tv Washington Journal 07092021 CSPAN July 9, 2021 6:59am-10:01am EDT
you ahead. >> they support c-span is a public service along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> this week marked the six month anniversary of the january 6 attack on the u.s. capitol. each night, we are showing congressional hearings that occurred in the aftermath of january 6. in may, the former trump administration officials and the d.c. police chief appeared before the house oversight committee to testify on their actions in response to the capital security breach. what's the hearing tonight starting >> coming up on washington journal, laura solomon discusses the remarks on u.s. troops withdrawing from afghanistan amid reports of taliban gains in the country. and the executive director director of the national organization for -- marijuana laws. for the latest on state and
federal efforts to legalize state and medical marijuana. and brandon will talk about the recent uso report. washington journal is next. ♪ host: this is the washington journal for july the ninth. president biden strongly defends his effort to end the u.s. effort in afghanistan even as taliban versus have regained parts of the country. we want to hear your thoughts on the president's decision to end the 20 year war in afghanistan. here's how you can let us know what you think. if you support the president's decision to paul those troops from afghanistan. (202) 748-8000. if you oppose it (202) 748-8001.
if you are a veteran of the afghanistan war you can call us at (202) 748-8002. and offer your perspective. you can also text us at (202) 748-8003. you can post on facebook, and twitter and instagram. you can see the whole announcement yesterday from the white house, but in portion, president biden making his case to pull out u.s. troops from afghanistan. here's a portion from yesterday. [video clip] president biden: let me ask those who want us to stay. how many more russian mark comey thousands of more america's daughters and sons are you willing to risk? how long would you have them stay? already we have members of our military whose parents fought in afghanistan 20 years ago. would you send their children?
your grandchildren? would you send your own son or daughter? after 20 years, at trillion dollars spent training and equipping hundreds of thousands of national security in afghan defense forces. 2040 800 americans killed. more wounded, and untold thousands coming home with unseen trauma to their mental health. i will not send another generation of americans to war in afghanistan with no reasonable expectation of achieving a different outcome. the united states cannot afford to -- creating response to the world as it was 20 years ago. we need to make it -- to meet the threats where they are today. today the terrorist threats are cast aside beyond afghanistan. so we are repositioning our
resources and adapting our posture to meet threats where they are now. significantly higher in south asia, the middle east, africa. make no mistake. our military leaders are confident that they have the capabilities to protect their homeland and our interest from any resurgent terrorist challenge emerging or emanating from afghanistan. host: that's the president from yesterday. you could see the home announcement on c-span.org. if you want to let us know about your position, if you support it: at -- call in at (202) 748-8000. if you oppose call (202) 748-8001. if you are a veteran of the war call (202) 748-8002. joining is now is laura from politico. she serves as the defense reporter. thank you for joining us.
guest: thank you for having me. host: a story of yours takes a look at the efforts going out of afghanistan. you make the case that this was pre-much already completed even before yesterday's announcement. can you give us context? guest: scheuer, one of the news items from the president's speech was that he moved up the deadline. previously it was september 11. now it's august 31. but my sources are telling me that the drawdown is effectively done. we currently have just 600 troops in afghanistan. just about all of them were always expected to stay past the official withdrawal date to provide security at the u.s. embassy in kabul and at the kabul international airport. the only personnel left to withdrawal is general scott miller, and a handful of his staff. there is a handful more of
security and logistics forces that the pentagon sent in temporarily to aid in the withdrawal. they will also depart. but out of the 2500 or so that president biden started out with, all but a handful are gone. host: when it comes to the decision, did the tell leaders at the pentagon support this position? guest: in the beginning of present biden's term, when it was not clear if he was going to pull out of afghanistan are not come i think that top generals saw them disagree with the logic behind withdrawing troops. i think we saw the market that there was a lot of evidence that the country will now collapse and the afghan security forces are not strong enough to hold off the out -- the taliban. so they wanted to keep a couple thousand special operators to keep fighting terrorists as well as some military trainers to help the afghan secure forces. but now that the president's decision has been made, to come
as no surprise to anyone, least of all the generals, that this was ultimately the general he was going to make. i think the generals have gotten on board and said ok mr. president, we are in eerie let's get this done quickly. -- we are in. let's get this done quickly. host: we have several maps of areas under taliban control. as far as the president's decision, especially making this decision is it's going on in the country, how did he account? guest: you are right. the taliban has been making huge gains in the past 18 months since president trump's agreement. and has intensified. the taliban has gained 10% of the country, making -- they now control 180 of the 407 districts.
these gains are primarily in the north and in critical areas. what we are seeing is the afghan security forces surrendering without a fight. thousands of soldiers are fleeing to nearby to giga stan -- to a nearby country to get away from the taliban. this is not a situation -- this is not to turn present bidens plan to withdraw. by my estimates, if kabul falls, that might be six months to a year away if it happens at all, it really depends on the afghan security forces. if that happens, the u.s. response will be very limited. president biden has been clear that he wants to get out of afghanistan. host: even as you say that. you and others have heard him say he was confident going forward to tackle anything that might happen. that the u.s. is adapting to the situations. can you elaborate what the plan is, or what the design is considering the state of the
country? guest: after the americans leave, the plan is to conduct what they call over the horizon operations. to continue keeping an eye on the taliban and hunting terrorists from outside of afghanistan. currently that plan is to conduct these operations from as far away as the middle east, qatar. that's a nine hour from afghanistan. to some experts, this is not feasible. especially with unmanned aircraft that have to be refueled multiple times along the way. so there is an attempt to base u.s. troops in a nearby country like uzbekistan to more easily conducted these operations. but it's not clear yet whether that will come to fruition. right now [indiscernible] host: there were stories coming
out in light of this, saying that the afghan government and officials salves, particularly at -- officials themselves said [indiscernible] could you tell us what happened when it comes to the amount of information afghan government received? guest: there were stories that the afghan leaders had no warning that the u.s. was going to depart. that the u.s. military leaders left in the mill of the night with no warning. they turned off the water and the electricity. and the commander who took over the base did not even check out until two hours after. they said we told the afghans everything they needed to know 48 hours ahead of time. they left at the exact moment which americans departed. see could see why they would be a love set -- a little upset
about this. the pentagon said this was for operational security reasons. host: he could see laura's latest story on politico. she covers the defense side of issues for politico. thank you for your time this morning. guest: thank you for having me. host: with that for the context of the decision made by the president, we are asking what you think about this decision by the president. if you support it (202) 748-8000 . if you oppose it (202) 748-8001. if you are a veteran of the war and you want to give your perspective (202) 748-8002. we will start with rachel, on our support line in florida. go ahead. caller: good morning. i'm happy to be here. thank you for taking my call.
i support withdrawing our troops. i feel like we never should have been there to begin with. they knew ahead of time that we were going to leave. they knew that when president got -- president trump was talking about when he was president and i commend president biden for doing that. i don't support him but this is i think the first thing he has done that is right. host: you heard our guest talk about the influence of the taliban, are those concerns for you? caller: yes and no. everybody knew that would happen because the afghans should be defending themselves and we have been there years defending them. i think that was wrong. they should have been given the training like our troops are given before they are sent over and they should be able to defend themselves. they have all the equipment, the ammunition, everything they need that we supplied. my candidate defend themselves? host: this is renata, from
dayton, ohio, on the oppose line. caller: good morning. i oppose because i heard -- i don't know if this woman has said anything about it but i heard general kane said that the defense sources were going to be leaving before all of our troops were out. that's frightening. we need to have them overhead, protecting our forces before they leave. so i don't understand that logic whatsoever. host: as far as the ultimate pullout, do you agree with that or would you rather see forces staying afghanistan? caller: i really want to see an ultimate pullout. but i want to see our forces overhead protecting our men. host: in philadelphia, pennsylvania come on the support line, this is milton. caller: good morning three thank
you for taking my call. i support president biden for pulling out. we have been in afghanistan for 20 years. we could stay the next hundred years. it won't change anything. it is the afghans that have to step up to the plate and fight for their own country. as soon as they engage the taliban they melt. they give their weapons over. they don't -- if they don't want to fight for their country wash our servicemen and women die for them if they are not willing to fight for their own country? and those republicans predict -- criticizing president biden, trump set up the withdrawal area -- the withdrawal. he would have had us out of afghanistan today. he announced that withdrawal and now that president biden has with -- has announced it all of a sudden there against it. host: one of those are publicans criticizing the decision about the withdrawal was mitch
mcconnell. he talked about this plans this summer. here he is from the senate floor. [video clip] sen. mcconnell: president's decision to retreat from afghanistan is not clear ride or strategic. it is dangerous, wishful thinking. the administration is making clear this decision does not have a coherent plan to medicate the geopolitical and humanitarian risk that our departure will create. when we are gone, after we leave , we have every reason to believe that al qaeda will regroup in its historic safe haven. giving up the high ground while the enemy is still on the battlefield is not a strategic move. neither is conducting so-called over the horizon counterterrorism missions without presence on the ground. if we have learned anything in the fight against terrorists, the importance of reliable
access and local partnerships. if you give up the former and we likely lose the latter. the military cartilage lies in conlon's -- in reconnaissance and strike missions against terrorists from within afghanistan. the country is not easy to get to come immediate neighbors iran, pakistan, and russians lens to central asian nations. they are not likely to let us pay significant counterterrorism units in their country. so where will we be basing these forces? how will we maintain authorities thousands of miles away? how many forces will be required to secure our nbc -- our embassy? if the taliban threatens to overrun it, what will be due to protect it? where will a quick reaction
force debased if not in afghanistan? will it be quick if it's response time goes from minutes to hours? we learn from benghazi, the so-called tyranny of distance. if the taliban takes kabul, will the biden administration recognize it is a legitimate government of afghanistan? will we shut our embassy and aid programs? the reality is, they don't know. they can't say. there is no plan. it's not courageous to abandon our allies. that's a view that many democrats said they held when the last president to withdrawing from syria. host: senator o'connell -- senator mcconnell from late may.
on twitter if you are says that as a veteran of operation iraqi freedom and enduring freedom, and understand the toll on the military and the country, but there is a way to draw down. there's a chaotic approach and it should have been more gradual. in september 11 next year. bob in missouri is texting us, saying i support the withdrawal. for a trillion spent and nothing to show, enough. from jt in kentucky, also supporting the pullout of troops , adding that osama bin laden is dead, trillions wasted, thousands of americans are dead and 20,000 wounded. mark saying that afghanistan is not worth one dollar or one drop of blood and never was. those are on our social media sites. and particularly veterans if you want to give comments (202) 748-8002. a supporter of this decision in
greensboro. let's go to mike, in ohio, and opposer of the decision. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. i wanted to know the individual you had on as a guest, laura? why was she able to give out intimate information about our military when we were pulling out as far as how many troops we would basically have left? a handful here, a pocket there. i thought that was very personal and confidential information. it should never have been released to the media. i don't understand. host: to your thoughts on opposing the president's pullout, why is that? caller: we did this before in the past with vietnam. and how many comes look so we have with other countries?
we would leave them abandoned and for them to be at the mercy of the enemy. i would like to know about laura. why was she allowed to get on your program -- host: she's a reporter with information from other sources. let's go to don, on our support line in virginia. caller: good morning. glad to be on cable again. i agree -- host: i agree with -- you agree with the pullout? caller: it's a waste of money and troops lives. just a waste of time. as far -- host: is are the future impact, does that concern you? caller: yes. young people in the future and so forth -- my landlord has a
daughter taking care of his property here. host: that don, in virginia. the bbc world news is saying that when it to dutch when it comes to -- when it comes to the taliban, they have captured a key border crossing into iran. followed by a story in reuters that set a key district in western afghanistan including a border because of -- -- putting a border crossing has over in the area bordering five countries. as foreign forces with their two decade intervention pitched battle between the government forces and taliban fighters there they were also underway to the northern province bordering uzbekistan. two senior security officials told reuters that it has fallen
to the taliban and that afghan security and customs officials have fled across the border. if you go to the france when he for website -- france 24 website, data from nato takes a look at what, as far as coverage the afghanistan is current -- what coverage of afghanistan is under control by the taliban. the areas in blue are under government control. france 24.com is where you can pull that up. the french press is also reporting that the taliban says that it now controls 85% of afghanistan. the militants are mounting and offensive and the group claims to know be independently verified. mark, in kentucky, supporting this effort in this decision by the president. go ahead. caller: i couldn't be happier with this decision. i don't much care for any of joe
biden's administration's policies, but this i'm happy with. i support that he has done this. i think it's worth noting joe biden's son served in afghanistan as an actual combat troop. he's one of the only people i can think of where one of these people empower that vote and plan for these wars, their child has served. host: why do you support this decision itself? caller: for us to be there, it discredits us on the world stage. it's not a thing we should be involved in. besides that, when we went 20 years ago now come afghanistan was one of the poorest countries in the world, one of the most illiterate. it's no better now. when we went, was after 9/11.
15 of the hijackers, we know where they're from and they are doing arms deals with the country today. it is sad. thanks to the troops, and all of them. host: thank you. dennis, and centerville, iowa, also supporting this decision go ahead. caller: good morning. thank you. yes, i support present biden. -- president biden. we should never have gone into afghanistan. we got into a civil war. our country should never get into a civil war you can't win either way. also it was president trump that started this, and i didn't hear mitch mcconnell or anybody on that side of the fence raise one complaint. now because it's joe biden it's
a terrible thing. that's my comment. host: when you say president trump started this, what you mean? caller: he's the one that came up with the withdrawal plan. host: ok. let's hear from raymond, in georgia, greenville. running it -- calling in on our opposed line. you are next. caller: i oppose it because the president should listen to the generals and people in the military. they are the ones that know the ground more than anyone. you have to think, we get involved in these conflicts to keep them from being over here.
sooner or later they will be over here. and that's my opinion. host: when you hear the president and others make the case about time, money, life lost, what do you think about those justifying the decision to pull out troops? caller: you also have to remember what did it cost america when they flew the planes into the towers in new york city? , he died there -- how many died there? sooner or later they will be here. to me, it is sad when you stand for somebody and then you up and
leave them. that's what i feel. host: ok. and afghanistan veteran, we do have that line at (202) 748-8002 . this is daniel, in alexandria, virginia. good morning. caller: good morning. i think we are completely focused on iran. we should really be focused on china. i'm a veteran of afghanistan. it's the wrong theater. for the military conflicts to continue to grow -- you have to focus on the right theater. host: we are talking about afghanistan, what you think about the decision by the president? caller: i think it's the right decision.
we should've pulled out a long time ago. it's a civil war. you don't win. how do you find success? you just don't. host: may ask, what role did you serve? caller: i was in kabul, with the u.s. army. in that region. host: ok. alisha, from columbia, maryland, on the support line. caller: hello pedro. i haven't spoken with you in a long time. i am for withdrawal. we have been there too long. and they were smart enough to use us to get money out of us.
i think they used enough money that we could have used here. so i'm glad that president biden has done this. thank you. host: from twitter, a viewer saying that three cheers for joe biden for ending this unnecessary war. for glenn, dealing with afghanistan is a lose-lose situation, but will there be another 9/11 as a result of this pullout? also another text from wichita, kansas, vicki saying i'm support , if we have been fighting a civil war forever. there government troops are cowards and run from a fight and that's on them. from kentucky, it should have been gone after we got of some. we can't solve every others -- after we got osama bin laden.
we can't solve every other country's problems, let alone our own. we will continue to call -- to take calls until 8:00. let us know what you think about the decision made by president biden to pull out troops in afghanistan. call us and let us know your perspective (202) 748-8000 if you support the decision. (202) 748-8001 if you oppose the decision. and for the veterans, (202) 748-8002. one of the perspectives was that of the british prime minister, boris johnson. he had many concerns about the situation before he met with the house of commons liaison committee. here's a portion from the case prime minister. [video clip] prime minister johnson: if you are asking if i feel happy about the current situation in afghanistan, of course not.
i think the situation is fraught with risks. we would hope that the parties in kabul could come together to reach an agreement. [indiscernible] and we have to absolutely be realistic about the situation that they are in. what i heard that the blood and treasures by this country over decade is not being in vain. and the legacy of their effort is protected. this government will try to do that as much as we can. the situation is difficult. host: the guardian newspaper adding that force johnson was pressed by the chair of the liaison committee about whether the u.k. will hold a public inquiry into the deployment, he
said he would not and called on other members of parliament to interrogate me. he says the u.s. and nato troops have been working on an operation withdrawal deadline of last subject, july 4, with the u.s. idly abandoning the strategic air base the day before. but the president balked, making an announcement over the holiday weekend. there is some national perspective. we have michael, in washington, d.c., who supports the action. caller: thank you. i'm 16. i have never known a war in which we have not been fighting this war. we been fighting it for decades. the issue is that when we went into afghanistan to rightfully hold those who attacked the nation accountable we decided we would play nation builder. a cold war policy that hasn't worked since vietnam.
but somehow we thought in the middle east it would work when we knew it wouldn't work in southeast asia. we have to get out of afghanistan. it's a tragedy, what happened. i feel very guy for the afghan people and what they're going through. -- very bad for the afghan people and whether going through. -- and what they are going through. host: another supporter, this is edward, from new york. go ahead. caller: thank you, for being there. i'm a vietnam that. what i -- vietnam veteran. what i have seen is the definition of vanity, doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result at the cost of a trillion dollars and over 2000 killed. i have also been very disappointed watching the parade of general officers come before the congress over that period of time.
there has been something like 30 ground commanders in afghanistan over the years. it's a way to punch the ticket and get a star. i would not entrust my son or daughter to austin or millie, quite frankly. i did not support president biden. i am thrilled he is carrying forward on president trump's plan and moving forward. as the gentleman caller before said, let keep our eyes on the prize, china. host: we have bill buchanan, from facebook in the comments that many of you have posted. sing afghanistan will be biden's saigon. people are war weary, they have had enough and people should not have gone into afghanistan. we need to intern -- protect our country from internal insurrection like what happened on generally six.
and afghan assistant should have had the opportunity to leave with us. those who helped us on now in more danger. many people posting their thoughts on twitter, including members of congress. we have posted comments about this decision saying that if u.s. troops are nearing a full withdrawal come i fear for the come -- for the country. allowing the taliban to overtake again will lead to greater destruction and civil unrest. that's from senator rick -- senator wicker's twitter feed. we have callers on the line, and you can also text us (202) 748-8000 --(202) 748-8003. on our support line for massachusetts, this is patrick. go ahead. caller: hello. listen carefully. the mistake that is being made about afghanistan is that obviously afghanistan is a
strategic location as far as geopolitical relations are concerned. but the mistake being made, ground commanders are going into afghanistan that have no continuity of control. withdrawing from afghanistan is effectively restarting the game state. we need to focus on the strategic objectives. that means the taliban has to focus on are controlled objectives and they have to take them from us. but none of that matters because withdrawing from afghanistan is a reset that needs to occur. it's a chess opening that is obvious and easy. but we have to see, clearly, and trust me, i've never been to afghanistan but -- host: if i may ask, why do you support the announcement? caller: he has to fill a promise
that was made, before donald trump. donald trump didn't start this. joe biden didn't start this, barack obama didn't start this. afghanistan is a valuable location. but you can't fight over afghanistan. it will simply hold a strategic objective area -- objective. host: let's hear from steven, in fairfax, on the oppose line. caller: i'm a retired army officer i served in afghanistan. i think we should maintain the international partnership we had for stability. if you look at the big successes , it's been with long partnerships like korea, japan, germany. you can't make the argument that these places were so dynamically different than we are.
it certainly was an uphill climb . but you have to remember that we supported the forerunners of the taliban overthrowing the russian support and then left them high and dry after we promised military partnerships to help that country come out of poverty . to join the world. here we are, letting them down again. this is something that other countries, we find ourselves in the situation, they are going to look at this. it was not just us. we had cobbled together an international partnership. we had our successes and failures but i think our biggest failure is going to be letting the afghans down again. host: and from seth moulton, a
democratic member of congress, saying this is not just about afghanistan area it's about -- afghanistan. it's about the safety of americans in combat, our future partners are going to look at us to see if they will trust a word yet that's the member reaction when it comes to this decision by the president. you can watch the full announcement on our website. we will go to john, and boston, massachusetts. go ahead. caller: the reason we should leave is because the russians want us to stay. they are having a lot of problems with cross-border infiltration from the different groups like isis. the united states stays in afghanistan, it will help them keep the people from crossing the borders.
we should not be doing the work of the russian. they were defeated there. the british were defeated there. this is an ongoing civil war. a very complicated civil war, as -- and we were very naive. the best thing is to get out. you don't want another vietnam. and i agree with the military people. i was in the military during the vietnam era. a lot of these general say that we can do it when we can't. we can't do everything for everyone. host: looking at the issue congressionally, there are several hearing, including one featuring the joint chiefs of staff with students about the taliban gains which are happening -- chief of staff with
members about taliban gains. >> we do see the taliban taking 50 to 60 more districts. in other government moves district centers, but it does seem we are withdrawing as our enemy advances. can you talk about what the actual specifics are, we have not heard anything in terms of over the horizon facing and whether you think this is good policy. >> in terms of the promises, 81 districts are in the hands of the taliban. about 50 previously, about 40 in the last x amount of months. no provinces have fallen to the taliban yet. there is a 300,000 plus or minus security force assisting the afghans. we have not done this in some time. down at the tactical level. they are down there shouldering the burden for well over a year.
and in terms of what we are doing, we are delivering this drawdown to bring out u.s. military forces. we will keep a small number of forces to maintain the embassy. to keep the money going for the nsf and the government. what happens in the future, there's a variety of possibilities the worst case, civil war. the government fraction. that's possible and that outcome. there is also a possibility of a negotiated settlement between the government and the taliban. in the alternative is an outright takeover of the pot -- outright takeover, and that is also unlikely. there's a variety of things that could happen. we are executing the orders that were given in a professional way . thus far, things are stable. host: to another congressional
perspective, senator graham saying that when it comes understanding the war on terror, present biden has consistently been wrong. i fear that his afghanistan decision will prove to be his biggest mistake yet. democrat colin allred saying that the president is right. we must support humanitarian and diplomatic efforts. the problems cannot be solved militarily or by putting another generation of american nervous members at risk. to this humanitarian issues, the world health organization released a statement concerning the status of afghanistan saying the debbie way cho is concerned about the worsening access of -- the who is concerned about the worsening access of medical supplies. the regional director for the eastern mediterranean region forces says that any supplies would arrive next week including 3.5 million covid vaccine doses
and it's a concerning situation that's very fluid. we are concerned about our lack of access to provide medical supplies. that's from the world health organization. another perspective on what's going on. especially in light of the president's decision yesterday. in washington, d.c., on our oppose line. go ahead. caller? go ahead. hello? we will go to tom, in california, on the support line. caller: good. -- good morning. i don't know what cheney is talking about, calling the taliban our enemy. they are the afghan people's enemies. i don't understand why they are our enemies. for the afghan military, they
say they are with us and all that but as soon as we leave they run. so i stand with people come i think they are laughing americans and collecting the money. i don't support staying there at all. the u.s. military has a long arm reach. this is just a big joke to be there. host: that time, and california. occasionally when we do these questions we put a twitter poll up to let you participate. it's not scientific just public response. when it comes to this announcement, when it comes to the supporting it, 91.4 of you say that you support this decision to withdraw from afghanistan and 8.6 saying they oppose it. you can participate our twitter feed. patrick, and pennsylvania, on
the support line. you are next. -- in pennsylvania on the support line, your next. caller: thank you. when you come from a family that participated in this, my brother was a senior master chief for seal team six. they provided transport security for cargo containers on aircraft's that were filled with money. we had made the endless stream of warlords into billionaires. we killed over 2 million people. we have irradiated entire villages. when are the american people going to actually wake the hell up? the insanity of this cannot even be overstated. the only winner in this is the chinese government, which is already striking deals for the rare earth minerals.
host: that's patrick, in pennsylvania. in a similar vein, the guardian is reporting from their diplomatic editor that i ran -- iran moved into fill the diplomatic vacuuming -- vacuum opening up as a result of the departure. enter ron, the foreign minister met taliban negotiators to discuss their intentions towards the country saying the taliban does not support attacks on civilians, schools, mosques and hospitals and want to negotiated settlement of afghanistan's future. three other afghan delegations were in toronto. the value of the joint statement promising you to talks is contestable but there is a fear about a spillover created by a prolonged civil war. that is some of the international perspective of what's going on. this was provided by the guardian from washington state.
a call from our support line. hello. caller: hello. no one has mentioned this, those soldiers coming home should immediately be taken to our own border. which means protecting more than what's going on right now. host: specifically, when it comes to the president's decision on afghanistan, why use it? -- why you support it? caller: we have been there 20 years, that should be long enough or whatever we were going to do. they need to be deployed to our own borders and clean that up. host: in washington state, kim on facebook saying i support the withdrawal. it's overdue. how it's being done is a question that the different story. adam in virginia saying that
he's not an afghanistan veteran but he served in iraq and supports the withdrawal of the armed forces because there's no winning strategy and there never has been. he goes on from there. saying the taliban will take over and the last 20 years will be a blip on afghan history. i'm ok with leaving. whether you support or oppose the decision, you can post on our feeds and let us know what you think. from kanas, and buffalo, new york, on the support line. caller: there's no good time to leave afghanistan three no matter when you do it it will be bad. just like in vietnam they said we can't leave, it would be a bloodbath. here we are how many years later ? everything seems to be a lot better. the lesson of the vietnam war as if you are an occupying army in
someone else's country, and they don't want you there, and there's enough people willing to fight and die for that, you're not likely to win. x the history of afghanistan. -- that is the history of afghanistan. i think we have spent enough blood and treasure. it's time to think of the poor soldiers that are suffering and go over to her after tour. host: that's kenneth. one more bit from president biden yesterday during the question-and-answer session, talking about what could happen with oppose withdrawal from afghanistan. talking to reporters about the u.s. strategy on that front. here's the president. [video clip] >> will the united states be responsible for the loss of afghan civilian lives that could happen? present biden: no. no, no, no.
it's up to the people of afghanistan to decide on what government they want. not us to impose the government on them. no countries ever been able to do that. keep in mind, as a student of history, as i'm sure you are, never has afghanistan been a united country. not in all of its history. nodded all of its history. >> is this a mission accomplished moment? 5 -- present biden: no, there's no mission accomplished. we got osama bin laden, terrorism is not emanating from that part of the world. host: the president answering questions from reporters. we have the full statement on the decision to withdraw by the 21st -- by the 31st of august. that's available on our website. if you want to hear more from the president yesterday, that took place. our next caller from alexandria,
virginia, oppose the effort. hello. caller: i was born and raised in afghanistan. i worked with u.s. forces. i worked as a linguist and i working now as a linguistic. [indiscernible] what the u.s. should have done is have the keys for peace in afghanistan. the taliban would not do anything stupid without permission from pakistan. they have full backing. and of course, the money comes from america and china and iran. there's a big avenue to gain support. the taliban is supported,
equipped, trained. and wounded members are taken back there for treatment. if you really wanted to have a safe and secure afghanistan, that's what you should've done. sanction is the easiest way to have taken care of this problem. host: that you are calling from alexandria, virginia when it comes to the president's decision. taking a look at topics of afghanistan. we have an opinion columnist from bloomberg writing this morning, limited wars and conflicts in which a frustrated superpower is more likely give up and go home. in the early stages of world war ii the u.s. suffered an appalling military defeat by cap fighting to decisive victory. in limited wars, the states art -- the stakes are lower.
there was a bloody drawing in korea, defeat in vietnam, withdrawal under fire in lebanon. that dynamic, in turn, leaves washington vulnerable to crafty, committed opponents were willing to suffer losses and hoping to wear down america's will over time. adding that in these respects, the war in afghanistan is not so unusual. the pentagon never use more than about a hundred thousand troops accompanied by a small number of allied forces. and the surge was a blip in the history of a 20 year campaign. the u.s. always fought within tight political constraints, choosing not to target taliban bases in daca status and calibrating the level of force that could be used without alienating the afghan population. the taliban absorbed horrific human losses but inflicted costs that overstretched a global superpower is centrally of paying. it goes on to ask should the u.s. never fight? not really. he goes on and he makes his argument, saying that this was a
limited war with limited successes. you can find this on the bloomberg opinion section on the new site. in oklahoma city, oklahoma, this is from charles who opposes this effort. go ahead. caller: i think we should stay in afghanistan and keep our troops scattered all over the world. the communist said they are going to take over our country without firing a shot. that's what's happening. china owns the world's three largest banks. they own our press. if you wonder why the press is controlled -- host: let's stick to afghanistan as far as to why you oppose it, specifically. caller: i will stick with it since you want me to. host: why do you oppose the pullout in afghanistan? caller: because i think we should stay over there and burn
our money forever. host: you are calling on the wrong line. in the few minutes we have left, you can call and let us know your thoughts. if you support (202) 748-8000. if you oppose (202) 748-8001. for the human as we have left, for those veterans of afghanistan if you want to give your perspective from that you can call at (202) 748-8002. and to show you a bit more of that from france 24 -- that math from france 24 -- that map from france when he four. this was from last month. going on say that these orange sections that are under taliban control, when it comes to the government control, those are measured in blue. and those contested areas are still available.
that's france 24, providing that perspective from what's going on. the washington times is leading its coverage when it comes to the decision in afghanistan. they put into context saying that while critics including some of the highest level at the pentagon argued that the decision to leave afghanistan will put the u.s. and allies in harm's way. biden says keeping u.s. forces won't radically change the situation on the ground. there are fears that the pullout will lead to the collapse. that's how one papers playing out in washington, d.c.. -- playing it out. in washington, d.c., you are next caller. caller: i support the president's decision. unlike many of our wars, our mission in afghanistan was more
defined by ideology rather than fighting effort -- fighting a target or group. i don't we see terrorism in the part of the world like we did in 2000 or before that. i think the u.s. to the great job and i support bringing our troops home. host: when you say we won't see terrorism rise from that part of the world and it has changed, what makes you say that? caller: every day you turn on the news in the early 2000s, another person had their head chopped off. or just some cruel act against humans coming out of afghanistan and iraq in different parts of the world. over the last five years, that hasn't been so much as it has on the news media outlets.
it makes me believe that terrorism is less than what it was 20 years ago. host: ok. let's hear from bob on the oppose line in connecticut. hello. caller: good morning. i'm opposed to the pullout, the wasting conducted. we promised the people of afghanistan a western the government. many women went to school and change their way of life and now their lives are in peril. if you're going to pullout we should make contingencies to get those people out. otherwise we are going to leave them to be slaughtered. that's not a good message for us to send to our friends in the world. what we did to the kurds was similar and it's a sad situation. host: when you say contingencies, what do you mean? caller: they should have been evacuating the women and people
what cooperated with us first before we pulled any troops. host: one more call, from marty, in delaware, who supports the decision. go ahead. caller: yes, it's margie. man is doomed to repeat his history. the romans were considered one of the most powerful dynasties of the h at the time -- of the age. they spread out so thinly, trying to control other countries and fighting in all kinds of wars. we are doing the same thing. i don't know when we are going to learn our lesson. host: that's margie, in delaware. taking a look at the president's decision. thank you for all who participated. two guests are joining us during the course of the morning. first, the executive director of
the national organization for the reform of marijuana laws to talk about the efforts on the state and federal the report andf the american dominance and space. those conversations are coming up on washington journal. >> sunday night on q&a, donald ritchie tells us about drew pearson, who derailed the political careers of several members of congress. >> he appeared in over 600 newspapers every day, even holidays. he did that from 1932 until 1969. he also had a radio show on
sunday nights, a very popular radio show. he tried to make it into television. he was a best-selling author. he told the truth as he said. he told what politicians would prefer not to see in the newspaper. he ruffled a lot of feathers, especially presidents of the united states, representatives, prime minister's. >> donald ritchie, sunday night at 8:00 eastern on q&a. you can listen as a podcast wherever you get your podcasts.
>> washington journal continues. host: this is eric, the executive director director of the national organization for the reform of marijuana laws. thank you for joining us this morning. recently, three states deciding to make decisions about their states when it concerns marijuana laws. can you talk about those states and how that changes? guest: we are at a time of unprecedented momentum behind the movement to legalize marijuana. this is something the majority want to see happen. we have nearly 70% of all americans, regardless of demographic support ending in our failed prohibition. not only do 70 sent -- 70% supported, they live in a state where it is legal. as you alluded to in the past
six months, we've seen a lot more states, on board through the legislative process. a lot moved toward it as a ballot initiative. new jersey codified their legalization in the early part of the year. they were followed by new york, new mexico, for ginny. i expect several more states will consider it. it goes to show that the american people are sick and tired of wasting money on this prohibition for a plant that is less harmful than alcohol and tobacco. when colorado and washington state first legalized marijuana, there is no remorse among the american public. they are ready to move forward. host: have these rollouts been positive? have there been unintended consequences? guest: so far, there has been no
major disasters. the sky has not fallen. we have seen millions of dollars of tax revenue coming every year instead of going to the black market. it is largely operating as intended, you're always going to have some pickups and some places. we are not seeing any of these dire predictions they said would happen. in all the states that have passed legalization, it is only more popular and winning over people that initially voted no. none of them have gone back and repealed legalization. we are excited to see new york state finally and their arrests
for decades. they were the marijuana arrest capital of the united states. they are moving toward legalization. the real effect of other provisions such as expunging past records, they are addressing the harms the war on drugs is caused communities. host: that led to a response from the pta of new york. you can respond to it. in the midst of the covid pandemic which affects the lungs, tell albany to he the education groups and law enforcement community and oppose the legalization of marijuana. it's important to realize we are
giving the green light to marijuana. millions of americans are already consuming it and have been for decades. we are taking marijuana from the lawlessness to the lack of regulation and control. if there is no oversight, no testing, there is no business legally required to check your id. drug dealers don't check ids. where removing those criminal elements. now instead of dumping millions of dollars into arresting individuals, we are generating tax revenue we could use for education programs. look at how we handled cigarette consumption. we went from 60% of all american smoking cigarettes to only about
10% now. it it is at historic lows. we had a public health education campaigns to make sure we warrant lying. we have not had to arrest a single person. host: if you want to ask questions, democrats (202) 748-8000. republicans (202) 748-8001. independent voters (202) 748-8002. how does the federal government treat marijuana. what does it do to the state-by-state efforts to legalize. guest: we have a tension between federal law and state policy. it is still a schedule 1 substance, right alongside heroin. i don't think anyone believes it is as dangerous as heroin.
they are coming at it from an out of date approach. during the obama administration when states started to move forward, they took a hands off approach to this. they were making sure children were not getting access to the market. this is really an untenable situation that we need congress to act on. it would universally legalize marijuana. it would leave it to states. they would not have to fear raids in their states. due to the schedule one status, marijuana businesses with employees and taxes, they can't utilize the banking system. that is creating a real issue we need to follow.
we are letting businesses that are contributing to communities become targets for crime and robbery. we need to accept the reality on the ground. we have 18 states with full legalization. we have 30 with some sort of medical marijuana program. the government needs to acknowledge this reality. host: how would you characterize the biden administration on this topic? guest: it was known that joe biden was never a strong legalize or. he has had a tough on drugs approach to the 80's and 90's. he pledged he wanted to remove marijuana from the schedule one. he wanted to expunge past records. so far, while we have not seen
any big moves, this has held up the hands off approach to the states, which is letting civil liberty laws go into place. we need to see some leadership from the top down so we can and one of our longest running wars. the drug war has been running rampant since 1970 and it's been an utter failure. it would be great to see president biden show leadership on that front. host: white house staffers were let go because of the issue. guest: i don't like to try to read minds. you can see on its face that it's an absurd policy. that is something millions of americans face every day. we have hard-working americans, many were filling essential
worker roles. they get drug tested at work and lose their jobs over something they didn't do on hours that is legal in their state. you shouldn't be punished for smoking a joint on the weekend anymore than having a martini on saturday evening. the white house despite their earlier statement is penalizing this individuals for simple marijuana consumption. host: our first call for you comes from maryland. this is steve on the republican line. thanks for calling. go ahead. caller: good morning. i went to college from 1969 to 1973. i smoked it. it makes you dopey is my opinion. this is well known.
i haven't smoked since the 70's. i wish you had a libertarian mind. i don't believe that taxing of vice is a good thing. the libertarian says i should be allowed, if this is legal, i should be allowed to grow this limitless lee in my garden. taxing maryland it would be like taxing prostitution. the argument against alcohol, it's easy to catch kids drinking alcohol. it's hard to catch them bringing in a joint and getting stoned. i am torn on the situation. what's the objection to just growing this limitless lee? -- limitless lee? guest: that raises two important
points. one is the taxation of marijuana. the consensus is if we legalize and, states have to pay attention to what the tax rate is. you want to be able to fund the whole program. you don't want it so high that you push people to the illicit market instead of the regulated market. i fully agree on the issue of home cultivation. that is a personal freedom that all americans should have. that harvest should not be taxed the way your tomato plants or homeroom -- home brewed beer isn't taxed. every state has included home cultivation provisions are people that want to grow their
own plants and have that freedom for themselves. host: when it comes to marijuana, the thc potency, has it increased? how would you describe that? guest: i think that is a ruse we hear from the opposition. this isn't your grandfather's weed, they are making it sound like what they smoked in the 70's was hemp. they will tell you they got high smoking that marijuana. when they went to test marijuana from the time sitting in the lab for decades, we have no way to have a specific answer on that. ultimately, you have a variety of strains based on the techniques. while people to focus on that,
what we see is lower potency marijuana. we see that with cbd. people don't want these strong products and it takes them out of commission. we can test people how strong their marijuana is unlike what they've gotten in the past. host: democrats line from kentucky. good morning. caller: thank you for having me. a quick comment and then a question. if mr. biden wants to solidify his 2024 run, he should legalize marijuana and get rid of student debt. my question is can you discuss -- everyone is so fixated on smoking it, can you talk about the medical benefits and the
opportunities and the technology that is out there with medical. people are being held out to do research and bring this to the forefront, this technology to the american people. can you discuss the research and all the benefits. >> we need more research, we need more research. the fact of the matter is if you go to a repository of peer-reviewed studies, there are over 30,000 of them on marijuana. it is rather well studied. we do have the research. a fair amount of that research is being done outside of this country.
the united states isn't conducting a ton of this research. we see it coming from israel and other european countries. that is oddly do not just to the schedule 1 status, but to carve out we have for marijuana. if you want to study marijuana in the united states, you have to go through this process. you need approval from the dea. you can only use it grown at the one federal marijuana farm. the process is so long and no one makes it through. we are signing research, some of its adverse impacts on some people. we are not green lighting that science because of our reefer madness mentality. we do know plenty thanks to
other research around the globe. it is useful for medical benefits. it is relatively low on the arm scale. we need to let science guide our policy here. prohibition is a failure. we can't keep arresting half a million americans every year. we should invest and make sure we know as much as we can about this plant right here in america. host: what is the fda stance on the regulation of marijuana? guest: the fda has been hands-off. it is a botanical plant. it does not fall under the purview of the fda. they have stepped back. they likely won't be involved in the process.
on the sideline, they will be involved. host: here is eileen from connecticut. caller: thank you for taking my call. i live in connecticut. we just legalized here in connecticut. i am a medical patient. i have had a card for a few years. you just answered that for the medical part. i won't say anything about that. i do have concerns about the environmental impact of commercial cannabis reduction. the amount of energy used and the packaging. there is not a lot of recycling. i understand the benefit of
vaped. i am not against it. there is not any recycling. the vaped products are just thrown away. i am hoping that as this goes on a little more, we do address the environmental impact, especially since we don't have packaging. thank you very much for your work at normal. thank you very much. guest: we would've had a lot more politicizing about. now we are having a nuanced conversation. when it comes to the environment, that's another area where regulations are a great benefit. back under prohibition, you had a lot of guerrilla growth
operations that were off the grid. they were tapping into natural resources. you have to follow certain environmental standards. the good news is a recent study came out in the past week that showed cultivation is low on environmental impact, especially when it comes to water consumption. it only takes half a gallon to produce a couple of joints. a hamburger costs hundreds of gallons of water to get to your plate. we do need some sensible approaches. we want to make sure the packaging is replaceable. we want to be conscientious of the way we created.
we can be very thoughtful about how we bring those things together. it would be easier when we have the federal prohibition gone. host: when it comes to how people use marijuana, how much is that of smoked versus consumables? guest: you have seen a large market grow for edibles. ultimately, when you look at the reports coming out of places like colorado, the bud is still the most popular product. individuals are using that route.
that still seems to be the tried-and-true way to go. they don't like the idea of combusting plant matter. host: donna is in wisconsin. good morning. go ahead. caller: i know the states want to legalize it. it's another/fund of money. i don't want my surgeon to have as joint before he do surgery on me. i think it's sad you're promoting it. you think it's the greatest wonder drug there ever was. i don't want people that are high working on heavy equipment. it's just stupid. i would rather he had a cigarette and a cup of coffee,
not a joint. you are promoting something that is a moneymaker for the states. it is sad. maybe we should legalize heroin, crack, why not? there is good money in that. we can tax it to death. host: that is donna in wisconsin. guest: i'm not ready to say we should legalize heroin or cocaine. that's not the question here. it is illegal for a surgeon to smoke marijuana and do surgery now. it is illegal for him to do it in any state where there is a legal market. almost every american has access if they want to. prohibition has done nothing to get rid of that market. it has been consistent for decades.
we want to legalize marijuana. if you don't want to consume marijuana, that's fine. it will be just as legal for someone being under the influence when it is legal in your state as it was before when it was completely illegal in your state. that is how we think we should handle that. it's an absurd disgrace in this country. we need to legalize it. we will ultimately have actual regulations as opposed to prohibition where there is none. host: there was a statement coming from the insurance institute. our research makes it clear that legalizing marijuana for recreational loose, something
policymakers and safety professionals need to address, even if the weight marijuana affects crash risks remains uncertain. guest: driving under the influence is an issue. the most data we have in many states have put out reports, if you look at the broad body of research, there has not been any drastic research in crashes. it is stated in line with the national average after legalization. it's important that we figure out how to do testing. you don't want to get to a point where you don't -- follow sleep behind the wheel. we need to look for impairment testing. when you look at how this
experiment has played out, we have 10 years of data now. we have not seen an increase in crash risks. ultimately, we have not seen a drastic issue. host: this is the executive director for the reform of marijuana laws. jeffrey is in vermont. caller: good morning. thank you, c-span it, for having this conversation. just to follow up on one of your points regarding hide lay safety -- highway safety, oregon and washington state produced a highway safety report. it showed a 20% decline in fatalities associated with highway accidents.
i think that's an important point. you asked about usage. at the state level, concentrates make up 50% of the legal marketplaces. 50% of the entire marketplace is concentrates. the other 50% is flour. a question for you, thank you for your work. legalization is not a black-and-white issue. it is very complicated. the international drug policy consortium released a report that was a warning to developed nations. regulatory capture is an issue. the question is what are you doing, what are you doing to tackle the issue we have in states?
if you look at equity statewide, the black and brown ownership is under 2%. guest: it is a prevalent discussion in states that legalize. we are creating a new industry, who should benefit from the industry? i think we believe strongly that individuals and communities that were harmed by the war should be the ones who do fit. the investment should go back in those communities. those individual should have access to the licenses. these people should be benefiting, not just wall street
firms. we can really make this a justice issue where we can bring some remedy to the pain we've caused across this country through prohibition and legalization. i don't have any clear cut answer to solve the problem. it is something we advocate for heavily as we go through the process. we want to make sure we have things like micro licenses, equity grants to help individuals get into this new market. they have suffered the most under its legality. host: talk about this act. what is it currently stand? guest: it addresses something
earlier in the show. marijuana businesses that are illegal in their states due to the schedule one status, they have difficulty paying taxes. this is being done with transactions in cash only. you have individuals driving armored cars every day filled with money to the bank and do this crazy stuff. that is considered legal. they collect their money. they mostly have cash. the federal government says they can't use banking finds them for pain in cash. safe banking would it clear that up. it begins to fix the issue of financial services in this country. it was passed by the house of
representatives. we expect to see some movement on that this year. host: james in texas, go ahead. caller: thank you for the topic. i am a 76 wounded veteran. i was exposed to marijuana during those years. i have never smoked behind the wheel of a car. i suffered a spinal cord injury that crippled me in the late 90's. instead of going to opiates, i found i could smoke a little marijuana in the evening. i am retired. it deals with my pain. i fully support full legalization. this is absolutely crazy. would you rather have a beer drinker behind you in the car on the freeway or a pot smoker?
thank you very much. guest: thanks for calling in. obviously, i prefer somebody completely alert behind me in the car. i think what most people would pick. i am sorry to hear what you've gone through. i am pleased to hear you found some relief. there is a growing body of data on this. marijuana was always called the gateway drug. it is actually an exit drug for many people, especially those dealing with opioid addiction. it has pain relieving qualities with less impact in terms of addiction rates. people who are suffering chronic pain is finding success and
that's the dependency it took them two. host: is there a threshold or standard for dr. that allows a person to have a medical marijuana card? guest: the requirements vary from state to state. we are letting doctors decide. we don't have your heart medication being appropriate for you or if your pain medication is appropriate. we let doctors make health decisions. that's where we should leave medical marijuana. we should listen to the doctors. i defer to their expertise. host: mike is in california.
hello. caller: good morning. there is a lot of discussion about science. i just went on a website, it is called schizophrenia.com. i was looking for the search function. i didn't have to search anywhere. on the very first page, i would love you to put this on the screen, it has in bold cannabis users have 500% increased risk for schizophrenia. that's on the first page. that isn't what i thought i would find. let's talk about science. i urge you to put that on the screen for your viewers to see. i would like to hear what the guest has to say about that.
guest: far be it from me, we have a lot of research in this as well. a lot of these questions already have answers. what we see with schizophrenia is not that marijuana causes schizophrenia. there is a prevalence of use in people who been diagnosed. according to most professionals, it is self-medication. if you are suffering from all the dire problems that can come along with schizophrenia. they moved to marijuana to self medicate. it is largely benign for most people when they consume it. you could be at risk and you
should talk to your physician about it. if you are in that group where it could have a negative reaction, it could cause episodes you find unpleasant. people should be smart about what they put in their bodies. there is nothing that says marijuana has a causal effect. host: this is loretta referencing a story in the news. if marijuana is not a performance and asking drugs, why was she dismissed from the olympic games? guest: it is on the list of banned substances at the amp i doping association. on the books, they have these penalties for marijuana consumption. she should not be punished in the way that she is given that
it was not during competition or for performance enhancing effects. it shows how a lot of our laws or on the books, they are very outdated. we need to meet reality where half of americans live in a place where it is legal. they should not be penalized. richard chin should be allowed to run. we should not be firing anyone for their off-duty consumption. host: has that been consistently applied? guest: it has been applied over the years. what we see here in many ways seems to touch on a lot of issues, including race. she seems to be treated rather partially compared to michael
phelps. that was a much more staid reaction than what we've seen in this case. that was 20 years ago. there has been an outrage. this makes you scratch your head. she wasn't racing. she smoked marijuana as an adult in a place where it's legal. if she decided to drink of a clear, -- everclear, she would have still been able to run. host: democrats line in north carolina. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. in the second bush administration, in the early 2000's, i've been working for the department of justice. one day, the u.s. attorney for our district said everybody has
to sign this document, we can test you any time for drug use. a couple of the district attorneys said you can't make us sign this. if i miss trial dates or if briefs aren't filed, maybe you should question our ability to perform our jobs. the couple said no. nobody should sign this. i don't know if people did. we didn't. i was telling the story to my brother. he said the department of labor could get involved. they can't make you sign something. that was my experience in the second george w. bush administration. it was really scary.
thank goodness we had some cool heads on the scene that put a stop to it. host: thank you. guest: it sounds like you had great leadership over there that was willing to stand up. that can still be the case for many americans across this country. we are making them be tested. you have the problem of many americans who smoke marijuana and you are precluding them from working for you. the fbi is dialed back the requirements for new employees to have never smoked in their lives.
they're having a hard time hiring people. employers will have the ability to fire someone for being in a braided at the workplace, whether it's alcohol or marijuana. if you are testing americans as a condition for employment is demeaning to the workers. it doesn't have any impact. it goes into the pockets of private companies. it has no positive impact in the workplace and is demeaning to workers. blue-collar workers are drug tested. if you work at the top level of a fortune 500 company, they are not testing. host: one of the person making comments was clarence thomas. he said the laws that exist may be outdated. can you explain what he meant?
can you put it into context? guest: they clearly are outdated. when you look at this situation, it's consistent. a lot of people were taken aback, a can -- conservative justice. that is consistent with his ruling. there was a case in the early to thousands, he made very similar comments. while a lot of people associate this issue with liberal democrats, the majority of all political ideology support legalization. smaller federal government, that incursion.
the federal prohibition is a giant burden that the federal government is foisting on the state. if you want to respect the principles of america, a lot of conservatives do well to look at the words spoken by justice thomas. he said those laws are no longer needed. host: this is fresno, california, the republican line. caller: my son who is 35 years old just spent three days in icu. i never knew this existed. he was diagnosed with kidney failure. it i never even knew it existed. it was rare. i've never heard of it.
he had to get all the things. if you watch the california where you see we'd only takes this amount of people, they were stealing all the water from california in the antelope valley. this is what i think. allow all the research. what might the doctor say that is rare, it shutdown my son upon kidney. -- sons kidney. host: we will let our guest respond. guest: i'm sorry to hear about your son. i hope he is feeling better. if that is with the diagnosis was, it is exceedingly rare.
if you consume too much cannabis, your body has an adverse reaction. it is usually treated by hydration on an iv. i hope your son feels better. it was rare outside cases. very few people need it. we want to make sure they are ok as well. she was talking about northern california and how the growers were stealing the water. that problem existed. that's when the growers would go out of the woods and have to do this discreetly. now, they get inspected by the state.
they have water control guidelines and all that stuff that businesses have to look into. prohibition is causing more harm and legalization would be a remedy. host: the executive director is joining us this morning, thank you for your time. guest: thank you for your questions and thanks for having me on. host: we will take calls in the open form. if there are issues that are important to you and you want to talk about them, you can do it in the open form. democrats (202) 748-8000. republicans (202) 748-8001. independent voters (202) 748-8002. we will take those calls when washington journal continues.
>> weekends on c-span2, the best in history and nonfiction books. on saturday, the nation's past. coming up saturday on oral history, anorak war veteran recalls his experiences in the war, including the day he was hit by an ied. at 8:00 eastern, emory university professor on uso conspiracy theories. book tv faces -- features latest authors. on sunday, and economist with an
insider's view on corporate boards. how they can work better in a chaotic world. at 9:00, james patterson and bill clinton discuss their thriller, the president's daughter, about the objection of a daughter by terrorists. watch american history tv every saturday on c-span2. >> washington journal continues.
host: the phone lines, democrats (202) 748-8000. republicans (202) 748-8001. independents (202) 748-8002. a couple of stories about voting rights issues. the vice president saying thursday, a $25 million expansion of the program to increase voter registration. with this $25 million, democrats are registering voters, educating voters and turning out voters. she made the statements saying what is the strategy? i just outlined it. that was the vice president yesterday.
in the texas tribune, to show you the features of their bills, the texas tribune reporting that these will prohibit local election officials from sending unsolicited requests for mail and balance. both bills prohibit the use of public funds to facilitate the unsolicited applications by third parties. when it comes to id requirements, both the house and senate are proposing to alter the rules to verify applications to vote by mail. they would set new id requirements. if they don't have a driver's license, their social security number on the application for the balance. they would have to include matching information. these pieces of legislation will be debated in that special
session. you can follow along at the texas tribune and other outlets. we will start with amy in ohio, the democrat line. you are up first. caller: hello. i was just calling about the campus. are we on something different now? host: you can still make a comment if you wish. our guest is here. caller: i was making a comment about cannabis. i think it should be legalized. first of all, in israel, he studies cannabis and it makes your bones stronger. it protects your brain more. it is great for pain. i just feel it should be legalized for people that have pain or just want to relax. host: is it legal in your state? caller: i used to live in michigan.
michigan has better laws. you could grow up to 12 pounds -- plants. in ohio, you have to purchase it from somewhere else. i had a medical card a long time ago. i have zero tickets. i don't smoke and drive. i am 57 years old. i'm a responsible adult. my family was truck drivers. they do drug trusts -- tests on truck drivers. people in cars are not drug tested. host: let's hear from june in kentucky on the independent line. june, you're going to have to turn down your television. caller: ok. it's down. host: go ahead. caller: to change the subject
somewhat, i've been stuck on hr 40. i hear this about hr one or the things about voting, why isn't anybody pushing reparations, even though it's a study. that is something i wanted to put on people's minds. i plan on going to washington dc on labor day. this is pushing the issue, inviting my family to have a purposeful family reunion. host: she referenced the for the people act which would deal with voting rights issue. senator schumer says that legislation could be on the floor the 19th of july. you can follow along at several sites, including our website
c-span.org. john is in ohio as well. you are on. caller: i've been surprised that it went through. i've tried to call every once in a while. i get a message on here that i couldn't call from here. i called a long time ago in the past. i wanted to call the see of my call would go through. i was going to try to call in during that. that's what i wanted to call in about. host: norm we asked people to hold off 30 days between calls. let me cut you off now. if you get a chance to call in about ufos, feel free to do that. we go to ronald in florida. go ahead. caller: good morning.
i've been a democrat for the last 10 years. before that, i was a republican. my issue right now, this is an attempt to keep people from going to the polls, getting people from voting. i just don't like it. host: what are you talking about? caller: in georgia, the rest of the states that want to change their laws. i just don't like it. host: that is ronald in florida. yahoo! finance reporting this, the lawyer who shot to fame representing stormy daniels and
lawsuits against president trump, he was sentenced to 2.5 years in prison trying to exploit nike. his conduct was outrageous, he hijacked claims and use them to further his own agenda, to extort millions of dollars from nike for himself. we will go to oregon and hear from kimberly. caller: i'm not in oregon. i'm in oklahoma. the reason i am calling about the election issue, until primaries are legitimate, they are not legitimate. when the election comes around,
we choose between two preselected. until we correct that, i don't really know how fixing election helps anything. all -- it is never the one that helps the mass of americans. host: that is kimberly in oklahoma calling in. the website deals with arizona has this on its website. president trump interfered with the election? the secretary of state has an inquiry. let's hear from ray in washington dc, the independent line. ray in washington? hello?
you are on. go ahead. caller: the issue with marijuana . they've been studying marijuana for years. i have a degree in public health. i am an older gentleman from the 60's. it seemed like they are wrapping around the economics and not so much as a social issue. i don't think they understand the health. there are little bits and pieces where it can help you, but at the same time it is a gateway drug. and i don't think they are
looking at the long-term issues, what's going to happen. a study, do a comparison to other substances, you have to go and study that. host: long-term issues such as what? caller: audio-social for sure. economic, you're making money and your social people are voting. you look back to kids, five, six year olds. when they move up and they can be exposed and they can use it more. watching people use it. i think that should be looked at. because that is the next generation. the generation now saying, oh, i want this. i want that. kind of selfish. host: let's hear from shawn from north carolina. republican line.
caller: as far as the election is concerned, everybody wants to talk a lot of garbage about bitcoin and bitcoin in general but the basic behind bitcoin is the block chain. anytime there is a transaction, you'd be tracked. anyone who is really concerned about making elections in this country legal and free and open where we can count every single legal vote, you would use a block chain system. it is so good. that j.p. morgan and all the major banks that talk crap about bitcoin are in the process of creating their own digital currency through block chain. if anybody in this country wanted to be serious about making our election sound and secure, we would move to a block chain system. everyone's vote would be counted. everyone's vote would be verified. there would be no way to cheat with the block chain system. host: shawn in north carolina talking about election issues when it comes to block chain as
he described it. punch bowl news describing that the u.s. capitol police department is running out of money. five sources told him thursday the worse case scenario the department could end up furloughing dozens if not hundreds of employees of it does not get additional funding before the end of the fiscal year. mid august is "crunchtime." the accounts are in dire need of replenishment by congress. they have racked up a massive amount of overtime. even with the thousands of national guard troops assisting them. punch bowl news is where you can find that story, if you want to read about the status of the capitol police. mark is in nebraska. republican line. caller: thanks for taking my call. i had a couple comments. one was that i have a little concerned about joe and his
health and stuff. i'm really concerned about that and the lack of curiosity by the media who is actually running and making decisions of the country, like there should be a lot of work done on the so we -- we know who's actually in charge. and it turns out i really like ron desantis in the future. i think he's throwing a fantastic job from what i read and what i see -- i think he's doing a fantastic job. he is probably a prime candidate. so it is kind of good that the media still are focusing on trump each and every day, every newscast and stuff like that. i think it will open the door for desantis. host: you mean ron desantis, the governor of florida? caller: yes, the governor of florida. but i'm really concerned about joe. i don't think he is going to make it through another year.
i don't kamala is ready to be president. host: ok, let's go to shawn in lakeland, florida. independent line. caller: i got a couple different things i want to talk about real quick, although i did want to touch on the marijuana issue. marijuana is not a gateway drug. this is the biggest lie ever told. the real gateway drug is alcohol. i know lots of people that smoke weed that only smoke weed, been smoking marijuana for over 20 years. every person that i ever known in my life that have done drugs drinks alcohol. i have never met anybody in life that does drugs that is not ringing alcohol. the second point i wanted to make is politics in general. people need to really start paying attention. i listens to you all for years, and i've listen to republicans
and democrats call in. the thing that i think people should understand is why can't you both be right? why can't the stuff that republicans say about democrats be true and why can't the stuff that democrats say about republicans beetroot? -- be true? they feel the team they are for is always the right team. i am here to tell you as an independent, both of these teams suck. until we do something about these sucky teams, we are going to suck. host: we got a few more minutes left. you made two points. political reporting that the department of justice has paid $6 million plus and counting to develop a massive database of evidence concerning the january 6th. saying it is a crucial step for sharing evidence with the
hundreds of alleged rioters before potential trials and plea deals. politico sending out that from his twitter feed. when it comes to pfizer and the topics of the delta variant, as you've seen news over the last few weeks from "the new york times," reporting that pfizer have plan to set a vaccine against the variant saying that data from israel, suggesting the efficacy in preventing infections and symptomatic disease has declined six months postvaccination, noting the rise of delta. a third dose may be needed within six to to 12 months after full vaccination. health officials in israel have estimated that full vaccination offers only 64% efficacy against the delta variant, adding that efficacy against the original virus is greater than 90%. you want to see more reporting on that go to "the new york times." when it comes to the variant
itself in hospitalization, that is the case from "the wall street journal," reporting just under 2000 new patients were admitted over the week ending monday. a 6.8 increase of admissions and an 88% decrease over a seven day average of 16,000 patients admitted daily in early january. according to data collected by the centers for disease control, new cases are up too with a seven-day daily average of 13, 869 on tuesday, an 11% increase over the previous seven day average. that is from "the wall street journal." a few minutes on the phones. a chance for you to talk about issues. issues of interest to you concerning politics. jerry in minnesota. republican line. caller: hi. i'd just like to mention the 80% of americans support the new stricter i.d. laws for voting. i just think that is a point you
should put out there. to the lady that says what about reparations? i don't owe anybody anything she is not owed anything. go back to africa -- host: excuse me caller. for the tone of your call. again, 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. text us your thoughts, too. you can comment on this open form period. viewers, callers if you would show decorum we appreciate it. when it comes to the topic of police laws. "the washington times" highlights efforts from the democrats on the senate side concurring -- concerning some national police laws, adding that under a proposal by cory
booker, a top democrat involved in negotiations, the attorney general would work with law enforcement and civil rights groups to come up with a set of standards that police departments would have to adopt or else lose federal funding. topping the list of national policing standards would be " traffic and pedestrian stop and search policies and procedures. also national standards that would -- they'd be looking for is how and when body and vehicle cameras would be use and awareness training for police officers and policies for eliminating racial profiling and vehicle and pedestrian stops." "the washington times" highlighting that. if you go to "the washington post" a number of conservative groups pushing back against the biden administration's desire for more money for the irs to gain tax to lection from -- collection from those who avoid taxes. democrats and republics have agreed to increase funding for the agency to bring in more tax revenue.
the early contours of the infrastructure blueprint have won the white house support but the irs provision throwing -- drawing opposition from conservative groups who are opposed to expanding the reach of the tax collection industry they have long alleged is liquid motivating. among the conservative groups are the committee to unleash prosperity, freedom works, a conservative action project, and the leadership institute. they warn republican should not negotiate with the white house unless they agree to quote "no additional funding for the internal revenue service." let's hear from glenn on our independent line, phoenix, arizona. caller: good morning. how are you doing today? i was just calling it about the filibuster and how it seems like the liberal left is trying to get rid of it. now, i'm all for keeping the filibuster because if you remember in the 1980's, the reagan administration was
pushing some rather anti-lgbtq policies and it was used -- use of the filibuster by senators like ted kennedy that cap those lgbt that legislation from ever being passed. it seems like liberals have a very short memory with these things. and how the filibuster is a tool of the smaller, of the smaller party at the moment. that is all i wanted to say. thank you very much. host: barry in california. bellflower, california, republican line. caller: good morning. i would like to comment on last weeks, i believe it was the president's rankings. i would give you my top five would be teddy roosevelt, then donald trump, then george washington, then abe lincoln and
then franklin delano was about. -- roosevelt. i think teddy roosevelt and donald trump have a lot in common. they have a good vision for america. i think they have the right idea on foreign policy. and i see a lot of similarities between teddy roosevelt and donald trump. host: did you have a chance to watch this segment with the advisors to this program? we did a two hour segment. caller: i did watch that. it was very good host: talking about the -- we showed you the presidential survey, the historian survey. again, still available online, that interview program. you can still find online as well if you want to see the rankings. he listed his own rankings. you can see how your list compares to historians ranking presidents. from denver, colorado. democrats line.
next up. caller: good morning. can you hear me? host: i can. caller: ok. i wanted to comment about the marijuana situation. i live in denver, colorado. when we first came -- saying we are going to legalize marijuana. everything was about the people who smoke the marijuana. what are we going to do for you. we are going to help you do this and help you do that. the only thing that in colorado that marijuana has done is raise the cost of living here and also the price of marijuana is outrageous. you can't, you can grow a certain amount. you can't grow some places. you can grow others. federal government says you cannot grow marijuana in public
housing, because it is a federal thing. all these homes that are mortgaged by the federal government, they should also be regulated the same way as people, common people, people who are struggling in america. host: i'm curious, when you say you connect the rise of the cost of living directly to marijuana. how do you draw that conclusion? caller: once marijuana was legalized here, homes rocketed, rocketed. it was the common news here a whatn the problem was was becaused of the marijuana in people coming here to smoke marijuana and live here. now, colorado is a state that is very beautiful. but the people, the cost of living was, was -- you could live here, and you could buy
things, and it was not that expensive. now today housing is outrageous. host: in colorado. we'll hear one more call from patricia in arizona, independent line. caller: hi there. i wanted to read a paragraph in the " arizona republic" newspaper on sunday june 20 tha t tells people to further you out from covid infection the stronger the antibodies are. theodora h-a-t-z-i-i-o-a-n-n-o-u, a virology or at rockefeller -- ha s been following 140 people since they were infected early in the pandemic. they have studied the volunteers at two months after infection, six months and now a year. the longer out they are from
their protection the more protective antibodies they have, the new study shows, and the quote is" apparently you need several months up to year to get these really good antibodies." host: why that highlight -- why highlight that paragraph?? caller: because they are not letting people know. they originally said the antibodies last three months with no data. now that they have data showing they get stronger with time we are not hearing that. i did hear earlier this morning that the vaccine might only last six months and that is why they're talking about a third booster. and. host: we highlighted that but thank you for commenting, as well as the rest of you who commented during the open form -- open forum. one more topic to go. joining us is author and political analyst brandon weichert. he'll talk about the recent ufo
report and the importance of american dominance in space. that conversation coming up on "washington journal." ♪ >> saturday on "the communicators." >> republicans and democrats have been attacking from all sorts of angles and an appetite trust -- an antitrust is one of them had they have coalesced on we need to, we need tough antitrust laws, use enforcement in order to go after tech companies but they do not have -- they do have very different reasons for doing so, even though they coalesce on the same solution. for democrats, it seems to be rooted in a sort of typical for democrats, animosity towards big businesses in general. and corporations in general. shrink them down to size. for republicans, it is ited to a -- tied to a culture war, where they perceive technology
companies for being biased against conservatives by the way they moderate content or their corporate culture. big tech is really tied to their feeling that tech companies are out to get them. >> watch "the communicators" with reason magazines elizabeth nolan brown on her recent article "the bipartisan antitrust crusade" saturday at 6:30 p.m. on c-span. ♪ >> weekends on c-span 2 are an intellectual feast. every saturday you find events and people that explore our nation's past on american history tv. on sunday, book tv brings you the latest in nonfiction books and authors. learn. discover. explore. weekends on c-span 2. "washington journal" continues. host: joining us brandon
weichert, the author of "winning space, how america remains a superpower." the founder and editor of the weichert report. guest: it is a pleasure to be here. host: the weichert report, what is that? guest: my collection of op ads for various publications and my original insights and analyses of various technology and geopolitical issues and how emerging technologies impacting grand strategy and the geopolitical environment to host: thank you for explaining that. we are here to discuss a recent report from the national intelligence director. aerial phenomena, some may refer to them as ufo's. talk about this report and is important and -- why it's being released right now? guest: they found a majority of the cases that the government
studied as being unidentified arrow phenomenon were unidentified. they were at a loss as for what they are in science was as well. they were not -- it was not a groundbreaking report that triggered what all the ufo conspiracy people were saying that would be disclosure. nothing was really disclosed. nothing new at least. it is certainly a possibility that, as many hoped, this will initiate a longer conversation but i have to tell you i deal with the pentagon frequently. i am an expert. the subject has come up. people scratch their heads within the government die do not think this was as groundbreaking as the so-called believers in ufo's were saying, but maybe this does trigger the wider discussion and certainly from a national security standpoint, the fact that there is a majority of these incidents that are unknown even to the
government, clearly that is a national security threat because the unknown factor is a threat. we don't know who's in our airspace, restricted military airspace, over our homeland. that is not good. i do not know if it is little green or gray men. perhaps it is something closer to home. perhaps it is an as yet announced program of experimental american technology or more frighteningly russian or chinese technology like hypersonic drones. host: "a total of 143 reports remain unexplained. of those 21 reports of unknown phenomena involving 18 episodes possibly demonstrate technological capabilities that are unknown to the united states. objects moving without propulsion or with rapid acceleration that is believed to be beyond the capability of russia, china or other terrestrial nations. more rigorous analysis of those episodes is needed." guest: that's sort of a
conclusion at cross purposes with itself because, on the one hand, we know that china and russia in particular have invested heavily in hypersonic vehicles, that they are actively testing those systems. china now has the largest wind tunnel facility, the jf-21 in beijing for testing very large, highly experimental hypersonic vehicles. that's larger than the facility the americans have. and the chinese have been actively testing a coterie of other exotic technologies like quantum internet and advanced biotechnology, using crispr for augmentation of the human genome. for possibly augmenting humans. these are science-fiction sounding things, but we know for a fact that china is developing advanced technology for the purpose of using them to beat americans in the ongoing tech war.
the russians have capabilities in the hypersonic realm. and we ourselves, we have been developing heavily in developing hypersonic vehicles and other vehicles. the navy was on record as having filed or still the process of ufo patents. these were patents for vehicles that were oddly similar to the kinds of pill shaped vehicles exhibiting physics defying capabilities that the navy and marine pilots in these very famous videos are seeing, are reported as seeing. so, while the pentagon is saying that they are not ours or rus sia's, they are incapable of completely precluding that. especially when you think of the different investments in high-tech r&d such as hypersonic said things like the inertia mass production technology. basically, i do not think there report's conclusion. it is what rumsfeld used to
refer to as "unknown unknowns." host: doesn't the release of this report foster more questions to be asked along the lines that you are asking. guest: that is a big thing. like i said at the beginning, the hope is that this does start a wider conversation. i happen to agree with people -- former intelligent people -- former intelligent people leading the public discussion. we need to figure out who and what this is. this is not just a blimp on the radar. this is actual, observable events. and for the sake of our national security, we have to know what they are. but i have to stress before we go leaping into sort of little green or gray men, we need to fully and totally discount the possibility that china or russia have not leapfrogged us in a very specific area of technology. i remind audiences that america's technology dominance was not only -- always so.
when world war ii began, in many respects nazi germany and the japanese imperial power were ahead of united states military technology. -- it was simply we did not invest in building out capabilities to the extent that nazi germany and imperial japan did. my concern is that in particular with china, we might be witnessing a massive search in investment -- surge in investment of advanced technologies that could be used in a surprise move, pearl harbor style attack on the united states in order for china or russia to get what they want, to keep us back, to prevent us from using our power to stop an invasion of taiwan or russian invasion of the balkans. host: two that -- to that end, they use " unidentified aerial phenomena" versus ufo. guest: there is a very real
concern. we do not want to delegitimize this putting this in the realm of the extraordinary. it is extraordinary but not in a science-fiction way. certainly until we know for sure what this is, and we have to know soon, we will have to determine this, but until we do, there is always the possibility that it is something extraordinary like a -- lie ke aliens, but we have to figure out whether or not the terrestrial explanations are what is going on. i want to go first, is it the terrestrial before we start leaping into extraterrestrial. host: just for clarification, the report does not mention the term alien or extra traditional -- extra terrestrial as all. guest: the pentagon is trying to ratchet down the height that the media has piled on this. like i said, maybe ultimately it is something extraordinary. until we know for sure we have
to keep our sites, the military trained on more terrestrial explanations. host: our guest is brandon weichert. joining us to talk about concerns about how other countries are developing technology. if you want to ask him questions on those fronts, 202-748-8000. for mountain and pacific 202-7 48-8001. as far as the sightings in this report, what is the most recent and how far does it go back and does that make a difference? guest: it goes back many years but the most compelling are the sightings that the military has been tracking of other military officials, of other sailors and marines and airmen in their vehicles in restricted military airspace, and they are seeing these extraordinary vehicles. and it is not just eyewitness,
which the human factor can always be flawed, but it is eyewitness, highly trained eyewitnesses both in the air and on their ships or bases and also their very advanced military grade equipment. in some cases which were at the time knew. and so-- at the time new. these are the most compelling cases. that is why they gained so much traction. it is not with all due respect to farmers, it is not a farmer in his backyard taking a grainy picture. these are flair systems, very advanced weapon systems of ours that are seeing these extraordinary vehicles conducting physics defying techniques in midair. and it is our military people that we pay a lot of money to be highly trained and to not get rattled, and they are seeing these incredible things. those visuals are being confirmed by technical readouts. so it is something. and i think those are the most
compelling. and i think that is why the military initiated the uap observation program to begin with. it is something that is very serious now. host: have we heard any responses from the countries you bring up as far as this report or in response to that? guest: interestingly, china's government a month ago made a twofold statement. they said a, we don't believe this is aliens. and b, we think this is advanced american technology. they are testing our responses in the south china sea and near taiwan. the russians have not commented really too much. our allies in france for decades have taken these claims seriously. and i think in some quarters of the french government they do think it is extraterrestrial. but again, just for me personally, maybe this is my own bias, i am suspicious. we know that both the united states military, as well as china, are heavily invested in
what are known as the ufo patents. and, just for the record, when the secretary of the navy was questioned by journalists about these navy ufo patent and trademark office, the director for the navy said yes we are building them. yes, we created prototypes like mass production technology because we know for a fact that china has built the systems. they're very well may be a more disturbing terrestrial explanation. that china is beating us in experimenting with ecstatic technology and we are trying to play catch up and our government does not want to admit it. host: john in virginia p europe first. caller: thank you for taking my call. i want to ask of the guests, look, we have a leaders today who are telling us, we do not want this to become successful.
we want to stop every progress that we want to make. the reality is china is investing in their country. i travel a lot of countries. in china is doing very well. and they want to make sure 20 years or 30 years from now, they will be a superpower. reality is. we cannot even protect our own election. we cannot even protect our own electricity. we have leaders who are not well educated when it comes to science and technology. and they do not want to admit. the only thing they tell the american people is we want to stop the progress -- and it is a shame. guest: in many respects both parties of the political class have confused progress with decay. you are absolutely correct about many of your points, for instance, about our woeful vulnerabilities and our electrical grids and cyber vulnerabilities. the last year has been a highlight, and ongoing highlight
of how vulnerable to attack and disruption we are. -- to disruption we are. we created the internet. now it is being weaponized -- to debilitate us in unconventional ways. you're absolutely caray. our political class. i work on capitol hill. it is both parties. the leaders are not well. educated comparison. china. their leaders recognize in order for them to become the dominant world powered by 2049, the hundred years anniversary by china's communist party victory -- they have to dominate the tech space. this is why you're seeing china doing this all society approach to proposing next-generation technologies like 5g, now 6g, internet, biotech, cloud computing, quantum computing, bio computing.
all of this sort of new generation technologies. in many respects the infrastructure for research and develop and is being billed by the chinese in order to attract whatever western talent and investment there is. to move that away from america and europe and put in china so that china is the conduit or the dispenser of the new industrial revolution. and that is what is going on now, and china unquestionably pushing ahead with this dominant approach to the future. we in the united states have gotten complacent and comfortable. i talk about this for most of my book in which i detail the cultural distinction and the political differences. the sad thing is the united states today has all the tools it needs to remain dominant, but it does not seem to have the will. whereas china is still getting all the tools but they have a lot of will. we will see what happens in the next 20 years. it is frightening because china is catching up and leapfrogging the united states.
host: let's hear from roseanne in wisconsin. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am responding to a sighting i had seen in 2011 on november 14th at 9:15 on a monday night. and it is something you will never, ever forget, because what i had seen was something that i don't think anyone has ever seen, other than maybe in a sci-fi movie. it was a white orb going across the sky. i was outside with a flashlight. the entity stopped and gave me the biggest light show. there was no sound, no noise at all. it stopped in midair. it gave me a light show. and when it came, when the lights came on, it looks like a saucer. now, people will say you must be crazy. nothing like that exists.
i'm not, i'm just questioning, is this extraterrestrial or is it military? i checked into it later through social media if anybody had seen anything like that that night. the next surrounding county, someone also had said they had seen that, but it's phenomenal. i can't even explain. host: thanks for telling us your story. we were a lot our guest respond to that. guest: right. going back decades, there are a lot of these types of sightings. personally, i lean more toward, if it something not natural like a meteor, i lean toward the possibility that it is a military, advanced technology. there are methods for reporting these sightings. there are private groups. mutual ufo network that you can report these two and they will do an investigation. you can contact your local
authorities and they will actually open an investigation. but i certainly was not there so i could not tell you. but i can tell you this. that both the united states military, as well as the chinese and russian military, are invested in building out systems that are many years ahead of the systems that are currently in widespread use by the militaries of those countries. there is a tech war going on in the world between us and china. russia and other countries getting involved. there's a race for meta materials like graphene. there is an ongoing race for nuclear fusion technology. china may have the hottest running reactor. there is a race for all sorts of technologies and capabilities that we would today probably consider to be science fiction, but infact, on a very small scale, science fact.
are being experimented with in small laboratories and all of these countries by the militaries of these countries to figure out if they can be scaled up and what their strategic applications are and we are in a very scary period, because it is no longer the united states pioneering this research. in many cases their american academics, scientists, and investors going to china and giving them the capabilities and resources they need to conduct this research. this technology, if it can be scaled up, will most certainly be used by china's military against our country. i don't know what you saw that day. i would report it to the groups i mention but i would keep in the back of your mind, if it wasn't a phenomena like a meteor it could have been experimental military technology, the question is who's, ours or the russians or chinese? host: dale in maryland. go ahead. caller: hi. thanks for having me on. your last caller sparked a
memory i had of something i saw back in the 1970's, a similar kind of weird weird light that was off in the distance. i was driving along in maryland and all of a sudden it just went right over my car, like it was on top of me. anyway, i have a comment and a question. what i've seen in the news about these objects is that they can change direction and create a geforce that no human can ever survive. so, i'm assuming there is no people in there, that these are just remotely controlled vehicles of some sort. i'd like your guy here to comment on the possibility that what we are seeing, this sounds completely insane, but we're being visited by future people. host: ok. dale in maryland.
guest: until we know for sure, anything is possible. i would say again to keep it closer to the terrestrial,, especially when you look at what is being invested in by venture capital and by other countries, technologies, exotic technologies. i have to stress, there is a very serious chance that a lot of these sightings are in fact experimental hypersonic drones or kill vehicles. and these are vehicles that can travel many times the speed of sound. you can launch conceivably hypersonic kill vehicle from mainland china with ordinance on board and delivered and the heartland of the united states and less time than it takes for dominoes to get a pizza to you. we're talking about the development in china, russia and the united states of super advanced military aerial
technologies that, in some cases, the majority of their own militaries might not be privy to , because they are such experimental technologies. so, it is certainly possible. until we know for sure that this is something really extraordinary like time travel or extraterrestrial, but i'm somebody who is really interested in trying to keep this closer to home. until we know for sure. because we have to know what our rivals are doing, if it is them, in our restricted airspace, and we probably should know if our government has developed the kinds of physics defying technologies that could completely revolutionize civilian air travel for instance. or something along those lines. but until we know for sure it is not something of earth, we need to stay on that. host: we do have calls lined up. but dave texted us saying
it'germany that has advanced technology. guest: germany does not really invest in the military. it is sort of a joke. i'm suspicious it would have anything to do with germany. host: from ohio, john. good morning. you're on with our guest. caller: good morning. i saw that program they had on fox about the ufo report that just came out. and right before i saw that come out, i saw a book in a library by an astrophysicist called "e.t.' he was on that program. i was wondering, these sightings have been around for a long time. since 1947, at least since then, that roswell thing. it seems awful strange to me that all of that time they have
been around that somebody has these secrets. but what he said in the book, what the book was about was about an incident in 2017. he said the best telescope that they have, that they saw, and they watched it for 11 days. it looks like something on identified come in from interstellar space. they watched it for 11 days. going close to us and the sun and several planets and go back into space. host: ok. caller: i thought that was kind of interesting. host: a question for the sightings that were highlighted in the reporting people talked about, do they fall into airspace that is reasonable that can be approached by planes or do they go higher than that through the realms of space? guest: some reports were in airspace they could easily be approached but the ones that were really most interesting to the pentagon, and i think the
ones that keep the media's curiosity, because remember until year ago, talking about this in the mainstream press was anathema. but we are doing it now because the sightings that were the most compelling were of those from military personnel in restricted airspace. so that raises some questions. it raises some questions. if it were aliens, why would they know where our restricted airspace -- these are demarcated on maps for us humans. would e.t. know that? or would it be something that our rivals or another government agency developing exotic technology would know about and would want to test this experimental equipment in real time on the best trained american military men and women and their equipment? and so, there have been a coterie of other sightings. i want to make one point about the way that experimental military technology is developed.
people in the 1980's and late 1970's outside of area 51, the ufo watchers were seeing and taking pictures what they thought were ufo's but they were early prototypes of the stealth bomber. as far back as the late 1970's you have what we now know is the stealth fighter being developed and tested over what we know is area 51. we did not admit it. the government did not admit it until closer to desert storm in the 1990's, but for 18 years they were developing and experimenting this technology in supersecret environments that were being seen by some looking -- lookie loos. and they are saying that it was ufo's but it was not. it was next-generation military level technology. it is possible that same develop and is going on in secret and has been going on since the 1940's in our airspace, and that we do not know about what
elements of the government are doing. it is possible to government military structure is still opaque and large that the left hand is not talking to the right hand pain one side of the pentagon does not know what the other side is doing. host: in the discussions bill nelson up your before republican committee to talk about issues and wonder things he was asked about by a senator was the threat of china when it comes to space. i want to play that exchange and get your response. [video clip] >> briefly and for the record, what i would like for you to do is talk for just a little bit about china, about china's push into space exploration, how they utilize that civil military fusion in order to try to beat us at the space race, and beat us as we work at our military because china is out for global dominance. so, if you will touch on that. >> yes, ma'am.
we have known and it's articulated presently by the president there is a threat. china poses in basically getting a lot of our secrets and getting a lot of our technology. and invading a lot of our privacy. now, when you take that global concern that we have, and you bring it to the space program, then you have to be concerned about the same thing. china has said that they want to have a landing of humans on the moon. more recently, china has said that they're going to link up with russia to put humans on the moon. i think there is a lot more th
at has to be done by saying it and actually doing it, because space is hard, but i think we need to be concerned about that. host: do you share those concerns, particular about those countries, assumed interest about the moon? guest: ten years ago when i was working on capitol hill, i was begging -- to blackburn and others, on the democrat side, too. they weren't getting it. it is nice to see that both democrats and republicans are starting to get it. that comment that bill nelson made is extremely condescending in one way. space is hard. this is a common refrain i have heard it all the lectures i give for the pentagon. inevitably someone says this. yes, it is hard, but we have done it for many decades and we have gotten a little arrogant in our way of thinking no one else can do it without help from the
americans or without whatever. the fact is, china is doing it. actually, china is making it look easy. china before 2003 did not have any astronauts in orbit. 2003. they did their first spacewalk. it's 2021 today. a little more than a decade later and they have already gotten, what took us 30 years, they have gotten to in a decade. so, the idea that bill nelson's conclusion, it is very technical and maybe this is something they will not be able to do it but we have to watch out. the only way that we're going to hold space, which is the linchpin for america's dominant position on earth, the only way we will hold space is if we leapfrog the chinese, is if we get our people back to the moon and build our own basis there, if we get our own space mining colony set up in the astral belt on moon, ,get our people to mars
first. let me tell you something, china and russia now, because they are fusing their space programs. a eurasian drug are not going into space. they are not looking at, space harper the americans are so far ahead of us. this is saying the americans are weak, they are weakest in space. we can push them out of the way and get what we want. and that is precisely what beijing and moscow are doing in washington is only just now waking up to this that. this is been going on for a decade, and we had better get ourselves in the right place quicker than we have. host: brandon weichert, the author of "winning space, how america remains a super p ower." at 10:00 we will hear from floyd in jonesville, virginia. caller: thank you for taking our call. space has been around for thousands of years. it is not something that people are starting to see.
god's word talks about in ezekiel chapter 1. he said, "god's -- in ezekiel chapter 1, chapter 10, too. he described, he was all he had ever known was an oxcart. he saw that wheel going around. he said it was a wheel in a wheel but it did not go up on the ground it was up in the air, going back and forth. all you got to do is turn to his vehicle and there it is. if you want to learn about it strong, you go to www. shepherds chapel..com and order -- and learn all about them. host: we'll hear from martin in new jersey. hello. caller: can you hear me all right? all right. i was watching. there is on youtube, from the washington post, ufo's and
national security. the -- from the director for advanced aerospace -- identification program. aatip. he was interviewed. he was talking about how, they showed the videos, the two videos of those objects that the air force people were recording. and he was saying that he's -- he saw that one of these objects were going in a straight line at hypersonic speed, and then, all of a sudden, made a 90 degree turn upward instantly. it wasn't a turn, like a perpendicular line straight up at hypersonic speed straight up.
and he said nobody has, as far as he knows, us or the chinese or the russians, have this kind of technology. host: ok. sorry about that. we're running short on time. i want to bring up another issue before we finish off with you. when it comes to private space, we're going to see just -- jeff bezos and richard branson going into space on sunday. jeff bezos about to do the same thing. what do those two entities do for the world a private spaceflight and what is the future when it comes to spaceflight? guest: whatever one's opinion is about billionaires, the one thing they are doing very well is space, because the private space sectors, mostly in american or a western phenomenon, and it is the one thing that is going to keep america ahead of the chinese and russians in the space race, the
new space race. my concern right now is that the government is going to come in and start regulating the heck out of these rising outerspace entities at a time when they need to be deregulated. they need to be able to go out and test new technologies and new capabilities, and this competition, the battle of the billionaires
let them operate. it is how we won the future when we were going again the british for and astral policies in the 19th and early 20th century. it is how we win the race for space. host: from ohio. this is george, hello. you're on. caller: yes. i was just calling to give you an example that i had back in the 1970's. with a friend of mine. we were out one night fishing. in a pond. and all of a sudden there was this fear in the sky and a lot of lights. and all of a sudden this light came out of the bottom and it shined right down into the middle of the pond, a big pond c catfish. i experienced this in 1973. host: that's george giving his experience. does it question the veracity of these experiences because it sounds similar? a lot of these sound similar as far as life and the experience. guest: yeah. i think we are now in a period where the military has
acknowledged that there is a lot of unknown crafts operating in our airspace. so, what i would encourage this gentle man to do, and anybody is to locate local mufon organizations, call your local authorities, the non-emergency line and make official reports if that is something you feel strongly about. i think there is nothing wrong with that because we know now through atiip that the pentagon was taking clubs -- clues from civilians very seriously after all of the military videos were made. maybe it is something. i am not qualified to comment, but what i can comment on is where venture capital is investing their money and what the international tech race is looking like and who are the big players. i am telling you right now, we, the chinese and the russians and india and israel, are all developing technologies that are the next generation level of
technology that we, the civilian population are not yet cued into . there is a high degree of probability these systems are being seen, are actually human in origin and they are either ours or an enemies. if they are enemies, that is the thing that we should be focused on, avoiding another pearl harbor are another 9/11 with exotic technology. host: you talk about private industry and what you think the approach should be. do you think the biden administration shares that approach? guest: i've spoken with people from the administration at the start of their time in office. they do agree with what i was saying went, what blackburn and bill nelson has said. my concern has always been there is a sector of the democratic party that has a lot of influence that really doesn't vi ew space, the chinese space threat as a threat.
and b, doesn't want to see america engage with another space race. they would rather make space like antarctica, a sanctuary from human activity, destructive activity. unfortunately we are well past that stage. space is here. it is not going away. there is a massive investment and it is growing from the private sector around the world. there is a massive interest from china and russia. it is a question of who will get there first and not whether we should go or not. host: is it because we have a couple minutes left. in a situation like that moon, why is it not possible for countries to share. why is that a u.s. thing? guest: the trump administration said we need to get it artemis accord, the new agreement between the world powers to figure out how to develop and exploit new resources -- l unar resources the way we do on earth. the problem is neither china or russia want to do it. the reason is because they do
not want to see america leading in space the way we lead on earth. and so, frankly, we rely on space more than any other country does. so we have to leave. the idea that we are going to wait around for china and russia. trump's administration went to russia and said sign this and work with us and russia said 'nil." we are not waiting around because there is a lot of money to be made in space or the private sector is going. we need those resources in space. in china and russia are going to go no matter what. no more resting on our laurels. my concern with the current administration and we have seen this as they will start regulating the five it sector so much that it raises risks and -- the private sector so much that it raises risks of investing in the new start ups and that would be the worst thing because china and russia are pouring state resources into their space development. host: the weichert report is available at the weichert
report.com. brandon weichert, thanks for the conversation. that is it for our program. that is it for our program today. another addition of washington journal comes your way at 7:00 tomorrow morning. even though the house is technically in recess, they come in for a pro forma session. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., july 9, 2021. i hereby appoint the honorable jennifer wexton to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, nancy pelosi, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the prayer will be