but we have shortcomings in afghanistan still. afghanistan's still a very, very poor country. the work that we have done promises a better future for all of us and afghanistan will assure you, mr. president, that it will take the right steps in bringing a better government to afghanistan for the benefit of the afghan people and in partnership with the united states of america. i thank you once again, mr. president, for the tremendous hospitality. >> thank you very much. thank you. we've got time for two questions from the u.s. press, two questions from the afghan press. and so i will start with mark noeler of cbs radio. where's mark? there he is. good to see you, mark. >> gentlemen, it sounds from your statements as though you've been able to put aside the tensions and frictions that were in evidence a month or so ago. can you tell us if you discussed those concerns that were raised at that time, and have you figured out how the relationship may have come off the tracks? and, mr. president, may i also ask you about your talk with the new prime minister of the united kingdom ye

i'm a correspondent from afghanistan. today i'm not in afghanistan. as long as i remember regarding afghanistan situation, the only reason that afghanistan is not stabilized pakistan -- president obama about pakistan. pakistan is in two phases. that's why all the time we have problem. pakistan government is not really, really honest regarding afghanistan. i need your answer. what is the new policy of united states to solve this problem? and, next question for president karzai, i want to ask -- i want to ask him my question in -- and i want to answer it that way, too. [ speaking in foreign language ] >>> all right. you're hearing the news conference right now between president obama and afghan president hamid karzai. let's see if hamid karzai translates that question. >> president karzai and i have in the past met with pakistan's president, president zardari, as well as their intelligence officers, their military, their teams, and emphasized to pakistan the fact that our security is intertwined. i think there has been in the past a view on the part of

change afghanistan enormous costs and you've changed afghanistan period. afghanistan does not resonate. >> i have the greatest respect for tom ridge. excuse me. tom ricks, i have the greatest report for. mr. friedman was wrong about iraq. he said we couldn't succeed in iraq. we would fail and had to withdraw. enough said. >> the question still stands. what do you win if you win? how does it resonate? >> you win stability in the region. you win a reduction in the threat of radical islamic extremism. you win elimination of a goal for attacks on the united states of america. clearly taliban and al qaeda would work together if we were able to succeed and you don't send a message of an american defeat which would reverbrate throughout the region and the word. i'm confident with the right kind of military and civilian team in kabul that we can succeed and it will be long and hard and tough. >> do we stick it out at any costs? >> i sound tough to you but i just talked on the phone to a young man who is an amputee. i met him at walter reed. he's now at bethesda. i

is nation building possible in the badlands of afghanistan? >> and, begin. >> reporter: at 57, general david petraeus is easily america's most famous warrior. on this morning, we find him in the middle of physical training as this fiercely competitive four-star general works over soldiers half had his age. >> good morning, marine. how are you? >> reporter: -- with the same intensity as he works the war plan. despite his reputation for taking on the toughest jobs, general petraeus admits he had his doubts about this assignment. >> obviously that crosses your mind. to be candid, i thought i had done my last one of this type but it's a privilege to do it with the tremendous team that we have out here. >> reporter: he recalled the candid, one-on-one conversation he had with president obama the day he was tapped for the job. >> well, we talked about literally again the importance of the mission, the importance of our commitment to it. talked about the way ahead. talked about the various dynamics that are at play here that obviously give impressions

policy in afghanistan. now, i think that's really where this -- the direction of the story is likely to go. the obama administration is in a difficult situation here. it has as glenn greenwald pointed out, tried to make an issue of leaks of classified information. in fact, ironically they've had far more prosecutions and investigations, leak investigations in this administration than we saw in the previous eight years of the bush administration. the bush administration talked about decrying leaks. the obama administration has tried to act on it. they prosecute ad whistle blower. they have a number of other investigations going. they subpoenaed a reporter, james risen to go back before a grand jury to talk about an eight-year-old, nine-year-old leak. they've showed they're serious and tried to send a message to u.s. officials. sort of fear. put fear into their minds about leaking classified information. what this shows is perhaps they're not having the kind of effect they would like to have. >> all right. no

is nation building possible in the bad lands of afghanistan? at 57, general david petraeus is easily america's most famous warrior. on this morning, we find him in the middle of physical training as this fiercely competitive four-star general works over soldiers half had his age. >> good morning, marine. how are you? >> with the same intensity as he works the war plan. despite his reputation for taking on the toughest jobs, general petraeus admits he had his doubts about this assignment. >> obviously that crosses your mind. to be candid, i thought i had done my last one of this type but it's a privilege to do it with the tremendous team that we have out here. >> he recalled the candid one-on-one conversation he had with president obama the day he was tapped for the job. >> well, we talked about literally again the importance of the mission, the importance of our commitment to it. talked about the way ahead. talked about the various dynamics that are at play here that obviously give impressions about our commitment and so forth. i didn't come ou

in other words, afghanistan will always be afghanistan. you're not going to change the society there. how do we know when it's time to go? >> anything to agree on is when the vice president said we are not trying to build a jeffersonian democracy in afghanistan. >> not possible. >> not going to happen. i remember somebody in the administration saying a while back, nlg, maybe we some day after we leave we could get them up to bangladesh. we're not shooting for the moon here. i think it's up to whether how much faith you have in your chief executive at this point. do you trust him to do as well as he can while there and also to be planning to get out of there? and i tend to trust him. >> a question of cost, the human life and cover of "time" magazine and had that discussion earlier and hard to forget that angle of it, the fact that we have given women a reason to hope in afghanistan. that we have done something there. >> you also have to imagine, like, what you would think, the country would have felt after barack obama became president he d

forces and na forces in afghanistan. in after the president met with his national security team in the situation room in the white house basement. it is unclear whether the general who met separately with the president earlier today swes separate meeting with the defense secretary has resigned, fired or chewed out. this hour, former defense secretary, william cohen joining us. senator joe lieberman from capitol hill. plus, analysis with chris matthews. in the gulf, meanwhile, a problem with gas. forces bp to remove the cap over the leaking well. this as we learn of two deaths among those working to contain the spill. it is not clear whether those people died because of work-related injuries. in practice, strong winds and high waves are pushing large amounts of oil ashore at pensacola beach. we will have the latest with senator bill nelson. exclusive preview with chuck todd in the white house. a crucial goal advances team usa to the next round of the world cup. and for first time in nearly 80 years, the u.s. is at the top

america's strategy in afghanistan, america's war in afghanistan. saying rude things about other people you work with, even your boss, even the president, may not be enough to bring down this much heat under normal circumstances. the reason these comments have brought down this much heat is because general mcchrystal is acting as a lightning rod. he is the lightning rod protecting the structure of what we're doing in afghanistan. he is mr. counter against. counter insurgency. he's the personification and the leader of this doctrine that has led a president who said he wanted to make the focus in afghanistan very narrow. who said he wanted to not get botheringed down in a quagmire, who said he wanted to not do nation building, that led a president with those goals to triple the number of troops we've got there. in year nine of the war. and so now general mcchrystal has attracted this light and heat to himself with these unfortunate impolitic comments. like a lightning rod does. but the question is, will he actually work as a lightning rod? will he fu

i guess the question is, what are we fighting for in afghanistan? can you discern the president's strategy? let's hear your best version, congressman mcgovern, of when you believe is the president's war policy. and the same thing i'm going to ask of congressman nadler. >> of all the problems that this president inherited from george bush, the war in afghanistan is the one that gets more complicated with each passing day. if the last month i've lost two constituents. two grave young men from massachusetts, lost -- two brave young men from massachusetts lost their lives fighting in afghanistan. we've got to get this rice. the mcchrystal interview and comments by leading military experts and have raised a lot of questions. even the president is fudging on the date that we will begin withdrawal. we need to get there right. >> let me go back to congressman nadler, your thoughts. give me your perspective -- who are we fighting? what's your sense of the actual war strategy right now? i know we've got rules of engagement which basically say don't shoot anyb

america's strategy in afghanistan, america's war in afghanistan. saying rude things about other people you work with, even your boss, even the president may not be enough to bring down this much heat under normal circumstances. the reason these comments have brought down this much heat is because general mckrchrystal is acting as a lightning rod. protecting the structure of what we're doing in afghanistan. he's the personification and the leader of this doctrine that has led a president who said he wanted to make the focus in afghanistan very narrow. who said he wanted to not get botheringed down in a quagmire, who said he wanted to not do nation building, that led a president with those goals to triple the number of troops we've got there. in year nine of the war. and so now general mcchrystal has attracted this light and heat to himself with these unfortunate comments like a lightning rod does. but the question is, will he actually work as a lightning rod? will he function that way? will he continue to attract all the attention to himself as an i

leading off tonight, why are we in afghanistan? the war was already losing public support and democratic votes in congress were getting harder to come by. then along comes today's bombshell. the release of classified reports on the war. the afghanistan papers contain evidence that the pakistani intelligence service and military encourage and support attacks on afghan and american forces. my question will president obama's democratic base rebel against the war he has made his own? >>> also, should affirmative action programs be ended? democratic senator jim webb basically says y because they discriminate, he says, against poor whites. plus the tax debate. democrats will argue that republicans want to protect the rich. republicans will argue that democrats just want to raise taxes. we'll have that one out here. and don't meet the press. remember this bit of video of sharron angle running away from reporters? she's not alone. why are so many republicans, tea party people especially, running away from rorers. they can run, they can hid

we're in afghanistan because if we fail in afghanistan, it will have a direct, immediate danger to us. it will increase al qaeda's worldwide reach. they will come back with the taliban in all likelihood and they will gain a worldwide success which will be very dangerous for our national security interests. so we have to be clear. the american public needs to be clear on why we're in afghanistan. this is not vietnam, a war which i participated in as a state department civilian. this is not the balkans. it's not iraq. this is quite different. this one relates directly to our safety at home. and so you've identified and picked out the number one weak link in our chain. and, luckily for us, so has this administration, starting with the team we've mentioned, david petraeus, general caldwell, general mcdonald, and other people through the chain of command. we're really focused on the police. i can also tell you that in the policy review last fall, which president obama personally conducted, which was the most intense policy review i've ever been involved in, we spent more time on the issue

here into afghanistan shortly after taking office. that's why we took a hard look and forged a new strategy and committed more resources in december. that's why we pushed our friends and allies and partners to pony up more resources themselves. more commitments of aid and additional forces and franers. our broad mission is clear. we are going to disrupt and dismantle, defeat and destroy al qaeda at its extremist allies. that is our mission. to accomplish that goal, our objectives here in afghanistan are also clear. we're going deny al qaeda safe haven. we're going reverse the taliban's momentum. we're going to strengthen the capacity of afghan security forces and the afghan government so they can begin taking responsibility and gain confidence of the afghan people. our strategy includes a military effort that takes the fight to the taliban while creating the conditions for greater security in a transition to the afghans, but also a civilian effort that improves the daily lives of the afghan people. and combats corruption. and a partne

troops are to start to leave afghanistan in a year, in july 2011. that's the time by which the third lieutenant thinks that afghan police will be able to serve their community well without u.s. help. one of the interesting things about talking with him is as he said there, he used to live in kabul. he's a shopkeeper from kabul before he became a police officer. whoo is he serving in kandahar, nearly 300 miles for home? well, part of it is that that's the way they're doing the policing. they're sending people from a national force all over the country. another part of it is practical. in a very, very concrete sense. imagine how hard it is to be a soldier or a police officer from a taliban stronghold. a place like kandahar. imagine the pressure on your family if you are a man or a woman who wants to join up, and you're from a taliban stronghold. >> people who come from parts of afghanistan with heavy, do people put their families at risk? >> there's no doubt that the families, or the people who are coming areas where taliban has more influence this is

and nato coalition forces in afghanistan. i strongly support the president's strategy in afghanistan and am deeply to the afghan people. it was out of respect for this commitment and the desire to see the mission succeed that i tendered my resignation. it has been my privilege and honor to lead our nation's finest. and if there's any sad note to this, it is this close of an absolutely stellar brilliant military career on behalf of general stan mcchrystal. >> i want to bring in the anchor of nbc "nightly news"s managing editor brian williams and david gregory. brian, you've covered both of these generals. very different, but here we are in the transition, many people said the president was being boxed in regarding afghanistan and perhaps he boxed in critics today with this transition to petraeus. >> maybe he just got whatever policy change he needs. and maybe he just as you mentioned inoculated himself against criticism. general david petraeus, unless there is a big screw up in afghanistan, is very soon going to be nearing a k

every country near afghanistan has a stake in what happens in afghanistan and has influence in afghanistan. and third, there is pakistan. and without 100% commitment from pakistan, we cannot really accomplish even the more limited objective. so we have to have a strategy which is simultaneously military for our forces, which is control what we have and don't prevent -- but do prevent a further territorial gains by the taliban. secondly, we need to engage the pakistanis in a 100% good faith effort and get the neighbors involved and we have to have the afghans themselves negotiate. all of these elements are partial military, partial political and dip plo mattic. that can be steered only from the united states. general petraeus will be doing a very good job. he's politically sophisticated. it will have to be a comprehensive strategy to disengage roughly a year from now. >> quick question? >> we don't have time. >> totally hit the wall here. >> i want to talk about meeting with the russian president. >> our thanks to everybody for the roundtable. dad, thanks very much for coming on. >> thank y

troops to afghanistan. after 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. >> that was last december, when president obama announced that the west point military academy that he would send 30,000 more americans to afghanistan. and after 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. that was then, this is now. >> there has been a lot of obsession around this whole issue of when do we leave? >> there has been a lot of obsession. that is not the word choice we associate with the commander in chief who still considers his own withdrawal date to be a sure thing or a probably thing or even a maybe thing. this weekend the whole july 20 withdraw deadline seems to have gone woksies. >> if petraeus comes to the president and says i need six more months, should that? >> i would say give it to him, absolutely. and i think he has flexibility realistically. >> do you think he has flexibility on that? speak for yourself senator feinstein, your home state colleague, the speaker of the house begs to differ. in an exclusiv

troops to leave afghanistan. general petreaus is the president's choice for the top commander in afghanistan. >> it is important to note the president's reminder in recent days that july 2011 will mark the beginning of a process, not date where the u.s. heads for the exits and turns out the lights. as he explained this past sunday, in fact, we'll need to provide assistance to afghanistan for a long time to come. >>> retired u.s. army colonel jack jacobs, he is also an msnbc military analyst. did you hear anything today that clarified for the american people when we're going to be out of afghanistan? >> no, not at all and i think it was designed not to be very specific about what we were going to do and how we were going to act. i do think that general petreaus was at least as animated as i have ever seen him. i think he had something of -- in previous testimony he's very cerebral, very matter of fact and so on. he was much more animated, sensse centorian, at least that he's up to the task. i haven't heard anythin

as well as other parts of eastern afghanistan. there's no linkage between the two. and that's one thing i hope people understand. the taliban is a very, very broad group, it's composed of seemingly infinite number of local groups, many of which have legitimate political grievances at the local and provincial levels. >> what does the taliban gain by claiming responsibility? >> i doubt this is the actual taliban that our troops are fighting, thi think this is probably a smaller group a fringe group and this could also possibly be that the karzai government is saying it's a taliban for political purposes. the one thing i think that we all agree upon is that these people who were murdered were true humanitarians, i have come across these different aid groups and they are true humanitarians, they're not there for selfish gain, they're not over there fulfilling the political mission of a country. >>er or to proselytize. >> they have will to make people's lives better in a truly nonreligious humanitarian way. and that's why it's such a t

leading off tonight, why are we in afghanistan? the war was already losing public support and democratic votes in congress were getting harder to come by. then along comes today's bombshell. the release of tens of thousands of classified on the ground reports on the war. the afghanistan papers contain evidence that the pakistani intelligence service and military encourage and support attacks on afghan and american forces. my question will president obama's democratic base rebel against the war he has made his own? >>> also, should affirmative action programs be ended? democratic senator jim webb basically says yes, because they discriminate, he says, against poor whites. we'll debate that one. plus the tax debate. it comes down to this. democrats will argue that republicans want to protect the rich. republicans will argue that democrats just want to raise taxes. we'll have that one out here. and don't meet the press. remember this bit of video of senate candidate sharron angle running away from reporters? well, she's not alone. why

when we come back, should relief afghanistan immediately? should we arrest the top anchors in the country. those fun questions get answered, and a pastor urges his congregation to get the hell off of facebook. that's next on msnbc. teaming up to bring you a low-price medicare prescription drug plan called the humana walmart-preferred prescription plan. it's a new plan that covers both brand and generic prescriptions and has the lowest-priced national premium in the country of only $14.80 per month and in-store copays as low as $2. when you could save over $450 a year, you can focus on the things that really matter. ♪ go to walmart.com for details. ♪ [ le announcer ] don't let aches anslow you down. morning introducing bayer am. its dual-action formula delivers extra strength pain relief, plus it fights fatigue. so get up and get going with new bayer am, the morning pain reliever. >>> we're leaving afghanistan in 2014. that's the main message from the white house today. that u.s. troops will stick to a time line to leave the war that's no

leading off tonight, why are we in afghanistan? the war was already losing public support and democratic votes in congress were getting harder to come by. then along comes today's bombshell. the release of classified on the ground reports on the war. the afghanistan papers contain evidence that the pakistani intelligence service and military encourage and support attacks on afghan and american forces. my question will president obama's democratic base rebel against the war he has made his own? >>> also, should affirmative action programs be ended? democratic senator jim webb basically says yes, because they diskrim narkts he says, against poor whites. we'll debate that one. plus the tax debate. it comes down to this. democrats will argue that republicans want to protect the rich. republicans will argue that democrats just want to raise taxes. we'll have that one out here. and don't meet the press. remember this bit of video of senate candidate sharron angle running away from reporters? well, she's not alone. why are so many republi

to have a footprint in afghanistan. we just don't need 100,000 troops getting shot at and killed every day. in a holding pattern. and by the way, on lindsey graham, lindsey is confused, actually, when he talks about this unholy alliance. lindsey needs to go back to the 1990s and look at all the speeches of republicans that they gave on the house floor, and in my armed services committee back in the 1990s, that i was in. we were all talking about showing restraint. not engaging the wilsonian policies of foreign policy. the unholy alliance that he speaks of is really he's talking about conservative republicans. conservative republicans. at least how we used to define conservatives. now, his grand wilsonian ideas are creating what i would consider to be, i won't sigh an unholy alliance, that's certainly a frightening term to use, i will say a troubling alliance between the likes of lindsey graham, john mccain, and joe lieberman. who have suggested that we not only keep our troops there, but possibly invade iran, possibly i

this is what afghanistan is famous for. lapus. >> beautiful. >> the ancient egyptians considered it as value or more valuable than gold. it's been valued since the ashent times. it's covered in this. you can buy bowls, figurines. it's very, very cheap. >> it's beautiful. >> anything else. if you want, we can go in here. actually, i don't know this shop. i know others. they have turquoise, ruby's emeral emeralds. the country is famous in the news because they discovered the minerals in the mountains. >> they discovered. we are talking about them, again. we knew afghanistan had incredible mineral wealth. >> lithium, we don't see much. you see rubies and emeralds and turquoise. >> with all the stuff, could wanter insurgency and governance -- >> i take her to the biggest shopping district and she's talking this. >> you are setting off the government institutions, what's going to pay for the salaries of the government workers and soldiers and police officers once -- >> i have been told this by very good sources. one of the reaso

and that's not to mention the corrupt afghanistan government. so even if we had to go into afghanistan after 9/11, does the war still make sense today? that's the hot issue that's getting hotter. >>> plus, who's the grinch? did democrats hate christmas, that's argument republicans are seriously turning into an annual rite of the season. this year it's jim demint attacking harry reid because they don't want to work past the holiday. do they know how many americans are lucky enough to have a job and are working on christmas day? and skunk at the tea party, a new stimulus bill. the old gop guard is running committees right now. too much compromise with the democrats tea partiers say and they're ready to, quote, rod stewart to republican leaders, i know i keep you amused but i feel like i'm being used. >>> finally, he won't admit it, but yet another republican, let's call mike huckabee, was for something before he was against it. wow. and we've got the tape to prove mike ain't telling the truth. >>> we start with the two house democrats on the tax c

commander in afghanistan. again, he's going to be taking over from general stanley mcchrystal who resigned after that damaging "rolling stone" article which quoted him and slammed the obama administration. we want to tell you that matthew ho, a name you may remember, he quit his state department position in afghanistan as part of a protest against the strategy of the war. we'll have him coming up in about half an hour from now talking to us about what's taking place, the new strategy that's going to be going into afghanistan under the leadership of general petraeus, and as soon as he's confirm we'll bring that to you live. there's yet another new twist in the case of a missing 7-year-old boy. his name is kyron horman, and he's been nearly four weeks now since he was reported missing, just vanished at his school near portland, oregon. yesterday a judge barred kyron's stepmother terry moulton from having contact with her other children or access to firearms. this weekend terry's husband took the other kids with

a planned troop withdraw from afghanistan next summer. but polls show voters are turning against this war in a hurry. a clock is ticking for president obama to reframe the war in afghanistan, our goal there is, and what success looks like. tonight, we'll debate the president's counterinsurgency strategy and whether the mission in afghanistan as defined right now is worth the blood and treasure. and on our other war front, the kpander of american forces in iraq. general odoerno, he's saying it's yet to be determined if that war was a sacrifice. a stunning statement from the top general in that war. >>> pro football star turned army ranger pat tillman kill in a friendly fire incident in 2004, a new documentary chronicles the fight to uncover the truth about what really happened. pat tillman's mother will be here tonight. also, how the 14th amendment is playing on the campaign trail, and how labor can guarantee its own supporters to vote democrat this november. let's start with the mission in afghanistan and the selling of this war. david gr

he's been to afghanistan ultimately. in his current job at centcom command i commander, he's responsible for this war. so he will transition here smoothly. that won't be a problem asserting his authority in afghanistan. i think what colonel jacobss was talking about is there are a lot of big personalities. holbrooke for one, the vice president for another, president obama himself. how will he balance all of these competing views. nato. this is something, however, that he's shown great skill, general petraeus has shown great ability to do. he managed it in iraq, he managed relationships. he's a very politically savvy person. but before we go on, i just spoke with the author of the article, maichael hastings. just a minute ago. if you notice, i was late for your show. sorry, i was on the phone with him. i asked for his reaction to all of this controversy. is he happy, is he upset. and he told me that the goal that he had with writing this was to bring attention to the war. and he thinks it was a successful article and that

how do we keep them out of afghanistan if that's the policy? here's the back and forth. >> can you give us an assessment of the likelihood if we were to withdraw prematurely and the afghans did not have the capability of regaining their territory? >> i think there's a high likelihood of it. >> there you have it, congressman. what do you make of that back and forth? >> that's part of the reason we're there. al qaeda is our primary concern. but as time goes on you get ttp, other terrorist organizations that also pose a danger to us, to afghanistan, and ultimately to pakistan. part of what is at stake is allowing afghanistan to develop enough to take care of their own security needs. how do you ensure that? at some point we leave. we could say it takes a couple years. but eventually we'll have so few troops over there we can't tell them what to do. karzai or his successor will be calling the shots. how do we stop them from cutting a deal with the taliban? how do we stop them from creating some kind of base for al qaeda or other terrorist groups? >

troops in the nine-year war in afghanistan. with us, the president's principle military adviser, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, admiral mike mullen. welcome back to "meet the press." >> good morning, david. >> we just played for our viewers strong comments by you about these leaks. you indicated those who are responsible for making these secret documents public may already have blood on their hands. a strong statement. what specifically do you mean? >> the scope and volume of these leaks are unprecedented and the specifics of them and i've been through some of them but we've still got a lot of work to do to really put the details together. i think the leaks themselves don't look clearly at the war that we're in, there is an ability to put this kind of information together in the world that we're living in and potential for costing us lives is significant. i said when it first occurred i was appalled. i remain appalled. and the potential for the loss of lives of american soldiers, coalition soldiers, or afghan citize

we will continue to face huge challenges in afghanistan. but it's important that the american people know that we are making progress and we are focused on gold that are clear and achievable. >> but are the goals clear and achievable? even the president's own party doesn't seem sure why they are fighting. this time around 70 more, additional new democrats voting against an extension of funding for the afghan war than they did in '09. as further evidence of the changing tide on capitol hill, even the most hawkish republicans are wobbling on the war. >> we may need more troops to keep them on the run. if by december we're not showing progress, we're in trouble. >> as we withdrawal from iraq, we seem to have hit a tipping point in the afghan war. more and more, both inside and outside of a political establishment realizing it's time to leave there, too, sooner rather than later. with crucial midterm elections coming up, will more lawmakers have the courage to accept the realities of this pointless war in afghanistan and speak out in favor of c

i know we're in an intractable situation in afghanistan. but the reputation the united states around the world has improved immeasurably. he's going to the g-20 summit. they're also going to listen to him. they take him seriously, which was not the case in the last eight years with president bush. we're getting out of iraq, and we're going to figure out what to do with afghanistan, too. even though it's perhaps one of the most difficult foreign policy that any president has faced. >> i don't know. congressman has a megaphone giving a real sales pitch, jim, as a journalist you put this in context. the legtdive victory on health care. the legislative victory coming up on wall street which everybody is going to support. we have to do something about long-term needs. yet we have the weak economy and we have the oil spill. how do you put it all together? is it better that he got this done than not? >> i think politically getting this bill done obviously helps the president, probably helps democrats, and i don't think anyone can dispute what the

of being pushed to reassess where we are right now in afghanistan. the strategy in afghanten and counterinsurgency whatever happens whether he left that meeting with that job or not, that's where the president finds himself right now. >> mcchrystal puts the president in a very difficult position and he is in tough position if he accepts it and tough position if he doesn't accept the ressing nag. the only thing about this whole business is that it takes some eyes off the oil spill, which the president was not happy with. >> i'm not sure he wants this instead. >> no, but this is going to go away. this is eventually going to go away. this is going to be a sharp pain for relatively short period of time. mcchrystal will be gone, one assumes. somebody who is really competent. there is a whole list of general officers i could offer to you who know mcchrystal and know the business and would be very, very good in the job. he would select one of these guys to take over. he, himself, may be replaced later in july. there will be interim generals each of whom cou

he reports that the covert war in afghanistan is 3,000 men strong, the cia, people on the ground in afghanistan. that is new. >> right. >> also reporting about hamid karzai, our so-called ally, the leader of afghanistan that he is officially manic depressive, has been on and off his meds, and they never know which hamid karzai will show up for a meeting. >> reporter: that would explain a great deal of the counter tips going back and forth between the obama administration. james jones, national securitier adviser on a flight to afghanistan briefing reporters who had disparaging things to say about hamid karzai and the left of corruption in afghanistan, after the president was on the ground the surprise visit over one weekend the president made to afghanistan, the white house certainly dialed that back a great deal but some of this is just too good to pass up. we've got it related here, first of all the frustration that the president had feeling the military boxed him in on that 40,000 troop level, and the need that he felt for an exit strategy led him to proclaim according to this book to lindsa

involvement in afghanistan. do you think that's a fairly accurate picture, or do you think that misses it? >> i think broadly speaking that's probably a fairer picture. i mean, there are a number of, you know, important elements that have come out of this. there have been files that, for instance, have shown that the taliban have had a greater capacity to shoot down western aircraft using surface-to-air missiles, and that's something we didn't know. for me really one of the most valuable things in this exercise is the very unvarnished, you know, gritty, on the ground picture of the fighting that you get. you know, in many of these reports, you very much get the sense of the soldiers on the ground grappling with very difficult situations. you know, they often have very tragic outcomes, unfortunately. there are a lot of reports in here about civilian casualties. something that we tend to know about in terms of statistics because these things often happen in remote areas where there's no reporting, and these -- and

but the war in iraq, afghanistan, is an open question on the right as well as the left. i think a lot of people of conservative instincts are wounding what we can achieve, quite honestly. >> we are trying to pivot back and forth there is a difference, ideological conservatives, true conservatives want out of afghanistan. soft of they don't see the need to do that you have -- there is a split inside the republican party and a split inside the democratic party. this is more a divide about people that are -- america firsters, essentially, versus this international engagement. >> we saw that also with iraq before the iraq war. there were many conservatives in both parties who felt very strongly against iraq war and the feeling that america is too extended. we hear people complaining that the president's too much on his plate, yet at the same time, we are involved in two wars, drawing down from iraq with an uncertain political future and of course afghanistan with an open-ended future, i think what you are going to hear from david petraeus as he begins his testimony today the

army platoon in afghanistan. it's called "restrepo." after the isolated combat outpost built by the soldiers in the film. it's not about the politics of war, doesn't give you context about the larger point what was those soldiers are doing there. it shows how they live and fight and die during their 15 months in-country. that lack of political context narrative explanation about how individual firefights fit into battle, fit into battlefields, fit into the war, actually helps rather than hinders i think our understanding of how and why americans are still dying in this war, in the longest war we've ever fought as a nation. in year nine the pace of combat is going up and the number of troops is going up and the pace of nato casualties is worse than it's ever been with 46 americans killed already this month. the film "restrepo" shows americans fighting in 2007 and 2008 in a place we've now stopped fighting, the korengal valley. at the time this platoon was there this was the site of one-fifth of all the combat happening in the entire coun

no representation of al-qaeda even left in afghanistan. >> it's not about how many members are in afghanistan. there's in fantasy land, this idea that folks think that we can just leave and if we do, things will get better or al-qaeda's not there anymore so they won't come back. they'll come back. we've seen this before. either commit now and get it down in a strategy the president has laid forward, or pass this problem to the next generation. >> it's like ground hog day. brian, what are we missing? >> i think one thing we're missing and you've talked about this, we've talked about this, the simple fact that 3,000 americans is the simple fact is that 3,000 americans were killed on 9/11. we're inst afghanistan because that. the previous administration didn't get the job done. it actually distracted country by going into an unnecessary war in iraq and now we're actually got to get bin laden and this administration the obama administration's committed more resources in doing that and rather than being passive like the bush administration in pakistan, we actually are much more aggressive there an

last year, less than a year ago i was in afghanistan where the taliban and insurgents in afghanistan used this same sort of tactic, burning of korans, defacing of mosques, and pitting it against american soldiers to put them in danger. >> blaming you and the people with which you served for burning korans. >> yes, sir. >> then what happened? >> then we'd have a back lash. all of the work to get to know the local nationals, the leadership, would suddenly be completely trumped because we were dealing with this propaganda campaign that the taliban and insurgents had used against us. it was intolerable. it was awful. because the morale just plummets for the men and women on the ground when they work so hard at something and then it all goes away in a flash. >> let's stipulate, ugly as it may be, that the same kind of religious freedoms that say to us, that the backers of park 51 project in new york are entitled to build that islamic center two blocks from ground zero, that gives mr. jones the right to burn those korans but practically speaking given your experience on the issue of burnin

. >> afghanistan. >> afghanistan. you suddenly got a little bit of john kerry with james bond in it. when you were talking about kagan, i have to say i really like kagan in these hearings. she really won me around. i kept sort of hearing about how bland it was going to be. yes, of course, she was bland. she was brilliantly stonewalling but she is a very appealing woman, i think, with a great sense of humor and a great sense of humanity. she's the kind of woman you'd want to have helping make a decision. did anybody else not think that? >> i got that. >> right? >> i'm wondering why they televised the hearing. >> seriously. seriously. come on! >> petraeus ones are the ones -- >> there's nothing there. this is a slam dunk. >> you say there is nothing there. i'm concerned i understand she is from one of the most isolated parts of america. jon kyl said she is a life. you lose touch when you live up there. >> yeah. >> she didn't come off as a woman who is out of touch. >> i live there. my bad! wait a second upper west side

>> they didn't for afghanistan. what they discussed was the things that were relevant to them that might get them killed. they talked about strategy in the valley themselves. they discussed it endlessly because their lives were affected by it. they were very, very clear about trying to avoid civilian casualties, for example, other than the obvious moral issues. if they killed civilians they would side with the taliban and more would get killed and understood that relationship. there were several times i saw them take dramatic action. >> let me follow-up with you on that. you don't think society understands war very well. obviously you have a book out now called "war" base odd your time with these soldiers as well. you said if society is going to solve the human problem of war, they have to figure out what it is about combat that attracts young men so much that they're willing to risk their lives to go back out there to get it. after spending all of those months with seco2nd platoon, do feel you're closer to figuring

you just mentioned iran's possible role in afghanistan or a larger role in afghanistan. what would that role encompass some. >> well, there's some people in the state department think i buried the lead. the most important thing the president said was this -- the president said that he thought, in addition to the discussions about the nuclear issue and the iranians have signaled they are likely they want to begin those again in september, in addition to this issue, there should be a separate track to talk about afghanistan where he said we have mutual interests. the iranians want to stop the drug trade and iranians historically have opposed the taliban. he then said something rel really fascinating. in hamid karzai's overall push for kivened reconciliation for the taliban is there a role for a regional process with strong neighbors like iran helping to shape this new afghanistan. and he said, iran could be a partner and it could be a constructive partner. so i think the reaction among our diplomats who thought this was a good idea saying let's work on this. there again, w

troops to afghanistan. after 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. >> that was last december when president obama announced at the west point military academy that he would send 30,000 more americans to afghanistan, and after 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. that was then, this is now. >> there has been a lot of obsession around this whole issue of when do we leave. >> there has been a lot of obsession. that is not the word choice we associate with a commander in chief who still considers his own withdrawal date to be a sure thing or a probably thing or even a maybe thing. this weekend the whole july, 2011, withdrawal deadline seems to have gone woksies. >> if petraeus comes to the president in the spring of 2011 and says, you know this july deadline, i need six more months, should that -- >> i would say give it to him, absolutely. and i think he has flexibility realistically. >> you think that he has flexibility on that? speak for yourself, senator feinstein. your home state colleagu

on afghanistan, we don't have a on afghanistan, we don't have a sense of any kind of progress over there, which is a real problem. again, going back to my buddy fdr, the reason he invaded north africa in 1942 was to show progress. eisenhower didn't want him to do it. marshall didn't want him to do it. marshall finally later said i didn't understand in a democracy the people have to be entertained. where is the progress that we're going to see in afghanistan? you have to keep public support both on the economy and the war or these things will become troubling. >> and i want to come back to the war in a moment. mark halperin, on the point about the economy, and specifically the auto bailouts, because the white house said there's success here. we bailed them out. it was unpopular. look, they've come back. we saved jobs. if we walked away, it would have been worse. i was reading ezra klein's blog on washingtonpost.com. the president was in michigan on friday and tried to turn that around. i want to show a portion of what he said. >> so, the bottom line is this. we have a long way to go, but

and the war in afghanistan concluding the u.s. is on track too begin withdrawing surged forces in july but the scope and pace of that withdrawal still uncertain. we're going to have more on the afghanistan report just ahead this half hour. >>> the legal fight over health care reform shifts to a florida courtroom today days after a judge in virginia ruled parts of the new law unsons touche. attorneys from 20 states and the justice department will present arguments. at issue, whether be exceeds the law of federal power. >>> and new details about the plan who opened fire at a florida school board meeting this week before turning the gun on himself. police say clay duke was an ex-con with a bipolar disorder who's wife lost her unemployment benefits after lose her teaching job and say the attack was not spur of the moment. they say at duke's home they found a calendar with the date december 14th circled on it. duke's wife says he was overcome by the pressures. >> the economy and world just got the better of him, and along with his bipo

afghanistan was always a near impossible task. after we get past the phase of driving him out of there. >> yesterday he was blaming the bush administration for what he inherited in afghanistan. this administration has tripled our force levels, changed the mission, expanded the mission. i'm still surprised at the lack of scrutiny its getting. why aren't people asking tougher questions about whether this is worth it for american national security. >> this is their war now. they have taken a war that began, as jon meacham pointed out months ago as an antiterrorism campaign and turned it into an anti-insurgency campaign and trying to rebuild the country. it is their war and the press remained silent ept. >> "washington post," progress in afghanistan with caveats. president obama says the measure of succession in afghanistan is that he can stick to his schedule and begin with drawing u.s. troops and transferring responsibility to the afghans next july. that part still sounds like wishful thinking given the mixed picture. there's progre