tv Washington Journal 09042019 CSPAN September 4, 2019 6:59am-10:01am EDT
first prime minister's questions session as brexit negotiations continue. at 9:30 a.m., the u.s.-china economic security review commission holds a hearing on the relationship between the united states and china. on c-span3, it is the 23rd annual development bank of latin america conference in washington, d.c., on issues related to the americas. this morning on washington journal, michael greenberger, director for the center of health and homeland security at the university of maryland discusses local, state and federal disaster response. the, the editor of washington examiner, philip klein, discusses the republican party and campaign 2020. at 9:30 a.m., a lawyer for the immigrant children in the floras settlement agreement,
discusses the administration's move to hold families indefinitely. take your we will calls and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter as well. washington journal is next. host: reports indicate the u.s. is very close to a deal with the taliban to withdrawal american troops from afghanistan. ending our 18-year military presence there and fulfilling a key 2016 campaign promise of president donald trump. good morning, welcome to "washington journal" for this wednesday, september 4, 2019. we'll start the program asking about that and here's how we are going to separate the lines. if you are an afghanistan war veteran that line is 202-748-8000. and for all others, please use 202-748-8001. everyone welcome to post your thoughts on facebook,
facebook.com slash c-span and a tweet @cspanwj. the news that came out yesterday could be affected by reports of further violence by the taliban. this is an a.p. report posted online at "washington times."com. afghan government raises new concerns about u.s. taliban deal. the associated press story says the government wednesday expressed new concerns about a deal that a u.s. envoy, has been reached "in principal with the taliban on ending america's longest war." asking for clarifications about the agreement and risks to avoid unmolestant consequences the statement by presidential spokesman in afghanistan shares the concerns raised by several former u.s. ambassadors to afghanistan. the former ambassadors joint statement on tuesday warned a full u.s. troop withdrawal that moves too quickly and without requiring the taliban to meet
certain conditions such as reducing violence could lead to a total civil war. wanted to bring you katie, national security reporter for defense one. defense one.com. tell us about, first of all, the scope of this proposed deal being negotiated with the taliban. guest: right now what we know for certain is that azad has negotiated what we know is an agreement in principle with the taliban that will bring home about 5,400 troops, u.s. troops from afghanistan in a little less than the next 200 days. but of course there are still about 8,600 u.s. troops in the country. so there is a lot of questions over when those troops are going to come home. what that timeline will look like. and what the conditions are going to be for their return. there is no formal cease-fire with the taliban that is part of
this agreement in principle as we understand the draft described by local afghan news outlets on monday. that's being left up to negotiations that are expected to take place directly in between the taliban and the u.s.-backed afghan government in kabul. host: i just read that story on the associated press with some concerns expressed by some former u.s. ambassadors to afghanistan don't have that in front of me. but what's their concern over this proposed deal? what have you heard? guest: one of the big fears that you hear from a lot of folks in the security community and diplomatic community is that if u.s. withdrawals too quickly, particularly amid some of the escalating violence we have seen in afghanistan just over the last few days, that it's going to do two things.
number one, it's going to potentially open up the path for taliban to just overrun the country. that this is going to devolve into a full-scale civil war. one of the things we have heard consistently from pentagon officials over the taliban to j years is that the afghan security forces are not prepared to hold back the taliban themselves without the kind of u.s. support that they have been receiving. and then the other concern that i think you hear quite a bit is that there is a possibility for the kind of chaos that any kind of civil war might create in afghanistan for groups like isis which already has a small foothold in the country to have -- to be able to sort of use afghanistan as a haven and grow their own strength there. host: the headline this morning at defense one.com. taliban kill 16, wound 119 as u.s. peace deal nears. now to the political side of this. we mentioned this was a campaign
pledge of president donald trump. many democratic candidates in 2016. and into 2020. has the president been actively pushing this deal with khalil? what's his role been? guest: the president has made no secret since his days of campaign that he's anxious to bring troops home from afghanistan. that's one of the things you are seeing cause a lot of public mistrust of this deal. up until this week we didn't know a lot about the details of this draft agreement. in fact, we still don't. and i think one of the things that you are seeing here domestically is there is a lot of folks in the security commute very concerned that president trump's obvious anxiousness to get out of afghanistan is going to lead to a premature deal that might allow for -- might be
bringing u.s. troops home before the companies on the ground are such that we can prevent another kind of wide scale terrorist attacks on u.s. interest, particularly on the homeland like we saw on 9/11. host: katie bo williams is national security correspondentant on defense one. read more at defense one.com. thanks for the update. our topic this morning, the first hour, is that proposed deal with the taliban in afghanistan. our lines 202-748-8000. for those of you who are afghan veterans, and 202-748-8001 for everyone else. todd in brentwood, california. good morning, go ahead. caller: hi. i think it's good to get out of afghanistan. unlike your correspondentant there, miss williams, who i guess she wants to see more u.s. involvement overseas, afghanistan was always from the start obama's war.
he campaigned in 2007 and 2008 that afghanistan was the right war. iraq was the wrong war. the 9/11 attack came from afghanistan and not iraq. and he escalated over there to the tune of was it 100,000 in 2009 after all the dithering, do you remember? we are not the world's police men. can't win over there. we shouldn't be involved in nation building. trump administrationp campaigned from the beginning and not getting involved overseas in iolence. host: let me ask you, if the deal goes through and u.s. forces are withdrawn from afghanistan, what about some of those concerns that former ambassadors have raised about the continued presence of groups like al qaeda, possibly, in afghanistan? or even isis? caller: thank you.
overseas adventures, nation building, the u.s. -- host: aim asking you your opinion now. caller: the neon con. that's funny. c-span has really changed. you have turned into cnn. host: we'll go to edward who is in clear water, florida, your thoughts this morning? caller: my thoughts is that if they take the taliban out, they are only going to regroup, they are going to attack us again. just like they killed 16 people over there. i was in vietnam. i know -- they are going to just keep doing what they are doing. they have to get rid of them or do something with them. make a contract with them. they it cannot attack us anymore. we are fed up with this stuff. government is not doing the right thing by taking them out. i'm telling you they are going to come back and attack us again. they are going to do something. it's wrong. i know for a fact that that's what's going to happen.
donald trump, i think he's doing a good job, but i think he's got to watch -- i think he better make a trade with china so we can get back to normal. i like trump but i don't like some of the things he says. then again he's not really a bad guy. that's just my opinion. go with it or flow with it. you see what happens. host: our line for afghanistan vets is 202-748-8000. to look at the figures. total figures of u.s. casualties from the defense department through august 28, the u.s. military casualties total deaths, including d.o.d. civilian casualties, 4,432 killed in action. 3,490. that's the latest from the department of defense. overall from the state department and defense department there have been 14 ,000 people totally involved.
now totally involved in two missions in afghanistan. one is a bilateral counterterrorism mission with afghan forces. the other provides training and assistance to afghan national defense and security forces. and we talked about momentarily the -- just a moment ago the casualty in afghanistan for the -- over the past 18 years. eric's in seattle. good morning. your thoughts? aller: good morning. donald trump and his administration, if you really look at it, they are weak. any country that stands up in a fight with them and let them know you are going into a fight they are going to back down. back down from north korea, or iran, and any country. when democrats in office all they do is talk about war, war, war. look how they totally changed their philosophy. they are so weak. they don't want to fight nobody.
anything that donald trump says they go along-term with. i'm just talking about, you know, the facts of the situation. just look at it. he's supposed to be a front man, a bully. he's not a bully. any time he gets bullied, he does what neville chamberlain d. he's weak. the republicans, all they do when democrats argue about going to war, being strong, being strong, now look at them. all of them is mute. you can't get nothing out of them. what they are allowing is china. afghanistan is rich in minerals. and opium. what they are allowing china to do is get all the lithium that these batteries are made up. china has been over there developing the country. host: eric, let me ask you. should we be in afghanistan at some military presence in afghanistan or not? caller: yes. we should be in afghanistan because afghanistan is the one who attacked america. and kill more americans than anybody. if we should be anywhere forever
it should be a crew in afghanistan. letting the country know any time you attack america, you are going to pay for t look at the republicans how weak they are now. when obama was in office, he's weak, he won't do this. cross the line. kim jong il has crossed the line. they are putting this country in jeopardy. by pulling out of afghanistan the taliban has not given up. they are not surrendering. the united states have not won anything. they have lost. if the taliban run them out, they say that's what's going on, trump does nothing. they could pay trump money to leave. host: we are talking money this morning about the proposal deal. not official yet. news broke yesterday about the potential of it. as khalil, the representative of the u.s., negotiating with representatives of the taliban and some nine or 10 meetings. this is from "the washington post" this morning some of the complications facing the deal.
afghans urge closure of foreign compound after taliban bomb kills civilians. hups of protestors gathered outside a compound housing foreign nationals on tuesday. calling for it to be shut down just hours after a bomb targeting the facility killed at least 16 people and wounded more than 100 others. the powerful tractor bomb exploded around 10:00 p.m. monday outside the green village, a large compound in eastern kabul where a number of international organizations are based. the blast came even as the top u.s. negotiator in peace talks with the taliban appeared on afghan television and said u.s. and taliban officials had reached a draft agreement "in for instance." the attacks reig site knighted 2350ers in a taliban violence against civilians is on the the gentleman is recognized rise despite the announcement. according to the draft agreement, that khalil's described on monday, 5,400 u.s. troops would exit afghanistan within about five months after
the deal is signed. rob is in port crane, new york. good morning, rob. go ahead. caller: good morning. i think we need -- i don't want to echo your other callers. i agree that we should not be the policemen of the world. here in new york state our roads are in such crappy shape and it's all because we don't have any money. well, we would have money if we quit interfering and throwing trillions of dollars at bombs and other people that don't agree with us. i think we need a whole new strategy in this country. we need to go back to having a department of war, call it what it is. not a department of defense. they are not defending anything. ost: the lines are 202-748-8000, after f afghanistan veterans. 202-74 -8001 for everyone else. the outgoing chairman of the chairmans of staff is dunn frye was asked about u.s. forces in afghanistan. here's what he said. >> in the current environment,
current environment today, the level of violence asocial with the insurgency we and the afghans agree some degree of support is necessary. that's why we have forces on the ground inside afghanistan today. again, i want to make sure when i spoke about afghanistan securing itself in the future, i was very clear, i'm not affixing a time horizon to that or specific conditions. i was just answering a question. right now it's our judgment that the afghans need support to deal with the level of violence that is associate with the insurgency today. if an agreement happens in the future, if the security environment changes, then obviously our posture may adjust. >> much more than monetary support. >> that's right. that's the level of support we are providing today. one thing i'm sure, based on even since my time in afghanistan, many of you recall we had 140,000 coalition forces when i arrived in 2013. out 15,000, or 22000 total
coalition and u.s. forces today. significantly different. the one thing i'm sure of in the future our posture will adjust. host: find all of that briefing online at c-span.org. search pentagon briefing. twitter @cspanwj is how you weigh in. we should get out but not look fearful like we are retretting with trump scared of losing elections. what happened to we have to take the oil? this one says i can't believe we were in afghanistan almost 20 years and in the end we weren't able to dislodge the taliban. the cost in human lives is unacceptable. the cost in literal money will never be paid off in my lifetime. robert says this, women will be back in their burqas again with the taliban in charge. on that theme this is the opinion of former secretary of state madeleine albright the financial times this morning. peace must not return afghanistan to the dark ages. she writes there is broad hope in afghanistan and around the world that these talks will result in a lasting settlement.
but this hope is cuppled with concern about the price of peace. many fear with good reason that the return of the taliban could threaten the progress made by women over two decades to secure equal rights to education, employment, and political participation. also at risk are the democratic institutions and practices the afghans have put into place since the taliban were overthrown after the 9/11 attacks. under the taliban rule, she writes, girls above the age of 8 were barred from schools and women were banned from working and forcibly confined to their homes. in public women had to be completely shrouded and not permitted to speak above a whisper. they were punished severely for any semblance of independent conduct. as u.s. secretary of state i heard multiple accounts of such brutal treatment from afghan women refugees who had fled to pakistan. i called the taliban's behavior then despicable. the question is have they
changed? all that is at the financial times. hear from carlos in rice lake, wisconsin. welcome. caller: hello. i don't think that -- the taliban as a terrorist organization not the formal government of afghanistan. i don't know how we could negotiate a peace treaty or a cessation of alliance with an organization that is a terrorist agency not a formal government. i don't know that afghanistan has a formal government. host: decatur, georgia. good morning. caller: interesting subject. i think we should pull out of afghanistan. we should never have been there in the first place, i don't think. in fact, afghanistan's nickname is the graveyard of empires. i suggest everybody should read president eisenhower's great
speech, the cross of iron, about not becoming a military industrial complex. do you realize we have been in 75 wars in 243 years? he was talking about how the military takes all these wars take away from everything else, like your one gentleman was talking about roads, hospitals. health care. that's what we have become. a military industrial complex. president eisenhower warned us against that. we didn't listen. thank you. host: we hear from michigan, brian's there, good morning. what are your thoughts about the u.s. potential deal for the u.s. withdrawing from afghanistan? caller: i hope it works. i'm afraid it's only temporary because i don't know how many countries we are bombing over there, i think it was eight last they counted. how do you deal with the -- i don't know if you want to call
it islamic, muslim, or middle eastern population. there is no industry, whatsoever, other than oil. the way muhammad was able to get a violent, angry work force -- army force was to have them interfamily marriage for the last 500 years. and now we are to the point where there's so many -- so much inbreeding in the -- that part of the country that they are just -- 30% of the population is just violent, period. ook at sweden. they are just violent people, they have to stop inbreeding. host: brian in michigan. our question this morning about the proposed deal in afghanistan withdrawing troops. if you are an afghanistan vet that line 202-748-8000. all others 202-748-8001. another story we are keeping a close eye on, covering it this morning. brexit p.m. in a new battle after commons defeat.
this is from the bbc. they write the p.m. has said, prime minister boris johnson, will not accept another brexit delay. but a bill forcing him to seek extension if there is no deal is set to be approved by members of parliament. he needs 2/3 of m.p.'s to trigger an election. labor and other parties won't back it at this stage. the decision to expel 21 torrey rebels has caused recriminations in the party. prime minister's questions, you can see on your screen, under way right now our weekly coverage of p.m.q. in the house of commons. that's live, follow that over on c-span2 and also online at c-span.org. if there is news on that vote today, we will bring that to you as well. to jasper, indiana, hear from john. good morning. not one american soldier should have died in afghanistan. thank you. host: ok. we hear from angel in
merriesville, washington. good morning. caller: good morning. i have to concur with a lot of the previous commenters. we need to get our tuckuses out of afghanistan. there is no point in us being there. i think it's self-defeeth and waste of taxpayer dollars. it's sad, suppress depresting. these people are so backwards. i hate to reiterate this is the inbreeding, all of it. there is just like -- it would be nice to give them hope, but we can't -- us getting involved in afghanistan is not going to give them hope. we have already tried this over and over in the past history. host: are you concerned at all without some u.s. presence there, harbors groups like al qaeda or whatever some people have said will happen has happened in the past? caller: that's the thing. how do you extinguish something
like that? at's the history lesson we haven't eng continuing wished it. -- eng continuing wished it. we tried. there are people who are evil in this world. that's just the thing. we can't be the world's policemen sometimes. yes, america is hope for the rest of the world, but we also have to sometimes step back and go you know what, we can't control evil. we can't stamm temperature out sometimes. we have to just let go. and give it to jesus. that's all i got to say. give it to the good lord. thank you. host: thank you. 202-p 48-8000 for afghan vets. 202-748-8001 for all others. back to the "washington times" story this morning on afghanistan. they write the talks led by special envoy khalil has raised forward with key steak homeders
on the clines. -- key stakeholders on the sideline. mr. trump has yet to sign off on the agreement. u.s. military officials have not seen much evidence from the mull tip rounds of u.s. taliban talks. and he's been conducting in the gutter. hey write secretary he perfect has -- esper has been at the white house. mr. esper has issued a general statement in favor of the taliban talks, but has yet to weigh in publicly on what has been negotiated. just a look at the dollar figure for -- from the u.s. that's been spent in afghanistan. the u.s. and other nations, $15 billion in civilian assistance through 2020. since 2001, the u.s. as allocated approximately $29 billion in civilian assistance to afghanistan. we hear from george next in new
jersey. hi. caller: hi. what are they doing? they are just formally splicing up the heroin deals and the mineral rights and stuff like that to the parties in the back and just walk away? who is going to get all that drug money and mineral money that's deposited there? ask the vets how many people were protecting the fields. that's what they are doing. they are going to divvy up the money. once they get that finalized everything will be ok? host: in terms of divvying up the money, you are talking about the money that the u.s. -- caller: the poppies fields, minerals they fight over. there is a lot of minerals in afghanistan last i heard we need for cell phones and stuff like that. or is that something -- rumor? host: appreciate that, george. to jody in green river, wyoming. hi there, jody. caller: hi. host: make sure you turn down your television, mute it.
go ahead with your comments. caller: my comment is that we need to -- host: jody, if you mute your television you'll be good. mute the tv and go ahead with your question or comment. caller: ok. y comment is that we are a young country and we need to take care of ourselves and we are not going to change any cultural differences over there ith war. host: ron in billings, montana, hi. caller: look, i don't understand this. how can you trust people that for sport they gather people and it hang them, they execute women. do you understand that?
i don't. how do you negotiate with them kind of people? why aren't they weighed down with isis. heard isis is back -- host: who do they negotiate with ? if you want to reach a peace deal? caller: how do you negotiate with people that cut people's heads off to the roar of a crowd and hang people. then they shoot women. the pedophiles, they marry them 10 or 11 years old. why would you want them back in the country? look, christians, we stand up it for rifmente like the kansas city you read. that's immoral.
host: we hear from ron next. louisiana. what are your thoughts on this proposed deal with the taliban? caller: it's not going to work. look, everything that was over there, like the guy was talking about the military industrial complex, just big corporations make money off of it. and no telling who is getting all the minerals and resources out of there making money. this probably goes back to the bushes and everybody else. and the clintons. everybody else involved, including england. and that royal family, a bunch of perverts. talk about inbreads, that's a bunch right there. host: an opinion piece from melanie, head of the women's institute at georgetown. along similar lines to what madeleine albright, the former kansas city had written -- former secretary of state had written, once troops withdrawal
will be leveraged. women must be defended before the withdrawal. she writes news of negotiations between the united states and taliban and the prospect of impending intraafghan talks have given hope to the afghan people that years of war and unspeakable suffering may finally be coming to an end. americans, too, are war weary and want to see an end to what has become america's longest war. the talks with the taliban and the decision by the trump administration to maintain a presence of just 8,600 troops, however, have also sparked an enormous fear among afghans, especially among afghan women. although arguably the strongest advocates for peace, they worry that an agreement reached with the taliban without women's participation in the negotiations could put their hard-won gains on the chopping block. after all it was the taliban who during their regime imposed rules on afghan women and girls based on their misguided extremist interpretations of islam that drive them of their
rights. good morning, adrian, from minneapolis. caller: hi. thank for taking my call. i just want to say that i don't think with the taliban that we afghanistan. what you said about women's ights. afghanistan. host: adrienne, how do you think without a military presence the u.s. can have any influence in terms of protecting rights in afghanistan, women's rights and all rights there, and also securing our own interest in terms of national security back here? caller: that's why we should leave. because women are suffering. host: thank you. james, good morning.
wisconsin. hi, there. caller: yes, sir. thanks for taking my call. the term we should pull out of afghanistan when the truth of the matter is it's not we. it's somebody's children. most of the politicians that are make the decisions over there it they don't have any skin in the game. there's very few gold star politicians it -- politician families. i think that -- if the soldiers were to take the same position in afghanistan that the president did during the vietnam era, we wouldn't have any troops in afghanistan. would all be at home with bone spurs. that's all i have to safmente host: on facebook and twitter, facebook.com/c-span. send us a tweet at cjwj.
for every shoulder that died fighting for them how can anyone who supports our military continue the support of, quote for a lack of more descriptive term, man. jeremiah posts, they are just waiting until we leave. then it will be back to business. they have the luxury of being able to strategicically plan without being beholden to election cycles. january jan posts on twitter. afghanistan, so much winning. and from cynthia, the war in afghanistan was lost long before it started. george w. bush should have mobilized a up u.n. force to stopt destruction of giant buddhas and maybe those towers would be standing. he never recognized the threat posed by the taliban. our comments or question for you this morning on the proposed deal in afghanistan, it 202-748-8000 for afghanistan veterans. 202-748-8001 for all others. this is tim from michigan. go ahead.
caller: yes. we never hear anything on the news how israel feels about us pulling out of afghanistan. them being the one democracy in the middle east. and us helping to supply their security. i would like to hear more what their position is. i don't think they would want us to pull out of afghanistan. i might be wrong. i'd like to hear more reporting on their position. host: what do you think our leaving that in terms of strategy -- strategic positioning, our not having a presence militarily in afghanistan would mean to israel and other u.s. middle east partners? caller: i think it would make them less secure. host: thanks, tim. story this morning in the "new york times," back to stateside news. man chen won't run for governor choosing to remain in the senate. he announced on tuesday he wouldn't run for governor in his
home state of west virginia ending the speculation of one of the few democrats and bringing relief to the party leaders that republicans would win his seat if he stepped down. it hear from bill, bethany, oklahoma. hi. caller: how you doing, man. host: fine, thank you. caller: you're never going to vercome religious beliefs. it his lam -- islam. you are never going to overcome that. that's why they'll as you fight and do war against us and them. you can't overcome religious belief. host: would you think -- when you say religious beliefs, do you believe that when the u.s. forces leave that the country of afghanistan will go back to being controlled by the taliban and very much dominate their religious beliefs? caller: of course, yeah. yeah. it's a difference just religious belief is just so ingrained in
people. they can't change. they are going to fight and kill. it's never going to change. that's what you are fighting against. host: do you explain the people that were liberated under u.s. presence there, what happens to them and the freedoms that they enjoyed following the out ofing of the taliban there? -- ousting of the taliban there? caller: i don't know the whole story on that. you can ask them but they are going to crop back up. because of religion. that's the problem. religion. host: this is the reporting from the associated press. we showed you the comments earlier of general joseph dunnford the outgoing chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. the headline on this associated press piece on that news conference with the defense secretary, it's too early to discuss pulling out u.s. troops from afghanistan. robert burns writing the top
u.s. military officer said last week it's too early to talk about a full american troop withdrawal from afghanistan. injecting a cautionary note as the u.s. peace talks with the taliban appear to be near final agreement. general joseph dunnford told pentagon reporters that any u.s. deal with the taliban will be lace basted on security conditions on the ground. and that afghan forces aren't able to secure the country without help from allied forces. 202-748-8000 your thoughts if you are an afghan vet. 202-748-8001, all others. we say good morning to pat in new jersey. welcome. caller: hi. thank you. 12 ink this comes about years too late. i say better late than never. i don't think it was a mistake to go into afghanistan. we gave the people of afghanistan almost 18 years. if they wanted to be rid of the taliban, they would have done more. asor what's going to happen to
people, the one thing i would say to the world, anyone, anywhere who sets foot in afghanistan or any country that is harboring terrorists can never come here. host: when you say they can never come here, would you -- suppose we withdraw from afghanistan and further attacks are launched from there, would you be in favor of further u.s. retaliatory action against the country? caller: no. the people in afghanistan, they are a sovereign nation. they have to decide what they are going to do. i think the one thing we can do is protect ourselves by telling muslims all over the world -- we can't at the time good guys from the bad guys. we are being attacked by individuals. we have to tell the muslim world, as long as islam preaches terrorism you can't come here. any american that goes there can never come back. host: pat in new jersey. we hear from peter in coleman falls, virginia. welcome. caller: good morning.
thanks for taking my call. beyond the issues of humanitarian aid being rend derd due to the fact that we -- rendered due to the fact we caused quite a bit of disruption due to our occupation there, i'd like to comment on the idea that slam is supposedly preaching terrorism. i hear that all the time from all over virginia and friends that live all over the u.s. i think it's actually quite ridiculous. i'm no expert, just your average white guy in america. what i i have been -- read in translations and excerpts from the koran it doesn't preach terrorism at all. in fact, those people that commit those kind of heinous ts are condemned by most islamic folks. i think we have a big misunderstanding of what the
religion is promoting as opposed to individuals that are taking it upon themselves to act outside of the faith. host: do you think that the u.s. can continue to have any sort of influence on that? or any influence at all in afghanistan in terms of keeping a radical element from having their will and their way in afghanistan and potentially harming the u.s.? caller: i think certainly physical occupation there is going to have an effect. if we completely hightail it out of there, it's going to be left or for e for return new, oppressive regime to take control or whatever. but i think that we need to work on not only over there, but over in america and elsewhere at trying to stand as a global
community and make it a consensus base decisions on those things. host: does that mean also an expanded diplomatic effort in afghanistan? caller: of course. of course. certainly. not overwhelm do we need to render aid to them, just as far as food and basic needs being met, but i think we need to render aid in the sense that we need to help them build up their n kind of -- their own ability put lice themselves and to into play some basic organization of lower level government. host: appreciate your input. peter from virginia. back to national politics in the u.s. this is from the charlotte news and observer, after map struck down north carolina gerrymandering lawsuit, top republican leader won't appeal.
north carolina's political map for the state legislature are unconstitutional and must be redrawn before the 2020 elections the court has decided. the observer writing the panel of judges struck down the maps tuesday in a 357-page ruling that focused on the level of political partisanship used to draw them. the maps were drawn in 2017 to replace previous maps drawn in 2011 that had a also been ruled unconstitutional. republican-led s were drawn by legislature. the judges found that, quote, north carolina, the north carolina supreme court, has long and consistently held that our government is founded on the will of the people and that their will is expressed by the ballot. that's from the charlotte news and observer. a couple of quick thoughts on twitter @cspanwj f you want to see the aftermath of places like afghanistan on our sons and daughters, just turn your tv on and watch wounded veterans
organizations appeal to contribute to the treatment both physical and mental of our wounded veterans who have served honorable in these hellholes. this one says, rand paul the foreign policy goat said she wee should have walked away from afghanistan a decade ago. we have only wasted trillions and lost blood since. back to calls, bob in baldwinville, massachusetts. hello. aller: good morning. i'd like to say that other caller that just said we need to get along with the muslims and that they are not violent at all is insane. for rush got in trouble the book he wrote. the idea -- if you could stick your hand into a bell full of rattlesnakes that is the muslim faith. they want nothing to do with christianity. they want to wipe us all off the planet. you saw it when they destroyed everything in the middle east.
now all of them are moving into europe and wiping out the europeans. it's a real good idea to let the muslims around the world if you want to have an entire muslim world, we should do that. host: bob, in massachusetts, you are tying the billions of muslims in the world. are you saying all of them support what the taliban has -- caller: the one that is aren't terrorists are supporting the terrorist --try. all of their clerics teach hate. you can put anybody into a mosque and any mosque, any mosque, and you will find them preaching kill everybody that isn't a muslim. host: from lisa, next. louisville, kentucky. welcome. caller: how are you today? host: fine. caller: i think they have a little bit, the trump administration, has a little bit more nefarious purposes. i don't think we should be negotiating with the taliban at all. what happened to the afghan
government we should negotiate with? as far as this withdrawal goes, i think they are going to take these troops, give them a little break, and then send them off to iran. i really think there is a deeper and more nefarious purpose to all this. host: that's lisa in louisville. from hong kong this story at "usa today." the associated press story, hong kong leader withdraws extradition bill that sparked protest. they write that hong kong chief executive has announced that the government will formally withdraw an extradition bill that sparked months of demonstrations in the city, boughing to one of the protestors' demands. that bill would have allowed hong kong residents to be sent to mainland china for trials. it sparked massive protests that have become increasingly violent and caused the airport to be shut down earlier this month. we hear from donna in salem, massachusetts. welcome. caller: hi. how you doing? i just want to speak about human
rights in general. we have a situation right here the great u.s. of a. of guardianship. they are culling the elderly across of america. a lot of people aren't aware what happens to our elderly when they go into the court system. they lose all their rights. prison has more rights than the elderly. they isolate medicaid and steal the estates. there is a website that is very, very informative regarding this matter. a lot of people don't know. it's like a national protest is needed to stop what is happening. right here in the great u.s. of a. it's despicable. they targeting elderly like we are in the way now. i am a senior citizen. i'm telling you, this is what we
have to look forward to. they isolate medicaid, steal -- host: donna, it's a little off our topic. do you have something to say -- caller: no, it isn't. it's human rights. host: thank you for your call this morning. looking at the "time" magazine piece, i served 10 tours in afghanistan, it's time for us to leave. this is a piece that's written by donald boldic. he served -- he's a former commander of u.s. special operations in africa and served overseas, he's a candidate for the u.s. senate in new hampshire. he writes on the evening of july 15, 1979, a solemn and weary president carter sat in the oval office and addressed the nation about what he termed the fundamental threat to american democracy known historically as the crisis of confidence speech, president carter used his prime time slot to empa size thise about a general malaise hovering over the country. it was particularly perilous period for america. his economy was trapped by high
inflation and energy shortages and whose political elite was distrusted by the very citizens they were supposed to represent. 40 years after that momentous speech, america's undergoing a similar crisis of confidence with its foreign policy and defense establishment. the gulf between the policy elite and the general public is widening and getting wider. it can be seen in the 59% of americans who no longer believe a generation war in afghanistan is worth the effort. in the pile of taxpayer money devoted and often misallocated during the post 9/11 wars, $5.9 trillion. in the mean -- unending deployment schedule that puts stress on america's service members and utter lack of accountability within senior leadership despite repeated mistakes. the result has been poor decisionmaking, even poorer judgment, and the kind of inconclusive and expansive wars the american people have become disillusioned with.
you can read more at time.com. welcome, your thoughts and he comments. 202-748-8000 if you are an afghanistan war veteran. 202-748-8001 for all others. on twitter @cspanwj. chico, california, wanda, good morning. caller: i have read the koran. i can tell you the most awesome repeated verse in the koran is kill the infidel wherever you find him. muhammad was a desert pirate and he had 11 wives. the youngest one he married when she was 8 years old. is that what we want to bring here? please don't bring those people over here anymore. we don't want that kind of culture. they have -- their religion is their government. and that's not what we want here. please don't bring any muslims
here. they all read the same book. host: that's wanda in california. this is a piece from what's called war on the rocks. it's an opinion piece. don't signed a death warrant for afghan democratcy. another view here. he writes that on august 16 the u.s. envoy for afghan peace talks briefed president trump's national security team on the details of negotiations with the taliban. that in theory offer a way to end america's military involvement in its longest war. while a deal has not been finalized and details are scars, the united states is reportedly contemplating the withdrawal of troops down to 8,600 immediately and possibly down to zero by october 2020 in exchange for the taliban cutting ties with al qaeda and entering into reconciliation talks with the afghan government. something the taliban has refused to do until inking a
deal with washington. this is flirting with disaster, he writes. an agreement with the taliban tied to an american withdrawal threatens the destruction of the afghan enterprise that the united states and its afghan allies have sacrificed much to put in place. if the u.s. military withdrals under these or similar conditions, the afghan government will falter. and the taliban will be closer to achieving their ultimate goal of re-establishing the islamic emirate of afghanistan. even though there are many failures associated with america's long military involvement in afghanistan, and american deal with the taliban threatens to unch do notable successes in the development of a representative afghan republic. daytona beach, florida, next up. ron, welcome. good morning. yeah. people need to read the koran.
basically this whole section having to deal with infidels. most -- a lot of muslims and a lot of the problems that it -- is considered the great infidel because of our moral -- what's happening morally in this country. we also shouldn't have the rights of women -- women's rights as a foreign policy when it collides with the religion and its specific country. do i believe we need to move out of afghanistan. and maybe centralize some of that money we are spending there into central america and see if we can just clean up our own backyard and quit worrying about what's going on in afghanistan. the agreement with the taliban now places afghanistan, if we agree to this, it will place afghanistan with actual legal
agreement. if they decide to attack america again, we then have a right to basically destroy afghanistan. host: that's ron in daytona beach, florida. we'll be talking about hurricane dorian in a bit. we go to whit in conover, north carolina. caller: yes, sir. comment about something you said about the election system -- gerrymandering in north carolina. if you look at history, in this state and the south, i'm sure you know that the opposition political party, the democrats, a a pretty solid -- had stronghold on politics in this state and in the south. so i just think it's interesting that so many people are contesting the gerrymandering
when the democrats themselves 100-year ve, almost control of the political system. host: thanks for that little off topic. we do talk about that article. we are talking about the affling eace deal. the potential deal, 202-748-8000 for service members who have been in afghanistan. for all others, 202-748-8001. we'll talk about this a bit more later in the p therogram. story, front page of the "new yorkimes,"al-mart epters gun debate curtailing ammunition sales. wal-mart stepped forcefully into the national gun debate saying it would stop selling ammunition that can be used in military-style assault rifles and discourage its customsers from openly carrying guns in the stores and call on congress to increase background checks and consider a new assault rifle ban. a bit more about that. we'll shend spend a half-hour talking about that later in the program. next to alex who is in silver
spring, maryland. caller: hello, good morning. i was deployed u.s. army to afghanistan, 2011-2012, one of the last year-long deployments before obama's draw down. i just was thinking about the situation in afghanistan. a lot of people wind up talking about how if we withdraw now it will be defeat like vietnam. the defeat is in what our objective was. and our objective actually changed once we got in and became an occupying force in afghanistan. and the objective became to spread democracy, which is the same objective we had in iraq and arguably that has also failed. in iraq as well. if that is the objective that we are trying to accomplish, i'm not entirely sure if we will
ever be able to leave because we'll have to be an occupying police force in order to maintain the democracy in that area. unless we do some negotiating between the taliban and the afghan government rather than just with one side or the other. if our objective was to defeat al qaeda can and to neutralize the threat to the united states, that objective was completed and we won that r. in that regard we should leave as victors and let the afghan people take care of the country themselves. if they have issues with the united states and come back to attack us again, then we can fight another war in afghanistan. otherwise people keep saying if we leave then they'll attack us again. we won't know unless we just stay there permanently, i guess? it's either stay there permanently or leave. and defend ourselves here in
america instead of over there. host: let me ask you -- when you went into your tour 2011-2012, were you pretty clear what the objective was going in? caller: the objective was essentially to be boots on the ground. i was deployed in a province that borders turkmenistan and iran. we were just basically there watching people who were foreign fighters coming across the border and just monitoring them. the province i was deployed to wound up being an experimental region where it was the first region that the united states gave authority back to regional -- regional authority back to the local afghan government army. so they became the predominant military and police force at the time we were basically auction illaries along with the st of the nato forces there, mostly
spanish and italian and a couple canadians. other than that we were basically not doing a whole lot. i was field artillery the whole time. our entire brigade was sent there without any field artillery. our armored brigade was sent without any tanks. we just signed off on the equipment that it was already there and became glorified police force and boots on the ground. we didn't do any fighting. i didn't see any fighting. it was a very easy deployment for me, honestly. and i think one timeure base -- time our base got shot by mortars, that was about it. basically the situation was, if we left them alone, because we knew where they were, where the taliban was in those villages, if we didn't go there, they wouldn't attack us. that was basically the situation then. and i assume that's the situation now, too. host: i appreciate t we thank you for your insight, your service, and your experience there in afghanistan.
couple more minutes of your call. stephen next up, also an afghanistan veteran. hi. caller: hi. i agree with the last caller. i just got back. the thing that no one's talking about right now is that the afghan government has probably five to 10 times the amount of trained solears than the taliban. they are just refusing to fight. they are in a defensive perimeter they get attacked and do n take it to the taliban. most of the leaders and generals are corrupt. there is no winning in afghanistan. the previous caller talked about if winning is setting up a democracy, we have won. if we leave tomorrow, the place is going back to crap. if we leave in five years it goes back to crap. host: you it goes back to crab. host: stephen, you just recently got back. how long had you recently been and country? caller: eight months. host: were you clear on the objective going into that? caller: yes.
with a specific mission some unwilling and willing partners. host: thank you for listening on c-span radio this morning. stephen and the nation's capital. thanks for being there. just tweet from the special inspector general for afghanistan reconstruction. latest, they keep an eye on the spending, how u.s. money is being spent. air force continues to struggle to recruit and train the afghan air force, to train qualified air force maintenance and personnel due to lack of english language and technical competence. we go to hurricane dorian next year on "washington journal." the university of maryland michael greenberger talks to us to talk about natural disasters, and some of the lessons we learn from dorian.
later on, philip klein will talk about president trump's reelection efforts and his efforts from republicans. ♪ announcer: what is your vision in 2020? studentcam 2020 is asking students what issue do you most want to see the presidential candidates address during the campaign? studentcam is c-span's nationwide video documentary. document terry-- program for middleton high school students. students are asked to produce a
short video documentary including c-span video, and reflect differing points of view. information to help you get started on -- get started is on our website, studentcam.org. >> this is the story of how this whole new economy was built and how -- i have always been interested, ever since i was working in washington, and how business and government interact with one another. antagonistic relationship but also a collaborative relationship. american history is one of public and private partnerships in ways that art sometimes unseen, so this -- i think the story is a great way to get into that. announcer: university of washington history professor margaret o'mara discusses her book, the code, silicon valley and the remaking of america. --s is on c-span's human day
q&a. >> the house will be in order. announcer: for 40 years, c-span has provided america unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events from washington, d.c. and around the country so you can make up your own mind. created by cable in 1979, it is brought to you by your local cable light -- cable and satellite provider. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. announcer: "washington journal" continues. host: mike greenberger is the director of university of maryland's center of health and security. he is here to talk about disasters. dorian has been a slow motion case study of a hurricane and
government response to that hurricane. keeping in mind the horrible devastation it has done in the bahamas so far, what are the initial early lessons we are learning of the government response to it? great problemshe for emergency managers in these situations is getting people evacuated. so-called mandatory evacuations, voluntary evacuations. one of the biggest problems -- this has been such a slow moving hurricane that it has been on the radar screen for over a week now, and there may be some emergency fatigue, that is to say people have, for example in florida when they thought it was nowg to hit first and it will hit the east coast, people have been sheltered for a week and are getting antsy. citizenshe response by to the evacuation orders has been very good, but i think the
emergency managers are starting to worry that just when it is about to hit the us coast, there may be people wanting to go back. host: is there also the danger of people getting there and they have a laissez-faire about this? guest: there was always a problem with that, less so today. for example, there was a very bad hurricane in florida in the summer -- late summer of 2004. people in new orleans evacuated. nothing happened. when katrina came along, they were -- i'm not going to go through a traffic jam of eight hours in stop and go traffic, so they did not leave new orleans. we see less of that today. people are aware of the dangers of these hurricanes and are ready to go. the problem is that they have been sheltered in place for so long, there is a fear they will give up and go back into harm's way. host: let me touch on some of the lessons learns that the "new york times" is saying about
florida. this was published this morning, five lessons florida has learned in the past as it prepares for the worst. the first, mobile homes are safer than they used to be, but still vulnerable. nursing homes require special attention, storm surge is because ruinous flooding, strong building codes matter, and power failures are inevitable. guest: each of those points is very well taken. florida has been at the face of the coal mine on these issues for decades. they have gotten better and better as time goes on. the emergency managers there are of very high quality. of the five points he picked out, the most troubling thing is nursing homes. in a lot of hurricanes, in florida and elsewhere, residents and nursing homes who are not as mobile or not as able to deal with the emergencies as others have gotten trapped in the
emergency, in the nursing home without copper evacuation. we are much better at that now. it was really bad in superstorm sandy in new york when the lower half of manhattan was flooded. people were caught in nursing homes. katrina, 90% of the mortalities were people trapped in nursing homes. emergency managers are much more attuned to that now. people who run nursing homes are much more attuned to that, so we are able to plan better to get those residents out of harm's way. host: in the federal standards change in terms of nursing homes and preparedness for disasters? guest: that's a great question. yes, in the obama administration, a bird and was put on nursing homes to come up with emergency operations. hospitals, as a matter of certification, have to have emergency operations plans. how do you, for example, get the
and patients in the hospital out the door? they wanted to do the same thing for nursing homes. there was a deadline in 2017 for nursing homes to get those plans ready or lose their federal funding. the trump administration completely let that deadline go by. havearger nursing homes, own, thehave, on their smaller nursing homes don't have have ading and don't meaningful deadline and are not doing what needs to be done. we are trying to find a sources of private funding to help smaller nursing homes do this planning so they get their patient and residents of the door. host: you are the director of the university of maryland's center for health and homeland security. how did that organization come about and what is your primary
mission? guest: we are in our 18th year. it came about the president of the university, after the 9/11 attacks, de-tided he went to use the resources. my campus was where the nursing skill was. host: baltimore. guest: yes, baltimore. to use these resources professional schools to solve the problems, at that point, people were more worried about terrorism then natural to that natural disaster. orwere about terrorism, bridging storms, emerging infectious diseases, and cybersecurity concerns. we are an inside the university consulting institution. andave an academic side offer, with various professional
schools, mastered -- masters degrees in crisis management. host: and funded entirely by the university of maryland? guest: funded by the clients we service. we are self-funded, like for example, if you we are going yetelp the hospital, week into a contract with them and get paid for our services. because we are a nonprofit, inside of the university, our services are one quarter cost of a private consulting firm. even when i talk about these small nursing homes, this cutthroat rate we are offering is still too much for them. we are doing pro bono work, and we are trying to do advising as much as we can, but there needs to be a lot more funding but on the table for smaller nursing homes and other smaller medical facilities. greenberger is our guest and is the director for nationaland health and
security -- if you are in eastern or central time zones, (202) 748-8000. (202) 748-8001 mountn and pacific. if you are being impacted by hurricane dorian, we would love to hear from you if you are able, (202) 748-8002. we had a color yesterday, it might have been one of the members we interviewed, members of hungers, who talked about the rate of people who are moving to florida, 1000 people per day. the problem is that there are so many people there. there are a lot of people to move out, to evacuate in time. guest: absolutely that is true. florida, every time there is a big hurricane in the atlantic, the likelihood is that florida is going to get hit. they have been lucky with dorian -- host: so far.
guest: so far. they were worried about a direct hit on florida, which would have been devastating. there will be problems, i don't want to minimize that. florida is a heavy populated area. one of the things that needs to example,t about, for insurance, flood is to not located harm's way. one of the problems you have on florida, the eastern seaboard, [music plays] host: sorry about that, music on my ipad. guest: one of the policies that needs to be implemented is ensuring that people are not developing and building in areas that will be flooded when the first bad hurricane comes along. host: how do you make that --
that is a state-by-state decision, right? guest: federal flood insurance, and the flood insurance, if you can get flood insurance, you want to build where you can build area there is a major debate right now about whether or not the limiting of the insurance for building in areas that are likely to be flooded and wiped out, a lot of flood insurance goes to people who repetitively are making claims because they filled in harm's way. host: maybe we have dodged a bullet on this one. storm comparison in the wall street journal. the rainfall in hurricane matthew in 2016 was pretty intense, all the way from the florida coast through southeast or genia. the projected rainfall for dorian through september the 10th is far less on that. we have calls waiting and we go to jerry in orlando for michael greenberger. jerry, go ahead. smyrna actually, i'm in
-- in newared a beach smyrna beach. we have electricity back on. it has not been a great night to sleep well, so my daughter lives two blocks away and has no electricity. we just text each other to find out what is going on with technology. it is a little scary still. we have a lot of rain still, and because i had access to the internet i was able to see it was off the coast here, and that is supposed to maybe get a little better by this afternoon. we are hanging and then hoping the electricity lasts. host: are you a native floridian and have you been there quite some time? caller: no, i have only been down here -- retired of course, over the last seven or eight years. had a couple of other hurricanes over the last two years.
this one, last two hurricanes we had a lot of debris all over the place. out here, there is like nothing on the lawn. it is kind of amazing. i was thinking maybe we were getting more rain then wind. host: jerry in orlando, thanks for that. those who may have been impacted, your line is (202) 748-8002. guest: the problems with the electrical grid is serious problems. i can't remember if that was one of the things listed in the new york times, -- host: it was, power failure. and power electrical structure is not in good shape. the companies are terrific. not only the ones directly impacted him about if something happens in florida, south carolina and north carolina will be the next center of this problem.
the electrical utilies unite and come in and service and fix things quickly. i think that is good. the problem is the grid, the actual equipment is outdated, old. you hear every day, "we are going to fix our infrastructure, we are going to fix our infrastructure." but money is not being put in those places. the weakness of the grid will come back to haunt in a big way. using electricity for short. -- for a short period of time, you can deal with that, but hurricane sandy, for people without electricity for weeks on end, we have to put our money on that pocket. host: getting back to florida, they did, in the "new york times" report power outages in the wake of several hurricanes, improvements for the $4 billion. they write what they have done, adding concrete power poles, have replaced many of the wooden
ones and many switches in transformers allow the devices to be reset without sending out off --ll 5 million customers in florida have meters to allow somebody to let them know if they have no power, even if they are out of town. drones buzz over neighborhoods to help identify power problems with the lines. guest: that is an unusually -up system. even so, if you hear worries about cybersecurity and cyberattack, or severe weather conditions, the first thing people worry about is the grid. florida, florida power and light, maybe doing great work, but the grid is an interconnected network. host: tell us about the process of the president declaring a state of emergency. this is a long developing storm, whether it is a hurricane or
other emergency situation in the country, what makes that happen? guest: that's a very interesting question, because we are going through a very core to us. period.ous if a governor has experienced very severe interference with the ability of systems to go about their daily lives, the governor will declare -- emergency declare by the federal government, by the president. the president can do it on his own, but it is rare if he does. it is usually a state dri ven operation. the state applies for money, but the problem in the last year has from the stafford act have been running out. congress has to feed those funds. there have been those torturous
about whether authorizations will be passed. for example, last year's emergencies, there were billions of dollars appropriated, but they couldn't reach an agreement between the two houses, and the president questioned whether he would sign it because there was upset about giving money to puerto rico because the view was, which by the way i disagree with, that's puerto rico wasn't using the money correctly. finally, that gets resolved in the money is appropriated. $19.1 million. the president is now taking money out of that fund for border control and walls, even though the congress appropriated p say purpose to hel puerto rico, the money is going out for other reasons. host: our lines are (202) 748-8000 for those of you in the eastern and central time zones. mountain and pacific is (202) 748-8001.
if you are affected by hurricane dorian, that line is (202) 748-8002. back to the money issue, the economic policy section of "the washington post" disaster fund explodes amid the climate change in popular trends. needs fundingaii after volcanic eruption sprayed lava -- sprayed lava. florida wiped out last year by eric and michael, one of the strongest hurricanes to ever make landfall in the united states. nebraska and iowa suffered one of the worst floods in their history. puerto rico is still looking for emergency reconstruction money after hurricane maria killed thousands in 2017. people were fighting over the details of the $13 million package. this article points out congressional feuding over disaster aid is unlikely to stop even the current impact if the current impasse is resolved, which involve -- which itas.
they write disaster did leaf -- really fund is 10 times higher than it was three years ago, even for adjusting for inflation. that's according to a washington post analysis of federal data. guest: the disasters arm mounting up. you have deadly wildfires in california, flooding of farmlands in the midwest, hurricanes in the east coast. this is not the problem of people asking for money that there is no good reason to use it. frankly, with climate change, we are experiencing increasingly deadly natural disasters, and by the way, it will affect everybody. we have the interesting situation, after superstorm sandy in new jersey and new york, that the republican senators in the southwest didn't want to fund that relief. next thing they know, they have
a hurricane in louisiana and mississippi so they need the money. everybody will need this money, so it is not money going to waste. lives in the united states or anywhere in the world for that matter and look around them. hurricanes, wildfires, flooding in the midwest. we are in an era of crisis management. host: we have a call from north carolina, ed, good morning. caller: good morning. host: you are on the air, go ahead. whyer: i would like to know the electrical power companies have not followed the tele-cone -- the telephone companies and put lines underground. i think south carolina just past something requiring that. guest: your point is well taken. utilities should be putting their wires underground.
the problem is, it is hugely expensive. this goes to the question of whether we, as citizens, are going to use our tax money to improve the situation. there's a lot of money that needs to be used. president trump, when he ran for president, talked about he want to fix infrastructure. we had infrastructure week almost every week. putt of money needs to be at the improvement of infrastructure, one of the foremost things as putting utility wires underground. it is usually expensive. we find the money to rescue banks, trillions of dollars, but we aren't finding the money to help ourselves fight these emergencies which are coming on and increasing basis and effect -- an increasing basis and affect everyone. host: you talked about sandy a couple times, so what you think that area has learned? what do you they are doing to
build up their infrastructure? guest: every problem they have experienced, the roads, keeping water out -- host: subway system? guest: subway system and in ther manhattan infrastructure to keep water from coming out. it has been improved, but not enough. if another superstorm like sandy went up the east coast, the experience would be new jersey, new york, connecticut, they would have the personnel experience to do a good job, and they have improved the infrastructure, but not enough. host: of your organization, what is the common -- most common issue clients employ you for. guest: there is a doctrine required for some people to get federal money to have what is called the continuity of
operations. if a police station gets flooded out, they have to have a plan to go to an alternate site and get up and running in 12 hours. hospitals cannot be certified unless they have that plan. we spend a lot of time helping institutions find an alternative site and be able to use it within the 12 hour period. host: let's hear from nick in illinois. hi, nick. caller: hello and thank you for taking my call. i think our disaster relief is quite amazing. you can say democrat or republican all you want, forget politics. we better be fortunate that we have the government in place that we have, despite the crisis everybody might call it. i kind of watch the prime minister's questions, and the only thing they can do, there prime minister, for five weeks, his call him a racist and a dictator.
we are talking about the bahamas as a country. what is britain going to do for the bahamas? it is amazing actually. host: that jumps into my next question, i was going to ask you, the pictures coming out of the bahamas, 13,000 homes destroyed there. your response to our color? guest: i think the caller -- caller? guest: i think the caller has an excellent point. states have the constitutionally -- states are responsible for the health and welfare of their citizens. the states take the lead in this. there is no doubt, in the 9/11 attacks, since hurricane katrina, the states have professionalized their emergency response system and the caller is right, it is an apolitical system. you don't get into political bickering. people work altogether. but, where the politics come in, our personnel is good and they do the best they can with what
they have, but for example, the electrical grade, it needs to be fixed. in 2003, a bird sitting on a wire in ohio knocked out the electricity on the whole east coast. ofcybersecurity terms, one the best places for an enemy to attack is to disable the electrical grid because it is so interconnected. we, when the politics come in, are we going to have the discipline to take money and fix that system? we find the money for tax cuts, to bail out, but we aren't finding the money to improve roads, embankments, electrical grid, so i bless and i'm grateful to be a part of the community. it is a cooperative community, works well together, and nationwide, among emergency responders. host: let's hear from christine
in new hampshire. caller: thanks for taking my call. none of my biggest questions is maintenance. while i understand we need new updated equipment here and there, back in the day, we all used to do maintenance on everything, vehicles, washers, whatever it took. it seems like there is no such thing as maintenance anymore, and there is a great way to save money and stop asking the who we areernment bringing to all the time with these disasters. we all pay our bills, especially electric and power, whatever they use, gas. maintenance happens to be the biggest issue. before we rebuild everything, see what we have first of all. host: what is the most obvious example of maintenance in your area you are not seeing it done by your state in particular? guest: the funny thing is that what is an issue, everybody is on board, and that is great, but
as far as regular maintenance every weekend month, that should be important, you should see the power companies come up or out and look at the wires. check them out, check out the transformers. we had transformers blow up over here, and that is when they come out. it's late then because then you have a loss in power. maintenance is one of the biggest things. all of those people making the money, the big companies that we need the power, they have plenty of money from what we pay. nd property tax, states want more money. nobody works on the roads. what are they doing with our money? host: christina new hampshire. guest: obviously, -- christina in new hampshire. guest: as she suggested, that may be from the state administration, but in my experience, when you say they don't fix things, if it is a utility and they fix things, ir in your utility --
ir expensesses -- the will go up and your utility will go up. something we need to have supplemental funding for. mostte people, for the part, don't build our roads. it's built out of a federal highway fund. the embankments to keep rivers out of cities are built by taxpayer dollars. you have anis, one, issue and people don't want to pay taxes or there is a philosophy that we should not be paying taxes without a thought that those taxes actually come back to protect us in desperate times. all of these things, maintenance, some of it may be in attic care. i think that is what the caller believes -- inadequate care. i think that is what the caller believes.
maintenance costs money. if it is the private utility doing that, if they do it a lot, the customers will increase charges. the customers will be upset. if you ask any from the state, people don't want their taxes raised. for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for everybody. there is no such thing as a gated community keeping you out of danger from harm's way. in bahamas, gated communities are well underwater. we are all experiencing these problems, and we will have to develop an attitude of citizenship that will band together to find the funds to make the improvements in roads, in embankments, electrical grids, what have you. host: michael greenberger's organization is the maryland center for health and homeland security, he runs it, the director. they queue for being with us this morning. up next is our guest, philip klein, executive editor with the
washington examiner. we will be talking about the republican party and camping 2020 later on. who talke key lawyers about unaccompanied immigrant children detained. about the move to hold integrated families indefinitely. but first, in ireland, vice --sident trump defended his be back inderful to ireland. ireland is so important to the united states of america as a trading partner, but in so many ways, for so many americans, ireland his family, and i am one of them. it is deeply humbling for me, to be able to come back to ireland and have the opportunity to go to the very hometown of my mother's grandmother.
at all have dinner tonight little pub i worked out when i was 22 years old when i came over here, shortly after my grandfather passed away. right across the street is the house where my great-grandmother grew up. she often spoke of the castle that was out the window of her bedroom. to be able to be here, to be able to reaffirm our commitment to the republic of ireland, all of our economic ties, all of our diplomatic ties, but at the same time, to have an opportunity to connect to the route to my family supports the relationship between the u.s. and ireland. if you think about the bond that exists between the people, they have much to do with shared heritage and family. that is why it was important for me, before our original trip -- to atyou least least spend one night here.
i understand political attacks by democrats, but if you have a chance to get here, it is a small place and the opportunity to stay here and accommodate the unique footprint that comes with our security detail and other personnel have made it logical. we checked it with the state department and they approved staying there. i was pleased to have the opportunity to return to that family hometown and be able to stay there and not just on a personal level but to do it in a way that helps me celebrate with the people of ireland, the connection with so many -- connection that so many tens of millions of americans feel to the emerald isle. announcer: "washington journal" continues. host: philip klein is the executive editor of the washington examiner, joining us
this segment to talk about republicans and camping 2020 and president trump's candidacy. i want to go to an opinion piece you wrote about the president. trump is still not realized being president restrict what you should say and do. ifwrote, regardless one believes the actions and robert mueller's report lead to obstruction of justice, he would have less work to do. trump recognizes -- until trump recognizes his words have ramifications. believe hisdoesn't actions were legal. as he enters the 2020 election, phone or ability is his ability to grasp the office. philip klein, give us examples of that that led you to write this piece. guest: i think the main issue, you have on twitter, the constant bombardment of insults,
referencess when he disloyal jews in reference to jews, both democrat and got into a debate referring to disloyalty to other jews and israel and so forth. yo are -- trump was a celebrity and he had an active twitter profile and active perso that benefited him for a candidate, benefited him in dominating the news cycle and always make the race about him, and that, in a crowded republican field, crowded everyone out. once you become president, even though you gain certain powers, it comes with certain limitations. and, people expect a certain restraint. another big example was when he
started tweeting out, talks about the trade war with china, as aning chairman powell enemy akin to china, and after that, the market tanked. he joked about the market tanking on twitter, so those sort of things, he could move markets, create international incidents, and create all sorts of problems just through his words. i don't think that set in. i think he thinks he can fire things off as though he is the celebrity commentating on things. host: do you think he sees it also doesn't have any effect among his supporters? lookything, it may, if you at some reaction, embolden them. guest: i think that is one of the legacies of not just the fact that he won in 2016, but the way he won.
sayingsort of always obviously bombastic things as a candidate, and all of this -- these analysts say he could never win and he would never win the nomination, and then he could never win the presidency. all of the experts were proven wrong, so that, in a sense, he felt vindicated that his gut instincts and saying what comes to his mind and trying to get a rise out of people and play this game with the media, that that -- he won politically, so he still sees that as a successful strategy, but it might not be successful in all cases. host: as the democratic field narrows and a choice or choices become smaller, and his potential rival becomes apparent
in early 2020, do you think his campaign approach will change? do you think he will tweet war about his accomplishments -- more about his accomplishments in the first term as opposed to some of the attacks against other candidates or other issues? guest: i think if there is one constant it is that trump is not really going to change. this is who he was before he was a candidates, who he was as a candidate, and it is who he has been as president. -- idea that some people less so now and more so earlier in the presidency, we had where he maybe did give a speech or be relatively calm on twitter for a week or so and people would say he is growing into the presidency, is this the day he became president? is he acting more presidential? aen, you wake up and there is storm of tweets about something or other, you know, attacking
someone and so forth. so, i think he is who he is. he is a grown man, and that is who -- the personality he has is not really going to change. i expect that is going to be a brutal campaign. , executivep klein editor of the washington examiner. we are talking about 2020 election issues. (202) 748-8000 is the number for democrats. republican line is (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. we welcome your comments on facebook as well and on twitter @cspanwj. the front page, legacy, what legacy?
hardly a shred remains of obama's is it and see by david harsenhe.g -- david guest: i think also what has been pretty interesting if you look at the way the democratic primaries are playing out, , otheris that people candidates, other than biden who is trying to wrap himself in the obama legacy, referring to himself as the obama-biden democrat. a lot of the other candidates are trying to play this game of attacking the problems with the obama legacy on issues such as immigration, for instance. in at is quite remarkable sense that if you compare that, let's say, to ronald reagan and
how, for decades, and trump, for decades candidates seeking the republican nomination would always try to invoke trump -- i'm sorry, invoke reagan. interesting that's basically, a lot of the attacks on biden and a lot of the policies being outlined by going in are really different direction then the obama administration. that hes a candidate ran as the transformational candidate, but a lot of his policy approach was more incremental than what the democrats are proposing now, which is much more radical change. that has been an interesting development. host: we have lots of calls waiting and we get to matthew in miamisburg, ohio on our democrats line. matthew, go ahead.
caller: i believe that president trump is one of the most divisive and one of the worst presidents in american history. he has eroded our democracy. all he seems to care about is dividing americans. on the basis of race, wealth, class, and he has shown -- he has even pitted, he made the choose, you, like, know, are just loyal if they go against him, which was so offensive and totally, you know, just ridiculous, and really disgusting. i hated hearing that. i have friends who arduous -- who are jewish, and it reminds them of a dark lace. all of the stuff -- dark place. all of the stuff he has done from when he took office, he is not doing anything at all to really help himself.
he is pinning us together. being from the area -- i really didn't want to have him come to dayton at all r shooting, because, to be honest, it seemed like he wanted -- he got a lot of photo ops, and it didn't seem to help as much. i think the mayor and sadly the local politicians did a much better job healing the community, coming together. i think that these -- i never voted for him in the first place, but i kind of knew, coming in, -- host: matthew in ohio, thanks for that. guest: thank you, matthew. i think it is definitely true that president trump is certainly very polarizing. passion and feelings among both his supporters and his opponents. that of the things he does
his core supporters like -- i mean, i think there are different categories -- i want to back out. there are certain people -- back up. there are certain people that think trump is a brawler, and that is a great contrast from republicans who preceded him, who they view as trying to play by the liberal's playbook and get beaten,ways and they like the eye. -- they like the idea that trump is this bareknuckle brawler. there are other republicans then they winced at the things he says and does but have a more transactional relationship with him. heey see the direction t democratic party is going and they say the trump is the left out of the option, but clearly, a lot of the things he says, if you are a democrat who doesn't
he ishat he says and pursuing policies you don't like, trump will be unpopular. host: on the direction of the democratic party, this, from ever come twitter, saying after the current daft or -- after following the current white house, radical changes will be needed to save our economy and regain our souls. guest: i think that is an interesting contrast, and it is essentially the question that is facing democratic voters. i think joe biden is almost presenting himself as the comfort food. he is the person, when you are having a bad week and you want macaroni and cheese, ice cream, or something familiar, that is
clearly or biden's appeal is. not that we need this radical change, but that we can go back to normal. it doesn't have to beclearly ors appeal is. this president tweeting insulted people, waking up and feeling like, what are we going to be fighting about today? on the other hand, you have these other candidates, elizabeth warren and bernie sanders currently leading the other non-biden candidates, saying we need a much more ation thatansform doesn't necessarily go back to the obama era but goes beyond that. if you listen to bernie sanders, it is revolutionary change. the rhetoric from elizabeth warren is different but it is radical policy changes, so i think that is the question of democratic voters. do they want to go back to normal, reset the clock, let's say, with a biden, or do they think they need to crush the
system and build something, move in a totally different direction, and that is what the choice that some of our other candidates offer. host: we hear from marlon in kansas city, missouri. caller: i'm a democrat. ok,: republican line, marlon, you are on the air. caller: [laughter] ok. i had to work [indiscernible] campaign, they did a venue up the street from where i worked. i said the supporters were somewhat angry, but hopeful thinking it would help them. he ises that support him, hurting. i don't understand his supporters.
what is he doing to help them? shootings, is, mean it is ridiculous. where -- what is his priorities? is it the hotel in washington for the golf course in florida? ireland? what is his main priority? host: thanks, marlon. guest: thank you, marlon. you mentioned a few things there. issue, ion the guns think there are lots of people who are,rt trump frankly, unnerved by some of the rhetoric coming out of the democrats, talking about confiscating guns, potentially. brought upourke
recently. and, conservatives believe that -- add that gun ownership is a constitutional right. it has been recognized by the supreme court and is in our second amendment. -- it is aboutng fundamental freedom, self-defense, and it is a bulwark against tyranny. a lot of people, when they hear talk about compass dating guns, ownership -- confiscating guns, ownership, that sounds totalitarian to them, and that is why some of them, on that to tickler issue, was support president trump. host: here is michael in california, on the independent line. caller: good morning, gentlemen. n, my question is about the republican senate. mitch mcconnell seems to have this whole camping in kentucky
which is a population of 4.5 million people in california. is going tompaign let the russian oligarch building kentucky. we sanctioned this oligarch and mitch mcconnell relaxed it. my question, do you know how take a jobkians will from that traitorous man to take reelection? i'm going at 1000 out of 4.1 million and he's going to bases all campaign on the fact that he is giving 1000 kentuckians a job? how do they fall for that? thank you, mr. klein. guest: i'm not familiar with how the plant and so forth. i guess the issue -- one of the big issues i know mitch mcconnell will be emphasizing is judicial confirmations, and clearly, that has been a massive priority for mitch mcconnell.
it is a big priority for a lot of voters, republican voters, and certainly kentucky is a very republican state. so, i use that as one of the other big issues. host: back to the presidential campaigns. joe biden, your most recent peas, one of your most recent pieces was about joe biden. your headline, joe biden says almost anybody can beat trump and poof goes a key argument for his candidacy. what was your argument for that? guest: joe biden, he clearly has liabilities in his candidacy. there are certain positions he took in the past that are at odds the lot of current thinking among democrats. not comparedder,
to bernie sanders, but two other candidates. he would be the oldest president upon taking office, and so forth. host: hold old would if he was elected? guest: he would be 78, and that would be older, on an operation day, then ronald reagan was when he left office. that was a 1989. he would be in his 80's at some point, roughly midway through his presidency. issue for that there are a lot of liabilities biden has, but one of the things he had going for him is the idea that a lot of democrats can't stand the idea of four more years of trump and they are desperate to see him out of trough it -- seem out of office. a lot of them want to go for what they perceive as the safer choice. when it comes to perception of who is the most electable, joe
biden has been pulling well among democrats. among democratic voters, -- him as the most electable in his choice. ofre have been a number recent polls suggesting other candidate are also comfortably ahead of trump ahead of that head-to-head match up. it seems as though biden is pivoting away from the electability case, and in this interview, he downplays it a bit and said almost anybody can beat trump, but in my view, that is risky because one of the benefits of -- one of the strong more central arguments for biden is you may not agree with me on everything, but if you want to beat from, i'm your guy -- beat trump, i'm your guy.
if everyone could beat trump, maybe you look at other candidates and think i am idle logically closer to someone else. we could easily beat trump as joe biden. host: trent is in louisiana. you are on with philip klein. caller: hi, philip. i have become a subscriber and are -- subscriber to the washington examiner and enjoy the lots. i thought trump would be a transitional sort of figure, and now i'm beginning to think he may be transformational. he understood that in a rebellion sense he had all of these boxes that he would have that the lion to -- foxes he would have to be the lion to, the media, financials, bureaucratic, hollywood, but now i'm beginning to think he really is a bit of a fox too and will shake the whole thing out. to segue back to the previous
conversation about -- it is always with the left, climate change, climate change. a couplel wrote a book of years ago, on cyber attack, a nation unprepared. surviving the aftermath area many thought there was a real problem too. there could be, if there is a crisis, a certain sense of we are not just having a crisis because of the stupidity of man, it could be our moral being. have theike c-span2 man from the cornwall alliance that won an award on his politics -- theuld like to have washington examiner talk about that a little bit. middle american christians like
me are piling on into your publication because it is so well-written. thank you. host: trent in louisiana. guest: thank you for tt. know,k there are, you clearly, there are a lot of issues facing america. i think when we talked about mass shootings, and so forth, and a lot of things that are andening in this country, the deep polarization, i think there is an element -- it is certainly not the single explanation, but i think there -- if this element -- there is this element of people feeling connected, so, yeah. host: let's go to the republican line and hear from sam in woodland park, new jersey. caller: good morning.
i want to comment on president trump. why is everybody blaming him for everything? on anotherrds, words, president trump is blamed for everything we have in this country. can anyone see it and defend him? divider, because he calls the united states to become the country that will fight and present, and why we blame him on everything that is going on? is there anyone that can defend him? host: what are the issues you think the president will run on in terms of his policy and political successes in the past four years? guest: i think he will talk about the economy. obviously, there is some jitters in the market about whether we are heading for a recession, and if there is, it will complicate haveut as of now, we still
historically low unemployment, and growth has been solid, and so i think that has been probably a big issue he will i think that will be a big issue he will talk about. a lot of this election will be about him trying to turn out the base on the number of different states. as his see issues such protection of gun rights, his appointment of conservative judges, and a lot of those issues. i know for many republican voters who maybe didn't love a lot of his rhetoric, they voted for him in 2016 because of the fact that he put -- he was committed to appointing conservative judges, and now
that he follows through on that, he can sort of tout that. element willther be attacking democrats for raising a lot of very radical positions. obviously, that depends on who the nominee is, but if you have elizabeth warren, who calls for elimination of private health insurance, and so forth, which kick 180 million people out of their health insurance and put them on a government plan. i think you will see a lot of that idea. interestingan contrast, because trump rhetorically says a lot of been bested things. he isbested things, but taking a lot of positions on issues like immigration and trade being the outliers.
his positions are fairly consistent with what republican presidents supported for a long time. whereas the nonbinding candidates really calling for a radical break with where democratic presidents have traditionally been. so you might have this sort of rhetorical radicalism versus policy radicalism. host: philip klein, executive editor with the washington examiner. thanks for being with us this morning. next up, one of those political issues is gun legislation. we want to talk about the move by walmart to limit gun and ammunition sales in the next half-hour. story and showat you the latest statement from the ceo at walmart. here's how we will divide the lines for our conversation on the walmart issue and gun control. democrats (202) 748-8000.
republicans (202) 748-8001. independents and others (202) 748-8002. gun owners (202) 748-8003. back with your calls and comments next. ♪ >> in 1979, a small network with an unusual name rolled out a big idea. let viewers make up their own minds. c-span opened the doors to washington policy for all to see. bringing you unfiltered content from congress and beyond. today that big idea is more relevant than ever. on television and online, c-span is your unfiltered view of government so you can make up your own mind. brought to you as a public service by your cable or satellite provider. of how thishe story whole new economy was built and i've always been really
interested ever since i was working in washington and how business and government interact with one another. they have an antagonistic relationship but they also have a collaborative relationship. the real story of american history is one of public-private partnership in many ways. is athink this story really great way to get into that. host: university of washington history professor margaret o'mara discusses her book, the code. silicon valley and the remaking of america. eastern ont at 8:00 c-span's q&a. ♪ the house will be in order. >> for 40 years, c-span has been providing america unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court and public policy events from washington, d.c. and around the country so you can make up your own mind. created by cable in 1970 nine.
c-span is brought to you by your local cable or satellite provider. c-span. your unfiltered view of government. >> washington journal continues. host: we are going to talk about the gun issue in the wake of walmart's decision to limit sales on guns and ammunition. first the story, walmart's ceo implores congress to do their part to stop gun violence. they write the world's largest brick-and-mortar retailers says it's time for congress to act on gun control. the ceo of walmart sent a letter to congress on tuesday demanding lawmakers do their part. it comes one month after a gunman killed more than 20 people in a mass shooting in one of its stores in el paso, texas. postetter echoes a blog calling for reform. the wording of his call to action is a little more urgent. been doingwe have
our part to make our country letter heays in the has addressed to nancy pelosi, mitch mcconnell and chuck schumer. we will show you the details of what more -- walmart has proposed to do in terms of guns and ammunition sales. here is the response from the national rifle association. is pulling walmart the -- we will read you what doug mcmillan is saying first. this is the statement from walmart saying we have also been listening to a lot of people inside and outside our company as we think about the role we can play in helping to make the country safer. it's clear that the status quo is unacceptable. we will discontinue the sales of short barrel rifle ammunition such as the 223 caliber and 5.56 caliber. they can also be used in large
capacity clips on military style weapons. we will sell through an discontinue handgun ammunition and we will discontinue handgun sales in alaska, marking our complete exit from handguns. now the response from the national rifle association. they tweeted that it is shameful to see walmart succumb to the pressure of the anti-gun elite. lines that walmart will soon be replaced and they write that the truth is walmart's actions today will not make us any safer. rather than place blame on the has chosen tort victimize law-abiding americans. you can sha onle. that tweet from the national rifle association. so your thoughts on this issue and the broader issue of gun legislation. (202) 748-8000 democrats.
(202) 748-8001 republicans. (202) 748-8002 independents and others. for gun owners and others. we will hear from george in morton, illinois. go ahead. caller: good morning. theyoughts are as far as are not selling the handgun ammunition, they are still going to be selling .22 long rifle which can be used in handguns and .22 pistols. longieve that the .22 rifle is used in more murders than any other caliber rifle or handgun. so it's kind of a moot subject as far as i'm concerned i don't buy my mission at walmart. usually i buy it online at better prices. it's not going to affect a criminal. youe the criminal aspect is
got a big thing of wet cement with cones all around it and the cones are gun laws. enhancedeapon bands, background checks. you look at the cement and it's got footprints all through it and those are the criminals. because if you look at a criminals resume the first thing that it says is they don't obey the law. they don't get there ammunition from walmart, they steal it. i believe most of the laws people are pushing for won't have affected any of these mass shootings lately. we really need to look at the mental health aspect of it. sensible, laws work. punishing criminals. punishing honest citizens is not going to take an effect. there a sensible gun laws that congress has yet to enact? caller: the zero-tolerance policy in virginia, i can't
recall what the name of it exactly was. basically it blame to the criminal. caught using a gun in the commission of the crime, you had 10 to 15 years added to your sentence without possibility of parole. the that actually punish criminals and not legal citizens kind of makes sense to me. a store in then store owner shoots one of the guys robbing the store, the other guy that pulled the robbery should probably be blamed for his accomplices death. i believe that if you go after the criminals that works. if you just go after honest citizens, look how many laws we have. what do we have on the books, like 26,000 on laws? they are more regulated than most anything else. bloody't stopped a thing. host: that's george in illinois. (202) 748-8000 m kratz.
-- democrats. (202) 748-8001 republicans. gun owners.03 this was supposed to be the day the house judiciary was to meet to begin markup of legislation on guns but that was postponed due to the anticipated landfall of dorian. that meeting has been postponed into next week or beyond. we haven't had a rescheduled date. headline from the washington times this morning. mcconnell waiting for word from white house on gun bills lays out aggressive approach to filing supreme court seats. on gun legislation, the majority said we are in discussion about what to do on the gun issue. in wake of the shootings. i said several weeks ago that if the president took a position on the bill so that we knew we would actually be making a lot and not just having serial votes i would be happy to put it on
the floor. jesse is on our democrat line in houston. good morning. caller: morning. all foring because i am sensible gun laws. not taking people's guns away but just having sensible gun laws. where individuals like me can be protected. hearing taking the rights away from the law-abiding citizens. i'm a law-abiding citizen. don't feel comfortable with people walking around with guns in texas. and all of these shooters were law-abiding citizens until they did that crime. most of them didn't have any prior offenses that would have precluded them from having the guns. people againstof having something sensible to protect us.
host: tom is in illinois on the republican line. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. havef the things that i always noticed is a lot of these people like the guy that just did it, he lost his job. tople don't have the ability face disappointment. and they hate people. they just hate people. they want to get rid of them. so they end up going out and shoot a bunch of people. i don't know how you put any kind of law in place that's going to protect everybody from that. there just isn't any way you can do that. and i realize like the last lady said that she wants gun control. we haveave good control -- gun control, we have concealed carry. i was the one -- one of the ones that started that. my friend got concealed carry. i always said to him -- are you
going to get it? now, i'm not going to get it paid i just think it's right for everybody to have that. if someone starts shooting in a get behindoing to you. i think that's sensible gun control. you can't know what the crazies are going to do. you just can't. host: tom in illinois from the washington post. the walmart ceo says the status quo is unacceptable. they write that walmart which sells guns in its stores will continue selling the long barrel deer rifles and shotguns as well ammunitionrearms and for hunting and sport shooting. largest grocery chain announced it would also be ending its open carry policy in stores.
a gun owner in montgomery village, maryland. this is lily. go ahead. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i am a democrat. i'm also a gun owner and a former teacher. you cannotve that control how people feel. we can't control people's emotions over their behaviors. however, you can limit access to the materials that will harm people and so i think that this policy change by walmart is just a commonsense policy. it is a good policy and it's going to help the effort towards gun control and unfortunately stay wheregoing to they are with their base. however, this is a very good move. it's not going to affect our second amendment rights.
it's not going to affect hunting seasons. it's only going to help move us toward something that is going to protect our children and if i were to apply for a teaching job today and someone told me i also had to learn about how to use a gun, i would reconsider being a teacher. another will hear from gun owner in eugene, oregon. caller: i wanted to talk about the economics of walmart canceling the sale of ammunition. i was wondering if you and the colors think that the price of ammunition would go up due to the fact that walmart is one of the largest ammunition sellers in the country and if that's the reason they decided to cancel the sales of ammunition was to help increase the cost of ammunition because gun sales and gun ammunition has been decreasing over the last five years. host: is that what you think will happen with this move by walmart? caller: i think the cost of a mission will go up about 20% and
then it will double in the next year. host: kate on the republican line is next in ohio. caller: good morning. i am not a gun owner and i'm a republican and i want to commend walmart for finally taking a stand and being courageous. it seems like everyone else is afraid to. especially politicians to make a move on this. we've had enough of our children killed. i don't like to be anxious when i go to the store. neither does anyone else i know. we should have absolute background checks on 100% of the people carrying weapons. they have the right to carry them but i just want to apply to be a volunteer for hospice and i had to have a background check for that. i had to have a background check to volunteer for my kids, my grandkids at the school. ison't see what the issue without checking all these people out and just stopping the
sales of guns at these gun shows. nobody needs an automatic weapon. right to bear arms, but jiminy christmas. let the soldiers carried the automatic weapons. health ismental concerned, mental health professionals need to step up to the plate. and give us some guidelines. because i don't see that happening in this country either. i think everybody is just pointing fingers. money? matter of i don't know what the issue is. what's wrong with controlling the guns. and how we use them. host: we are talking in principle about the decision by walmart to restrict some of its sales on guns and ammunition. (202) 748-8000 democrats. (202) 748-8001 republicans. (202) 748-8002 independents. (202) 748-8003 gun owners. response on twitter at c-span
wj. john says, walmart just lost my business. this color from illinois is spouting nra rhetoric. no one is punished by not being able to buy an assault weapon and surprise, we don't want to his guns. we just want to go out in public and not be used for human target. this one says it is silly to boycott a store that i mass shooting occurred in. there were good guys with guns in the store. none stop to the gunman. enough. kroger has joined in, to pray not allowing open carry. any business should be able to set the rules on what they will allow within the business. in oakland, california. this is patrick on the independent. caller: good morning. watching your show. very interesting. thanks a lot. i am not a gun owner. i will say that. but i grew up in the midwest where hunting and guns were prevalent.
i find it just confusing that people are talking about guns like they are some sort of pets or members of their family where they bring them out once a day, feed them, coddle them, talk to them. understand the rationale of people loving their guns to the point where they just can't think straight. i do a lot of traveling. i've traveled a couple times out of the country. and have never felt unsafe leaving a hotel or a place where i'm staying and here in the united states, extensive traveling and many times have to have a little caution when you walk out of the hotel room wondering what's going to happen. it's crazy. somebody, show some backbone. i would have thought that something would have happened after the senator or represented of was shot at the baseball game.
of i'm not sure what sort control the nra has over legislators to do something to help america. thanks a lot. love the show. host: on doing something, that is the take of the washington post one and only lead opinion piece in today's paper. do something, mr. mcconnell. when the senate returns from its labor day recess it must act on guns. slaughtered saturday by a shooter in midland and odessa to the total of those lost to america's gun insanity. and then post this question. what if there was a mass shooting in the united states not once or twice or four or six times monthly put every single day a big one, the kind that electrifies social media. -- what anye enough
volley most bloodshed convince the kentucky republican that congress faces a moral imperative to act. part of the opinion piece from the washington post and the thom tillis editorial cartoon, a listing of those killed in mass shooting's going back to april 20, 1999 in columbine as we go to steve. he is a gun owner in oak ridge, tennessee. go ahead. caller: good morning. i'm 70 years old and i have had guns since i was 18 years old i have a couple pistols and several shotguns and rifles. i think if the media would start showing pictures of a 17 month old little girl shot in the face with a .223 round or the carnage after a shooting, it might help change some people's minds.
thanks very much. sharon in minnesota. caller: you were close. it's bemidji, minnesota. that's exactly why we are calling in today because of that 17 month old. we did all see her and that's why we are having this discussion today. my comment is we often talk about the age limit and i would like to say that it's been proven that a female brain does not develop until she's 23 or 24. the male brain does not fully develop until he's 25. 25 to 27. yet we still give an 18-year-old underdeveloped brain a gun. so let's be sensible and smart
here and let's not give somebody who doesn't have a fully developed brain a gun. that means no 18-year-olds. they don't get to go in the service either. thanks. host: north carolina, david on the democrat line. caller: good morning. ajust wanted to respond to call that was made earlier. when he was saying that these were all criminals that had the guns. i think all the mass shootings so far have in people who were legal gun owners. and had never been in trouble before. also a lot of them are racially motivated. that needs to be addressed, too. i don't know what the solution is. but congress has got to do something.
host: thanks for that. back to the west texas shooter, usa with this headline. he had failed a previous gun background check. the gunman who killed seven people and wounded more than two dozen in a shooting rampage along a west texas highway saturday had failed a gun background check but authorities have not yet said how he obtained the firearm he used. not only did the odessa gunmen have a criminal history, he also purchasey failed gun background check. with then did not go background check for the firearm used in the shooting. the gunmen was arrested in 2001 in connection with a misdemeanor effect but that would not have prevented him from legally purchasing firearms in texas. john wester with the bureau of alcohol, tobacco and firearms confirms that the gunmen had previously failed federal background check for a firearm.
theid not say when or why check had failed. next on the independent line in scottsville, virginia. caller: as an anthropologist, there is more than one way to look at this process. if we were looking at it as society deciding to become analyzed starting in 1980 to make everything about money then we would be able to recognize why people who have the absolute capacity to make excuses, white semi automatic ar-15 is not a militia weapon. bys it would be regulated the first phrase, second phrase of the second amendment. or if you don't regulate it, the right of the people to keep and bear arms must be infringed. so that is the second amendment rationally viewed from a logical
standpoint. but they only see themselves living now in a law of the jungle environment. i don't see themselves protecting the intent of the constitution, maintenance of domestic tranquility above all ofngs including the manner commerce you choose. host: hears danny in roanoke, virginia. talkr: i was going to about the lady from ohio who called but i wanted to talk about the washington post. do you know that since 1955 shootinge in less mass killings that in the past three years in baltimore and chicago in the past three years? so the washington post talking about if there was a mass shooting every day that was on the newspaper headlines every day, all they have to do is look up the facts.
in the past 60 some years, there thereen less murders than has been in baltimore and chicago in three years. thank you sir. host: alexandria, virginia. mike peered good morning. mike. good morning. democrat line. also a gun owner. thisr: i called in on line. i'm not a democrat. i'm an independent. i'm bringing a little different note to the table. not only am i a gay man, my ,artner and i of 29 years former dod, we are federal firearms dealers. .e go to the gun shows we sell. h?etty amazing, hu host: what's your take on walmart and gun legislation more
broadly? caller: i take a completely different position on this entire issue. we are obviously firm believers in the second amendment and people don't understand what that means. that means that at the time of the revolution, american citizens not part of the army had the same technology and caliber of guns as king george's army. the second amendment is not about hunting and the second amendment is not about reasonable gun laws. the second amendment is about us being able to recover ourselves -- protect ourselves from a tyrannical government. and any move to take guns away from the people is an infringement. i am for all reasonable gun laws. there is no such thing as a gun show loophole. every person who comes to my table to purchase a firearm goes through a federal background check.
the reason we have mass shootings in this country is because people have mental illness. or they no longer have a moral compass. but it doesn't have anything to do with our gun laws. in the 1950's, we didn't have gun laws. baltimore,ltimore -- which is a 35 minute drive from where i live is one of the most dangerous places in america. chicago,ws worked, washington, d.c., baltimore would be the safest places on the planet. they are no go zones. we have no guns allowed. this is a completely irrational discussion by the american people. you and yourd partner are federally licensed done dealers. how often are you at gun shows and how far do you venture?
single gun show that is in the metropolitan washington, d.c. area we go to. and we also do federal firearms transfers. allowingre -- we are this entire thing to be framed by people who don't know anything about the constitution or even how gun works. oh my god, it's an ar. nar is a rifle. it just happens to look like something you see in a movie that someone in the army is carrying. but the point is that that isn't what the second amendment is about. a second amendment is not about hunting and it's not about safety in the home. that is not what the founders wrote the second amendment about. it is about the people being able to protect themselves from a tyrannical government host: let me ask you about the shooter. one more want to make point.
the second amendment when it says t militia, everyone thinks that means the army. that means civilians the entire second amendment has nothing to do with the military. it has everying too with the the that we defeated english as american citizens. the army was wet, a third of our fighting force? two thirds of us were armed citizens. host: let me ask you about the situation in odessa and midland. this fellow failed a gun background check. had the firearm apparently illegally at least one firearm and yet was able to outgun the police. havingjust resigned to those situations where we can't catch in advance people like that? caller: are you asking me about red flag laws? host: or something similar. caller: how about that. red flag laws. how about you allow your neighbor to talk about you like
the stasi in east germany. my next-door neighbor, those two gay guys. they are trump supporters. they voted for trump. have sfl's. they must be dangerous. some unelected bureaucrat or a judge without trial or jury gets to take away my secondment rights because a crazy guy stole a gun or got done even though he failed a background check? are we going to close down churches because we don't like what they are preaching? host: mike in alexandria, thanks for weighing in. a couple of comments on facebook and twitter. this one says a calculated pr move by walmart. taking some action to please gun-control crowd and causing the least amount of harm to gun owners. alvin puts this on facebook, thank you mark for putting your customers and employees safety first. i hope other companies will follow your great example. carmen says any gun free zone equals a sitting duck zone.
i always drive the extra mile to support small businesses. your thoughts, calls and comments on this issue. the decision by walmart to limit and restrict gun and ammunition sales. .emocrats (202) 748-8000 . .epublicans (202) 748-8001 independents (202) 748-8002 and gun owners (202) 748-8003. to glenn in lancaster, california. you are on the air. go ahead. morning, america. we need our second minute because this i drove around for two hours and shot citizens. where were the police for two hours? were armedif they could have fired back at this guy. and shot and killed him.
lawsvery one of these gun are unconstitutional because we have the second amendment for our citizens to protect ourselves. if you don't want to protect yourself, you have the right not to protect yourself. to you do not have the right withouty our guns amending the second amendment. god bless donald trump and do the right thing. give the people back all our rights. host: mike is a gun owner in san diego. go ahead. i'mer: good morning p and 63. my father bought me my first weapon when i was 10 years old. i'm a responsible gun owner. i have weapons from world war ii. i believe if you can't hit somebody in 10 rounds, you
should not be allowed to own a weapon. as far as the ar-15's getting them off the street, here's my plane. offer the owners three times what they paid for it anybody with any common sense would say this weapon, all it's made for is to kill people. nothing else. -- it wentr ii straight through. these weapons do not belong in the hands of private citizens. host: this is joan on the democrats line. good morning paint caller: i just want to say i think there's been a big hullabaloo done about this. nobody wants to take away rifles and guns from ordinary people. it has to do with all of the assault weapons and the very dangerous weapons that the government and the military and the gun industry have found to
be a solution to something and that's to fill their pockets and put people against each other. this has always been a good country years ago. nobody had problems when people were allowed rifles for hunting and guns to protect themselves. we are making a big issue. of takingllas afraid your guns away, they just want to take the dangerous guns out of the hands of people. about the al illness, there's been mental illness around forever. all those people aren't out shooting people. this is just making a big mess out of something that is easy to solve. get the assault weapons off of the streets. make people be careful about their guns and use them when necessary and not be arming our schools and churches and god bless walmart because the man who started walmart years and years ago was a kindhearted good man and was interested in
helping people and that's what we should be doing is helping each other. not shooting each other, not feeling each other and not doing all of this stuff. i hope all you can owners know that you are free to have your guns. i just don't think we should be having military guns and in the early two, the military were in the police stations because i saw the actual filming of the police station. teaching our people, teaching the police and how to use military weapons. force forual police the people put in there by the state. security is like the sf and isis. ice is like the gestapo. they are controlling the people and they are not letting people live the way they use to without going out on the streets
and being shot. host: we thought we would revisit part of the state meant -- statement by the walmart ceo. have alsolan said we been listening to people inside and outside our company as we think about the role we can play in helping to make the country safer. it's clear to us that the status quo is on acceptable. we will discontinue sales of short barrel rifle ammunition and 5.56he.223 caliber caliber that can be used in large capacity clips on military style weapons. we will discontinue handgun ammunition and we will discontinue handgun sales in alaska, marking our complete exit from handguns. that's from the walmart ceo. florida who is, a gun owner. caller: good morning. i'm a gun owner and an independent. my main comment is listening to
everyone this morning, it seems that everyone wants to demonize the nra has if it is some kind of monster and everybody is crazy gun rapid people when they are not. the nra is everybody. it's you, it's me. it's your takers. normal people. exercising our second minute right. a lot of people that are calling and are totally ignorant of what they are speaking about. the police department and every law enforcement use ar-15's because it's the most effective weapon to defend yourself with. in a situation where you need to defend yourself, it would be the most effective weapon you could use. as far as the police having them, that's fine. when a situation takes place, the police are not there to help you. for the first five minutes you are on your own. i think if you are on your own
in a situation where you needed a rifle, the ar-15 would probably be the top-of-the-line. you can ask any police officer that. if they are going to be truthful with you they will say yes. host: here is the nra response to the walmart action. they tweeted, it is shameful to see walmart succumbed to the pressure of the anti-gun elites. lines at walmart will soon be replaced by other retailers. also the truth is walmart's actions today will not make us any safer. rather than place the blame on the criminal, walmart has chosen to victimize law-abiding americans. next we hear from charlotte in st. louis. good morning. caller: good morning. i just wanted to say that it is that peopley false
with mental health issues commit most of these crimes. people with mental health issues, read the data, are more likely to be victims of crimes than commit them. it's just totally false when all of this rhetoric out there spout it by trump, that these are people with mental health issues. that is not necessarily true. and i think we should stop that. host: michelle is next. them a. washington. -- democrat line. wisconsin. caller: thank you for taking my call. i wish more businesses would do that and the lady before me is right about mental illness that people think all these guns are getting into the hands of people who suffer from mental illness. that is not true. shootings are everything, those are
hate crimes and the people who committed those crimes necessarily didn't suffer from any mental illness. they just tape people who are not white. plain and simple. so in order to get that under control, i'm not sure. but i will tell you one thing. the courts need to step in and take some control over this stille i know they protect gun rights for those who suffer from mental illness. my son is one of them. he is autistic and i went through his guardianship for his rights. they took away all his rights including his voting rights because he can't read and he has no cognitive abilities of knowing what's right and wrong. yet they left his rights to have guns. so i choose not to have guns in the house because of that. because i don't know what would happen if you got a hold of one. he doesn't know what to do with it. and another thing is people who suffer from mental illness who
are in the communities and stuff , anyone could probably just give them a gun and tell them to pull the trigger and they probably would without even knowing that it was wrong to do that. i think a lot needs to be done yet and walmart is heading in the right direction and i hope other businesses do the same. thank you for taking my call. is quietitol hill until congress returns. a number of retirements have been announced over the summer. , reidtest republican wilson writing that congressman flores announced he will not seek reelection to a sixth term in congress adding to the rush of texas republican lawmakers heading to the exit. he won his seat in the tea party wave of 2010 and he said he intended to honor a term limit pledge made when he first ran for office. holdlicans are likely to his seat which stretches between
college station and waco. florez never won less than 60% of the vote during his time in office. president trump won the district by 18 points in 2016 pre-let hear from debbie and south dakota. good morning. -- in 2016. let's hear from debbie in south dakota. that morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. from back to the lady bemidji, minnesota. it would be hello babe the blue ox and paul bunyan. walmart, i admired them . that hasne corporation chosen to do some of these changes in their own corporation and things. quite frankly in the dakotas, minnesota, nebraska, iowa, , as far as hunting guns
, nobody would ever think of going to walmart for any guns and things like that. but i want to let the people think of something that paul harvey said years ago on his radio program. away a citizen's right to bear arms or have guns then the only ones who will have guns are the criminals. host: that's debbie in, south dakota. jose, doug in san california. caller: good morning. first of all, i want to point out that every time there is a highly publicized shooting, the solution seems to be to take guns away from the people who didn't commit the crime.
secondly with respect to all the commentarybo mental illness, i'm aware of the statistics, but i would suggest that someone who thinks it's ok to commit a mass shooting does in fact have a ,ental health issue and lastly when you take away the second amendment which seems to be the ,oal of a lot of politicians what's to stop the same politicians from taking away your other rights? at some point they are going to get to the amendment that you care about. thank you very much. in laurel,ry is maryland. independent line as we continue the conversation on guns and walmart's actions. you are up. go ahead. i voted for hillary in 2016. so i'm sort of independent leaning left i guess.
i think the notion -- i support the second amendment. i think the notion that you can take down the government with assault rifles when they have tanks and jets and rockets and bombs is absolutely absurd. i think mainly something needs becausene about the nra i think it was the washington post about last week or two with ago after the weekend two shootings. donald trump is going to pass background checks, but then he spoke on the phone with nra for 20 minutes and changed his mind. single-handedly changing the entire field of politics with their influence which i think it absolutely ridiculous. and should not be allowed.
host: some reaction on facebook and twitter. send us a tweet at c-span w j. post your thoughts. referring to an earlier call her about the nra, caller says the nra is une, it's all of us? --n is the nra balding buying all of us it -- a gated community like it did for its leadership? steve says we have a massive number of psychologically disturbed people in america who get pleasure or a thrill from shooting guns. we need to end this sick culture. from bobby, do people acknowledge the benefit of not making unnecessary military grade guns available. weapon of choice for mass , thanks for making the
country dangerous. on the culture issue is the topic of the opinion piece by democratic presidential candidate marianne williamson in yesterday's washington post. she writes, another day, another mass shooting. we grieve for odessa, texas. america does not have a gun crisis, it has a cultural crisis. america is not expensive and the effects of -- will not stop experiencing the effects of gun violence until you're ready to face the many ways that our culture is riddled with violence. our environmental policy are violent towards the earth. the criminal justice system is violent towards people of color. our entertainment media is violent toward women. our videogames are violent and their effect on the minds of children. our military is violent.
our media is violent in knee-jerk shaming and blaming for the sake of a better click right. our hearts are violent as we abandon each other constantly bringing desperation and insanity and our government is indirectly and directly violent in the countless ways it uses its power to help those who do not need help and to withhold support from those who do. marianne williamson, washington post.com. debbie is next. independent line in max meadows, virginia. go ahead. caller: thank you, c-span3 i'm not a gun owner and i just want to say the old cliche, guns don't kill people, people kill people. someone that's mentally ill and to take it upon ofmselves to do any kind destruction and mayhem as far as taking people's lives, if they
are determined they will find a way. accessible but just like the guy and charlottesville, the 3000 pound automobile in a place where a lot of people are gathered can take out a lot of people. be used as weapons. guns are accessible and easy to get a hold of. when someone is determined, they will find a way. to take another person's life. then -- auns and mentally ill person will find a way. aboutdy was talking children's minds not being developed. we put them in an automobile at 15 years old.
they get out here on the road , that's my point. host: do you think that's a possible avenue for more restrictions in terms of the age limit? it becomes an issue, the age limit at which somebody can purchase a firearm. >> i do. i think it is a possibility that could happen. that would help of course. said, people will find a way. that's just so accessible. now we have more loss about purchasing -- a lot of these kids are not purchasing them anyway. a lot of them their parents have them. so they find a way to get them.
host: good point. thank you for that. roger in hurley, virginia. good morning. morning, c-span. but i was wanting to comment on this morning's -- can you hear me? the size of the magazine. i would like to make these fools reload. at least give me a fighting chance because i'm a poor democrat and can't afford a gun. so what am i to do? least make them reload. give me a shot at life anyway. , all theanother thing gun traffic in virginia is heading up into chicago. we've got gun trafficking: on down here. i think that's outrageous.
you don't hear anybody speak about it. or anything like that. host: roger in virginia. a gunump campaign makes themed add push. in advertisements that went up monday on facebook at the president delivered a very different message pointedly warning that -- a select group of voters that democrats were intent on repealing the second amendment and asking them to sign their names to a petition to defend gun rights. democrats have finally admitted what they truly want. a repeal of the second amendment, reads one variation of the ad which went up two days after saturday's shooting and two texas towns left a seven dead and 22 wounded. it's up to the american people to stand strong and defend our freedoms. the appeal went out as a trump 2020gate, a member of his
advisory board promoted a conspiracy theory on twitter, falsely time the saturday gunman to beto o'rourke. spencer, massachusetts. we hear from kurt. welcome. caller: i'm calling from massachusetts. i just want to say in the state we have a law that you have to do a background check when you get a gun. i have a gun, i had a gun for 40 years. i'm retired farmer. it works in massachusetts, thank god there's been no shootings. a simple question is if we had background checks and all the people that is qualified to have them, there would be no problem. it's to go through the rules just like you drive a car or whatever and that's an excuse
why we should or shouldn't have it but that's a simple way. checks, there's been no shootings paid i hope it goes on forever. these politicians in washington are getting graced by the nra. that's why they are against it. americans and as do the right thing. host: jeff is next on the republican line. caller: the second amendment was made for personal protection. personal protection. every man and woman and child in americ has the right to protect themselves. have beent year i attacked at a gas station. my wife was sitting next to me. i was just pulled into a gas station to get guest -- gas, but i'm attacked.
self protection. i didn't believe in guns. i threw away my guns. when i had my first child because i didn't believe in violence. but how do you combat violence in america? my wife and i have been attacked year times in the last just shopping. going to get gas. going to get groceries. how do we protect ourselves in america? is an american problem. is how is it that when a 96-year-old wife, and i'm 80 something years old. how do we protect ourselves just going to get gas and going shopping to get food. next in coffees springs, alabama.
republican line. go ahead. sir.r: good morning good morning c-span. is absolutely wrong on this issue. because i live here in rural america and basically we depend on walmart. i was there yesterday. i planned on going there today. just to buy dog food. but walmart is one of them centralized rural marketplaces where you can get your guns, your ammo. by your food, clothing and for them they are weakening our rights to own and protect with the china war and all that. i hope rural america actually says like the democrats, we are going to ban walmart because they are infringing. on our second minute right. host: so for you patrick, where
will you go if it no longer sells the firearms or ammunition? down to thell go local feed store. they sell ammo could they sell weapons. fishing gear. foodalso have a department. it's a little bit higher, but i'm in america. if walmart wants to sell out america like they are doing now with the second amendment, i feel sorry for them. because rural america, we support the second amendment. virginia. is fairfax, hi there. caller: i get it. i got the history of the second amendment. it was written in 1791. wast after the country starting to stand on its feet getting independent from the british.
and the purpose of it was to protect the people from the government. think the samet ways would work today to protect the people against the government or against the bad people as they say it. want to have the same level of weapons that the government has. if that logic wants to work, picture.ut it in full then every person should have the right to have drones and tanks and spy satellites and all if technology that dod has you want to put second amendment in full picture today. that's not the way it works. i don't think that's what we need. at this point in time, i think what will protect the people is democratic processes.
of electing officials that are for the people. and by the people. and take the money out of politics. those are the ways that you can protect the people from the government today. not every person walking around tanks and having drones and satellites and all the technology that dod has. host: we appreciate your input. theks for getting in on conversation. we are here at 7:00 a.m. eastern. washington journal seven days a week. thanks for being with us this morning. ♪
[captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2019] we were supposed to bring you a discussion on public diplomacy at george washington university and we will let you know we will take that and show that later in our program schedule. to go back overseas to the british house of commons remembers continue their consideration of exit. ago ingan a few moments we join it live you're in suit c-span. >> my response to that is to say the following, the honorable gentleman is quite remarkably experienced, skilled and dexterous parliamentarian. not everybody has his level of experience, skill or dexterity but i know that he wouldn't imagine that that of which she is capable is completely beyond everybody else. in other words, if everybody else has the opportunity to