Dr. James Zogby

James Zogby: Hi, I am James Zogby and welcome to "Viewpoint."
We will talk about key issues in the campaign and why they are running.
We will talk to Wendy Chamberlain.
But first, we will talk to a man who was appointed to deal with the educational issues of this administration.
He has an extensive background in journalism as an editor, journalist, commentator and moderator.
Thanks for joining us.

James Glassman: My pleasure.

JZ: The idea is to brand America and to sell it.
That was Charlotte's task.
Has it changed in the years that we have come to a new understanding of what the function of public diplomacy and is it being interpreted differently today?

JG: I think it is being interpreted a little bit differently.
Public diplomacy is a big subject.
Diplomacy to the public is how we speak to the rest of the world, not on an official basis, but to the public, and all aspects of it.
We spend most of our money in public diplomacy in the State Department on educational exchanges, access in scholarships where we teach English in many Muslim countries to disadvantaged youth, that sort of thing.
It is very effective.
It brings Americans face to face with people around the world and it works very well.
But in the long term, we also push out America, the stories about American policy, American Life and that is something that we have been doing for a long time too -- explaining America.
That is the branding and selling part.

JZ: Here's my view about Branding and selling.
I think we can do a better job explaining American policy and American life and also what we do to help other people.
For example, we send a lot of aid abroad.
In many cases, it is not particularly well branded in a technical sense.
People do not know it comes from the U.S.
I remember when I was in Cairo a few years ago, everyone would point to the opera house and say, the Japanese gave us the opera house.
It is a beautiful building, but the fact is, the U.S. through its assistance to Egypt paid for the sewage system and much of the infrastructure in Cairo.
We do not do a good job of explaining it.
We do not listen in now.
You have said that yourself.

JG: I agree.

JZ: You have said that in some of the testimony and books you have written and speeches you have given.
What are we hearing when we do listen?
As an extension of that, part of the problem is that we say they do not understand us, but do we understand them and do we make an effort to understand the rest of the world, or are we more talking at them?

JG: I think there is a problem that we do talk at.
One of the things that I'm trying to bring to public diplomacy is a role as facilitator to bring conversations about rather than preaching at people.
I do not think preaching works in this day and age.
People are way too sophisticated to respond to propaganda, to respond to, you know, you have got to believe this or that.
I think part of the problem is the listening.
Listening can be somewhat condescending if it is done in the wrong way.
All I would like to do is respectfully hear out the people.
We have a lot of research on this subject and one of the things that we find, one of the reasons that people in other countries are not getting hammered with the U.S. these days is part of it is the policies, of course, but part of it is that we are going to make decisions to pursue our own interests, just like any other country.
But we are not respectively listening to their point of view, even if we come to the conclusion that they may not want to hear.
I think that is what we are doing in Iraq as well.
It is not, we're going to do this and I do not care what you say.
A lot of the world has the feeling that this is our attitude.

JZ: I hear the message of what we are trying to do and it is articulated well and has been articulated well by everyone in the administration.
But then I look at the damage done in Iraq and in other situations, the damage done in Lebanon, for God's sake.
What happened there two years ago is unconscionable.
I wonder whether or not you understand the degree to which our behavior or lack of behavior in critical instances has not trumped our very message.

JG: I have no doubt that people who disagree with our behavior, with our policies, to them, that is the most important factor in making a decision about whether they trust or respect us.
Those are the two most important factors; not whether they like us or let us, but whether they trust us or not.
But I would also say -- let me just go back.
No matter how well we explain policies to people we do not like, it is not going to have that much effect on them.
In fact, we may dislike them more now that they understand them.
But I do believe that we are in this for the long haul.
Policies come and policies go, and when people see what American values are, they understand how our democracy works -- you know, a presidential campaign tells the world a lot about America, but in the end, it is going to be more about individual policies.
It seems to suggest that they do respect our values.
Especially when we look at the elite.
One of the concerns we get back is they know our values, but they do not know our plans.
They know and respect us, but do not think that we respect them.
How do we counter that sense of hating us for who we are?
The question is, they do not think that we care enough about them to apply our values to them.
Or that we do not live up to our own values.

JZ: I think that is a reasonable criticism.
I think the answer to that criticism lies in understanding.
The way I define public diplomacy -- and I am not the only one, is understanding, engaging, informing, and influencing or persuading; the understanding element is tremendously important.
The short-term part of what we do is called “The War of Ideas” and it is absolutely critical.
We have to understand the audiences –

JG: And talk about that war of ideas.
It is in a number of your talks.

JZ: I quite did not understand where it was going, is there an internal debate in the Arab world?
Of course, there is.
The impact of how that makes people feel about America, I am not sure that the ideas are the reason why people are angry with us and I am not sure that changing the ideas are going to change how they feel about us.
It is two totally separate issues.

JG: Actually, I think it is.

JZ: Let me try to describe it.
There is a debate and the battle going on in the Muslim society and it is a debate over who will control politically, culturally.
It is a very important battle.
The vast majority of people are opposed to the violent extremists, but it is a conflict that we ourselves are really not part of as Americans, but we feel the effects of it.
It is a battle that we could not sort of opt out of if we wanted to.
Are we a participant in it?
No, but its outcome will affect us.
I think what we do at the State Department and what I do in the inter-agency group that is concerned about this is participate in an ideological sense.
We do this by behavior.
We are a “fermenter” of some of this anger, some of this stuff that takes place in the region.
Certainly, does not justify the behavior of violent extremists, but to create conditions that breed an anti-American sentiment.

JG: If you look at the grievance of Al Qaeda, you know, they were miffed at the United States and the Palestinian/Israeli situation.
That is not a major element.
You are talking about something that is so much bigger than any one dispute.
We are talking about a particular view, a critic of the ideology that is built on an interpretation of Islam.
And I am not an expert in the religion, but it is twisted, a completely twisted interpretation.
There is a battle going on within Muslim society and we are affected by it.
I really disagree that we had much to do with this fight itself.
We are often the target, but our actions, I do not think, have a great deal to do with it.

JZ: Let's get some calls if you want to join the conversation.
here in the U.S. It is 1-800...
Let's talk about some of the program.
We have some kids that have been on the show before that are part of this exchange offer.
How many kids are actually involved and how extensive is the level of outreach?

JG: In total, we bring about 50,000 people to the United States every year.
The single biggest program is the Fulbright program, which has 7000, 4000 coming to the U.S. and 3000 going abroad.
That is a higher education program.
It also includes teachers as well as other kinds of experts.
We bring a wide variety of people.
What we have been doing recently and we think is quite effective is bringing younger people to the U.S.
And we have the yes program, which is what I think you're talking about.
We bring high school students mainly from Muslim countries, but other countries as well, to the U.S. where they spend a year in school.
I was speaking the other day to one student who came from Cairo and was in Vermont or Montana, in many cases very small towns.
They go to public high school and it is a great experience for them.
At least as important, it is a great experience for the Americans who are exposed to them who might not be.
The idea of going to school with a young person fresh off the boat from Cairo, that is pretty exciting for a lot of Americans.

JZ: Life changing.

JG: It is absolutely life changing on both sides.
What we try to do is remain in the contact with the alumni from these programs so that when they go back, we hope that they're applying some of the things that they learned.
Again, we do not necessarily agree with us.
I spoke to 300 graduating students and they asked terrific questions.

JZ: Let's take a call.

Caller: [UNINTELLIGIBLE]
The occupied territories in Palestine and nothing has really established.
Would you call this hypocrisy?

JZ: It is an issue that is going to be felt everywhere.

JG: I think that is true and I think that our Government has made it clear, we are opposed to these elements.
This is hard for some people to believe, but we do not control the Israeli government.
We have certainly made our views heard.
That is the main thing that we can do.

JZ: Let's go to Virginia for a call.
Caller: You said our actions do not have much to do with the Muslim attitude toward us.
I think there is a basic disrespect and humiliation.
We started off and have assigned a land without a people, no rights, no nothing.

JZ: I get your point.
Thank you for the call.

JG: Our actions certainly have an influence on how people feel about us.
On August 7, we will mark the anniversary, the 10th anniversary of the bombings of our embassies in Nairobi.
Many people were killed, but many Muslims were killed by Al Qaeda.
Those bombings were not based on a particular grievance that Al Qaeda or any other violent group might have had against the U.S.
They were based on a particular plan for assuming power ultimately that Al Qaeda had.

JZ: Let's go to another call.

Caller: I tend to disagree with your guest.
He thinks that if he can internationalize the occupation in Israel, then he can take the bar back from it.

JG: What is your question?

JZ: Thank you for the call.
JG: He is saying, you know, -- I guess what I would say is that I work for an administration that has campaigned very consciously, I think, for a two-state solution in that region.
Right now as we sit here, the State Department is doing its best to get both sides negotiating.
Some people might argue that it should have been done earlier, but I think this administration has been very conscientious and has moved the ball quite well.

JZ: Let's go to another caller.
Caller: I have a question.
I actually feel sorry for him in the position that he has been.
He is the person who has been doing the public relations for the Bush administration.
That is not an easy position to be in.

JZ: Give me your question.

Caller: The question I have is it the policy toward the “Torrone” government or that government that the administration does not agree with?

JG: I will answer the question before the question -- public diplomacy is something that is quite different from public relations.
There are elements of public relations involved.
It is engaging foreign public.
So, official diplomacy is engaging at an official level where the Secretary of State talked to the Foreign Minister of the country.
What we're not doing is propaganda or trying to spin things our way.
It is a rather short term point of view.
What we're trying to do is explain foreign policy and a explain that we are in this for the long term.

JZ: One more call, but I do want to get to Saudi Arabia if -- this country has the support of democratic movements.
We believe in freedom, we believe in democracy.
We have pro-democracy people from all over the world into the White House, but on a day-to-day basis, sometimes we have to deal with particular regimes that do not live up to our standards of being democratic countries.
>> The last two calls from Saudi Arabia and Cairo and then we are going to cut it off for our next segment.
Caller: [UNINTELLIGIBLE]
but there is nothing done other than talking about it.

JZ: Let's go to Cairo quickly.

Caller: My question is regarding the peace talks in the Middle East [UNINTELLIGIBLE]
It is for all of us.

JG: I think what you are hearing is a constant theme going through and that is that they want, not just words, but some action to move this forward.
that seems to undercut our credibility.

JZ: Condoleezza Rice is dedicated to getting the kind of solution that not just American people, but I believe, much of the world want in that part of the world.
I think they are working vigorously to do that, but it is tough.
In the region right now is a sense that because nothing has been done to back up our efforts and we have not moved forward, we may be getting to a place where the solution becomes more difficult.

JG: I'd think it is possible to get it.
I was in Jerusalem in December and let me just tell you, we had one program that we had that we run out of our office with the private-sector that is one piece of evidence of our dedication, not necessarily to the peace process, but certainly, to the well-being of the Palestinian people.
We believe in this.
It is not going to happen overnight, unfortunately.
I would say the president would say that is unfortunate.
He wants it.

JZ: Thank you for joining us.
When we come back, our conversation with 2008 Libertarian presidential candidate, Bob Barr.

Jim Zogby: Welcome back to "Viewpoint."
My next guest is Bob Barr.
Thanks for joining us, Congressman Barr.

Bob Barr: It is great to be with you once again.

JZ: This is a question that I have got to ask.
I know you are tired of answering it, but why are you running for president?
The polls show you in at low to middle single digits and not doing much higher.
Why do you run?

BB: Well, we disagree that we will not be going much higher.
These are very early polls and we are actually doing double digits in some states, such as New Hampshire and almost in double-digits in a number of other states.
The base level of polling indicates that we are actually doing [NO AUDIO]

JZ: We lost the satellite.

BB: I am running in order to do three things.
One, a competitive three-way race if I can get into the debates with McCain and Obama.
Second, to raise the level of debate, such as you and your other guests do on a regular basis, to talk about issues of substance that the other candidates will not do.
Third, to open up the political process so that at long last, Americans will not feel the political strain of going into the polling booth every four years and voting for the lesser of two evils.

JZ: Let's talk about that.
The Libertarian Party has been around for a while and has done pretty well.
I can tell you the least interesting person to run as an independent in recent years was Ross Perot.
And yet, he had huge amounts of money and was able to get himself into the debate.
Neither the Green Party nor the libertarian Party have been able to do that.
How do you break into that threshold to be able to get your voice heard up there with the others?

BB: That is a good question.
We do expect to be able to get into the debates, or at least meet the objective criteria for doing so, which is to be pulling at 15% nationally.
Of course, we also need to make sure that one or both of the two major parties would like us in there, otherwise, they can concoct some reason to keep us out.
On a broader issue, what makes a difference this year unlike any other year for the Libertarian Party and my candidacy is two things.
First, with all due modesty, I think the ticket that we have this year, Bob Barr at the head of the Libertarian ticket brings a credibility because I am known across the country.
The Libertarian Party has never enjoyed this in its presidential nominee before.
Secondly, the political climate out there -- and I know you know this in your careful study of politics and the dynamics of it -- the situation out there is very different than any prior year.
The depth of public dissatisfaction with the two major parties and the candidates and the political system is at an historic high.
In recent polls, the question of whether the American country is going in the wrong or right direction, a significant majority believe it is going in the wrong direction.

JZ: Just to look at the numbers, this is a recent Zogby poll.
My brother's numbers and I trust them.
Bob Barr is at a 6% and interestingly enough, your numbers and Nader's numbers all come from John McCain.
Republicans must be asking, aren't you going to hurt John McCain?
What is wrong with John McCain?

BB: The reasons I am running are because of the significant constitutional issues, the substantive issues, are not going to be addressed by the candidates of the two major parties.
With regards to Senator McCain, despite his talk of labeling himself a maverick and pretending he is an outsider, Mr. McCain is every bit a Washington insider.
He has been his whole adult life after he got out of the military.
He very much supports Washington institutions, Washington spending.
He supports the power the Bush administration has taken unto itself.
He believes firmly in what the Bush administration does and unaccountable power of the executive branch and essentially being able to do whatever that person wanted in their own mind as long as they say they are doing it as the commander in chief.
These are not conservative ideals.
They're certainly not libertarian.
That is why Senator McCain is having such a difficult time even gaining support among the base of his own political party, that is, the Republican party.

JZ: All right, a couple of questions to our past and to your present situation -- you were a leader in the impeachment effort against Bill Clinton and recently, you were testifying before John Conyers, who held an informal hearing on the excesses of the executive branch.
Some wanted to see it actually be a hearing on impeachment.
Should George Bush be impeached?

BB: We do not have the evidence yet and this has been a great failing in the current congress.
In order to move forward legitimately with a true impeachment as we did a decade ago with regard to the former president, Bill Clinton, you need to lay the groundwork, have oversight hearings in order to gather the evidence, or have an outside Independent counsel to present it to Congress for independent study.
There are certainly sufficient allegations of wrongdoing to warrant such an inquiry of impeachment, but the Congress has failed in its oversight responsibilities in the last year-and-a-half.
When I testified a week ago before the committee hearings on potential abuses, separation of powers, problems, and executive branch excesses of the current administration, much more work needs to be done to determine if there is sufficient evidence to warrant impeachment.
The Congress should have done this many months ago.
They have not and they have failed the American people by not doing so.

JZ: In Iraq, you supported the war, but now you are against the war.
What in your view should be done now about Iraq?

BB: With all due respect, I do not agree with the way you framed the question.
Supporting the resolution to remove Saddam Hussein is one thing.
Supporting the war now is not a reasonable question because it is not a war.
It is an occupation.
I agreed to a very specific time and a specific threat and in response to that, a resolution to take military action against the Saddam Hussein regime.
The intelligence turned out to be faulty and the analysis incorrect, but more important than that, of course, is the fact that the administration has taken a very specifically oriented resolution and stretched it into something it was never intended to be.
That is, a resolution for the occupation for a foreign nation.
It was wrong when it started and it ought to be ended.

JZ: Let's get some callers in.
If you want to give us a call they will be up on the screen.
Give us a call and ask Bob Barr a question.
You have expressed real concern about the excesses to which the administration has gone on several issues.
I want to ask you about those, specifically wiretapping and, I guess, I'd put them together as violations of the Fourth Amendment.
Search and seizure, data mining in general, which goes with the search and seizure -- what can be done about them at this point?

BB: We certainly did foresee it and this is why I was in the forefront of efforts to amend the original version of the legislation that came up to the Congress right after 9/11 and we were able to secure at least some amendments that the administration did agree to before it was introduced for a vote.
It scaled back some of the more problematic provisions in the original Patriot act.
We also foresaw many problems and that is why we incorporated in that picture a number of sunset provisions.
Yes, we did to the abuses and the problems.
The only issue that caused me to become a very vocal opponent of the Patriot Act after it was enacted into law was the fact that in every instance, the administration at the highest levels gave myself and other members of Congress assurances that it would not be used for purposes other than intelligence investigation and secondly, they would not seek to expand it, and thirdly, the administration would report completely openly and truthfully on how the Patriots Act was being used.
On every instance, the administration failed in the obligations it promised to us.
It immediately started using them and uses the provisions to this day for cases and investigations that have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.
Secondly, the administration moved immediately to begin trying to expand the Patriot Act.
Thirdly, the administration has resisted openness on how the Patriots Act was being used.

JZ: Shall we go to a caller?
Caller: [UNINTELLIGIBLE]

JZ: You are not getting enough television coverage.
How do you deal with that?
Can it be dealt with?

BB: Well, I'm here with you and your viewers today and I am working hard to convince the other cable networks and the television, the commercial networks to include that Bob Barr is that a legitimate and third-party nominee -- is a legitimate third party nominee.
But we are so oriented toward a two-party system.
We are working to change them and we have been very successful in terms of our media.
With regard to your caller's question about a running mate, the Libertarian party selects the running mate for the nominee.
We did that in Colorado at our convention over the Memorial Day weekend.
My running mate is a small businessman from Las Vegas, Nevada, Wayne Allyn root.

JZ: Let's go to Texas for a caller.

BB: [UNINTELLIGIBLE]
most of the presidential debates are just debate and no substance.
[UNINTELLIGIBLE]

JZ: Thank you for the comment.
I think is an astute observation, especially the shows and how they play into this race.
But we go to California for one more question.
Caller?

Caller: I want to ask a question regarding the Military Commission Act.
You said earlier about there not being enough evidence for Bush to be impeached.

JZ: Ask your question.

Caller: Dick Cheney's prior deal with Halliburton [UNINTELLIGIBLE]

BB: First, obviously I did not make my prior comments sufficiently clear and I appreciate the caller pointing that out.
What I said was that I think there are sufficient allegations as to warrant an inquiry by the Congress in order to gather the specific intelligence in order to answer the ultimate question of whether there ought to be impeachment.
Congress's failure to follow up on that in order to gather the evidence and partial the evidence in an appropriate way.
I believe the recent Supreme Court decision concerning the administration's fundamental denial of habeas corpus, the military commissions Act is woefully insufficient to provide the rights of those detained to determine whether or not they should continue to be held or whether they're guilty of anything.
I do not believe that -- I believe that further challenges will result in court decisions to find out that the military commissions Act is deficient in other ways as well.

JZ: Thank you for joining us and maybe we will get you in again sometime.
Thank you for being here.

BB: Thank you, and I would urge your viewers to go to www.bobbarr2008.com in the meantime.

JZ: We will be right back with Wendy Chamberlain.

Jim Zogby: Welcome back.
I'm Jim Zogby.
My next guest is Wendy Chamberlain, president of the U.S. Institute here in Washington D.C. and former director of counter-terrorism Security council.
Thanks for joining us.
Pakistan has been on the move on a number of levels in the past couple of weeks and I wanted to catch up on a few of those.
First, not by Pakistan, but Afghanistan -- Barack Obama went to Afghanistan and had some observations to make about the relationship between those two countries and what we are to be doing in that arena.
How did the trip go as you see it.

Wendy Chamberlain: Barack Obama will be the first to admit that he did not go as president.
It was an important trip for him to make, but he did not throw any gutter balls this time.
I thought it was a stunning success.
He went, listened, showed respect for the people, learned, and got a tremendous reception by the American military troops.
He had respect for conversations with leaders and he was sensational.
A lot has been made about the press going with him and his fan club from the press.
Any way of looking at it is that he had so many eyes focused on every breath he took almost waiting for him to trip up.

JZ: Do you see a convergence developing around his approach to Afghanistan and Pakistan?
On the days preceding and following, he called for a shifting from Iraq to Afghanistan, bringing more troops to Afghanistan.
President Bush is echoing some of that.
John McCain is echoing some of that.
Do you think that there is a new policy here in the making that we will see unfold over the next six months or so?

WC: I think you are right.
You hit the nail on the head.
And I do not think it is luck and I do not think it is just policy convergence.
I think that Barack Obama has a certain understanding of world events and a vision.
His vision happens to be the correct one.
Others are beginning to see it.

JZ: He met with the Prime Minister of Pakistan here in Washington and upon leaving the meeting, he had only this to say.
"We will do this ourselves."
There is a bit of testing there on the Pakistan side of this situation.
Is that a worrisome situation?

WC: I think the whole situation along the border is worrisome on many levels.
We saw in the "Washington Post" a story about Al Qaeda moving out of Iraq and into Pakistan and crossing the border into Afghanistan.
As Al Qaeda and the militants and the Taliban travel along the border region with Afghanistan, they also threaten Islamabad and the rest of Pakistan.
This is getting more dangerous for Pakistan in general.
I think we want the Pakistanis to be able to handle it by themselves.

JZ: I have a couple of questions on that front, as well.
There were two stories yesterday and today.
let me start with one today about three days of consecutive fighting in areas where there had not been fighting and tribal elements that have known to have relations with Al Qaeda.
There is a testing of both sides.
There had been a truce drawn with the Pakistani government and the tribal elements.
The truce has broken down.
Is there a danger that they will be able to sustain this over a long time frame?
Are they getting pushed into this fight or is it a fight they are ready to get into on the road?

WC: The Prime Minister of Pakistan's trip, he talked to Senators Obama and McCain, but also Governors and the State Department.
We would like to see more action on the part of the Pakistanis in controlling the militants along that border.
The truce is breaking down, but it is more and -- it is important that they become more effective in dealing with the threat.
We are ready to help them.
The message I think he heard everywhere in Washington is that we are ready to help him.

JZ: Tell me about the relationship between government and military in a situation like this.
The governments negotiate a truce.
The military is now engaged in fighting.
If the military incurs losses and says, this is something that we do not want to do, is the pressure back on the government?
And what is the dynamic in the relationship between the two?

WC: In Pakistan, the military is a critical Institution in the country.
We have this election in February and in many ways, it was the first time that a military dictator turned power over to a civilian government as a result of an election in the history of Pakistan.
But whenever Pakistan gets into trouble, the military comes back.
No civilian government -- every civilian government knows it has to have a close relationship with the army.
Right now, most analysts do believe that the Pakistani civilian government is a bit weak.
The two parties that form the coalition are still haggling over what to do with the restoration of the Supreme Court and they have not quite gotten as strong as they would like to.
That is the situation where the military becomes stronger.

JZ: There is another story in the New York Times about the CIA going to Pakistan, to relevant government officials and assuring them of evidence that the intelligence services in Pakistan have direct links with the Taliban, that they are in fact engaged in supportive activities there.
That is a concern.
It has long been talked about here, talked about in Afghanistan.
The Pakistanis have denied it.
The question is, is that a situation that the government can sustain?
The intelligence agencies push back on the government as well?

WC: One thing to remember is that the “ISI” is part of the army and the army has always been consistent in its assessment of what is threatening Pakistan.
The primal threat to Pakistan they believe comes from India.
They believe that before 2001 when their policy was to support the Taliban on the western front because they knew they faced a hostile India on their eastern front.
After 2001, there was the hope that a stable government could be placed in Afghanistan.
The nightmare of the army and the government in Pakistan is that they will be squeezed on both sides, both the west and east by India.
The first couple of months, it went very well.
“ISI” was operating very closely with the CIA and FBI and taking down operatives one after another.
At a certain point, it stopped.
After a couple of years, and the experts say that they were afraid that Afghanistan was becoming a stronghold for India.
They had a development project a bit too close to the border.

JZ: [UNINTELLIGIBLE]
of the military shows too much push back.

WC: I think that is Pakistani history.

JZ: two other questions.
In Congress, there is a hold in the House Foreign Affairs Committee for money that we wanted to provide for counter-terrorism purposes now being reprogrammed in the F-16s.
Does that send the right message?
And secondly, this biden/luger Bill to provide money for 10-15 years, that is a huge amount of foreign assistance.
Are we trying to start tinkering with the military assistance program and is this the right tinkering?

WC: Let me start first with the Biden/Luger bill, which is also co-sponsored by Barack Obama.
We have had counter-terrorism efforts along the Afghanistan border, but not one that deals with all of Pakistan.
We have not had a counter terrorism situation in the region unless there is the support of the people.
This Bill addresses the Pakistani people.
It is not simply a military bill.
It delivers education -- it is all for civilian purposes -- delivers education, strengthens the rule of law.

JZ: Is it going to pass?

WC: I certainly hope so.
I think the Bush Administration does support it.
There is some question about military performance.

JZ: We are out of time.
The first time I had you on was to do with the papers that we talked about that proposed something like this.
Thank you very much for being with us, Wendy Chamberlain.
See you next week on "Viewpoint."