afghanistan. >> good morning. it's monday, july 26th. welcome to "morning joe." i'm mika brzezinski. joe is off today, although we are going to bring him up from a remote location on the web in just about an hour. a lot going on today. we have with us on the set msnbc contributor mike barnicle, msnbc and "time" magazine political analyst mark halpern and bat cue can nan is here in new york and harold ford jr. who is the author of the upcoming book, "more davids than goliaths." we have so much going on. a huge morning of news ahead. several developing stories. first the chilling lead story of "the new york times" this morning and front page of "the washington post" tens of thousands of leaked classified documents on the war in afghanistan paint ago bleak and grim portrait of what exactly our troops are up against there. what the reports show and how they ended up on the front page. we'll have that. also what did the white house tell scotland about its decision to release the lockerbie bomber? this was right before

to stabilize afghanistan. they were linked together. it's been a long effort and it's going to have to continue in order to achieve our objectives in both countries. >> of course, we don't have time to go into it now, but the devastation in pakistan has undone completely swept away, literally swept away, many of the administration's efforts, two administration efforts, to build on that success. >> a huge setback for the pakistani people. >> stephen hadley, thank you so much. to be here on an important day, a milesteone for all of us. >> nice to be here. >> joining me, dennis mcdonough, chief of staff of the president's national security council. welcome, thanks so much. first of all, can you share with us what you expect from the speech tonight? we know he's not going to use the phrase "mission accomplished" what will the president be saying tonight? >> andrea, thank you very much for the opportunity to be with you. always good to be here. tonight i think the president will give credit where credit's due, that

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

afghanistan. what happens next? how long will americans be willing to continue to stay at war in the middle east? also, the industry that's asking, what recession? we'll take you behind the business of sports teams and how they're able to pile onto their bottom line through thick and thin. plus the science behind beer goggles. yes, it has science. finally, some answers as to why a few drinks can turn a dud into drop dead gorgeous. show starts right now. >>> good afternoon to you. nice to see you. we're in iraq from half way around the world to here at home. on this history making day how does it change the region, and where does it leave us as a country strategically, financially, and emotionally? these images capturing the moments they escaped in the still of the night. a quiet end to a war that's lasted longer than either world wars. cost us nearly a trillion dollars and killed more than 4,400 of our service members. richard engel there as it unfolded last night. >> is this the end of the war? >> it's the end of o

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

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

what do we do in afghanistan going forward. >> and afghanistan has been the place where empires have gone to die. this is a really tough call by the president, but what was striking today, general, was that he made it very clear that we're not backing out. he's full steam ahead with this mission. your thoughts on that? >> well, look, it's not impossible to imagine us achieving our purpose. my only concern was the time factor. you get petraeus in there. we build al afghan security force. we bribe, threaten, intimidate the taliban, they could well stop fighting on any given 48-hour period. and try and achieve their purposes through, you know, political means. so i don't know. i'm extremely concerned about it, but the good news is, you've got a commander in chief that took desize sib action, we've got a great military team and our young men and women in the armed forces will fight. so we'll see how this plays out. >> thank you had, general. thanks so much. >> good to be with you. >> let's bringing in katrina van vanden heuvel, editor of the nation. the president today made it very clear

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

there's no anbar awakening in afghanistan. the taliban seems to be on the up-and-up, and there seems to be a huge emphasis of talking to the right elements of the taliban, if you talk to the ordinary afghans who benefitted enormously from the nato occupation, they don't want to deal with the taliban, because we want our daughters to go to school, we want women to be able to work. there's an awful lot at stake here and there's real fear that some sort of shoddy deal will be made down the line so nato can withdraw with a fig leaf of degnyty. >> you mentioned the afghans, but president karzai is ushering in thisdate saying we don't want you anymore. >> he's mercurial to say the least, he seems to be changing his mind almost on a daily base, and he's a very tricky ally to deal with, everyone is tearing their hair out about what you can expect from president karzai, there was the fraud in the elections, he's difficult to work with, but he's the ally you have. you go to war with the army you have, not the army you want. do you remem

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

troops in afghanistan. tom ricks, author of the bestseller "gamble" about the war in iraq and author and combat veteran of afghanistan, wes moore and retired army general barry mccaffrey and a look back in our "meet the press" minute when president truman clashed with his top general. >>> good. 311 soldiers have died this year in afghanistan, the latest just yesterday by an improvised explosive device in the south of the country. for coalition forces, june is now by far the deadliest month since the war began in late 2001. the g-8 summit in toronto, president obama and david cameron and other world leaders decided to set a timetable of five years for withdrawal of military forces from afghanistan. this as "the new york times" reports this morning of growing concern in afghanistan over president karzai's efforts to negotiate with the taliban and bring them into agreement with the afghan government. here live from kabul, richard engel. i want to start with that story in "the new york times" and this concern a

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

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

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

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 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

there was general david petreaus, president obama's nomination to lead afghanistan. he repeated america's commitment to afghanistan and the hearing took its most contentious turns when it came to this july 2011 exit date for american troops. msnbc's chief foreign important richard engel as more on that from kabul. >> reporter: peter there are no indications that american forces could pack up and leave this country, yes, logistically, it's possible, they have the planes to do it. but if you ask any admiral or general on the ground, they will tell you if the american military left afghan staff in a hurry, there would be a civil war in this country. today general petraeus acknowledged the difficulties on the ground, he said that the situation would get worse before it got better and there would be tough months of fighting ahead. he also said that he would reexamine the rules of engagement. if you talk to any soldier on the ground here that is involved in the fight they will complain that the rules of engagement are very strict and they often can't defend themselves, tha

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

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

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

war in afghanistan ends. which means we're going to very quickly change gears in this country from nobody talk about the war in afghanistan to everybody freak out about the war in afghanistan. we started to see a preview of this from republican senator john mccain this weekend. where else? on "meet the press," after david axelrod broached the idea of a drawdown of u.s. troops in afghanistan. >> you just heard david actioxe say any withdrawal would be condition-based. >> i would like to see the president say it's only condition-based. according to mr. woodward's book, his problem is the base of the democratic party. you win and then you leave, and that's what we've done in iraq. >> that statement from john mccain is so perfect in so many ways. first of all, he's already setting the stage that no matter what president obama will say this week habit leaving afghanistan, john mccain is already against it because it's from the liberal left. also, what exactly does he think we did in iraq? >> i'd like to see the pr

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

yearly conference about what to do in afghanistan is actually taking place in afghanistan. first time. and that is your what's wrong with this picture afghanistan microcosm of the day. hillary clinton flew to the conference. reporters asked her about concerns that western spending in afghanistan is being diverted to the elites and to the corrupt and to the bad guys in that country. she responded with this. we have to take a hard look at ourselves, because it is very clear, our presence, all of our contracting, has fed that problem. this is not just an afghan problem. it is an international issue. what's remarkable about that from second clinton, it seem to recognize a key and subtle point about this war. extending the duration of our presence there may very well reduce our chances of achieving our goal there. if the end goal is to have a real afghan state functioning there, serving its people, us funneling billions of war dollars into that country breeds corruption and dependence and resentment. it undermines an afghan state. it does not promote it. "newsweek's" cover story

. >> 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

good question. >> well, the thing is, afghanistan, the afghanistan that we broke in 2001 is not the afghanistan we're still sending troops to in 2010. it is a radically different situation. you cannot say that afghanistan is the epicenter of al qaeda or international terrorism. my god, there may be scores of al qaeda members in afghanistan right now, pat. we cannot send enough troops in there unless we want to invade. are we going to invade pakistan next? >> no, you and i agree on afghanistan. about what we should have done. the point is, obama has committed us to a war and 100,000 troops in there because he believes -- he disagrees with us. he believes, this is the epicenter of the war on terror. having done that, can he say, well, we've got a guy in there i can't work with, he goes out, let's turn around and get out. he's got himself -- he's got us into a hellish problem. >> you notice, it's 3:00 a.m. on the west coast. pat is having to walk me through this, i think very politely, and i appreciate it, pat, because it is very early. but let me ask quickly, john ridley, we have to go to break,

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

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

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

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

you've got the economist cover saying losing afghanistan. speaker pelosi wants a serious drawdown by july 2011, the gallup poll favors the struggle. but 58% favoring the president's timetable because people who both support the war and oppose the war generally are interpreting the timetable that they would like -- >> well, i think this is another example of the way the president has to balance so many things. he walked into a very difficult situation. he decided to send in 30,000 more troops, he's trying to take the fight to the enemy in afghanistan. on the other hand, he has to keep american public opinion and support behind him. that's why i think he wisely said we're going to begin to draw down in another year. he also has to keep the pressure on the afghan leaders. so it's a difficult balancing act. and in the end, he'll be judged by whether or not we make progress. >> and todd, the president's overall numbers, his favorability ratings are now higher than on the economy. >> well, i think because it probably is getting most of that suppor

why are we in afghanistan? why are we paying for afghanistan? you view, and i don't want to put you in the pro-afghanistan point, but somebody has to do it because i know everybody will say there's all these reasons we shouldn't be. but if you were to make a case for why we should continue, what would be? >> we left this in 1989. >> collaborate on that. >> in the '80s we were fighting trying to get the soviets out. we kick out the soviets. then the pakistanis go nuclear. they become one of from one of our closest allies to a sanctioned adversaries. we withdrew in partnerships and relationships. hay didn't build again until 9/11. >> so you have pakistan in total isolation. >> and a failed afghanistan. they don't know the u.s. they don't trust us. that's what led to 9/11. >> i get it. >> we're building from that. right now our goals are quite limited. we're trying to deny a sanction ware on national terrorist threats. to do that you have to have state capacity. we're trying to build up a pakistani capacity. we're trying to shift threat perceptions

strategy in afghanistan. why are democrats so willing to swallow the nebulous conditions-based withdrawal answer on afghanistan when they oppose it had so vehemently in iraq? i'll ask congresswoman barbara lee about that, coming up. forgetting thurgood marshall. elena kagan disappoints republican senators when she reminds them that she is indeed a living, breathing supreme court nominee and not in fact the reanimated corps of the legendary justice and civil rights attorney. and house minority leader john boehner makes an extraordinary comment, likening the worse financial crisis in 80 years to an ant, a small innocuous inconsequential insect you brush off when it crawls up your picnic table. amazing. but we start tonight with general david petraeus whose wife has to be just about the unluckiest spouse in politics right now. who is back on the hill today before the senate armed services committee for his confirmation hearing to take over the command of u.s. troops in afghanistan from general stanley mcchrystal

the combat mission there in afghanistan. you mentioned already the longest conflict in american history. it was very controversial last year on december 1st when the president made his speech at west point unveiling his new afghan strategy saying that u.s. forces would begin to withdraw in july of next year, a lot of credit sichl for that, a lot of mixed message criticism from capitol hill and republicans as well. that's still in force. but now an end to combat operations by the end of 2014. the white house has been talking about it. nato secretary-general has been talking about it. but there's a question as to whether or not that is a guarantee. even the secretary-general said if the situation in afghanistan were such that afghan forces and military and police forces could not take over security of that nation, then we'd have to have another look at it. similarly u.s. officials talking on background said that they had not necessarily committed to a hard end to combat operations in -- at the end of 2014. so the controversy c

just 10% afghanistan. but i was struck that the country saw that pakistan -- and viewed pakistan even less favorably than they view afghanistan. that, to me, says that the story of wikileaks that week which came out, a heavy amount of the coverage was about the basically the distrustful relationship or -- that we at least had with pakistan before december 2009. >> well, yeah. the wikileaks seemed to confirm for many people because the document was classified. somehow it appears to people to have more authenticity than something that's not classified. the previous knowledge that some pakistani intelligence officials may have been collaborating with the taliban has been out there for a while but having this secret stamp on the charge gave it increased credibility, and i think people were rightly outraged that some country that we are working closely with, that we are giving foreign assistance to is having official dialogue even at a low level with the taliban about how to kill american soldiers in afghanista

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

i'd cite afghanistan. we bailed out of afghanistan after the russians were defeated. who came into the vacuum? it was the taliban and al qaeda and we paid a big price. people have that in their minds as they should. i'm not sure this is as different from what we knew a week ago as you're saying. i think it's pretty much the same in terms of the numbers of troops that will be involved. >> david, it's katty here. one of petraeus's arguments is americans are on the verge of doing something that hasn't been done before in afghanistan which is effectively success, that they are changing the game. they are winning over the taliban into negotiations and if they could stay a little bit longer, then actually they could achieve something there. centuries show that hasn't been very possible before. do you think that's true? is that a realistic assessment? >> it's impossible form me to say, katty, without having been there. i'll be there again next month. general petraeus's en thus hasn't seemed to be clearly anchored in real reports from the battlefield. the last that we knew, t

it happened this week in a lawless area of northern afghanistan. the aide workers were reportedly returning to their base when they were stopped by taliban fighters, lined up, and executed. richard engel is nbc's chief foreign correspondent following this from baghdad for us. with a good morning to you. what is the latest on the terrible story? >> reporter: bodies have been flown back to kabul, eight foreigns in all, six americans and u.s., fbi officials and local afghans are working to identify the remains before they are repatriated to their respective countries. now, this mission was designed to be a grassroots humanitarian effort with this group of doctors, technicians, nurses, setting out on foot to bring relief supplies to some of the most remote parts of afghanistan but none of the foreigners made it back to kabul alive. it was supposed to be a grueling three-week hike to bring medical care, specifically eye treatment to remote villages. the plan was to walk 120 miles through one of eastern afghanistan's most lawless and dangerous provinces.

what does this mean for america's troops in afghanistan and the president's plans for withdrawal? >>> and there's a major recall to tell you about this morning. this is something every parent is going to want to hear about. >>> plus, ten hours and counting, this tennessee match just won't end. day three is going to start this hour. >>> but, let's begin with the worst oil we've seen on florida's shore. oil globs stretching for miles along those normally beautiful pensacola beaches. take a look at what washed up on an eight-mile beach of sand. this is not just tar balls but has the potential to devastate tourism in the short term. a large section of gulf waters are back open for fishing and the largest area south of mississippi. oil was never spotted there, but the feds had closed those waters as a precaution to make sure seafood was safe. now, bp has put the lid back on the gushing oil after more than 11 hours with the containment cap off. this is what it looked like yesterday when a robot submarine knocked the cap off. >>> for a look at the beaches and the gulf and where all of th

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

in a land war in afghanistan. this was a war of obama's choosing. this was not -- this was not something the united states had actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in. >> okay. forget about the fact we've been in afghanistan since before obama was even a gleam in the senate's eye. forget about the fact this nonactive war has caused the united states thousands of casual fooeps and focus on this. this is the head of the republican party going against one of his party's core principles, blowing [ bleep ] up in other countries. >> good morning. welcome to "morning joe." it's tuesday, july 6th. i'm mika brzezinski. joe is off this week but might be on this week as well. i'll explain that. on the set with us, we have pat buchanan from new york city with us. hello, pat. you look very dapper. >> came up north on a train. >> i like it. your staying awhile? >> i'm going to stay here until friday. >> mark halperin is with us with your new title, senior political analyst? do i have it right? >> msnbc, "time" magazine senio

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

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

victory be in afghanistan to keeping al qaeda in check? >> the whole idea was to clear the taliban and al qaeda out of afghanistan in the very beginning, what, seven or eight years ago. we did a very good job of that, making it impossible for the taliban and al qaeda to use afghanistan as a base for training, recruitment, and funding of terrorist activities. if we don't -- if we're not successful in afghanistan, bad guys will come back. it is crucial to be successful in afghanistan, but we're leaving. the president has already said that starting in july of 2011, we're going to start pulling out and that is very distressing. i think taliban is going to come back. we never made -- we never exploited the success that we had in afghanistan. we went off to iraq and we lost 7 to 8 crucial years in afghanistan. i don't think we can get them back. >> we will talk more about afghanistan and pakistan in the next hour. >> see you later. >> talk to you then. >>> new documents show the 33 miners trapped half a mile below the surface in chile may be res

you saw this cratering of support for the war in afghanistan. he really only has a year, maybe three months to show progress. is that what you would say? >> they have to do something before this december review. now the december review has become so much more important. and what general petraeus is clearly doing in his interview with david gregory on "meet the pres press", and we'll see the interview on sunday, he's asking for time. he's got political space. there's no congress in either party that will go up against david petraeus. >> the president already fired two generals. it would be tough to fired a third general. let alone one named general david petraeus. we'll sew you monday. have a good weekend. coming up, the nevada senate race takes another ugly turn as harry reid still can't shake sharron angle. we'll get into that and the other hot senate fights we're watching. plus the battle over the 14th amendment and whether republicans will lose the latino voters for decades to come. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 no more paying to access your own money.