reigniting debate on issues ranging from gun control, protection of u.s. military facilities, and even media coverage of tragedies. this morning, we want to open up our phone lines on "washington " to hear your thoughts and reactions to the navy yard shooting. those phone lines are open now if you want to give us a call. host: and if you are outside the u.s. -- host: you can also catch up with us on twitter and facebook and you can also e-mail us. a good tuesday morning to you. i want to show you some of the headlines from some of the papers today in the wake of that navy yard shooting. here is "the washington post." host: "the" headline -- times" washington headline -- and here is "the wall street journal" -- i want to read from the front page of "usa today e the latest massply -- shooting leads 13 dead in d.c.. here is the story. president obama responded to the shooting at the washington navy yard. i want to play you a bit of what he said. [video clip] >> i have been briefed by my team on the situation. we still don't know all the facts, but we do know that several people have been shot and some have been killed. so, we are confronting yet another mass shooting. and today it happened on a military installation in our nations capital. it is a shooting that targeted our military and civilian personnel. these are men and women who were going to work, doing their job protecting all of us. they are patriots. and they know the dangers of serving abroad. but today they faced the unimaginable violence that they would not have expected here at home. so, we offer our gratitude to the navy and local law enforcement, federal authorities, and the doctors who responded with skill and bravery. i made it clear to my team i want the investigation to be seamless so federal and local authorities are working together. and as of this investigation moves forward, we will do everything in our power to make sure whoever carried out this cowardly act is held responsible. a sense ofve you where this incident occurred, here is a map from the front page of "the washington post" showing the u.s. navy yard to the in relation united states capitol, the u.s. capitol, here on the map. the navy yard along the anacostia river in southeast d.c.. post" alsogton listed some of those who have been killed, and identified at this point. they included michael arnold, 59, sylvia fraser, 53, kathy gaarde, 62, john roger johnson, 73, frank kohler, 50, vishnu pandit, 61, and bernard proctor, 46. reactiontting your this morning. i want to read you a few comments that have come in on our facebook page. --iel writes in host: a few other comments from our facebook page -- host: heads need to roll, this guy should've never been given a dod id. that gave from stanton, michigan. from stanton, michigan. caller: did you just want to hear the reaction, but i wanted to tie it into the criticism of the speech last night. host: give us your reaction. facebookk posters said he was numb. do you agree? i agree. as a matter of fact, the first i heard of it on the knees, her husband works for -- third shift and he had not gone to bed yet. and i just looked at him and just going tod is does you know, and nobody anything about it. it just goes on and on and on. , when you can remember the last one and the one before be --you know, it gets to it's not that i don't -- the first thing i did was pray, of course, for the people who are suffering. son, not like that, but i had a son who was killed. and it took me two years to recover. host: by gun violence? no, he was hit by a car. but it doesn't matter how really, except for this gun thing. something could be done, you know. it wouldn't solve the problem, i'm sure. didat least we can say we something. i just don't get it. --i guess theng gun companies just put out a statement about how they were paraying for the dead and this and that. it took them a day to do that. will go to the annual now from miami, florida, on our independent line. give us your reaction. caller: hello. tragic, like all the other events that have happened related to gun violence. don't think americans should lose sight of the fact that the majority of gun owners are law-abiding citizens. aware ofould be more what the government is doing. for example, aiding al qaeda and terror groups in syria who are committing atrocities. that is something that should be more of a focus. because, like i said, the majority of gun owners are law- abiding citizens and they should not be penalized for the few psychos that are going out there and committing these atrocities -- atrocious acts. host: daniel from miami, florida. a few were rights in a on facebook -- host: a viewer writes in. and on twitter -- and one other tweet, this from jim -- over guns debate control also playing out on the front page of "the washington times" today. i want to read a little piece on that story. "advocates reignite arguments for stricter gun control in the u.s." is the headline there. host: a few of our callers and thee on twitter mentioned national rifle association today. "the washington times" story goes on to note that the national rifle association had no comment on monday and pro-gun groups generally take the stance that days a particularly shocking crimes are not the time to discuss policy. popular conservative blogger and former cnn commentator eric erickson admonished the rush to politicize the shooting saying, "seriously people, grow up." that has to beay a better time for dan when -- then when the bodies of the ground are not even cold. host: that "washington times" piece also has a listing of some of the u.s. mass shootings that occurred in recent years. here is the 2013 one in washington, with 12 shot i that gunmen, the lone gunmen. 2012, of course, the newtown, connecticut, massacre, 27 killed in that attack. it also lists the aurora, colorado, theater shooting in 2012. that took 12 lots. fort hood texas, attack on a military facility, took 13 lives. and the virginia tech massacre, 32 people killed in that attack 2007. we are going to go back in the votes to get your reaction and thoughts on the navy yard shooting. up next on the democratic line. caller: i hope i can get it said right. what happened yesterday was again, another tragedy. probably nothing is going to stop this in the short term. background checks -- what's wrong with background checks? are behindpeople that, but yet the mammoth organizations and the nra and political people who are scared of getting -- in the elections, they ignored. they need the background check so that someday -- eventually it may take two or three years. pretty soon, these kind of people will not be getting a hold of guns. in this case, this guy, probably would not have stopped it it it. but tying it in, 90% of the people would favor background checks, tying it in with that organizations not caring about that and then the president giving a speech yesterday. think about the hidden message. they accuse him of being unfeeling about what happened when these organizations will continue to turn their eyes away from what is happening and they can't even pass a simple background check. from indiana. we mentioned in "the washington times" story that the nra did not have a statement. today on the website there is a short statement that simply says we grieve and pray for those who lost their lives after those hurt at the washington navy yard . a statement on the national rifle association homepage today. john is up next from the plane, illinois, on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. what really bothers me is people are so quick to give up some of our rights. this gentleman who did the shooting, this unfortunate --oting, already had one trying to say the right words -- on his background check -- he had a gun violation. so, if you are in such a secure area, how could you not pick up on this? you know, the msa and all the other things that are trying to while theyile -- should be focusing on doing things a little bit better. this is ridiculous. i don't want to give up my second amendment rights when monitor theven people they have hired. this guy should not have been working there in the first place. host: let me ask you get somebody on facebook this morning said they were numb to these sort of attacks after so many of them. are you numb to these attacks, have they become commonplace? caller: not at all. i think it is a real tragedy. i hate to see this happen. i have been a gun owner for 40 years. i respect the use of a gun. don't want to see that the people dance that should not have it, naturally. nra member and have been for some time did we have stuff in place and the skies lit through the crack. this is the navy, and he slipped through the cracks. he should not have been allowed to work there. i don't understand that. host: john brought up the , the name shooter by federal authorities is arun a lexis. here is some information on aaron alexis from "politico" this morning. he was the chart -- discharge from the navy in 2011 and was involved in a preview shooting incident involving a neighbor in texas and was identified as the gunman who killed 12 people monday at the washington navy yard. the: let's go back to phones. shannon is waiting from pennsylvania on our independent line. good morning. caller: i just wanted to say though the shooting yesterday is very tragic, any shooting is. right now, right after it is not the time to talk about policies and everything. some timed give it to cool down. one of the other callers that was a democrat said about policies, more registration. but thatine and great, is not going to stop the people who are criminals, who are true criminals. have are people who respect for their guns and they keep -- they don't do things like this. they should not be punished. especially when it is not going to make any difference for the true criminals who have guns. that is what i would like to say. thank you. host: shannon on our independent line from pennsylvania. eugene robinson continues at this debate on the editorial page, the washington post" today under the headline "hitting home." he goes on to write that ofonents argue that, instead mass should focus on the shooters being psychologically disturbed but many are simultaneously trying to best to repeal obamacare, which will provide access to mental health services to millions of are now uninsured. let's go see yvonne from laurel, maryland, on our democratic line. good morning. caller: yes. -- once to sayex nurse a nurse him a always a nurse. i did work mental health in area c in washington dc. they closed the facility long, long ago when they were cutting back on mental health. and they sent some of the people westaint elizabeth and the -- the rest of the northwest. listen -- it's obvious that these people have problems. since congress don't want to do anything about guns, let's at least give these people a chance their feelings. at all these innocent people. they keep striking out at the people they can reach, which are innocent people. up some we should open of these mental health facilities and listen to these people. or are we still thinking about all the cutbacks on the poor, always cutting back on the poor, whether they are thinking straight or eating good enough for us, or what have you, always thinking about what somebody is getting for free. yvonne froms laurel, maryland. i want to show you a few more of the headlines around the country reporting on this incident here. here is "the detroit free press" front page. then the front page of "the front page of "the times- picayune" from louisiana. and there is the scene from one of the street and southeast d.c. on the front page. and here is the front page of "the houston chronicle" -- covering thiso be story for about the next 25 minutes or so. we want to hear from you, your thoughts on yesterday's shooting. but i want to show you some of the other headlines going on around the country, one of the other big stories yesterday. here is the headline from "the washington post." "u.n. findings come closer to tying assad to the gas attacks." the investigation into the chemical gas attacks in syria. for a little bit more on the u.n. findings, i want to bring in linda from npr, the u.n. correspondent. thank you so much for joining us. guest: my pleasure. host: talk about those findings in that report. any surprises? there i don't think really were tremendous surprises. we know that for the first time an independent inspection team confirmed that sarin gas was used in the attack of october -- the line host: a chemical weapon -- guest: a chemical attack was conducted and the sarin nerve agent was used, a high level. but the big question is, who done it? that was not part of the mandate of the u.n. team. that is the big issue. you have the russians on one side. in fact, the russian foreign minister sergei lavrov consistently said the attack was carried out by rebels. the was discussed before investigation was completed. on the other side, we know the united states, britain, and france have long said the assad regime was responsible, and i think that has not changed at all. because the investigation did not name the perpetrators. host: we have a picture here of ban ki-moon, u.n. secretary- general, who spoke to news media yesterday after briefing the un security council on that report. some strong language that he used in that speech. tell us a little bit about what he said. guest: interestingly, ban ki- moon has become very emotional about this attack, and he has been for the last several weeks. he said for sure that war crimes had taken place. but he didn't come out and blame .he assad regime he said those who committed this heinous crime have to be held accountable. there has been no smoking gun. so, even the secretary-general could not come out and say it was assad. he had set a couple of days ago adat aside had kurt -- ass committed war crimes but did not say in the context of this attack. host: what comes next with the report, where does it go from here? guest: in new york, diplomats, the security council, is working to draft a resolution that would basically incorporate the framework that was developed by the united states and france -- i am sorry, the united states and russia -- regarding the chemical weapons. that is not going to be an easy job because, as we said, the it,ed states said assad did the united states -- the russians say no. allowe russians will not this resolution to automatically allow any kind of force against syria if indeed syria is not cooperating. , thank you fasulo for joining us this morning. i appreciate you coming on. guest: thank you very much. host: we will have a lot more on the u.n. report and u.n. actions as it relates to syria in our 8:30 segment today. but this morning we are talking about the navy yard shooting yesterday, and i want to get your reaction for the next 20 minutes or so. fromnt to go to mike missouri on the republican line. good morning to you. host: a cup -- caller: a couple of quick things. this guy had a violent background. how did he get a job to begin with? did he get it through affirmative action, equal opportunity? i have been watching it. no one has said anything anymore. host: do you think race had something to do with it? caller: if this guy had been white, we would know how many victims were black. from the usual out sharp ands -- from the usual out sharp -- al sharptons and whatever. dead silence, all of a sudden. i watch a lot of news. i now, like i said, we heard about trayvon martin again -- because this gentleman was black and his background, we don't hear anything about it. from we will go to kevin idaho on our independent line. good morning. caller: thanks for having me. having to follow someone like that. up around guns. i was brought up to respect guns. gun safety was a big issue. real -- it gets me frustrated. someone saying we need to watch about giving up our rights. i am an educator and i think the biggest problem here is that the two sides are so polarized, people are forgetting the actual issue here. turned aroundnds and said the only thing that will stop these people are more guns. this is a sniper. what is a sniping rifle for? long-distance murder. 15 that was found? caller: not just that. licensei have a cdl because i drive kids around and that requires a certain level of competence. and i have a higher level of responsibility. if i get in trouble, i did double the points, the whole nine yards. .lcohol blood toxicity if it is .8, i have to be .4 before considered legally drunk. what is wrong with turning peopleto allow the right to have firearms? what is the problem saying, listen, i am driving a car, i have to get a license, i have a gun, why don't i have to live up to a higher standard because i want to have technicalapacity or a firearm to prove that i am responsible enough to use it, own it, take your pick, educate the people around me. what is wrong with education? i think that is the problem. that is why i am an independent because so many of the other guys are so big on rhetoric and this and that aspect of the law that they are not taking everything as a whole and that our constitution is not just supposed to protect people who want guns but it was set up this way to protect the people that are being harmed, whether the majority or minority, depending on the situation. idaho this from morning. a few e-mails have come in on the subject. host: one other e-mail this morning from sue from new jersey. host: that issue on searching somebody in a secure environment also coming up on twitter. host: and that issue playing out in today's "baltimore sun." they yard shooting reopened debate on base security." host: that story, if you want to read more about it, is in today's "baltimore sun." also a similar story to show you, the headline from "the washington post" today and some of their round up. "at military installations, a struggle between access and safety" is their headline. i want to note some of the recent shootings at military bases. of course, we talked about the 2009 shooting at the baltimore hood.ory, at fort march 2010, a gunman shot and wounded two pentagon police officers at a security checkpoint in the pentagon station of the washington metro in arlington, virginia. in march of 2013, two active- duty marines were shot in an incident related to a love triangle at marine corps base quantico in northern virginia. the shooter died of self- inflicted gunshot wounds in that incident. other shootings at military bases. back in two thousand nine, before the fort hood shooting, private william long was killed and a second injured in a shooting attack at army navy career center in little rock, arkansas. your thoughts and reactions to yesterday's shooting at the navy yard here in washington dc that left a dozen dead. i want to go to bill now from marietta, georgia, on the democratic line. good morning to you. used to live in d.c. back in the 1970s and 1980s, and i have been a gun owner for four years also. i have a real problem with this being a black-white thing. it is not really. you have a private contractor again. russia.one in at 34-year-old black guy from brooklyn who lives in texas, no female in his life to plays videogames. and back in 2004 he shoots out somebody's tires and he said he had an anger fueled black out and walks away. host: do you think it is a screening issue by contractors? caller: i think so. because way, it is, contractors do the screening for the people. youthen the guy -- when have a weapon, you have to make sure it is clear. he claims he was cleaning his gun and shot in the ceiling. this guythe is -- should have been tagged a long time ago. from cary, north carolina, on the independent line. i'll ago the guy who was talking earlier, kevin, one of the first -- le caller: the guy was talking earlier, kevin, one of the first became a with a sensible suggestions. i am a gun owner. i hunted as a kid and i still do when i get the opportunity. in order to hunt in the state of the north -- state of north carolina, you have to take a class. i had to take it with my two sons. it was very informative. i think that was one of the things kevin was talking about, education. if people get more educated. if you see somebody with a gun acting kind of goofy, there might be a process of notifying somebody. i think there's enough smart people in this country where we can come up with a solution as to how to regulate firearms in a way that would keep them out of the hands of people who are going to do things like this guy did. who are onhe people my side of this kind of get lumped into where people accuse us of thinking that it is ok to thehis under the idea that second amendment allows us to own guns and that we are in favor of these kinds of shootings and stuff. insane. but, you know, it is just a volatile subject. i don't think it is an easy solution, but there is a solution if we put enough smart brains on it and come up with some stuff to figure out how we can prevent these things from happening in the future. forknow, it is unfortunate all of those folks who happen to be any place on a day when somebody just flips out. host: that is butch from cary, north carolina. i want to go to john from bedford, new york, on the democratic line. good morning to you. caller: good morning, john, how are you? upon careful and measured situation it becomes sad when we become aware of these tragic events are becoming more and more predictable. it is not really surprising when one considers the underlying issues, that people do not wish to address. this, butasy to say the society -- and i want to be careful -- breeds violence at major institutions. housing and property discrimination, employment, health care, education. it is difficult because it is cloaked underwrites, cloaked under freedom, exceptionalism. these tragic events -- although personal to the families, it has to be a can seriously and one has to pray and considerate -- but to be a little more objective for a moment, it appears that too many people are out and made to feel they do not matter. perhaps if more money were spent on mental health and social work and that type -- it may help some. but it is very difficult for all of us to address the underlying issues. as liberal nonsense. host: somebody on facebook earlier said they werenumb to this incident. i wonder, do you think this has become commonplace, the shootings, that the american people become numb? l e i think it is a factor. we do become numb. -- caller: i think it is a factor. we do become numb. the f5 of it -- 500 channels. people say, when will the next event happened? we were talking about syria and now this has taken our attention. from a member of the russian foreign affairs committee that called kind of a stir. that member wrote -- in the shootout at navy headquarters in washington. a lone gunman and seven corpses. nobody is even surprised anymore. that is what he wrote in that tweet. too,r: that is very sad, that nothing becomes shocking. it is likely accepted as part of the fabric of our lives. when we don't address the more subtle stuff. it appears we will take an individual, like the gentleman who did this horrible tragic event, and see him as otherworldly and not part of our society, as if he is from mars or just insane, a loner without a woman in his life, something different. actually he is part of the fabric and institutions and the way our lives go about. and we are country affected. this is a symptom of something. it is very sad because we are becoming numb to win, we almost expect it. host: jonna from bedford, new york. i want to review some more headlines as we have time. this is a story from "the washington post" -- that poll asked respondents whether they support or oppose lacing syria's chemical weapons under united a full 79% said they were strongly or somewhat supportive while just 16% said .hey were opposed then the question was asked how confident are you that syria would in fact give up all of its chemical weapons under the plan? they werepercent said very confident, 26% they were somewhat confident, while a full 60% say they were either not at all confident or not so confident. youother question -- do approve or disapprove of the way barack obama is handling the situation in syria? 36% said they approved while 53% said they disapproved. you can read more about that poll in today's "washington post." talkingill also be about the situation in syria in the next 45 minutes here on "washington journal" this morning. one other story from "the quotegton times those today. elizabeth warren is pushing janet yellen for the federal reserve post. host: and we will talking about the fed today in our last 45 minutes, beginning at 9:15 a.m. here on "washington journal." back to this story, the shooting here in washington dc at the u.s. naval yard. different takes of what happened yesterday. here is one other headline, a different take from "usa today." host: we want to get a few more of your reactions today on all the different parts of the story. from is up next germantown, tennessee, on our republican line. good morning to you. caller: good morning. thank you. as a physician, i take care of cancer patients but the whole concept is, you see a symptom and you look for the disease. symptoms -- the --ing out and the past anthology, psychiatric and behavioral problems. but the disease is the social pathology. i would not be one bit surprised to find that this fellow originated and was basically the result of a single mother come up with a dash with a high illegitimate birth weight -- with a high illegitimate birth rate where they are not getting a moral code in the value system and they have a mobile you call, the processing of the brain, the human brain function, the frontal lobe, called executive function where you make decisions so you know right from wrong. and then these people grow up and they are pathological, uncivilized. degree --ason to a indirectly you can talk about race, saying this is a reality -- he is black, where the illegitimate birthrate in the black community. host: we should note we do not know much about the background. police are still looking for a motive. but we have been showing our viewers the front pages of different newspapers from around the country today on this incident in southeast dc, a little over a mile from the united states capitol. this is the front page of "the guardian" newspaper. "the state" newspaper from south carolina -- and this from "the atlanta journal-constitution -- to laurel, go maryland, on the independent line. caller: the previous caller was at least on the right path in regards to possible cause or reason for this incident. fellow -- host: do you think we should be speculating for reason at this point? media, we read a little while ago -- should we be speculating before belize, with a motive? i am just basing my opinion and comments from what i heard on television regarding his -- and, you know, he was obviously a person who was depressed. .is anger turned inward and it takes a while for a person to finally get up enough nerve to want to kill himself, and he facilitated that by doing what he did, knowing that he was going to be either shot, or in a lot of cases that we have seen recently, the person turns around and shoots himself after they do something like this. i think it is clearly a , and iogical problem think you would find any psychiatrist who would agree with that. so, that is my take on it. and while it was a heinous and horrible thing, his intention, in my opinion, was to end his life. host: richard from laurel, maryland. we should note that the report so far is he was killed in a shootout by police, so when richard says took his own life, whether he took his own life in the shootout, that investigation is still happening. that is all the time we have in this first 45 minutes of "the washington journal" today but up next we are joined by university of maryland professor shibley telhami to discuss mideast reaction to the recent development in syria and what it means for u.s. foreign policy in the region. and later, political magazine editor susan glasser will talk about the role the united states -- the united nations playing in syria, including the newly released reports on last months chemical weapons attack near damascus. we will be right back. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> when helen taft became first lady in 1909, 1 of the first thing she did was address having cherry trees landed around the tidal basin. the title basis in the early -- tidal basin was a mess and the japanese decided to give 2000 trees to the united states and her honor. everyone was shocked. the trees that were sent were older and very tall and bug infested, so it was decided they would have to be burned. in fact, president taft himself made the decision that it had to be burned. the japanese were very accommodating and understanding and decided to send 3000 trees which arrived in 1912, and it is vote that we still have a few of around the title basis. >> watch our program on helen itt on our website or see saturday on c-span at 7:00 p.m. eastern. and we can best continue live next sunday as we look at alan and edith wilson. booktv weekend, look at 's live coverage of the national book festival, and featured authors include kay bailey hutchison. --king ahead to october saying, howldren can you be in congress, he got arrested? you violated the laws. i said, they were bad laws. custom, they were traditions. and we wanted america to be better. we wanted america to live up to the declaration of independence, live up to our creed, make a real our democracy, take it off the paper and make it real. so, when i got arrested that , i felt free, i felt liberated. and today, more than ever before, i feel free and liberated. 150know, abraham lincoln years ago freed the slaves. but it took the modern-day civil rights movement to free and liberate a nation. >> civil rights leader and congressman john lewis will be our in depth guest sunday the sixth and he will take calls and comments for three hours. also schedule, november 3, biographer kitty kelley. december 1, then -- feminism critic christina sommers, and then radio talk show host mark levin. " continues.journal it's good to continue our coverage of the situation in syria we turn to -- host: to continue our coverage of the situation in syria, we have shibley telhami, author of the book "the world through arab eyes." -- to start with your take on the agreement on syria's chemical weapons. you agree the obama administration was successful in what they were trying to do? wast: whether or not this an accidental agreement or intended, it almost doesn't matter. i am prepared to give president obama the credit for it. i think in the end, this is the best he could of gotten. i think war was a risky option, especially without support,onally -- american support. when you strike another country, you open up the possibility of a prolonged war. and here was a case where, since of president made his case the nation specifically on chemical weapons and the assad regime's violation on that issue, a military strike had no chance of taking others, go weapons. it would have been dangerous. the president did not promise that. he promised that as punishment to prevent him from using them again. goalsdid it achieve the -- the line gu guest: obviously the devil is in the details but it is promising. number one, international cooperation without war. eliminationpossible of syria's a chemical weapons, something the war option never promise. if it is implemented on that issue -- it does not resolve the syria crisis, obviously, because that is bigger than the, go weapons issue. this was a horrible weapon. obviously the world to get rid of it if it can completely. but for now, this is the case the president made, and i think it was ways, whether accidental or not, it is something he can take credit for. host: the book you wrote this year is "the world through arab talk about how arab eyes are seeing this deal on chemical weapons. guest: interesting to compare public opinion in general now -- because we talk about public opinion and sometimes we don't understand how different the public is sometimes from governments. for example, it is clear that on , i have tof syria divided at the strategic level and level of government. for example, the government of the gulf region, saudi arabia and other members of the gulf cooperation council, who want to see an intervention in syria. they say it privately, less publicly. have beenhe saudis bolder. they want to see an intervention, not so much over the chemical weapons, but they have been asking about it before because they see the theory of conflict as a big strategic confrontation between them and iran being played out. in syria there is a sunni-shiite divide that plays itself out in syria. and yet our public opinion by and large really ever since the uprising, which did not like assad, they favor the rebels mostly him and nonetheless they don't want to see an international intervention. they don't trust the intentions in particular of the u.s. they think we will be doing it for the wrong reasons that nobody really believes that we would have intervened it would be over chemical weapons. they see what happened in iraq. by and large there was a public that did not want to support it, and that is why the arab league institution could not formally supported despite the pressure from gulf states. and then you have egypt, which obviously is the most populous arab state, influential historically. it is going through a lot of transition. certainly does not like assad and has criticized him. but after the overthrow of the muslim brotherhood in egypt and the overthrow of resident morsi -- president muslim, you have a sentiment in egypt that is so anti-muslim robin hood it trumps anti-assad. criticism in the united states about the president setting a redline in syria and whether he would back up a redline. a red lineissue of as it is issued in the arab world. is there a credibility issue that is being looked at? credibilitynk a issue is always overblown, in my opinion. the u.s., when you talk about credibility, what is the credibility we are talking about? it is a question of the message. if people don't believe that what you are doing is in the first place over chemical weapons, how is it an issue of credibility? if in the first place people don't want you to intervene, if you intervene, how is it a question of credibility? moreover, when i look at the president's statement, in some ways he allowed his opponent into find his words. it is red line is crossed, i am going to intervene militarily without international support. he never said that. he could have certainly framed differently if he wanted to, particularly taking it to the international criminal court, work -- working more with allies to find options. i think the issue, the perception in the arab world of american credibility is very different and i think that is what the message is. in any case i think historically, if you look at the issue of credibility, people forget the 1950s when after n sc68, 1950, credibility became defamed that blurred the interest between vital and nonvital interests to the extent justified in the and an escalation in places like korea and vietnam, particularly vietnam. so i think the notion that you can talk about credibility without justifying what the immediate interest is today, that is a problem. i think you have to at least the answer that stake today worth at least the next possible escalation? i don't think anybody has answer that question in the debate. host: we are talking this morning with shibley telhami, peace and development professor at the university of maryland and also the author of "the world through arab eyes." what is a peace and development professor? guest: i am a political scientist by training. i came to maryland after teaching for a long time at cornell university in new york as a political scientist, and i am still in the political science department. but the chair was named after the former president of egypt, anwar sadat, for peace and development legacy and muscle it commemorates that. but in athens, i am a political scientist. phone lines are open and the numbers on the screen -- host: if you are outside of the 3883. 202-585- also take questions over twitter and e-mail and facebook. let's start with diana from naples, florida, on our democratic line. diana, good morning. you are on with shibley telhami. caller: good morning. i have just been listening -- usually i listen every morning and was trying to call. i was just listening for the last 10 minutes or so. but everything he says -- i can't say his name, i am sorry -- but i agree with. it is very sensible. i think a lot of americans like myself who lived through a depression and world war ii and all of these other wars and all of his political stuff that is going on, following everything, i agree with everything he is saying. it is very sensible. and i think obama -- everybody has a criticism for somebody or can't imagine i him, him and senator kerry, what they are doing is the most sensible thing to do. had to live through this ridiculous ungodly thing, which has brought us to this -- this again -- this ridiculous benghazi thing, which is brought us to this. some of these people, nonsensical, it is horrible. what he is saying, the way he is putting it into context i think is very well. and i agree with them. now to dan from berkeley, california, on our independent line. good morning. caller: hello? host: go ahead. you are on with shibley telhami. i would like to -- can you hear me ok? host: yes, go ahead. ,aller: mr. shibley telhami i've a question for you -- i have seen interviews with you and i follow you. first, i would like to know, whether your family is sunni or shiite and secondarily i would like to ask a question regarding analysis on the whether you the united states would have been better off ending up on the shia side of the fence in terms of the cold war allies? we ended up on the wrong side of that. developing a stronger relationship with the iranians. there was a cold war element. host: talk about your background. guest: thank you very much. i am speaking in berkeley next week. i lived there for some time. i am neither sunni nor shia. my family was christian. i am a secularist. i am neither one of these. andsunni tribe is real invented. you can see it in various places, particularly among religious fanatics. we have witnessed what has happened in iraq and in lebanon. it is also invented in the sense that that division has not explained wars or peace over the years. extremists always use this device for their own reason. you have a fanatical fringe that is the finding it. -- that is defining it. you see that in egypt where egypt is mostly sunni, 10% christian. and yet they are fearful of the muslim brotherhood. seea, they do not want to the fringe or the mainstream muslim brotherhood win in syria . conspiracy theory about a possible american invention in order to save the muslim brotherhood in syria. that is the sort of stuff we are talking about. israelifter the lebanese- a shiazbollah is organization. context of the competition in lebanon. yes, there is a divide. it doesn't always explain political position. host: the book is "the world through arab eyes." opinion.t arab public are americans seeing the true arab public opinion? we have notn egypt, had any public opinion polls of late in egypt. we have had an overwhelming media that is now controlled by is pitchingnt that one story, that the muslim motherhood is a bad guy. we do not know until we have public opinion polls. this book is based on 10 years of public opinion polling in .gypt, rocco, jordan, lebanon every year we had up to 4000 people interviewed representing the population, principally in the cities across the arab world. what got me thinking about it was after the iraq war where i was on leave from the university to advise the government on the middle east. i noticed that most of the people in the middle east -- i was mostly talking to eli tes. i do not have a good sense. i did not do that with confidence. it was after that i started thinking about the possibility of designing public opinion polls. now we have a lot more. we have a good sense. not in every country. givennot do it in syria, the circumstances. i did not think that was possible. in other places, it is. host: we are talking with shibley telhami, professor at the university of maryland and taking your calls and questions. helen is up next on our democratic line. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for making your comments. didink that president obama a wonderful job and is doing a wonderful job in reference to syria. their work power leaders out there from russia, iran, and china who could have gone to syria. they did nothing until president obama got involved and he did not rush to judgment. he wanted to prove and then he announced his plan. putin got involved. as a power country, we should look at these actions when they are taking place because they affect the entire world. those are my comments. i thank the gentleman for bringing this forward. i thank president obama for not going to war at this time. host: james on twitter has a different take. was ano you think this accident? guest: it could have well have been accidental in the sense the administration from the outset when they made the case for a strike against syria never put forth a clear demand for what serious could -- syria could deliver. when the secretary of state was asked what would syria do to avoid it, he almost said it off the cuff. to james bakerg about the 1991 war. he told me he was trying to make the conditions for saddam hussein impossible. ts interestst i would not be served. was probably trying to do the same thing. the russians exploited this. the syrians saw benefits to following up. we will never know if it was accidental. maybe we will at some point. i do not care so much. the president accepted this option. he could have rejected it. parts of the option were put on the table. it takes two to tangle. it is not just russia. the bigger question goes back to the first caller from hyattsville who said it is the threat of force that generated the diplomacy. in some ways you cannot argue with that. once the u.s. threatened to use force, it got everybody's attention. in the case of syria, syria is a little country with little resources. their allies had a bigger capacity to retaliate. learn the threat of other countries may be the same where they are now facing the same environment that syria is. to argue this could be extended to some other diplomacy is a mistake. i think it is a case-by-case basis. eight general lesson is something we have to think about much more carefully than start congratulating ourselves. host: here is chris in alabama's take. i agree with that. host: let's go to angela from california on our independent line. turned down your tv and go ahead with your comment or question. caller: i have two questions. is al qaeda on our payroll through saudi arabia? didn't we give chemical weapons to be used on the iranians when there was a war and we never said anything about it? the american people did not know about it. guest: on the chemical weapons, chemical weapons have been used before. iraqwere used by a rock -- against the kurds and the iranians. nobody made a big deal about that. that is why we have the debate about double standards that we hear. in the middle east when i asked people across the country's what they think motivates american foreign policy, the top answers , oil and israel and secondary maybe weakening the muslim world. rightshan 10% say human or the terrorism issue. the reason there is suspicion --ut american intentions analysis has to go far beyond that. is ridiculous to think america is backing al qaeda. estqaeda is america's bigg enemy. perhaps since its inception. the u.s. has been at war to try to weaken it. fearroblem is the indirect in the u.s. about what happened in afghanistan. of the enemy of my enemy is my friend. that islam ise groups including members who joined al qaeda and formed al qaeda to fight the u.s. were the enemies of the soviet union and supported by the u.s. to help bring down the soviet presence in afghanistan. you had something that came back to haunt the international community when that 6 succeeded. we have seen this from the beginning. some of the most respected fighters and perhaps the most effective fighters have been al qaeda and their supporters. is the u.s.ear cannot manage supporting the good guys from the bad guys. we have heard a couple of days ago the deputy chief of the cia saying the only institution that can defeat al qaeda will be the state institutions in syria. we do not want to break these down. how do we support the opposition enough to force efforts to a diplomatic settlement but yet not break down the institutions in a way that will allow al qaeda and their supporters to take over in syria? it is a tough balance. host: you talked about your travels through the middle east as you wrote your book. arab-uld you classify the based government? question -- is no the arab uprising started with public and that was a empowerment against entrenched ruling dictators for a lot of politics, domestic foreign politics. the whole process of the uprising has been a public empowerment against those entrenched powers. we are going through the process of change. not all are equally repressive. they very quite a bit. some are much more moderate in treating their people or providing services. where you had overthrown governments as in tunisia and egypt, they are going through a process, a process that is very difficult and painful. is it isnk my own view not going back to where it was. you might go through periods of going back. you have a public that is empowered for the first time. it is only extending and not going backward. i think people expect more and know more. they know how to organize without the need for social institution because of this new instrument. we are going to watch upheavals. the secular and the religious get empowered. that means we will have turbulence. host: we are talking this arning with shibley telhami, professor at the university of maryland and also works as a member of council on foreign relations and served as an as aor to the u.n. and member of the u.s. delegation to the trilateral u.s. anti- incitement committee. we are taking your calls and questions this morning. michael is next on our republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. opinion on how the average citizen throughout the middle east feels about the american people, not their government? thank you very much. guest: this is a fantastic question. we know going back decades -- latin americans or africans or people in the third world who were frustrated with american foreign policy. peoplemired the american and loved american values. what we see in the middle east -- we hadt decade what we thought was a clash of values. when you ask people, name countries where you find most freedom for their people? they wouldry identify would be a western country, including the united states. when you asked them what do you want to study, the u.s. was always high up there. overwhelmingly they say policies and not values. point after some the election of george w. bush that people started asking that question, maybe there is no difference between the people and the government. how could they reelect george w. bush? we started asking specific questions about their attitudes towards the american people versus the american people. there is a gap. they are warmer toward the american people than the government, but that gap has narrowed. from new's go to ted orleans. you are on with shibley telhami. caller: thank you. , you arer background you mighthe panic -- also be familiar with the wesley that video that states with a general friend of his -- he was talking about an encounter he had in 2001. a general from the pentagon mentioned that we were going to invade iraq. general clark asked why. the general answered, i do not know. six weeks later he ran into the general again. iraq?till going into we are going to invade seven countries in five years. one of the morem influential institutions out there informing public opinion and propaganda. you say that obama did the right thing here. wereee that the instance the internet and social media is taking over. brezinski says we are in a lot time wele -- the first have a worldwide awakening to what we have been doing for the past 400 years. is nowanglehold you have being broken. it wasn't so much obama saw the light. i am 66 years old. i have never seen the american people over 90% on one issue in my life. guest: the iraqi war is a big story. i happen to oppose the war. i thought it was a bad idea. issue that webig cannot tackle right now. i want to say something about nct.president's insti this is a president who do not want to see entanglements. in, he escalated afghanistan. his instinct is not to intervene. we know he was reluctant to intervene in libya. he is not itching to intervene for sure. it will be interesting to see how his thinking on syria has evolved. that are a lot of people are human rights activist in his administration. some of them thought it was the moral thing to do. it is a difficult issue about the morality of intervention. i think there are people who make the case for it. there have been episodes where to u.s. has been called upon intervene since the beginning of the syrian crisis. whether that played into his thinking and he could i thinkentalize that, we can get away with it and neighbors he thought it would relieve some of the pressure on him to do something more about iran. that is an issue he wants to resolve diplomatically. member of theud council. in the up of people foreign policy arena, scholars, former diplomats. it is basically a group of people. the organization has become a think tank where you have the scholars who produce policy analysis. counciliation with the is only as a member. i am with the brookings institution. host: robert from west virginia on our democratic line. you're on with shibley telhami. turn down your tv and go ahead with your question or comment. we will go to craig from california on our democratic line. good morning. caller: good morning. finally the united states of america, the people were heard. gave a no on syria . do you believe or is it your opinion the real directive comes from israel for all of our controls and actions in syria and palestine? question issrael always important for the u.s.. america support for israel is one of the cornerstones of the foreign policy. ask the you do, question about the consequences for israel and consult for israel on matters that have importance. israel is a big factor in all this, including syria. israelry kerry is in briefing the prime minister with the deal with syria. on the one hand, if you look at global public opinion, almost saw it play we itself out in the parliament. that was the only place where the majority supported a strike on syria. on the one hand, it pertains to syria itself. what might happen. they did worry about chemical weapons. the syrians were probably using -- it was perceived as a poor man's weapon of mass distraction. now they were using chemical weapons more internally. the israelis are worried about them falling into the wrong hands. they have real issues. what will be the consequence for what they see as the biggest strategic threat, which they see as youiran. they supported the president's strike and lobbied for it in congress. when the deal was announced about the chemical weapons with russia, you found they were supportive and saying it was a godsend for israel. to make ahe argument argument that we now need to make a threat on iran. host: what does the deal mean for israel? israel is one country suspected of having some stockpiles of their own. does that put more of a spotlight on israel? guest: i think it does put a spotlight on them. they did not sign the treaty prohibiting chemical weapons. soyes, yes, it does. so they have to do that? host: they signed the treaty but did not ratify it. let's go back to the phones. good morning. you are on with shibley telhami. caller: good morning. i am looking forward to downloading your book. i assume i can get it on kindle. i want to get your analysis on the president's speech last tuesday night. the generally accepted critique --that the comment by kerry that this compromise on chemical weapons and the destruction of the potential-- destruction of those weapons. the president made a comment and implied that perhaps this had been in the works prior to kerry's comment. i am interested in your analysis. immediaterote and response about the speech for politico. i do not know if the president was trying to take credit for it. i would not doubt the president was exploring diplomatic options with putin again. the president's instinct was not to strike. he was exploring every conceivable option, including some compromise with putin. never do we have such a sweeping proposal of syria agreeing to disarm itself with chemical weapons. it, i thought it was one of the impossible things that was put on the table. the military strike never promised to achieve that. them andd only to hurt possibly to degrade their possibilities. attacking chemical weapons is a problem. , there ise russians no question they were very clever. -- chemical weapons of syria here is one thing we have to understand. i know everybody talks about their competition with the u.s. or their commitment to a debate in syria. they are worried about al qaeda in syria. putin talks about this issue. it would be a nightmare for them if there was a collapse in syria and those weapons fell into the wrong hands. i think they have something to gain from it. host: the book is "the world through arab eyes." the author is shibley telhami. you can catch up with him on twitter. thank you so much for joining us this morning. up next, susan glasser is going to discuss the united nations and its ongoing role in syria. later we will take a look at upcoming vacancies at the federal reserve. we will be right back. m videoc-span student ca competition is underway. create a documentary on the most important issue you think congress should consider in 2014. need more information? visit our website. >> when helen taft became first lady in 1909, one of the first things she did was address having cherry trees planted around the tidal basin. the tidal basin was a mess and the japanese decided to give 2000 trees to the united states in her honor. everyone was shocked. the trees that were sent were older and very tall and bug infested, so it was decided they would have to be burned. in fact, president taft himself made the decision that they had to be burned. the japanese were very accommodating and understanding and decided to send 3000 trees which arrived in 1912, and we still have a few around the tidal basin. >> watch our program on helen taft on our website or see it saturday on c-span at 7:00 p.m. eastern. we can best continue live next sunday as we look at alan and edith wilson. >> c-span. we bring public affairs events from washington directly to you, putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house events, briefings, and conferences, and offering complete gavel-to-gavel coverage of the u.s. house, all as a public servi of private industry. we're c-span, created by the cable tv industry 34 years ago and funded by your local cable or satellite provider. and now, you can watch us in h.d. >> "washington journal" continues. host: the united nations opens its 67th session today. joining us now is susan glasser editor of politico magazine. let's start with the u.n. report on chemical weapons that was just released yesterday. guest: is a significant moment. this is the first time there has been an independent confirmation . there are details about how the weapons were fired. the mandate was not to come to a single conclusion as far as the culpability. it is interesting to see the immediate reaction. the united states and france says this proves the syrian government was the one that fired the weapons. you have the russians immediately saying we believe it was the rebel troops. the united states has said their own findings and there is overwhelming evidence that suggests these were fired by the government. host: let's talk about the evidence in that report. we mentioned the report earlier this morning. here is reading straight from the report, which you can find on c-span's website. host: what evidence is the u.s. .2 when they come to the conclusion that this shows it was the government? guest: these were the kind of weapons that were needed to be under the command of an organized military in order to be fired. this is not the kind of capability that the rebels have. they believe and report cites the trajectory of the rockets. they were coming from government-held positions and held territory. thenk yo moon -- release of the report was used to call this a war crime explicitly and to point out this is the most serious use of a weapon of mass destruction in the 21st century. we are talking with susan glasser about the u.n. our phone lines are open. democrats, 202-585-3880. republicans, 202-585-3881. .ndependents, 202-585-3882 outside the u.s., 202-585-3883. yesterdayshow you samantha power responded to the release of that u.n. inspectors report that we have been talking about. i want to play you a bit of what she said. [video clip] the u.n. have heard, report confirms unmistakably that chemical weapons were used in syria on august 21. the mandate of the team was not to investigate culpability but the details of the report make clear that only the regime could have carried out this large- scale chemical weapons attack. we will analyze the findings in greater detail very carefully. --ill note one observation we have associated one type of munitions cited in the report, 122 millimeter rockers with previous regime attacks. we have reviewed thousands of videos and have not observed the opposition manufacturing or using this style of rocket. , it was noted in response to a question from russia that the quality of the sarin was higher than that then was used in saddam hussein's program. host: we are speaking with susan glasser about the u.n. and it's worked in syria. where does this go from here? guest: that is a good question. the united states and russia came to an agreement under which they would require syria over a rapid period to disclose their chemical weapons and then to submit to international inspection with the goal of removing the arsenal over the next six months. it is a very ambitious schedule. it is a significant agreement. there is potential roadblocks along the way. it is not clear as the u.s. and russia have different interpretations about this report. can the united states and russia continue to work together on this or will there be points at which they are disagreeing whether syria is honoring the agreement or just vying for time. host: talk about what that agreement asks of the u.n. in the coming months and years. guest: the united nations will be called upon to be the main guarantor, supplying weapons inspectors, asking them to go into a dangerous situation on the ground with a raging civil scale of the the chemical weapons arsenal that assad has. will the inspectors be able to find all of the chemical weapons and to ensure we have a clear sense of their chain of custody as they are being eliminated? this is a complicated and time- consuming process. task is the u.n. up to the to carry out all those things along with their other missions? guest: the united nations has some expertise in the area of weapons monitoring and overseeing the destruction of chemicals. presented a russia model for cooperation in the aftermath of the collapse of the soviet union. they worked together on monitoring the destruction of chemical weapons. i visited the main facility in des,ia, which even two deca they were still hard at work dismantling these weapons. host: what kind of weapons were they doing? guest: other kinds of chemical weapons. host: some stats around the country. 16 missionsrrently across four continents. the largest mission is and are darfur. that mission was established in 2007. we will go to the phones now. give us a call. the phone lines are open. tom is waiting. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you. thank you for taking my call. i am confused as far as the back-and-forth rhetoric. if we are going to rely on the united nations as far as their conclusions and they will not submit to say who is responsible, why are we using circumstantial evidence to be so sure? hopefully the targets we would have were not based on circumstantial surveillance. guest: i think the caller -- there is the question about whether there will be future military action and what kind of intelligence would be used? president obama said he will hold off to give his diplomacy and this agreement a chance to work. issues.one bucket of if the u.n. report was not set up to conclude who was guilty in this attack, where do we look for an answer? the united states has said they have evidence beyond their own doubt about the guilt of the assad regime. the russians continue to be advocates on behalf of the syrian government, at least in waters. the the u.s. believes in addition to the report, their own sources suggest that this was an action by government controlled forces against the people. host: talk about how this report is being viewed around the world. ty.have a comment by mon your take. guest: anything that stops short of assigning blame would be greeted with more favor by the russians and the chinese. the russians have done what we expected. there is no evidence to suggest this. that the report proves the rebels have launched this attack. russia and china will veto effectively as positioning to give them a seat at the table in world affairs. they have been very explicit in refusing to allow the security council to take any action up until now. it is fair to say anything that comes out of the council is aimed at gathering the votes, or at least stopping them from wielding their veto. host: clifford from massachusetts. you are on with susan glasser. hi.caller: i have a concern here. i think the u.s. is in a poor position of losing credibility. are at cap at stalling and to throw off these other comments. i am all for a political solution. with the delay tactics, we could be a year and a half still talking about the same issue. what are we going to do to expedite this? what consequence is syria going to have? caller hasink the pointed out one of the main foreign-policy challenges on the table for president obama, this question of credibility. now he is invested his credibility in making this agreement. he has to give this settlement a chance to work. he has made a handshake deal with the russians. credibility was one of the main reasons that obama cited for his willingness to launch a military strike in retaliation for this attack. announcedt a year ago he was imposing a redline on the use of chemical weapons in the syrian conflict. he was warning assad a year ago that there would be serious consequences if he used chemical weapons. it was his credibility that was cited to go forward with a military strike. that was the argument he heard from saudi arabia, which had strongly been supporting the rebels in the syrian fight. they have made the case if obama did not launch a military attack or threat, he was undermining u.s. credibility. it seems like u.s. credibility is at stake whichever course president obama pursued. host: what have we learned about the dynamics of the u.s.-russia relationship within the u.n.? guest: that has been one of the most fascinating subplots of this story. four yein moscow for ars. i have been fascinated to see this turn of events. the u.s. has tried and failed to engage the russians in a real conversation over a diplomatic track in ending the syrian conflict. it is striking we should have this dramatic 11th hour deal here. even at a time of real president obama canceled his meeting with vladimir putin weeks ago because president putin decided to harbor edward snowden. there was a sense the russians had nothing on the agenda that could come out of a summit meeting with the united states. there was a freeze in relations. you have a convergence of interests that may not be online for very long but temporarily where. it is not like the russians decided to become humanitarian s. much more the case they saw an opportunity to out maneuver the americans that will magically. --diplomatically. their partnership with syria could possibly be advanced. you no longer hear about the ouster of bashar al-assad. that was stated policy for the past two years. the president has called for assad to go. it is possible the russians believed the longer-term survival of the assad regime by basically convincing him to give up his chemical weapons in order to stay in power. about a figurek that you wrote about and colton minister no. what do americans need to know about sergey lavrov? guest: he is the architect of the initiative that we are seeing. he spent his whole career holding up to. he spent two decades at the united nations before returning to russia to become their foreign minister. he is now there longest-serving foreign minister since the end of the cold war. condoleezza rice said he reminded her of a classic diplomat in the mold of a 19th- century diplomat. the kind of guy who feels like he can sit down at the table with you and get things done. he is a real character. he sees russia at his religion and returning rusher to great power status is his mission after what he sees as the indignities of the early 1990's, one the soviet union broke up. host: we are talking with susan glasser, the editor of political magaine.-- politico co-chief of the washington post moscow euro. jordan is waiting from washington, d.c., on our democratic line. good morning. caller: i was wondering if your guest could give us a brief summation on the nuclear live ration treaty. how many nations have that genevaity as well as the convention with respect to chemical weapons. how many nations have that tape ability? the evidence is overwhelming. we should not be slapping assad on the wrist and taking away his toy as though he is a child. crs man is a war iminal. he needs to be prosecuted. about we are not talking nuclear capacity on the part of the syrian government. one of the problems with these mentioned iscaller the countries that are the actors are not the parties to these treaties. that is the case with syria, which has been acquiring this arsenal since the time of bashar al-assad's father and saw this as a key part of a strategic arsenal over time. he was denying he had these chemical weapons two weeks ago. he has agreed to join the convention as part of his agreement to drop the weapons. host: nell from baltimore, maryland -- mel. caller: i would like to talk about the situation with syria andy united states. i think it is about a regime change. terrorists.ood with warhe president can go to without congress approval, that is considered a dictatorship. they are violating our own constitutional rights. every time we have war, it is about war and power. the u.s. and eu when knows what is going on. and the u.n. just like with the world trade center. where were they at? we never heard about that. host: we will go on to miami beach on our independent line, roland. good morning. caller: good morning. i wanted to state that syria begins to be seen as a narco state not so long ago. i believe that it is still producing heroin in lebanon and in southern syria, as well. the brother of bashar al-assad in line to become the prime minister was killed in one of because hetes basically ran the opium production. host: are you saying this is something the u.s. needs to look into? caller: i think this is something the u.s. is aware of. it has been discussed in the past in academic forums, as well. hegemony inhad around 2009.til were able toy they make decisions in lebanon for the lebanese government that were security decisions and they did it by counterbalancing their proxy hezbollah, which is the party that basically is maintaining the narcotics trade in south lebanon and exporting throughout europe and throughout the world. host: a chance to jump in. is that an issue you have studied? guest: the caller is raising the framework of the regional implications of this conflict. he pointed out about lebanon. there is the risk of destabilizing lebanon, which has had a fragile recovery from its own decades of civil war. --re is the issue of doxies proxies. you have hezbollah but also the potential for other iranian- backed groups to be fighting on the side of the assad regime. a video purporting to show iranians fighting on the side of the government. militias backed by different sides. you have the saudi's and the qataris. there is a concern that a group has begun the strongest of the rebel groups. you have groups that are more western oriented that governments like the united states what prefer to see you merge with the upper hand. you have clashes inside of syria host: we started the segment by noting that the united states -- ns isnited states -- natio in session today. talk about how the security council is viewed in the world today. unfortunately the syrian problem shows the limits of this group. to be thecontinue classic challenge for the world to come together and do something about it on a humanitarian basis. the refugees created in syria as overult of this civil war, a thousand people killed, and yet the words that most people would associate with the united nations, unfortunately, is gridlock. ande are limousines motorcades that compete with each other for physical gridlock, but you also have the policy gridlock about this security system. there is a power counsel that veto, and can object to any motion. the most politically sensitive disputes, whether in the balkans in the 1990's, or here in the middle east now tends to be gridlock. civil war that everybody deplores and does not do anything about. host: what about the united nations agenda as they get set for this week? timing of the way this crisis has played out is going to be front and center. one interesting story that is related that you hear a lot about is the first visit to the united nations general assembly in his new role of iran's new leader. the combative and defiant , well known for coming to new york and using the platform of the general assembly to give very hate filled tirades. he least these with america bashing, and threats and india aboutbout -- and innuendo , there now might be the opportunity to have a real dialogue. directlynegotiations between the united states and the irradiance, which would be major. to put this question of the iranian nuclear program on the table. syria is alleged to be a participant in the civil war. there is a loss of that could come up -- lot that could come up. twitter, we have a watcher saying that the veto could render everything useless. guest: the imminent threat of he was going that to exterminate the rebels in benghazi came up at the security council. russia and china did not use their veto to block military intervention. the outcome there was the toppling of the gaddafi government. , the syrianv -- the minister has russian foreign minister has spoken out against this. he never wanted to use this vehicle of the u.n. as the legal authority. the american, susan rice was very involved. she adamantly denies that there was any crime, but it was very clear. the last example that we could say was that there was a surprising breakthrough on the security council, and the result as been absolutely sort of retreat to the positions of goodwill. about thee talking u.n. with susan glasser, the energy of politico -- editor of politico. good morning, i want to ask your guest, since syria has been the topic of the nude, -- engaged, everyone is my question is the security council's of the u.n., would they ever consider inviting the head of google, twitter, facebook, since technology is such an advancement to the world itself, i was wondering if those three organizations could have a seat at the u.n.? guest: that is a very interesting and novel proposal. i think the caller is right to that's the u.n. is really a creature of a different time. they are about to the nationstate's sovereign duty -- sovereignity. ofwas designed with the goal preventing something like world war ii from ever happening again. it is why the u.n. has been so ineffective at dealing with the problems of dictator tips -- dictatorships and the problems they create for their people. work in the context of the end of world war ii, they are more worried about each other, and not so much about what happens inside the boundaries of these nationstates. the stent of globalization that we have now, and the new kind of that wield sotors much more power. host: keith, good morning, you are on with susan glasser. caller: i am a cold war veteran out of the 70's and 80's. the kgbht to have colonel, vladimir putin, have him clean up the mess over there. , theysed a lot of this sold a lot of these weapons to the syrians, and they have a warm water port their -- there. why has he not held his feet to the fire, so to speak, and have him bring up what he helped to cause this whole situation. they always come out smelling very clean. he is trying to build i relations -- build relations in iran. this is a troublemaker. host: susan? it is a veryk important perspective on vladimir pruden and russia. i do not think they always escape accountability. everyone is very well aware of russia's sale of firearms to the russian -- to the syrian government. would not be an effective fighter force except for the aid that the russian seven giving them. they have emerged as their main the poetic and political --mpions on the world stage diplomatic and political champions on the world stage. we need to understand that the russian armed supply was crucial for the survival of the assad government. the -- kingston, pennsylvania. caller: i want to take a whole different perspective from your last caller. putin should be congratulated from -- forgetting us out of potential war. war i remember, avoiding this war in syria is going to be temporary. they're going to get us into iran. the: let's talk about callers perspective on russia's involvement. -- correctnt to kiss the historical record. borderolling across the into an independent country that is an ally of america should not be easily dismissed. the two wars that russia five in among thein, were bloodiest civil conflicts in recent years. aey flattened and destroyed city in one of its own provinces. the russian record of military brutality is fairly well documented. it is not a tactic that they adopted broadly speaking in their foreign-policy, and in their very weakened state in the end of the cold war, that would not have been an option for them. they do not have the resources and the military that could project power. there was a scarring in the 1980's, in the incident that not russians andany africans, but left a collective memory in russia that is against military intervention. change -- would it take to change the internal power in the military and the u.n.? un security council reform is something that has been taken on unsuccessfully by many people over the years. the world that we live in is very different from the late 1940's. yet, reform has been almost impossible because of this gridlock. there are emerging countries like brazil, like india, because of their status in the world and aonomic power, that stinks deserve a permanent seat at the table. of still, you have several the european powers, germany, france, written, who are britian, whoe -- are partners here because of their role in world war ii. atis a bit of an anachronism this point, but the politics are such that no one can see how they can sort of firebomb a way that gridlock. host: let's go to the caller on our democratic line/ . think the u.n. is behaving appropriately. the american people do not want to go to war. i believe that the president behaved correctly when he went ahead and submitted to the will of the people. to debate,congress and took polls, and saw that the american people do not want to get involved. and the threat of things going sour with russia, we are the most powerful nation, but russia is not a lightweight either. if they are backing bashar al- assad, that needs to be taken seriously. i think the u.s. is behaving correctly, even if the policy is bit -- a bit weaker. host: ray is up next from the independent line. caller: i would just like to collaborate with the previous caller, i do agree with him in some senses. i believe that the president an an excuse as that he would not be able to go to war the cause of russia -- because of russia and the previous war that we were in what -- against gaddafi. the u.n. not able meant letter and facebook -- twitter and facebook? it is a threat to national security. countries can be overthrown by the entities of internet, twitter, and facebook, and i think it is also a threat to our civil liberties as well. guest: a couple of quick points. expressed strong opposition to any action in think that came through to president obama in the awkward stance with congress. spectrum, political haverats and republicans this dance on all of these issues. they are pursuing diplomatic track when it comes to this matter. on the twitter and facebook thing, it is interesting to note , although there has been the promise of opening and censorship,f yesterday, twitter and facebook were briefly freed up in a wrong -- in iran. everyone began facebook inc. and fear.twitter without we woke up this morning to find out that in fact the censorship was back in place. host: susan glasser is the editor of e magazine. thank you for joining us this morning. guest: thank you. put aup next, we will spotlight on the federal reserve. we will talk about the vacancies and the potential replacement. we will be right back. >> this weekend, look for booktv's full coverage of the natural book festival -- national festival. --king ahead to october, coming up to me and asking how can he be in congress, you got arrested? you violated the laws. and i said, they were bad laws. they work customs, traditions, and we wanted america to be better. towanted america to live up its declaration of independence. live up to our creed. make real democracy. so when i got arrested the first free.i felt i felt liberated. today, more than ever before, i feel free and liberated. ago,am lincoln, 150 years freed the slaves. but it took the modern-day civil rights movement to free and liberate a nation. >> civil rights leader john lewis will be our guest. we will take your calls and comments for re-hours -- 3 ho urs. january 5, radio talkshow host mark levin. >> washington journal continues. host: with the federal reserve in the news because of a looming change in leadership, we will spend the next 45 minutes talking with bloomberg editor nela richardson. and us back to 1913, explain for us why the institution was created in the earth place -- first place. guest: it was created in response to a series of financial panics. it was a foreign national bank that was both independent and decentralized. that has continued to this day. 12 national banks all over the country. that is supposed to be more representative of the whole country, and we have independents, free from progress, except -- congress, to whowhen it comes is the chair of the fed. they have two major responsibilities. traditionale the ones, crisis stability, and full employment. the fed is supposed to keep inflation low, and keep the economy fully employed. this helps to support moderate interest rate growth. with the addition of the dodd frank act, now the fed with -- is charged with financial stability, and making sure that the risk is contained in the financials. our conversation has been devoted to quantitative easing. the new emerging mandate of the fed will be significant. host: those mandates sometimes conflict with each other, correct? guest: they do, and we are seeing that in this current discussion. when is too much inflation for monetary policy too much for the economy? keep doing it ok to monetary policy in order to fulfill that really primal mandate of employment? there seems to be a logic colts of -- a lot of support of the fed right now and its policies, but we want to taper the back to keep these price expectations under control. host: we have the senior economist a bloomberg government here for our segment on the federal reserve. our phone lines are open if you have any questions or comment about the federal reserve and the current vacancies. what is the current structure at the fed and where are these vacancies coming from? guest: it is led by the federal open market committee. they are all appointed by the president, and confirmed by congress. the chairman of that committee is the current federal reserve chair, ben bernanke. he sets the monetary policy of what isral reserve, and known as the federal funds rate. host: we are taking your calls and comments this morning. sleeprom washington deep -- d.c. from our independent line. caller: good morning. i was wondering if you are if you could -- tell us a little bit about how the federal reserve was originally conceived and who was involved in creating it? guest: i am not familiar with that novel you mentioned. the federal reserve has had a lot of clarity in their mandate. that mandate has suffered as different chairs have had whatrent conceptions of inflation containment meant. different priorities in terms of full employment. the current fed, the modern fed has had a clear mandate, low inflation with full of limit -- employment. the have had to act as lender of last resort and take extraordinaire mergers, not seen before, to make sure that the financial system data flow -- stayed afloat. they have had this great clarity. are talking about the fan and some of the upcoming vacancies -- fed and upcoming vacancies. thatere certain qualities the employees must have? guest: they can come from the business sector, but there has to be a clear understanding of how the economy works, and how the financial markets work. as these appointments go, they are political as well. also, it is very important to understand how the fed chairman is selected. there was a paper written about this 10 years ago, about what makes a good fed chair. it came up with two things, i clear understanding of how the economy works, and the trade-off between inflation and full employment. and secondly, some experience both high sector, and fiscal ivate sector, and fiscal policy. the candidates that are being tossed around right now certainly have that. host: talking about those current candidates, we have several names. larry summers has recently nomination.s larry summers has been a lightning rod. the media has been very loud around him because of his personality. the liberal convention of the democratic party, because of his role in deregulating the hardy, not that that led to the financial crisis. he has said he will be drawn on regulation going forward, but his past caught up with him here. this may be a breath of fresh air in terms of the financial markets, because we have avoided a contentious corporation confirmation process, when we are facing government shutdown and other crises. host: the candidates are left on the table, one name that keeps coming up is the -- getting netlow and, who is she -- ja yellin, who is she? the fronthas always runner until someone takes it, it seems. letteronomists signed a agreeing that janet yelling terrific fed chair because of her all of these -- policies. host: we are taking your calls and comments as we talk about the federal reserve with nela richardson from bloomberg government. is up next from our independent line. caller: good morning. ask, in 1934 the federal reserve enacted the and our democrat president and congress wrote the act two separate the banks -- to separate the banks. hen the republican president and congress repealed it and bottom fell out. you have to get rid of the federal reserve bank, and give it back to the federal treasury department. look at the debt. interested that the taxpayers pay the federal reserve bank? thought toey not bring back the glass deal backed? -- act? or -- therehave were a lot of good points. modern financial markets depend on integration between investment and retail -- enterprises. they can continue as long as there is good regulation. that regulation did collapse during the financial crisis. amenableanity -- very monetary policy actually lead to bubbles in our asset prices. there was some problems with regulation of about the questions whether or not you all away back to the glass deal in encouraging a regulation that in terms of candidates in both yellen and larry summers have and ofthat a restrained that activity is the right approach. people expect janet yellen to be very tough on regulation in the future. host: one of the more recent rushes has been for an audit of the federal reserve. anna writes in on twitter why is a request to audit the fed ignored? guest: that is a central feature the fed. up in they get no appropriations from congress and the return billions of dollars because of the asset buying or just programs. placest, necessarily, distraction on that independent and congress may have some problems with the approach, you look over the long term independence is the guiding factor. host: why some folks pushing for not at? -- an audit? the measures that the federal reserve is taking not only to get the economy growing again, but also what happened during the financial crisis when the fed helped bailout the banks that it regulated. for some people but does not sit right. there is in this desire to rein in the powers of the fed because they saw the execution of mental -- terminus pat -- tremendous power during the financial cracks us. -- crisis. caller: good morning. i agree with the last caller that we need to bring glass- steagall back. and we need to break up these banks because i don't care that there's been a little bit of demand that they carry more money on the books. they are still too risky. they are the one reaping the profits. and main street isn't. advantagesthe same to smaller banks or middle sized ones that were not risky. we encourage this risky behavior. , the 90%of the country or everyone assay, is struggling. that we dowith you not have to do something dramatic. i believe we do and if anything happens, we will be right there let the wholeot world fall apart because we are interconnected. would you think of the janet yellen, as a progressive i was totally against larry summers and i can't believe the president listened to us. do you really think that she will do something? i would like a little bit of interest on my bank account so that i don't have to invest in wall street and ideal to make five percent. get allld the big banks of these advantages? they have all the power to come against any kind of regulation or anything that will tie their hands. and main street has no power behind it. guest: i would like to first say that something genetic it does need to be done. the dodd frank act was structured to be that thing. that has not been fully implemented. we had another piece of regulation like a return to glass-steagall on top of the dodd frank act. i think we should get this act implemented and enforced. the problem is that the rules are not overly and forced. concerned,re i am the federal reserve drop the ball during the housing boom allowing a lot of bad products in the market. and they eventually took over the financial system. regulation may not be the inclusive -- conclusive answer for folks on main street. janet yellen has given every indication that she would be a good regulator and tough on the banks moving forward. as i said before the conversation has been on quantitative easing. and that has suppressed interest rates. having thecaller discussion of no interest rates is not because of the fed. that is because we have an economy that is not working properly. policy thata fiscal is in stalemate because congress cannot come to a decision on the economy. the fed can only go so far and only have one tool which is monetary policy. that willful that lead to investment, but it will not solve all our problems. host: we have heard the term quantitative easing a couple times. explain that term. 2010, starting in buying $85 billion in bonds every month. long dated treasury bonds and mortgage securities. the idea behind that was to keep interest rates low and to spur investment not only for banks and private enterprises, but for consumers. so that you just rates would stay low and i would to buy a house or car and that transaction whisper more economic activity. the problem is that quantitative easing though it has kept the economy afloat has not had success that the federal reserve would like it to. and it has not been able to generate this economic growth over the hump. we are still seeing that in the latest economic data. twitter bill written that the fed is too much power and then ask who pays for the fed's operations? guest: it's not a taxpayer funded organization. because of quantitative easing and because the fed has always assets on its books, isn't hang my gender treasury. it is not a taker from the government, that may change as a taper, as they start selling off assets over the long run. interest rates will necessarily rise which means the bonds in the federal reserve balance sheet will lower in value and they may see a loss going forward. that is something the reserve a lot to be sensitive. host: leesburg virgin on republican line, good morning. caller: good morning, this is my first time calling. this subject is boiling my blood. the federal reserve system is a noxious. host: what is your concern? caller: first of all, the devaluation of the dollar. type in dollar valuation chart since 1913, we have lost 95% in value in the dollar. i appreciate if she would comment on that. host: valuation of the dollar? guest: part of quantitative easing suppresses interest rates and also suppresses the value of the dollar, that is absolutely true. what i fear is a rising anger against the federal reserve because of the erosion of the power of the dollar. but to say the federal reserve is the only factor in the , underserved the role of the commerce in white house and the discourse possibility. the federal reserve only has one tool to keep interest rates low so the open market operations. without that, many economists believe that the economy would not even be as good and well-off as it is right now. host: pikesville maryland on independent line, good morning. caller: i would like to ask of the federal reserve issues the old savings bonds that we used to use? i think, i have heard that many people have trip trouble buying savings bonds have to jump through loops. think that more savings bonds should be issued. if you paid me for 5% i would pay a little bit of my pension, number five percent is good and ,ould help with the mortgage with the debt that we have in the country. i like the federal reserve's independence. they privately owned by the banks themselves. the foxes running the henhouse and i would like to hear her answer the question about the savings bonds in the ownership of federal reserve. guest: rates are going to be low across as a crisis so as not like savings bonds will have a higher rate. to answer your question on independence, the federal reserve system is a private public partnership. the federal reserve board is a thatalized government makes monetary policy. host: the leadership of the board, we mentioned janet yellen is someone who might be in line to leave the board. mentioned as donald kohn, who is he? guest: he with the federal vice president under alan greenspan. he has a 40 year history of the federal reserve. that areese qualities fundamental for the future of the fed chairman which is an understanding of expectations and the balance and trade of. host: we are also saying mentioned in the financial times today, roger ferguson, tim geithner and ben bernanke. guest: ben bernanke would be a good choice, but all of these people have in common some affinity towards the federal reserve and experience with the federal reserve. understanding of the economy and how it works. let me just mention that the federal reserve operation is not merely to help banks. it is also for job creation. the idea is that you keep interest late throw, firms income these will start investing in the economy and that will create jobs. that is the idea. the execution and actual success of the idea, is debatable. the fed only has a couple of tools and its toolbox and what it has tried to do is keep a very low interest rates -- rate environment that will lead to job creation on walter. -- on wall street. host: democratic line, margot. caller: i never could figure out why they dropped the glass- steagall act. it seemed like it was a way to protect from the bad. explain it to us because i do not quite figured out. i don't know why they dropped it. guest: in all actuality, glass- steagall has of basically nonexistent for years before it was officially revealed. the weight banks operations work is that they use the project to make loans for you and me to buy houses and cars. secure some kind of mechanism, that means banks have all the risk for making these lendings. we saw that in the late 80s and 90s when banks of all the assets off their own books. if there's a spike in interest rates, that can be just as harmful to the banking sector itself as a financial crisis. we saw with the savings and loans crisis back in the 1980s, what this merger between retail and investment sector allows for for assetshe things to be secured and sold to investors. that money comes back to the bank in the form of funds to make new loans. -- bring backof glass-steagall, that is a care , car loans andss student loan to be harmed. as one of things economy has to juggle. if we bring about a new way of bank ownership. a question from parking that on twitter, what is the purpose of the regional fed offices? guest: the regional fed offices do a variety of things in terms of monetary policy. one are the voice of reason thing about the fed as we talk about the fed chairman and fed chair women, but the reason , the is not a voice regional banks have a vote and able to give the concerns about their own particular region. they also regulate the banks within the region. sector ins private which they are working with banks and also have a monetary role in which they're taking that data from their own region and employing it into a federal or macro monetary policy decision. host: we are talking with nila richardson a senior economist at bloomberg government. bu can check out her work at gov.com. our foam eyes are open for your questions but the fed. barry is next on our republican line. caller: good morning, the federal reserve act was set into law in 1913 with a 100 year charter that the federal reserve that expires this december. there is no discussion that expires is a matter of law and no law has been passed in the past hundred years that replaces it. my own opinion is the federal reserve should be allowed to expire and monetary policy return to the u.s. government were delong so people can elect or not elect who controls it. barry, the one ramification of that is that the policy decisions necessarily become political. it the white house who would determine them monetary policy. host: if the fed expired? guest: if the fed expired, it would fall under the executive to command monetary policy in this country. i would be a break in the tradition of that 100 years of federal reserve. that would be the ramification. host: if the federal reserve have to have a new charter? guest: the fed is a congressional animal. it's not controlled by congress, but it was written and legislated by congress. it would definitely need a new charter. host: is that in the works? aware of, that i'm there is no discussion that began rid of the federal reserve. host: marshfield wisconsin on our independent line. caller: a bit earlier you mentioned that the fed was spending through quantitative easing $85 billion per month for this program. i was wondering where in the world do they get $85 billion a month? are they printing this money out of thin air? guest: the fed has its own fund and is in charge of the currency. it uses those funds to buy assets securities. mortgage backed securities and bonds that it is keeping on its balance sheet. the discussion is starting this month and the fed is meeting on tuesday and wednesday to decide whether or not to and this bond buying program. this portfolio bonds is making money. as i said earlier, if interest rates were to go up, that would not continue. is when fed is deciding the slow this down. when to stop buying $85 billion in assets a month. , maybe only $75 billion per month. by the end of next year, there purchase to this magnitude of bonds. there is a recognition that this program cannot last forever. and that the economy can't alone solve the economic headwind that we are currently seeing. host: an e-mail question that came in from bill from connecticut. responseas created in to the financial crisis in the past, it supposed to eliminate them in the future. the financial crisis proves that it did not work. the timing of the crisis is crucial. just a few months before there was a government change. i think it has a lot to do with politics and the war in iraq. guest: my take is that the federal reserve can never totally abolish crises. crises are going to be part of our economic future. there are no way you can get rid of all the risks. but they can be regulated and i think that is where the dodd frank act comes into play. the fed has to take a stronger regulatory role in the banks that they are charged with. criticize the federal reserve for allowing some of the poor underwriting standards that occurred during the financial crisis that triggered this crisis. going forward, i expect the dodd frank act would put another sense of urgency and regulation in the federal reserve along with price ability. -- stability. host: we talked earlier about what quantitative easing was. why hasn't the fed quantitative easing aussie work to spur economic activity as it was designed to do? guest: traditionally, the fed uses monetary policy to affect interest rates sensitive sectors. the primary being the housing market. the three behind it is that by lowering interest rates, use per all this economic activity in the housing markets. it's rise, consumers buy homes which leads do you holmes construction and leads to big furniture purchases and other consumer spending. they will generate the kind of economic activity that is needed to pull the economy along and generate growth. we do not see that happen this time around. the housing ma of leading this y out of an economic rec it took a long time for the housing market to even reach bottom in terms of housing prices and then to recover to a point where could slowly start to fill in that function in terms of economic growth. the second reason that we can ignore is the lack of fiscal policy. the government has been enabled because of these spending stalemate in congress to perform in generating jobs for the economy and creating investments both public and private sector investment. and leading the economy out of the current malaise. the president was talking yesterday that there has been some success economically since the financial crisis. but the economic recovery has been tepid. part of that reason is because of the political stalemate in congress that feed uncertainty into the economy has been saturated from giving companies from investing in doing that kind of job creation function that we need to the economy today. next frome is pennsylvania on democratic line. caller: good morning, thank you for taking my call. i would like to throw some names to you and maybe the comment on them. senate and house hearings, mr. demarco with fannie and freddie. if the president -- is the two make janet yellen head of the federal reserve because of this obvious whenwn that mr. shapiro she was and pointed to the financial crisis? i will hang up and listen. i'm going to put -- i don't want to put words in the maryr's mouth, but schapiro is the head of the sec. ed demarco is the head of the federal housing finance agency which regulates freddie and fannie. span theee individuals set of our financial markets. the of the housing markets regulator fannie and freddie who played a huge role in the housing market during the boom and subsequent bust. we have the ftc which was charged with regulating all these mortgage markets products which were packaged and sold to investors without a full account ability with the risks that weren't held. the federalhave reserve that regulated the big banks. in terms of the triumvirate that the caller has put together, moving forward in terms of the ,ames that should be suggested i'm not sure if the caller is saying that ed demarco or janet yellen or what the case is being made their. i do believe that that was an issue that hopefully dodd frank remedies. though i do have my concern on that particular point. i do think the caller laid out the triumvirate very well. host: the trillions of the federal reserve used in 20 way to bailout the eu. is that some you can discuss? guest: not what the specificity because i'm not executive sure where the caller is calling from. by failing of these institutions, these institutions goldman sachs in jpmorgan, all of the things have tremendous international exposure. out ation that bails multinational bank necessarily affects the global economy. we are in a global world so the financial policy we do at home will have effects abroad. host: angelica is up next from maryland on our republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i don't think that any bank should be allowed to grow so big that they can be a systemic risk not to just this country but globally. we have a problem of too big to fail and now also to big to prosecute. let's face it, all of these big banks dictate what goes on. when you see how they cheat people and they bank makes $1 billion and then we find out how shady the business works. and then they get slapped with a fine weather is $200 million or $500 million, the bank is still ahead of the game. the other thing you mentioned earlier is that the fed has a job to create jobs. the jobs they are creating are actually low income jobs. again, massive failure because the fed creates boom and bust and are pushing more and more people in this country into poverty. evenrs, for example, can't get a decent interest rates on their savings anymore. they are also being forced into using their principal so they can survive during retirement. then you have the banks getting bailed out for free, literally. getting money for free that the federal reserve provides them with. with a $1ave students million dollar student loan that they oh and they to pay 5% interest rates. are these people getting? this has to stop. guest: i don't disagree with the itemization of what is wrong. those are facts that we are currently under. i have said that the federal reserve can't -- can only do so much. it only has this one instrument and it is not working as well as the fed would like. all i can say the caller is that that is a problem, but to blame solely the federal reserve is one thing. also the issue of the big banks in terms of paying a finding going on, i think that is a problem. the point of strong regulation is to prevent -- is preventing. this is a bit off-topic. the way to do that is higher capital requirements. oft is one thing in terms the future of the federal reserve policy. requiring things to hold more capital. fundamental in financial regulation in the future. the caller is right, we can't allow banks to take these outside risks. the way control it is too good capital. economy is still on the rebound. the fed is only one actor in a very public's economy. how the looming financial battles that congress is facing, how that might impact the selection of the next fed chair. guest: we all got a tremendous greater when larry summers stepped aside. that comment is not a treatable to his credentials or is experience or his personality. i thought he was a credentialed person to leave the fed for sure. the the contention of his t ofirmation in the mids trying to avoid a government shutdown and raising the debt ceiling did eight and all of the all of thend contention between republicans and democrats, they have been more than the economy needed to withstand. reducing the candidate pool to couple ofen and a others may change that. i think that simplifies the process a great deal.

Related Keywords

Arkansas , United States , Vietnam , Republic Of , Qatar , Australia , Alabama , Saint Elizabeth , Missouri , Brazil , Syria , Hyattsville , Maryland , Connecticut , West Virginia , Quantico , Virginia , Egypt , Massachusetts , Libya , Bedford , New York , Miami , Florida , Moscow , Moskva , Russia , United States Capitol , District Of Columbia , Japan , Damascus , Dimashq , Germany , Afghanistan , Atlanta , Georgia , Indiana , United Arab Emirates , Michigan , Tunisia , Iraq , New Jersey , Idaho , Leesburg , Pennsylvania , Saudi Arabia , France , Louisiana , South Lebanon , Brooklyn , Cornell University , Arlington , Texas , Pikesville , China , California , Fort Hood , Arab League , Al Qahirah , At Alan , Irkutskaya Oblast , Washington , Berkeley , India , South Carolina , Washington Navy Yard , Anacostia River , North Carolina , Iran , Illinois , Miami Beach , Lebanon , Belize , Jordan , United Kingdom , Athens , Attikír , Greece , Tennessee , Israel , Geneva , Genè , Switzerland , Colorado , Houston , Americans , America , Saudi , Iranians , Iranian , Israelis , Iraqi , Lebanese , Israeli , Russians , Japanese , American , Qataris , Chinese , Russian , Syrians , Aussie , Saudis , Britain , Soviet , Syrian , Gulf States , Trayvon Martin , Sylvia Fraser , Elizabeth Warren , Helen Taft , Susan Glasser , Shibley Telhami , Vladimir Pruden , Donald Kohn , Kurt Assad , Vladimir Putin , Sergey Lavrov , Ben Bernanke , James Baker , Dodd Frank , Sergei Lavrov , Janet Yellen , Eugene Robinson , Alan Greenspan , John Roger Johnson , Al Qaeda , Mary Schapiro , Michael Arnold , Kay Bailey Hutchison , Anwar Sadat , Wesley Clark , Roger Ferguson , Christina Sommers , Chuck Hagel Landstuhl , Tim Geithner , Bashar Al Assad , Abraham Lincoln , Kathy Gaarde , Edward Snowden , Barack Obama , George W Bush , Bernard Proctor , Frank Kohler , Edith Wilson , Eric Erickson , Aaron Alexis , Vishnu Pandit ,