your family circumstances, you could actually figure out what it would cost you to come to michigan state university. that transparency is very important. we have to make a case for value. hear from a parent in westborough, massachusetts. caller: we do homeschooling. we did it for five generations on everything from machine shop, welding, the whole thing. i became a nuclear engineer without going to college. will do training for people in a new field. there is a book on tv which i bought. .hey do the whole family the name of the book is "the
brainy bunch." they do exactly what we do, except we send the kids to public school. host: can you get your point or question echo -- question? caller: in switzerland, they don't test anybody. in germany, schools get out earlier. you have to be able to make what you design. host: what's your point? caller: it's hard to explain unless you read that book. host: ok. are we doing education right in this country compared to other countries? as a land-grant university, we were founded to in a way practical that people would leave the university with the capacity to do the things that he was talking about. we need to do that in large
numbers to propel the economy forward. michigan state, any university is not right for everyone. that's why we have to have choices. i agree that we have a number of jobs in america that require high skills that may not necessarily be something that is amenable to an education at michigan state or a similar institution. that's why we have to have choice. but i also believe that homeschooling can work out effectively for some families. it requires great discipline. obviously, he was part of a family that was very successful. he send his kids to public schools. we have the best model for america and the land-grant university concept that came out of abraham lincoln. it is very important for the future. annapolis caller:. -- joe in annapolis. about: i'd like to ask
the admission criteria. the supreme court in fisher versus texas ruled that universities could continue to use race as an admissions criteria but had to, for the first time, demonstrate, proved to a court that they used the least offensive, in terms of constitutional rights, matter to do that. it was not just, "take your word for it." now there is a new mechanism, i think most people understand, in that the university has to demonstrate they have used a nonoffensive to the constitution process. my personal experience with my son's undergraduate acceptance is that schools will never tell you that, but it is a relatively new court mandate. i would like to see if your guest would offer a specific response to that.
how do they use race? michigan passed a ballot initiative that prohibits michigan universities from using race in admissions. even though the university of michigan case was part of the discussion, the university of texas case, subsequent to that, there was a michigan ballot proposition. we use a very holistic missions process that looks at academic credentials, strength of curriculum, community engagement , because we believe students who are the most successful through college are multidimensional. in michigan, race is not a factor in our admissions process. host: we would go next to pat, who is an educator in michigan. : hello, thank you to c-span. i'm a retired teacher -- i am a
retired kindergarten teacher. i find it disturbing that your ratios 17 to one -- your is 17 to one. that is a comment i wanted to make. guest: i think that we have worked very hard to ensure that our students have a world-class experience. student ratio -- faculty to student ratio is important. we also remember it is not simply about what happens in the classroom. are our students engaged in research and study abroad and internships and a wide variety of activities so that ratio does reflect our capacity to provide a multidimensional set of experiences that we believe produces next -- produces an effective college graduate. host: how many professors are tenured and how many are adjunct status? guest: we have about 2000,
roughly, faculty who are in the and another 1500 or so that are in a variety of appointment statuses that are not adjunct. for example, we are using phd -prepared faculty members to teach writing, which is very unusual. postdoc on more of a model. we have some folks who are on research appointments. host: steve is next in new york. a parent up there. a, i was curious about your political science programs. i have found a lot of colleges clinical science programs are left-leaning -- colleges' political science programs are left-leaning.
i'm curious where michigan state is in that area. do you police your political science people to make sure there is an equal balance? steve, i think that we have a political science department that has a worldwide track record of trying to look -- from a variety of perspectives. you have to know a variety of perspectives in order to have your own. i would also say we have prestigious residential college, james madison college. you have to begin reading "the federalist papers" as part of your freshman experience. host: good morning. you are a parent. what are your questions or concerns with higher education? caller: i'm so grateful that michigan state university tuition hasn't gone out of this world. i'm a graduate from michigan state university. host: what did you pay when you
went there? i don't remember. i paid tuition because it was cheaper. my dad paid room and board. i worked my way through college when i was there. i don't member what per credit hour costs were. wonderfulo let this president of michigan state university know that i graduated from james madison college with a michigan state, and it was hard, but i learned a lot. i wish i would have studied more . if there are any kids listening out there, study more in college and he will be happier in life. i regret some of the waste of time i had there. that's my own issue. thank you very much. thank you very much. academic rigor is something that is a partnership between students and faculty and james madison does represent that. she commented that she works through college.
about 60 to 70% of our students would report that they work. we are still a very middle-class , upper mobility kind of place with a world-class education. "i hate that out-of-state students pay double." why is that? guest: the theory is that the state is making an investment to support a cost of education for its residents. as a result of that, out-of-state students that are part of the differential between -- are part of the differential between state and out-of-state. host: how many students do you have from out of state? our undergraduate population is about 75% in state students. the average of the big ten is much higher than that. 60 millioning about
dollars to $70 million of revenue on the table if we were .ore like the big ten we felt like we needed to be the engine of opportunity, that world-class education for michigan residents, so we stayed true to our mission. we do need out-of-state students because it provides value to education and students have to be part of a global society. you: foreign students -- know what the figure is guest:? -- what the figure is? guest: it began in the 1880's with a student from japan. we began our international development work in china. in the 1980's, with the rice famine, michigan state had the first international programs in 1957 because people at that time believe that in order for michigan to be successful, we
had to have an international perspective. host: we are talking with loua anna simon. we've been interviewing university presidents across the big ten. we would go next to susan in pennsylvania, a parent -- we will go next to susan in pennsylvania, a parent. caller: thank you for taking my call. i appreciate your programs. where are these kids going to work? their mothers and fathers have been out of work for so long. my son has had a good education, but he owes over $60,000 in government loans. when are they going to discount the loans that the older people -- areok these programs going to get any help? host: we will leave it there. lou anna simon?
guest: i share your concern about the high interest rate for small these old loan programs. in conversation with business leaders from michigan yesterday, as part of our higher education workforce development talent development strategy, we need more voices to worry about the large loan interest rates that are part of the repayment cycle. earlier, about 46% of our students leave with educational debt, averaging about $25,000. our loan default rate is very low, about 5.7%, and declining. of our students have had very difficult financial circumstances over the last 10 years. this is an issue of investment in the future. "the washington post" is reporting that the government says that student loan default nationwide has dipped, but they
say the figure is still too high. after you graduate your students, how many of them are staying in the state of michigan , as theing employment engine of opportunity, as you say, is a difficult for these students to stay there and find employment, given the situation in detroit after the recession? of thein the period recession, when there was such a dislocation of workers in michigan, the number of our students who had employment in michigan dropped. if you look at our top employers right now, it is quicken loans, the auto companies, michigan-based companies. foodave a very large agra/ footprint. that is also a strong industry in michigan. and we are working very hard around the state for students to see detroit as an opportunity
for the future, a really cool city to be in, being on the ground floor, pioneers of the resurgence of detroit, and we are getting more and more students who want to stay in the state. host: we have about 10 minutes left with resident -- president statena simon of michigan . we encourage you to call in. students, (202) 585-3880. parents, (202) 585-3881. educators, (202) 585-3882. michigan residents, (202) 585-3883. the parent of two children, one who has graduated, the other is coming out, and i created three businesses in my lifetime with a high school education. i never went to college. i'm wondering if i send my child to michigan state, will they get the education needed to create
business, not become some lackey for somebody else? if you look at a recent report from the university research core door -- research see we haveu'll produced many entrepreneurs over our lifetime. there is a formal entrepreneurship program. your son or daughter could go to the hatch and get support with their business ideas. we have a new place called beehive in the residence halls, where anyone can go and think about start a business -- starting a business. we have a media sandbox. if you're interested in gaming technology -- those are organic now as part of our neighborhood. and very important for the future. host: miami, florida, a parent there. caller: this message is to dr. simpson. with heer -- her in miami
john saxon from nyu. goodave a very presentation when she was there in miami. i'm involved in providing scholarship assistance to students who attend school in the united states. i know you have an agricultural program. is there any support your school will do with haiti pertaining to that? guest: we've had historically a program with haiti in food and health and we also have a number of our faculty from the medical schools who are working in haiti , as is permitted, given the current circumstances, but it is important for us to do. we have included haitian students as part of a program, a migrant program. many students from haiti migrated into florida.
we have a college achievement migrant program that also is involving students from haiti. i want toident simon, ask about one thing you are involved in, the national security higher education advisory board. what is that? while agowas formed a to be advisory to the director of the cia and the fbi to try to better connect the voices of universities with national security issues that were -- that we all need to be worried about. it's a group of university presidents that talk about everything from cyber security to how we can better understand the dynamics around our international programs. we need to be global, but we need to be smart about national security as well. those are tough issues to deal need to talk about them in a genuine way and share views about our programs and activities.
the group is a way of having those conversations. you chair this advisory board. why was it formed? was it in response to a threat? if you think about post-9/11, it was easy for universities and the intelligence community's to work -- the intelligence communities to work with the fbi. we have to -- we have to have mutual interests. it is a way to understand different perspectives. if you understand different perspectives, you can find better solutions to difficult problems. host: harvey in new jersey, an educator. caller: how do universities handle the professional athletes on their campus?
athletescholarshipped coming on board. how many of these scholarshipped graduate afterly four years? guest: we have scholarship student-athletes who are -- both men and women, whose graduation , about theas a whole same as our student body. there are a few individuals who come to the university who leave theirearly to pursue athletic interests, but we see all of our students, no matter their athletic skills, as students first and athletes second and provide academic support for them to be successful. we've also had programs to ensure that student-athletes returned to graduate and stay connected with us.
two examples right now might be justin, who is playing hockey for the detroit red wings. he keeps e-mailing me that he is within six credits of getting thategree because we made possible. you could look at a person like steve smith, who is a basketball,on making a terrific income after his professional playing career, who is -- has finished his degree and stayed connected to michigan state and is a role model for almost every student athlete we have. the media tends to focus on the 1% of students who are really the -- who are not indicative of our students who receive scholarships as part of our athletic programs. host: we will hear from a parent in providence, rhode island. caller: are you aware that you are a puppet to the globalist agenda talked out of the
frankfurt school in not see, germany -- nazi, germany -- host: i don't know where you're going with that. we are going to move on. caller: i am a michigan state graduate. masters, andelors, phd from michigan state. i was on the faculty at michigan state. i went up there last summer and got the shock of my life. i went in and talked to the geometry department and found out they have 14 faculty members . i asked them how many students they graduated last year at the bachelors level. they told me eight. i asked them how many graduate students they had and they told me three. appalled attely what i see in higher education.
of thebeen a dean largest oceanography and ocean engineering teaching group in the world. i always made sure my students got jobs. evidently these people aren't , including the university that i left here many years ago. they have all turned into environmental science. the geology department -- i figured out they were probably four or five at the most out of that 14, who were actually geologists. host: president simon? guest: if you look at the job opportunities for students today , including the number of what i would call classically defined geology programs around the country, we've been asked to look at reduced support and to
be able to assure that all of our students are placed in the right kinds of jobs, and the placement rates for the geology department across all of its programs is very high. we've kept a strand of the classic geology, because we think that will come back, particularly as we look at energy exploration in michigan and around the great lakes. we haven't eliminated that as many universities have, but we've also kept that as part of our interdisciplinary program. that's how you try to balance current job needs, current focus a employers with keeping strength in place to build for the future. simon,resident lou anna we want to thank you for your time and think michigan university for allowing us to come to the university today and talk with you about higher michigan -- and thank university for allowing us to come to the university today and
talk with you about higher education. guest: i want to thank you and we appreciate everyone's concern as we try to build great value and enhance the competitiveness that all of our students deserve. much weank you very will continue that conversation on c-span's "washington journal" as the big ten tour rolls on. monday, university of michigan. tuesday, ohio state university. thursday, we will be at penn state. thank you very much for watching today. we will be back tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern time. enjoy the rest of your thursday. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]
>> news about the u.s. response to the ebola outbreak from "the washington post" online. secretary of state john kerry has appointed nancy powell to be ebola coordinator for the state department. l will lead the ebola coordination unit. "lead new role, she will the state department's outreach to international partners, including foreign governments, to ensure a speedy and truly global response to this crisis." declared thema has outbreak and national security priority. the president will be addressing the oboe outbreak in a speech to the united nations general assembly. his -- will be addressing the ebola outbreak