that's jon kyl. don't be surprised if we hear from the president directly about s.t.a.r.t. over here in the next few hours fwrainkly. they know they need to keep moving this ball on the record, on camera a little bit more because, frankly, they haven't done a sales job on tvery well. >> that's exactly where we're going next. perfect segue. >>> we have with us the negotiator, the assistant secretary of state who negoti e negotiated the treaty in the first place. the question is, will republican efforts to scuttle this treaty undermine the president's broader influence overseas on iran and a host of other issues. assistant secretary of state rose gottemoeller negotiated the trey and is with us now. let's talk about what's at stake. you've been negotiated arms control treaties for decades and you know better than anybody else, the rolling effect if this is not negotiaratified we shoul. what will russia do, for instance? >> let me start with the positive results. once the treaty was with entrained, the president signed it in april. we have been able to develop great koorps with

john kyl saying he does not want this agreement to expire. he says he wants there to be a new deal with russia. says he wants to go back to doing this thing that we have always done. trust, but verify. reagan's big idea, we've got to get back to that says john kyl. but now the fact that barack obama wants to get back to that too is enough to get that specific guy, that specific senator to block our country from doing it. this past april, president obama secured an agreement with russia to get our inspectors back in there. another start to nuclear arms treaty. all the senate had to do was ratify it, sign off on it. did that happen? no. back then, they said the deal couldn't be considered before the august recess. the august recess came and gone and no, no, no, no we can't ratify it before the midterm elections. now the midterm elections have come and gone, john kyl, now can we ratify it? you say it is so awful we don't have an agreement with russia on this, you want to make sure we have this agreement, it's awful it's been allowed to expire. n

kyl wants a safe and secure america. just like i do. and is well motivated, so senator kyl has never said to me that he does not want to see s.t.a.r.t. ratified. what he said is that he just felt like there wasn't enough time to get it done in the lame duck and i take his word. >> we think about the most important issues in the world and one might be avoiding the still possibility of some kind of nuclear change between us and the soviet union. this is big to say the least. why is one senator standing up against what seems to be a decision by the national security establishment right and left, and left, the joint chiefs, the secretary of defense, the secretary of state, the former secretary of state colin powell, henry kissinger, hagel, ken baker, duberstein, everyone that we can think of that has studied these issues. avoid a nuclear war which is a minimal goal for this planet. why is this senator able to stop this. >> i think i'm not sure if it's just one senator. i think that senator kyl's probably not acting alone her

>> when it comes to this issue we respect jon kyl. i think he has worked harder than maybe any senator to understand the issue and be part of the policy decisions we face. here is the reality. we live in a dangerous world. the failure of the united states senate to ratify the start treaty is going to pose a danger. let me give an analogy. it wasn't that long ago that president george w. bush appealed to congress to rewrite our intelligence agencies with a new department of department of homeland security. susan collins, joe lieberman, a democrat, got together and did it. they have constructed this new scenario and did it during a lame-duck session. there is no excuse for us to ignore that responsibility and wait several months. while we wait, there will be no inspectors on the ground in russia to make sure that their nuclear weapons are safe and treaty compliant. >> senator kyl, what do you need the time for? "the new york times" reported -- is this anything other than trying to snub the president, senator? >> of course. harry reid, t

now more bad news for obama and the new start treaty just yesterday arizona senator jon kyl they came republican voice need to get the minimum age e.o.p. votes announced that he doesn't think there's any time in this lame duck session to hold a vote especially considering the complex and unresolved issues related to the treaty those issues being his calls for nuclear modernization even though reports say the white house has already offered an additional four point one billion for nuclear facilities now with an unexpected turn around from kabul secretary of state hillary clinton turned on her charm hosting a breakfast meeting with lawmakers from both parties this morning stressing the importance of the treaty to national security but if if other republicans get their way will the start treaty obama's top foreign policy success be doomed for good once the new congress is sworn in or can obama still get tough before the clock runs out and hear this case with me is joe cirincione president of the ploughshares fund a global security foundation joe thanks so much for being hired leasure now

as i discussed with secretary clinton jon kyl is sort of a lead dog on this for the republicans said there is not enough time in the lame duck session let's wait until there is a new congress and new senators who have just been elected by the american people and consider it then. the white house, though, seems to be upping the ante for a vote this year. the president keeps pushing it. he talked in lisbon about the strategic importance of this. he got a lot of nato leaders to support it and also got some eastern european foreign ministers to support it. they seem to really want to make this a big issue before the end of the year. >> they do. vice president biden had a bunch of us who talk foreign policy into the white house and went an hour and a half to tell us how important it was is that it happen in the lame duck. i don't see the strength of the argument honestly. i think they will get the treaty through. you have ten year republican senators. the treaty was signed in april. if it were urgent they had plenty of months to get it through. they controlled the senate. they had 59 sena

senator kyl has blocked this. i did talk to one senior u.s. officials who said they do believe that kyl's objections are substantive, not accusing him of being politically motivated but others are, including the new york times today, in a scathing editorial. no question as david mentioned, they are up against this political clock as well, come january, it's a much more republican senate and that's why they are trying to put the pedal to the metal. >> the new york times editorial lays it out there, it says, the treaty is so central to this country's national security and the objections from mr. kyl and the whole republican leadership are so absurd that their limitless desire to deny president obama success. they like to claim they are the paerlt of national security. we can only hope other senators will decide security interest will trump political maneuvering. are we seeing not just in the european and asia reaction the fact that south korea snubbed the president on this treaty after mismanagement at the white house level some would argue, but

is it dick lugar or jon kyl, right now jon kyl seems to be holding the upper hand. >> luka, let me turn to you on another issue. congressman charlie rangel facing a censure. what happens next? this isn't totally done and done yet, right? >> no, it isn't, savannah. in the history of the house there's only been 22 censures and exactly what could happen to mr. rangel, it has to go to the house floor, and the collective body, has to vote on whether they approve krenures, if they do approve censure, charlie rangel would have to stand in the well of the house and possibly have speaker pelosi read the charges against him, almost a public admonishment, and the house could vote on something else and give him reprimand of sorts, you better believe a lot of republicans and democrats will vote for that as well. it will be interesting to see whether or not it happens. the timeline possibly sometime in december. we have no concrete details yet, but a big deal. i mean, it has not happened since 1983, and not widely used at all. it's the second most serious thing apart from expulsion. >> just to watch

this week that has been sort of stopped, stopped and started in the senate by jon kyl. can i ask you, i'm basically going to wave around a veritable who's who of republican and democratic former secretaries of state, of defense, all sorts of people who have been studying this for a long time and say that this has to be ratified. does it have to be ratified? is this necessary for u.s. national security? >> i think this is more than anything else it's a national security issue. i was involved extensively in the negotiations with my counterpart in russia. we have for decades have had treaties with them to be able to verify aspects of the nuclear weapons capabilities that we both have, and from a national security perspective this is absolutely critical. >> so when it comes to the military impact of this treaty, are you convinced that all the military issues have been dealt with and the united states would be no weaker or in no worse place if this was ratified? >> completely comfortable with where we are militarily. myself, the rest of the uniform leadership, as well as the

. >> republican jon kyl of arizona is holding up the vote over concerns the u.s. nuclear arsenal first needs to be modernized. kyl says he doesn't think this can be resolved during the brief lame duck session given what he calls complex and unresolved issues surrounding the treaty. at least one republican, indiana senator richard lugar does support the treaty. >> we are talking today about the national security of the united states of america. >> but we're also talking about politics. when the new congress comes to town, democrats will hold fewer seats in the senate, making a vote for an obama priority that much more difficult. could kyl be running out the clock hoping to hand president obama a foreign policy defeat. >> senator kyl has a long track record of being very sincere and very studious in his thinking about nuclear issues and, therefore, i do not suspect partisan intent. and i take him at his word that he simply needs more time to contemplate the issues. >> white house press secretary robert gibbs was asked today if democrats have the 67 votes needed to r

this week that has been sort of stopped, stopping and started in the senate by jon kyl. can i ask you, i'm basically going to wave around a veritable who's who of republican and democrat former seconds of state, of defense, all sorts of people who have been studying this for a long time and say that this has to be ratified. does it have to be ratified? is this necessary for u.s. national security? >> i think this is more than anything else it's a national security issue. i was involved extensively in the negotiations with my counterpart in russia. we have for decades have had treaties with them to be able to verify aspects of the nuclear weapons capabilities that we both have and from a national security perspective this is absolutely critical. >> so when it comes to the military impact of this treaty, are you convinced that all the military issues have been dealt with and the united states would be no weaker or in no worse place if this was ratified? >> completely comfortable with where we are militarily. myself, the rest of the uniform leadership as well as the secreta

i had an opportunity to sit down with senator kyl's staff. of course. we want a safe arsonal for the united states. another thing that came out of the weekend, nato agrees that nato must remain a nuclear alliance. certainly that's part of our nuclear review this past spring. $84 billion, $84.1 billion, is is significant increase from what the previous budget was. everyone who has taken a hard look at what that can do agrees that's more than sufficient. good question. i think the answer have been has been given back. >> very quickly, hillary clinton said this was a matter of life or death and would you put the stakes that high? >> absolutely. inni i think the matter of life and death is we need to have verification and monitoring of 90% of the world's nuclear weapons. the senate's got a responsibility to do that. >> john adams, it's great to have your perspective this morning. >>> coming up, ireland's $100 billion bailout. will what happens across the pond have a big slash here? >>> plus, gunned down on the streets of beverly hills. was ronni chasen targ

instead they negotiated with senator kyl. i thought they would be better off. i think secretary clinton said they are not going to try to go around senator kyl. they are going to play hard ball. if they do to senator mcconnell and say not necessarily push it through the lame duck give us the commitment it will be brought up in february or march and brought up in regular order. >> who controls the new senate. senator reid. republicans are not going filibuster a treaty and if they had 67 votes they will have 67 votes for it. i think the focus on the lame duck is self-defeating by the administration. i think signaled the backing off from the white house sort of attempts to bluster. >> bill, it's not good -- >> what if they lose? >> they will not lose that vote. >> they have to convince 67 senators. >> they have to do that in the lame duck or the regularring session. >> why is it not a good treatia? you saw the lineup of republican who came into the white house i mean everybody said this is a necessary deal and it looks like jon kyl is saying you know what, let's g

instead they negotiated with senator kyl. i thought they would be better off. i think secretary clinton said they are not going to try to go around senator kyl. they are going to play hard ball. if they do to senator mcconnell and say not necessarily push it through the lame duck give us the commitment it will be brought up in february or march and brought up in regular order. >> who controls the new senate. senator reid. republicans are not going filibuster a treaty and if they had 67 votes they will have 67 i think the focus on the lame duck is self-defeating by the administration. i think signaled the backing off from the white house sort of attempts to bluster. >> bill, it's not good -- >> what if they lose? >> they will not lose that vote. >> they have to convince 67 senators. >> they have to do that in the lame duck or the regularring session. >> why is it not a good treatia? you saw the lineup of republican who came into the white house i mean everybody said this is a necessary deal and it looks like jon kyl is saying you know what, let's get back to obs

it has been vetted and the white house has come pretty far in trying to assure senator kyl and come up with funding for it and on the other side i agree with those who say, president clinton is right, excuse me, obama is rushing this. because he is -- will look for 14 republicans, versus nine, come january and does it have to be passed? yes, it is important and urgent and, maybe not today or next week but it is urgent to help. and it is important, it doesn't have to be done by -- >> they don't have all the votes, so... >> chris: that is certainly true. >> unless son... >> when i worked on continued hill. >> chris: 67 in this case, when we come back, how close is too close, we'll debate the controversy over new airport security measures, after the break. boss: and now i'll turn it over to the gecko. gecko: ah, thank you, sir. as we all know, geico has been saving people money on rv, camper and trailer insurance... ...as well as motorcycle insurance... gecko: oh...sorry, technical difficulties. boss: uh...what about this? gecko: what's this one do? gecko: um...maybe that one. ♪ dance m

especially john kyl. i don't understand why the republicans are not voting for this and i will fight furiously when next time to vote to vote john kyl out if he does not follow through with this. this is definitely important to our country and i am worried and i have everybody in the country does not, the republicans do not vote for this, i hope their constituency votes them out. if the tea parties are the people who are for erica, then this should be voted for america. this treaty. guest: well, thank you very much. chris. i do feel strongly nuclear arms reduction and control should be a bipartisan matter. i do think it's very important. i have been fascinated and really glad to hear the interest you have shown because i have had the opportuty over the last month while the senate and use were out, the opportunity it to travel around the country and talk to people all over the place, des moines. louisville. it did go on the back burner after the cold war. as i said earlier, i worry about things drifting if

this is the third time senator kyl has blocked it. now it is clear to me this is almost specious. it is politics. i think it's an outrage. it is getting to the point where it's outrageous. >> kyl's position has been -- well, let me go back one second. kyl's position in my conversations with him has been there are all these terrible things these guys want to do, like a comprehensive test ban treaty, deep cults and so forth. i'll never fore permit that. the start treaty has been, well, i'm suspicious but if they do this and that, than maybe i'll think it's okay. the big "this" is what's called modernization. spend lots money on the nuclear infrastructure. the obama administration said fine, we're going to spend a ridiculous amount of money. >> $80 billion. >> an insane amount of money -- >> $10 billion more on top of that so -- >> the point is it's like they called his bluff, then he said, i got a new one. it strikes me as being extremely cynical on his part. >> which is why the question i am now brought to is what happens if harry reid says, you know what, i'm bringing this to the

this is the third time senator kyl has blocked it. now it is clear to me this is almost specious. it is politics. i think it's an outrage. it is getting to the point where it's outrageous. >> kyl's position has been -- well, let me go back one second. kyl's position in my conversations with him has been there are all these terrible things these guys want to do, like a comprehensive test ban treaty, deep cults and so forth. i'll never fopermit that. the start treaty has been, well, i'm suspicious but if they do this and that, than maybe i'll think it's okay. the big "this" is what's called modernization. spend lots money on the nuclear infrastructure. the obama administration said fine, we're going to spend a ridiculous amount of money. >> $80 billion. >> an insane amount of money -- >> $10 billion more on top of that so -- >> the point is it's like they called his bluff, then he said, i got a new one. it strikes me as being extremely cynical on his part. >> which is why the question i am now brought to is what happens if harry reid says, you know what, i'm bringing this to the flo

some republicans, including senator jon kyl from arizona are standing in the way so far. kyl relied a statement saying quote when majority leader harry reid asked me if i thought the treaty could be considered in a lame duck session i relied did i not think so given the combination of the other work congress must do and the unresolved and issues related to the start and modernization. i appreciate the recent effort and the administration to address some of the issues that we have raised and i look forward to continuing to work with senator john kerry, the department of defense and department of energy officials. where are we on this and how big of a set back is it? back with the panel. >> hillary clinton talked about the pause button and they want to get back to the re-set button sometimes it wants to you reach for the mute button. >> bret: that was good. >> probably too hard. the real problem fundamentally they are trying to squeeze in too much. all of the sudden in the lame duck session the administration's top priority. i think that has to do in part what the president

if jon kyl provaevails in this bill, he leads our country vulnerable. the last thing our country needs at this moment in history. >> what political story will make headlines in the next 24 hours? chris cillizza, managing editor of postpolitics.com and author of the fix joins us now. >> hi, andrea. >> hey, chris. >> keep an eye -- the house leadership elections. it's not super -- it hasn't drawn that much attention. nancy pelo nancy pelosi made things so that jim clyburn is going to be number three, the south carolin to be number two. moderate and conservative democrats, many said they don't want her to run for minority leader. they know they can't keep her from it. she has the votes. the caucus has gotten more liberal. but they're going to try to send some messages tomorrow behind closed doors to try to send the message that this is not acceptable. again, ploelosi is going to win but there could be a little drama and intrigue. >> more drama and intrigue in washington. >> what would have thought it? >> thanks so much. that does it for us for this edition

gets what he wants and then maybe kyl will step back on ratification on the treaty. the process of this negotiation at least from the outside has been very slow. i wouldn't put my money on its ratification this year. >> mark, how much does it matter whether this treaty is ratified. >> i think does matter, judy. i think it certainly matters. it matters on the fact that 95% of all the nuclear weapons in the world,ç we just tadkdd about nuclear weapons are held by the united states and russia. but it has come down to one man. we can talk about the advice that gets senate to the-- advice and consent-of-one senator. the republicans have deferred to him as their spokesman, not dick lugar who is the recognized authority on this but john kyl, the fuft most conservative man in the united states senate. and david's right. the administration has been quite circumspect about expressing anything criticism of him publicly. but yet he publicly states that he questions, even though the administration has given him everything he wants on the modernization of nuclear weapons, he que

jon kyl wants to look at it longer. jon kyl, the influential member on these issues that the republicans are looking to for leadership here. today, not withstanding jon kyl and influence he has on conservatives in the senate who have 41 members at this moment, come january 5th, they'll have many more. so the margins will be narrowed. but the white house insists all is not lost. quite the opposite. a full measure of confidence, robert gibbs says that they have the votes, it will come up this year and it's going to pass this year. another influential voice, been around for a while on foreign policy issues, has been the ranking member of the foreign relations committee in the senate, richard lugar of indiana. he wants to see this thing passed. the problem is i told you the numbers the way they stand right now. to ratify a treaty in the senate takes 2/3 of the senate. that's 67 votes. so a lot of people today are questioning where that confidence that robert gibbs expressed today is coming from. so very much up in the air a

gets what he wants and then maybe kyl will step back on ratification on the treaty. the process of this negotiation at least from the outside has been very slow. i wouldn't put my money on its ratification this year. >> mark, how much does it matter whether this treaty is ratified. >> i think does matter, judy. i think it certainly matters. it matters on the fact that 95% of all the nuclear weapons in the world,ç we just tadkdd about nuclear weapons are held by the united states and russia. but it has come down to one man. we can talk about the advice that gets senate to the-- advice and consent-of-one senator. the republicans have deferred to him as their spokesman, not dick lugar who is the recognized authority on this but john kyl, the fuft most conservative man in the united states senate. and david's right. the administration h been quite circumspect about expressing anything criticism of him publicly. but yet he publicly states that he questions, even though the administration has given him everything he wants on the modernization of nuclear weapons, he quest

and they thought they had a deal with kyl. but he shocked him when he said, he doesn't want to do it. and he doesn't want to bring it up in this senate. if it has to spill over then the whole process starts all over again and there has to be no hearings. and of course, there will be many more republican senators. they would need 14 republicans to vote for it because remember this is a treaty. it needs 67 votes. >> if 80 billion isn't snuff what is enough for jon kyl? >> he hasn't said. help hasn't said that his particular objections for treaty itself. for a while they thought it would stop the united states from announcing a.b.m. systems. but in fact, when you read the treaty, wording doesn't seem to be there that would really restrict it. and in fact, nato today when the president was in lisbon imimportants a system. they're not just trying to deny president obama a victory on the treaty. if in fact, it's an incri mental stop does that mean that congress is hiding the consequences? >> you just don't know until you see it. the

jon kyl is throwing up a new roadblock. i want to let mark get in on this conversation. how do you respond to what matt is say sng. >> well, you're making a lot of my case. i'll make it hopefully more forcefully. i respect what matt is sayi ing but i violently disagree. let's be clear here. national and global security have never been a partisan issue. that goes back for many years. and suddenly jon kyl has decided to make national and global security a partisan issue. point number one. point number two, for him to decide these millions of dollars needs to be funded by savings elsewhere, forget the tax cuts, just the military spending alone. and i would like to remind my republican friends across the aisle that national security was not a security when the republican support that he saw. when major members of the international community are supporting this, i think it's shameless. >> let me make this point, though. as far as i know historically i don't believe we've had any sort of treaty deal or something of this magnitude decided during a lame duck session. although bo

especially john kyl. i don't understand why the republicans are not voting for this and i will fight furiously when next time to vote to vote john kyl out if he does not follow through with this. this is definitely importa to our country and i am worried and i have everybody in the country does not, the republicans do not vote for this, i hope their constiency votes them out. if the tea parties are the people who are for america, then this should be voted for america. this treaty. guest: well, thank you very much. chris. i do feel strongly nuclear arms reduction and control should be a bipartisan matter. i do think it's very important. i have been fascinated and really glad to hear the interest you have shown because i have had the opportunity over the last month while the sene and house were out, the opportunity it to travel around the country and talk to people all over the place, des moines. louisville. it did go on the back burner after the cold war. as i said earlier, i worry about things drifting if

senator john kyl, the republicans' point man on nuclear arms issues, says he will not support a quick senate vote on the so-called new start treaty. the arizona senator said, "when majority leader harry reid asked me if i thought the treaty could be considered in the lame duck session i replied i did not think so given the combination of the parties and you do to the complex and unresolved issues related to modernization. the obama administration is calling for russia and the united states to pare back their nuclear arsenals. vice president biden is responding to senator kyl saying "failure to pass the new treaty this year would endanger our national security. the treaty is a fundamental part of our rip w russia, critical to our ability to supply troops in afghanistan and impose and enforce strong sanctions on the iranian government." and senate foreign affairs chairman john kerry, who's been pushing the issue in the senate, is expressing hope that there's still an opening to act in the lame duck session. however, winning approval of the treaty will only become harder for the white ho

being motivated by politics. >> i have spoken to senator kyl directly. senator kyl has never said to me that he does not want to see s.t.a.r.t. ratified. >> reporter: back to afghanistan. president obama also said today during his one-on-one meeting with afghanistan president hamid karzai that karzai brought up his concern about the united states' use of private security, contractors, president obama defended the use, lester by saying, you know what, until i can send u.s. aid workers into certain provinces to build schools without fear of the taliban, then he won't use them. but for now he has to do it. lester? >> chuck todd with the president in lisbon for us tonight. chuck, thanks. our chief foreign correspondent richard engel is here with me at bagram airfield. richard, you watched the drawdown in iraq. you've covered this war. what does this mean for u.s. troops? >> four more years of combat operations, lester. that means for many troops, at least one, possibly two more combat deployments, and after that a relatively open-ended training operation. it

senator kyl so hard to take you seriously when you say one thing on t.v. i mean you do the exact opposite now to quote david weigel over at slate he said it's not an earmark if you close your eyes and wish really really hard but senator john kyl it is an earmark and you are a liar and that's why you are tonight to a time where. now this last week everywhere you turned there was a story about sarah palin she's got a new book out which of course means a book tour and she's on t.v. picking fights with everyone from president obama to katie couric well tonight the residents lori harf and as new yorkers can sarah palin really be elected president . sarah palin has a reality show her daughter is on a reality show and she has a new book coming out with all this promotion it seems like she might be gearing up to run in two thousand and twelve do you think she's a viable candidate for president of the united states this week let's talk about that i think absolutely she could not be president. i don't think that she has the smarts i don't think if she has the politi

>> i have spoken to senator kyl directly. i believe senator kyl wants a safe and secure america, just like i do, and is well motivated. so what i said in terms of partisanship is that the climate in washington is one where it's hard to get parties to cooperate, especially after after a big election. that's understandable. folks are reorganizing. you have a lame duck session. there is a limited amount of time. it's been a long year. we've done a lot of stuff. people are i thinking about thanksgiving and getting off to christmas. i'm sure the republican caucus and the senate is really focused on next year. we're going to have a republican house. what are the things we want to get done and what are our priorities. so senator kyl has never said to me he does not want to see s.t.a.r.t. ratified. he hasn't publicly said he's opposed to the treaty. what he said is he didn't feel like there was enough time to get it done in the lame duck. and i take him at his word. what i'm trying to communicate is this an issue of critical national

to essentially frame ideal that just using senator kyl's place, that would be acceptable to senator kyl. and i.t. would be passed in the lame-duck session. because that would represent a commitment on the part of administration and democrats, as a party to nuclear modernization or missile defense that has been so far lacking. now, you could really take that to the bank for very long, i don't think, but in american politics that is as good as it gets. so if you can't assure me of that, and actually i would like to put this whole discussion in the rearview mirror and talk about the things that i was describing earlier, and also part of voting for the treaty would be like a five year moratorium on arms control negotiations with the russians. just simply cut it out and start, let's start talking about the things that are more critically important that so if you could meet those two threshold tests, i would be willing to vote for the treaty. and the sooner the better. >> i think you just ratified it. [laughter] >> thank you all for being here. thanks for the panel. [applause] [inaudible conv

bei motivated by polics. >> i have spoken to senator kyl directly. senator kyl has never said to me that he does not want to see s.t.a.r.t. ratified. >> reporter:ack to afghanistan. president obama also said today during his one-on-one meeting with afghanistan psident hamid karzai that karzai brought up his concern about the united states' use of private security, contractors, president obama defended the use, lester by sang, you know what, until i can send u.s. aid workers into certain provinces to build schools without fear of the taliban, then he won't use them. but for now he has to do it. lester? >> chuck todd with the president in lisbon for us tonight. chuck, thanks. our chief foreign correspondent richard engel isere with me at bagram airfield. richard, you watched the drawdown in iraq. you've covered this war. what does this mean for u.s. troops? >>our more years of combat operations, lester. that means for many troops, at least one, possibly two more combat deployments, and after that a relatively open-ended training operation. it means fou

caller: i think the focus on john kyl is only the mouthpiece. i think the directives are coming. >> mitch mcconnell who sees the ratification for the accomplishment of president obama. that would be a loss for the republicans. i wish we would speak frankly and only about tt aspect of it. guest: i mentioned i was in leona lewis -- lewisville, i had the opportunity to see the legacy of senator mcconnell how he handled domestic policy. it's clear he's a leader that believes in consens. it will play out in the -coming work on the senate floor for the new start treaty. you're right, he will play a very important role has the republican leader. he is a very, very experienced hand and somebody that has been working these issues. host: that's a very diplomatic answer. guest: it was quite a coincidence, i didn't have a chance to visit that center. i had a spare hour and it was very, very interesting. host: host: madam secretary. have you had a chance to speak to senator mcconnell? guest: on the on this issue. host: will you be spending time on the hill t

that really is indefensible with john kyl but john kyl is a republican. john mccain is hiding behind john kyl who has always been a supporter of the start treaty in the past. and they've brought up, this is a treaty that is supported by henry kissinger, jim baker, condi rice, bob gates, george schultz. i mean it's bipartisan republicans across-- it is quite frankly passed the committee 14-4. you know t is in the interest of the united states and they are just, i can only conclude this is about embarrassing the president. i really can. >> i sport of agree with that. i don't see the big deal. i don't see the big deal about the treaty. if you look at the reduction in warheads it is a drop from like 1750 to 1550. it not a huge thing. the substance is not huge. but the atmospherics help us deal with russia. it helps us deal with our allies, so it is not that important a thing. why make a big opposition to a thing that isn't that important. unless are you motivated with some sort of cold war memories or you just want to oppose the president. so i think it's unf