Finally . . . a lot of waiting for two quick responses
Couldn't say I liked the rushed delivery of the host, and the bent throughout the broadcast was high skepticism for anything Bush said, so there was only so much to be done with the show's rather obvious agenda.
First question was basically along the lines of "How can we push for freedom everywhere when things are so bad in the Middle East and we're bogged down there?"
I gave a rather boilerplate response ending on Iran.
Later, host gives me chance to explain my "rather flip article" that nonetheless deals with some important topics, and I explain why I believe Iran is a crucial future security partner of the U.S. to be coopted, not isolated.
Host later mentions my argument on China and Korea and then, for some reason, gives it to the other guy on line, John Diamond of USA Today, whose work is good. Still, why she cited my argument and then asked him to comment versus me was a bit odd. His response, not surprisingly, was fairly boilerplate (US forced to ask non-democratic China for help on North Korea).
In the end, the whole thing had a very rushed feel, right down to the endless speculation on the alleged plot of four Chinese nationals to blow a dirty nuke in Boston. The noise to signal ratio on that story is so high it's almost a completely useless topic of discussion, other than to get Bostonians jacked.
In general, although I know it's good for me to get on national media as a commentator, I really prefer to get on to discuss my articles and books rather than just comment on current events off the cuff. But acknowledging the value of the profile that results from such interactions, you try to make your peace with the process. It's just that super-rushed feel whenever you're doing the events as opposed to your ideas. The show has to slow to figure you out in the latter, but it's always rushing to the next expert in the former.