the other is to check the taliban in afghanistan. some would argue we've checked them, we've got enough troops. that's happily the debate they're now having in the white house. so one of the things the generals talk about among themselves, they say we're not self-employed. we don't decide what to do. general mcchrystal has given the counterinsurgency mission in atching. he said, so i need 40,000 troops. the white house can, and there is some evidence they may come back and say we've changed the definition of the mission. given that, lots of generals will say, oh, ok, i'm not self-employed, i now have a new mission, maybe i need no troops. chris: what would be the argument of not sending the 40,000 troops if they decide not to? >> there are some people who know an awful lot about this who say to a certain extent we've won. al qaeda is experiencing a dramatic setback and in afghanistan we have enough troops for not nation building, not turning it into virginia or maryland or montana, but it is stable enough that we can live with it. ch

we win in afghanistan when you didn't have all the muslim focusing on afghanistan. it is not a good country for our military power where we can dominate from the air. we can't do that in afghanistan with the mountains and the caves. >> geraldo: that is where the bad guys are. >> i think the problem is. >> that is why you want to keep them focused on iraq just as george bush was doing. >> i think you have a strategic problem when you want to fight terrorism are the terrorists are not present. the best way to fight terrorism is to fight where the terrorists are. they happen to be in afghanistan. >> they also happen to be in iraq. >> but it doesn't solve the problem. >> not only were they in iraq including the only terrorist who escaped from the 1993 world trade center bombing, he got away and where did he end up, not afghanistan. >> ann, i live in new york where 9/11 happened. the people that we are told are responsible are in afghanistan and we need to deal with that and we should have dealt with it in 2002. >> we have a war on terrorism. it is not just the war on os

right now the shifted from afghanistan to pakistan. they're moving into sud, into indesia, maybe the southern parof philippines. you've got to go ter them erever ty are. right now you build up afghanistan, thewill just go somewhere else >> rose: this question: the presidt is now engaged in intense debate and discussion. >> rhtfully so. >> rose:t the white house. wi membe of congrs, with mbers of the military and range academic exper. and milary experts. doou think before the president mas his decision there oughto be some way to have se kind of national debate about this decision which many peopl say will be the most important decision of his presidency >> it is the most important decision of his esidency. >> rose: should there wi be a nationalebate? >> there is national debe. rose: well, is tre a national debe taking pce or is it taking place inside the white house? >> it's taking place inside the admistration and within the halls of congress. has nnd hit the floor yet of the use and senate. but the ment theresident decides and says "

until afghanistan is actually stable. i think this is important. this is what the president said. >> this is not only a war worth fighting, this is fundamental to the defense of our people. >> fund. al to the defense of our people, david brooks. a war of necessity. will this president make good on those pledges with the decision he'll make on troops? >> i actually think he will. >> he had this long meeting in the white house, 18 people in the situation room for 3 1/2 hours. they were looking at all the options. i think they'll look at what's worked to defeat counterinsurgency. there's only one thing that's worked, and that's what mccrystal is suggesting, protecting the population. they're redefining the standard. the standard you might call the al qaeda standard. that standard is, well, the taliban can take over, that's fine, as long as al qaeda doesn't come back. if the people who want to get out are redefining the war as a taliban victory is acceptable to us -- >> rachel maddow, i asked about the politics and she had no

i want to start with afghanistan. i thought the ambassador was whether the president is committed to keeping the country safe in afghanistan or staying there until afghanistan is stable. i think this is important. this is what he said. >> this is not only a war worth fighting. this is fundamental to our people. >> will the president make good on those pledges with the decisions he will make on troops? >> i actually think they will. 18 people in the situation room for 3 1/2 hours exploring all of the options and basically they will come to the point, if you look at what is worth, to defeat counter insurgency, the fear i have, and frankly you saw it from susan rice, that standard is, the taliban can take over, as long as al qaeda doesn't come back. and if it's acceptable to us -- >> rachel, i asked her whether politics had anything to do with this and she said it doesn't. but it is a political situation. members of his part are not supportive of escalating this war. >> i think there is willingness on the democratic side

you see you have to have security in afghanistan. you have to have governance in afghanistan. if you don't have both of them, your whole strategy falls apart. >> schieffer: let me ask you about one of the things i was kind of surprised because he said it was a hypothetical question. when i asked general jones, did it necessarily follow that if the taliban comes back, al qaeda comes with them? he said, well, that's hypothetical. what do you think, general? >> just like water running downhill. they're going to come back in. they had a safe haven there at one time. there's no reason to believe they wouldn't have a safe haven again. that's the purpose of this entire mission. to quell the al qaeda and to make sure that the taliban is is not there to invite them back. >> schieffer: general zinni, i want to go around the table on this question. do you think they would come back or stay in pakistan because some people are saying why did they need to go to afghanistan? they have safe haven in pakistan right now. >> i think they could find themselves s with the safe sanctuary inside afg

troops to afghanistan. the reasons for invading the country -- to capture or kill bin laden and deny al qaeda sanctuary. that was the mission then, and eight years on it still hasn't been accomplished. taliban propaganda footage. it shows a suicide bomber involved in an attack on the culture ministry in kabul. the bomber shoots the guard before storming into the building, gunning down others and then setting off his explosives. the taliban must have filmed the attack from one of those buildings. they have become more sophisticated not only in their media propaganda campaign but in their military operations. u.s. commanders admit that, and afghan security officials believe al qaeda has been behind the taliban's growing strength. the government says they often arrest foreign fighters crossing from pakistan. it's from there, according to afghans, that al qaeda and the taliban operate and bin laden continues to inspire many. the u.s. may be making some hehanistan, but the makeup of the enemy and the nature of t

>>> tonight on "worldfocus" -- >>> as president obama ponders his next move in afghanistan, what some nato troops are saying after the most deadly attack on americans in more than a year. >>> after ish voters clear the way, europe emerges as a more powerful competitor with the united states. could a new presidency of europe be tony blair's second act? >>> from africa, there is real progress to report in a battle against a painful and disfiguring disease. >>> and we'll take you for a ride on the streets of china where tens of millions of people have made thet of hot wheels indeed. >>> from the world's leading reporters and analysts, here's what's happening from around the world. this is "worldfocus." major support has been provided by rosalind p. walter and the peter g. peterson foundation, dedicated to promoting fiscal responsibility and addressing key economic challenges facing america's future. and additional funding is provided by the following supporters -- >>> hello and good evening. i'm daljit dhaliwal. the intense debate over this country's strategy in afghanistan will undoubte

if he this say they're oy 100 members al qaeda i afghanistan, whyit deteriorating. i think a lot of peoplin the military will say, if the taban's not the prlem, what are wdoing there. >> charlie: do theyhink ey can draa distinction tween the talan and qaeda or theear that taliban will allow al qae to grow give eight sanctua if talib are control? >> think the military feels that way. hink you've hea sect gates say that inrecent weeks. just this week he said there was a connectn, a symbioc relationship, yove heard secretarof state hillary clinton y the same tng. th look at that as a problem of them being tother not al qaeda separately. not the taliban separaty. >> charlie before i goo jami because he's had longe view, where are the players, peter? who is auing what? >> well, vice presidentiden has been the most vocal skeptic of the ide of nding substantial new troo to afghanista he's telling telling peoe tt teasnot argue f less troop t that increase resources in afghanistan sses the point. pakistan is the mos impoant priority right now. on the other side you do see mi

allies in afghanistan. it's all part of the same package. a team effort to achieve a common goal at a very high price in blood and treasure. these are not costs that the u.s. can afford to pay alone. because of nato and through nato they are costs we bear together. to my mind afghanistan doesn't suggest nato is past its prime. it proves just the opposite, the solidarity build-up over 60 years is being strongly tested in afghanistan and it is holding up over years despite casualties and setbacks. that is a huge achievement and a precious asset. i hope that is recognized here in the united states. let me stress there is no doubt that the united states is an indispensable part of this mission and all allies respect the sacrifices the united states has made. but talking down the european and the canadian contributions, as some here in the united states do on occasion, can become a self-fulfilling prophesy. if they don't feel as if their efforts and sacrifices in nato are recognized and valued, they will be less

they're not in afghanistan anymore! and so we have to shift our purpose and our political and military objective to going after al qaeda. not building up our resources in afghanistan. pwhich i think is a dead end, that's vietnam. >> rose: a program note. because of our focus on afghanistan this week, my interview with bryan ross and with michael moore will be seen at a later time. tonight,ç richard engel and max cleland next. captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. ç >> rose: we begin again this evening with a focus on afghanistan because president obama is facing the most critical foreign policyç decisn of his presidency. he met today with his national security team after talks with congressional leaders yesterday, the president said that he would not substantially reduce u.s. forces or shift the mission to just hunting terrorists. he also said he wanted to dispense with the straw man argument that this is about either doubling down or leaving afghanist

when afghanistan has been torn by civil war. in order to succeed with the counter insurgency strategy, what we need to do is to protect the population of afghanistan, from the campaigns of intimidation, and campaigns of assassination, that the taliban is engaged in and in critical areas, by critical areas, i mean those that are important to the taliban, those that are important to the government and those that are important to us. so, in order to secure afghanistan, we have to generate population security, but we don't have to generate it across the whole country. we need to generate it in the areas where the insurgency is real and where basically tribes have historically supported the government or historically been anti-taliban, but over time, because we haven't been able to protect the people, have turned ever more passively and actively to supporting the taliban because it's their only choice. so, rather than securing the whole country weeks just need to secure certain parts. >> so do you think that 40,000 troops is really e

. >> there is no discussion going on about leaving afghanistan. >> the situation in afghanistan is serious and deteriorating. >> and congress pushes forward on health care. >> the bill we're referring to will never see the light of day. >> two defining issues. two powerhouse roundtables. afghanistan with key senate leaders. the retired general who devised the iraq surge. the congressman leading the charge for an exit from afghanistan. our "this week" debate. >>> then -- health care, ethics and all of the week's politics with george will, arianna huffington. and our dualing strategist, donna brazile and republican c nicolle wallace. >> president obama gets $1.4 million. usually to get a check that big you have to blackmail david letterman. >>> what was the nobel committee thinking? what impact will the peace prize have on president obama and his agenda. we're going to debate both those questions today. but we begin with the president's looming decision on the war in afghanistan. let me bring in our first roundtable. i'm joined by dianne finestein, jack keane, congressman jim mcgovern from m

nation building in afghanistan? >> you're asking, do the american people have the patience and perseverance and will to put hundreds of thousands of troops into afghanistan for five years? the answer to that question, chris, is no. just because you asked the right question at the beginning, look, the question for barack obama ought to ask general mcchrystal is this. general, if i give you the 45,000 troops, can you do the job you're talking about? protecting the populations, getting control of the cities, fighting al qaeda and all these things. how many are you going to need for exactly how long to do it? chris, a majority of the american people already think -- oppose the war. a majority don't want the troops going in. we have a short timeframe here. if i looked at it, i would say, quite frankly, i don't think we have it within us in terms of the value of what we're going to get for it, the possibility of us winning it and what it's going to cost over that time to really do it. barack obama has got to say, do we st

huh to do pakistan and afghanistan, because if the taliban takes over in afghanistan, it would obviously open it up for al qaeda to return there, and it would put enormous plesh pressure on pakistan and on and on and he was correct about that. what i worry about is what john mccain mentioned and that is a halfway measure, and that is the sort of 'em nations you feel coming out of the white house that he would do this, rather than affirm -- i think that's free choice. he could affirm the strategy and back general mcchrystal and send in more troops and go with joe biden and have just withdraw troops and have a counterterrorism strategy, which you can do anyway because we're already doing it. the president going after al qaeda chieftains and so on, or the third strategy, you don't change strategy but have a halfway measure and the one you hear is well, we'll send in ten thousand troops and they will be trainers for the afghan troops, in other words, we will say we're sticking there but it is a half measure and it will lead to defeat. that's what i'm afraid the white house will do. jim: char

afghanistan is probably a difficult place. let's remember now the president and his party including some now who have been wavering who have been climbing out on the limb four or five years. go back to john kerry, five years ago, george w. bush took his eye off the ball in afghanistan which is the real war against terrorists to go chasing saddam hussein in iraq. this has been a consistent theme. it was president obama's theme when he was senator running for president. now he comes down to it. what does it really take. the idea is unpopular. the polls have turned on this. it's proving hard for barack obama so far. i don't know either way he gets any political relief. he f he says no now after all he said before and goes for some half measure, which is likely to fail, it seems to me the political consequences would be very severe indeed. >> let's turn to the olympics and decision out of copenhagen it was not going to chicago, even though the president made the pitch. take a listen. >> i urge you to choose chicago. if you do, if

we will lose in afghanistan. that's what's at stake. >> this is what your colleague senator john mccain said about how the administration is handling general mcchrystal. take a listen. >> so it's okay with the administration for general mcchrystal to go on "60 minutes." it's okay for him to give a speech at the institute for strategic studies in london. but the administration does not want general mcchrystal and general petraeus before the senate armed services committee. how does that work? >> senator casey, how does that work? do you share senator mccain's concerns, if not his passion, about general mcchrystal briefing congress? >> well, when i mentioned before that we need to have a debate in congress, john's one of the voices we should listen to and take a measure of what lindsey graham and john mccain and lieberman wrote a piece. what was the focus of their column in the "wall street journal" as well as other points of view. on the question of who should appear before the armed services committee, i'm on the

no one forgot about afghanistan. insurgents started coming back, and that is when things started picking back up. host: next caller. caller: i am concerned. i never expected the nation to turn the way it has. we have gotten so mean-spirited. i think the nobel peace prize awarded to our president is a wonderful example as to where the world and the country want to go. host: what does it do for afghanistan policy questions? caller: we are going to leave afghanistan, just as we had to leave iraq. we just have some nice people coming on the heels of the bush years. host: atlanta, to order, jerry, democrats line. caller: i have never heard such take in everybody. you would think that democrats would be happy we have somebody who really cares about people and not about money. think about this. this is the first african- american black president. he have to admit that even the way he brought about things is to bring about peace. so many years before him, there have been circumstances of hate, war, and takeover. you cannot t

troops into afghanistan. the associate press cites a top administration official involved in discussions. that official tells the ap the president will accept some taliban involvement in afghanistan's political future. the president, of course, has been reviewing a report from the afghanistan commander general stanley mcchrystal, laying out possible stages of military escalation. added from 10,000240,000 troops. the eight u.s. soldiers killed during a fire fight. >> as we mourn the loss of these great americans we remember their dedicated service and heroic actions as they fought alongside their comrades to preserve our freedoms. >> our soldier overs there are actually in very high spirits. they were attacked and the unit fought bravely and in the end they won the day. >> the pentagon confirms another soldier from ft. carson was killed in a separate attack, the 24th soldier from ft. carson to die in afghanistan. >> 13 people are dead in the capital kabul as a result of a car bombing outside the indian embassy

>> if you look at afghanistan, i see you pulling up a map now, southern afghanistan is mostly flat, mostly desert, so a lot of the missions in there are in vehicles and the main threat that they are facing is ied attacks. so oftentimes, the soldiers that are there don't even see the taliban, they just step on an ied and sometimes get killed. eastern afghanistan, where these small outposts are very different. it's covered in mountains. there are many different militant networks that operate in the area, the hakani network probably being the most powerful one there. and there are many outposts in these mountainous valleys and what they are designed to do is to block the traffic that the militants use when they go back and forth into pakistan, sometimes smuggling weapons, sometimes smuggling drugs, sometimes smuggling personnel, so, they are spread out to try to interdict the transit of militants and their goods it means, in many cases, they are on their own, days away from any kind of resupply and in very treacherous terrain. this particular outpost was on the bottom of a valley. so, therefo

troops to afghanistan. well now, the president's weighing a strategy that would put more than 100,000 american lives at stake. congressional leaders who met with the president yesterday say the only option he is not considering is pulling out. we heard from congressmen on both sides of the sooil this morning. >> the general said for this strategy, i need 40,000 troops to be successful. if the president is going to resource him differently, then the president has to say, well, i'm not going to buy into your strategy. i have a different strategy that i think you can accomplish with 10,000 soldiers. here are the outcomes i expect you're going to get. >> if you'll look at history, i can think of no incident where holding back forces and reducing forces lend to a successful mission. led to victory. >> today's anniversary comes as a dynamic change in afghanistan. one enemy's role is fading there, but another's is gaining strength. that story in less than 15 minutes. >>> we have new details on what you need to kno

future of the afghanistan war. moderator david gregory talked to susan rice, the u.s. ambassador to the u.n., and he asked if the afghanistan war is a, quote, war of necessary, as the president has said, why would he not immediately granlts the wishes of the commanders there? here's the response. >> we have put in place 21,000 additional troops. they are still completing their deployment. we have increased the number of civilians and we've increased the financial resources to to afghanistan and pakistan substantially. the president has commander in chief has to look at more than what is happening in a single theater. he has to look at what is necessary to to advance our goal of defeating al qaeda globally. >> i'm joined live from washington by democrat he can strategist and a republican strategyist. good to see you. peter, i'll begin with you. what else is the president weighing when deciding whether or not to send the troops that the commanders want? >> i think ambassador rice laid it out. there are a lot of diffe

>> we've been in afghanistan for eight years. and i think it's certainly a good opportunity and a necessary act by the president to step back and consider how the last eight years have gone and where we're going. so i don't think that we're running out of time. at the same time, the afghan election process is still unresolved. and i think that an announcement at this date before that crisis is resolved would probably be premature. >> and do you think this is a decision the president makes all by himself? >> well, ultimately it is the president's decision. i mean, he has many very experienced advisers around him. but ultimately, he has to make the call and it will be his responsibility. >> and within the pentagon, is there any division there? >> well, i think there's certainly a skepticism among some in the pentagon that a counterinsurgency objective can be achieved over the long-term in afghanistan. i think that there is concern that adding more troops into the feeder could make things worse. but obviously the commanders on the g

troops in afghanistan. nbc's jim miklaszewski live in afghanistan today. so jim, i understand you have come back from the area where this attack happened. let's get the latest details on it. >> reporter: it was a vicious attack. military officials say that it began shortly after dawn yesterday morning. and raged on for more than six hours. the enemy firing rocket-prop rocket-propelled grenades, heavy machine gun fire from positions well dug into the mountainside surrounding the base and firing from a mosque and police station in a nearby town. now, we did take a helicopter ride to that area this morning with the regional commander major general curtis scaparoti saying that the enemy had the advantage because they held the high ground. >> just how tough was this fight? >> well, it was in mountainous terrain. you have very sheer cliffs around you a. will the of rocky, mountainous terrain with some trees around it. hard to see people and the enemy can move about using that as protection. >> reporter: the fighting was so intense that medevac helicopters couldn

presence in afghanistan. that's an option that the president hasn't even embraced himself, and yet general mcchrystal has made a major foreign policy speech in london just this past week promoting that plan. now, the president did meet with general mcchrystal aboard air force one while the president was in copenhagen. they met on the tarmac, and the president spoke with the general for about 25 minutes. there was also a very high level meeting earlier last week, three hours the president chaired and the general participated in via video conference. today the president's national security adviser says they haven't even gotten to the question of how many troops to put in, how many more additional troops to put in. they say they want to develop the strategy before the resources. meanwhile, the politics are very difficult in washington. members of the president's own party, leading members of congress are against sending more troops. meanwhile republicans say follow mcchrystal's advice now or risk losing afghanis

he said, look, we're not pulling out of afghanistan. so the question is, are we going to send more troops there, or is this going to be a new strategy that emphasizes the global war. tomorrow, david, the president is going to the national counterterrorism center. sort of -- if you're a fan of the movie -- the show "the 24," sort of this interagency center where intelligence gets shared internationally, as well as domestically to try to deal with terrorism worldwide. and one of of the things you're going to hear from the president is how they have accomplished attacking members of al qaeda and key cells all over the world from indonesia to east africa to, of course, that fuzzy border in afghanistan and pakistan, david. >> nbc news white house correspondent chuck todd. chuck, thanks as always. fascinating stuff. >> and the bigger picture, the domestic politics over afghanist afghanistan, a bill has been signed to increase troop levels in afghanistan. democratic congresswoman barbara lee introduced the bill, the legislation comes as presid

the war in afghanistan tops the agenda. we will find out then if you minutes when they will be discussing. in the middle box, a trip overseas is on tap for vice president biden. he will visit three nato allies, poland, romania, and the czech republic. in the bottom box, thousands of homes in the california san gabriel mountains are still threatened by wildfires, but cool weather is helping the firefighters get a handle on the flames. trace: rio de janeiro, home of the 2016 olympics and the world's highest murder rate. now they are trying to live down their reputation of crime. in fact, violence is such a problem that more and more ordinary people drive around in armored cars. steve harrigan is with us in rio de janeiro. >> rio is going to have an $11 billion budget for those games, and they will have to spend some of that money on neighborhoods like this, either to knock them down or to want them off. these types of slums cause a security concern, and that is why more brazilians drive armored cars compared to other countrie

certainly never promised to quit afghanistan. is the white house now letting the noisemakers dictate the scorecards? and finally, unshockable. david letterman admits all and it's cost him nothing job-wise. so what's changed? some paid dearly. why not dave? is it ok these days to be a cad? hi, i'm chris matthews. welcome to the show. barge barge, senior political analyst for cnn. clarence page writes a column, and david ignatius is a "washington post" columnist. first up, in the last few weeks the letdown between the allies seems to have spread. they're disappointed that some issues haven't been pushed and they're worried about the skill of the white house team. they're distressed at the heroic obama of the campaign, the guy who murdered a nobel peace prize is looking far more ordinary in washington. the first year has been critical for presidents who have gotten re-elected. f.d.r. pushed through his new deal in his first year. reagan passed big tax cuts and when bill clinton did his big deficit crunch, and nafta, with just two mo

troops to afghanistan. well, now published reports say general stanley mcchrystal is asking for as many as 40,000 more, putting 100,000 american lives at stake. congressional leaders who met privately with the president yesterday say the only option that he is not considering is pulling out. >> what he made clear was we've got to understand what the resources are going to be for the long haul and what kind of commitment we are, in fact, calling on the american people to make. >> we were here to express our support for the president and his committing to the mission up front and expressed our support to work with him. if he makes the right decision, which is to listen to his commanders in the field who are asking desperately for more troops. >> today's anniversary comes as a dynamic changes in afghanistan. one enemy's role is fading there, but another one is gaining strength. that story is coming up in just a bit. >>> the number of school kids killed in chicago doubled over the last three years and after the

forces in afghanistan. and, mcchrystal says this mission risks failure within a year unless he gets 40,000 more troops. that, has some crickets alarmed about the vietnam-style escalation. and some counter the number implies more than it really should. >> the reality is when we talk of 40,000 troops, most americans think that is 40,000 guys on the ground fighting and it's not. it includes the substantial amount of support, support people and the backup and logistics and communications and the supply and the medical... >> arguments like these dividing the president's closest advisors about the best strategic option. and, coming up today brings another deadly ambush for u.s. troops, we have fox team coverage in washington and kabul. first up, to molly henneberg live in our d.c. bureau tonight, hi. >> reporter: the white house held two of five meetings of the president's national security team, to determine a new strategy in afghanistan. two more sessions are scheduled, for the coming weeks. the commander-in-ch

whether it's afghanistan or missile defense. and you spoke a lot of iran. over the last couple years i was struck by several comments that have been made. one was by the intelligence agency who said if wire not there bleeding, iran as he departed afghanistan as a general. and when asked if iran works towards our same objective, he replayed, yes, they do they want stability there and they don't like al-qaeda because they're sunni. the intelligence committee testified that with regard to foreign policy and security decisions, iran takes a cost-benefit approach rather than a head-long rush to a decision irregardless of cost of benefits to it diplomatic, political and other goals. you have worked -- and you can't miss it in this job and you brought up iran. what perspective can you provide us? iran will continue to be brought up in almost any security briefing, and you can provide us, rather than, they cause mischief. what can you take away to give us on how to deal with this nation? view of those three statements that say, you know, maybe this nation overall,

that applies in afghanistan something that has not existed. in europe and when there were vacuums' between various countries and a 19th century they came up with the concept of naturalizing belgium for example. which meant to intervene to protect their interest. i would say we need anti-terrorist agreement that agrees on the fundamental security out objective and that separates this from a purely american problem. before that, we need time. and therefore, i believe for us now to redefine our objective only because we cannot face the domestic consequences of following the strategic recommendations would be a big mistake. >> that is a fascinating example of applying historical insight to contemporary problems. i can't think of anybody else in the world who would have drawn a parallel between afghanistan the neutralization of belgium after the napoleonic period but it raises a question about iran which is one of the stakeholders by virtue of geography in the fate of afghanistan. you're earlier work you wrote a great deal about revolutionary power

they don't need a safe haven in afghanistan. they have safe havens in six, seven other countries. >> see the entire interview on fareed zakaria gps. >>> hope is dimming for rescuers looking for survivors of a collision between a plane and helicopter. the crash happened overnight thursday off of the coast of san diego after civilian hair traffic controllers turned over communications to military air traffic controllers. >>> in 2004, former vice president dick cheney told a special prosecutor he did not know who leaked the identity of a cia agent to the press. newly released fbi documents showed that cheney replied to many questions with i do not recall. it became known as plame-gate when valeri plame's identity was leaked to her husband. cheney's chief of staff, scooter libby, was eventually convicted of perjury in the case. >>> a powerful lawmaker is taking a pushing for a so-called public option. harry reid took his pitch to the internet. as dana bash reports, this may not be just about health care, but also about reid's politi

obama discussed afghanistan with lawmakers. the white house says the president will not base his decision on the mood of capitol hill or the eroding public support for that war. >>> police have arrested more than 60 people during anti-war protests outside the white house. they were reenacting some waterboarding, so-called enhanced interrogation technique. many say they supported president obama but oppose sending more u.s. troops to afghanistan. >> if he escalates the war i'll be deeply disappointed. >> we had great hopes and we feel those hopes are being dashed. >> these protesters are marking the eight anniversary of the war with afghanistan all around the country today. the administration will have a tough time meeting its deadline to close the guantanamo bay prison. that is what u.s. attorney general eric holder is saying. president obama promised to shut it down by next january but holder says it may not happen because congress has voted to barter ror suspects from u.s. prisons. holder says he is trying to convince lawmake

americans remain divided over afghanistan. a recent cbs news poll shows about one-third want more troops. one-third want the status quo, and about one-third want troops out. the president's war cabinet meets twice again this week to advise him. >> the president should be presented with options, not just one fait accompli. >> reporter: his top commander in afghanistan, general stanley mcchrystal, wants to continue with the counter insurgency strategy, that means protecting the afghan, but it requires up to 40,000 more u.s. troops. a group led by vice president joe biden is backing a pared-down counter-terrorism fight, fewer troops who would target the insurgents and focus less on afghan security. the national security adviser said today the decision will be made in a matter of weeks. >> we have time on the president's schedule. he's going to devote an enormous amount of his time to lead us through this. >> reporter: but any increase in troops is already facing opposition on capitol hill. >> i would not commit to more combat tro

there is no more al qaeda in afghanistan. they are present in what the cia said two years ago is a safe haven. from there they can plan quietly against us if they're not disturbed over in pakistan. i will accept what the general wants to do if the goal is to eradicate that save haven in pakistan by supporting pakistan and doing it from the base. that base is afghanistan. second, there is a very well- defined as a strategy. not with the date that a certain for withdrawal, but with benchmarks of success and failure to ofhow this treasure we're pouring in is getting as results we can see. to leave behind a probability, not a certainty, that al qaeda will not move once they are eradicated back to afghanistan as we ready deploy. put myself five years from now. if we left al qaeda in and sit given to play against us, what would we say if they did strike us again 9/11-dial? with the proper exit strategy, not trying to do nation- building, but leaving certain conditions to support troop increase slightly. host: let's go to phone call

these are civilians working for afghanistan. this is a totally senseless thing that's happened here. it's an outrage and it's a tragedy. >> now, this comes after two straight days of heavy losses for the u.s. yesterday eight u.s. soldiers were killed by two roadside bombs in afghanistan. the locations are marked by little red stars here on the map. and on monday, 14 u.s. troops and civilians died in a pair of helicopter crashes. the war in afghanistan is now eight years old and october is now the deadliest month yet. >>> the public health insurance option already faces a major hurdle. independent not joe leaker are man says he'll oppose any bill that includes government-run health insurance. lieberman says the public option is too expensive and risky. >> we ought to wait three or four years to see how the tremendous reforms that we have the chance to put into effect now work and then if for some reason people position we need a publicly owned health insurance company, well, we'll come back and discuss that. >> lieberman typicall

troopso afghanistan. the reasons for inding the country -- to capture kill bin laden and deny al qaeda sanctuary. that w the mission then, and eight yearon it still hasn't been accomplisd. taliban propaganda foote. it sws a suicide palmer involved in anttack on the culture ministry in kabul. the bomber shoots the ard befo storming into the buding, gunning down others and then setti off his explosiv. the taliban must have film the attack from one of tse buildings. ey have become more sophisticated not onlyn their media propagandaampaign but in their mitary operations. u.s. commanders adt that, and afghan security ofcials say al qaeda has been behind the taliban's growing strength the government saythey often arrest forgn fighters crossing from pakistan. it's from there, aording to afghans, that al qda and the taliban operate and bin lan continues inspire many. the u.s. may be maki some headway in afghanista but the makeup of the enemy and the nare of the battle fight have been chaed. it no longer a fight a

bill: is there a problem between the military and president obama over afghanistan? afghanistan? a decisionsstill has not been made to send more troops there we will take a look at a troubling situation. >> i understand you have a story to cover. but it's almost like you are glorifying it i'm a crime victim. victim. bill: billhe fbiaron a andrews. did some hotels help the guy? >> it's the late show with david letterman. bill: how is the press handling the letterman controversy? bernie goldberg has some thoughts: caution, you are about to enter the no spin zone. the factor begins right now. [captioning made possible by fox news channel] captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org-- bill: hi, i'm bill o'reilly, thanks for watching us tonight. president obama versus the military, that is the subject of this evening's talking points memo. a british newspaper is reporting president obama is angry with afghan commander general stanley mcchrystal, his appointment, for the blunt comments mcchrystal delivered about the war in london. telegraph says general mcchrystal w

nato, please send troops to afghanistan, they won't. saying no to the president. >> i think that's antidemocratic. what they're trying to do. i believe with the primary system in our country. going and saying to israel, halt settlements, that's the right of the u.s. president. that's called international relations, diplomacy, speaking out the world. >> all i'm saying is that the world adores him and ignores him. >> but the world is marching on its terms. america is no longer a superpower. i think this administration understands the limit of u.s. power. what president obama is trying to do and yesterday, when he spoke about the national emergency in our country, which is the jobs crisis, that's where you begin to see a president who needs to limit his perspective. i think he needs to be forced to by the nature of our times. he needs to step up on the jobs crisis. because that's not just political, it's moral. you had on fed federal reserve chairman greenspan. he adverted his eyes from financial chaos and destruction. to say we don't need

having a significant footprint in afghanistan for a long time. people have turned around the, ten years, possibly another decade there. what the presidential going to tell the general and i'm sure what the white house will say is we're going to give you more troops, but we're not going to give you ten more years. you are not going to have a lease on afghanistan for the next decade. what can you do in two to three years to draw this down and turn it over to the afghan people? so, again, the one thing we're not going to see, dan, and everybody in the media will see it, the headline, "mcchrystal to general, drop dead" or "president to his general, drop dead." it's not going to happen that way. generals and presidents have disagreement. bill clinton and his general had disagreements, but they quietly get together, figure how to work it. the president makes the final decision but usually it's middle ground. i'm sure they're going to do that again here. >> on that, have you been surprised the way general mcchrystal has been outspoken, or has made his r

you no carrier see you have ring to have security in afghanistan, you have to have governance in afghanistan. >> reporter: in eastern afghanistan, over the weekend, hundreds of insurgents stormed two outposts killing eight american no carrier > ring soldiers. it was the bloodiest no car assault on on u.s. troops in ring no car more than a year. the rising death toll is expected to add even more fire ri to an already heated no carrier debate. >> i would not ring commit to more no carri combat ring no car troops at this time. what we need is surge of is afghan troops. >> reporter: it isn't just law make others capitol hill who can't come to an > agreement. the american public also no carrier remains ring no c divided over afghanistan. >> quhaefr the general recommends i no carrierguess, would be my -- i'd be in favor of. >> totally opposed. totally had no carrier ring no carrier opposed. >> reporter: a recent cbs news poll shows about a third want more troop a third want the statute tuesday company, and a ring third want troops out. with that kind of ring split, it will probably be difficult f

>> couric: tonight, a new strategy for afghanistan. the president considers shifting the focus from the taliban to al qaeda, even after a deadly new taliban attack. our correspondent was there when it happened. continuing coverage of afghanistan, the road ahead. i'm maggie rodriguez. also tonight, the h1n1 flu phase two. not as bad as expected in some places, but in this hospital, it's as bad as can be. is there water on the moon? nasa's about to crash a spacecraft into the lunar surface to find out. and an incredible ancestral journey that leads from slavery in the south to the white house. captioning sponsored by cbs this is the "cbs evening news" with katie couric. >> good evening, katie is off. the taliban struck again today in the heart of afghanistan's capital. a devastating suicide bombing outside india's embassy in kabul. tls the second taliban attack on that building in a year. 17 people were killed today, and at least 76 others were wounded. most of the victims, afbegan civilians on their way to work. we'll have more on the a

fresh details on the battle in afghanistan. first, the meeting at the white house. 2:30 eastern time today, president obama started what was described as a no-holds-barred meeting with 30 members of congress. he invited republican and democratic lawmakers from both the house and senate to discuss one topic -- what to do in afghanistan. tomorrow marks eight years to the days since we started this war halfway around the world in a land bordering another hot spot, the nuclear nation of pakistan. it is not going well. the president's military commanders are asking now for tens of thousands more troops to fight the taliban and al qaeda and protect the afghan population. but some advisers are pushing for a narrower approach. that would let us bring more troops home. today, the president asked lawmakers what they think. is it winnable? how do we win? we have fox coverage tonight with steve and james. james, what lawmakers say happened in that sit down? >> new sources tell us that the president used this occasion when he was sitting wi