>> from washington, the mclaughlin group, the american original. for over three decades, the sharpest minds, best sources, hardest talk. >> issue one. taliban terror. chaos returns to afghanistan's capital, kabul this week. taliban attackers killed at least 64 people and injured hundreds more, detonating a car bomb and then spraying gunfire into the crowd. the taliban sought to maximize casualties and the suffering is likely to continue. the taliban claimed the attack is their opening strike on the so-called spring fighting

season. in previous years, the taliban have escalated their attacks during afghanistan's warmer months, but note this. commander-in-chief obama has increased the u.s. military presence in afghanistan. these new ground deployments, president obama says, are necessary to help train and aid afghan security forces. question -- will afghanistan ever find civility? pat buchanan? >> i don't think the afghan government can survive on its own, john. they've had tremendous numbers of american troops in there and couldn't defeat the taliban. and now we've got about 9500. i think obama is supposed to bring them down to 5,000 by the end of the year. i don't think that's going to happen. i mean, the taliban are in mel mond, active, blowing things up in kabul. i think what we got here is a situation where the united states is going to have to remain there indefinitely or if

we don't i think the taliban may not have the power to take over the whole country but they've got the ability to knock down that government, i think, and create chaos and take over parts of it for themselves. we've been there 15 years. the effort to build a free and independent afghanistan i think is a failure. >> there is a groundhog day quality to this reporting. every year there is a spring fighting season. i think the hope was the new coalition government which had undertaken talks with the taliban, that there was going to be some sort of change but i think the taliban saw it as just another opening to begin fighting again. american troops at least are not on the front lines. it's not like we're getting casualty reports every week or ay or month. i agree it is a pretty sad situation and i think the best this president can do is kind of keep a lid on it.

and if the next president wants to withdraw more or intensify that is a decision for the future. >> was afghanistan ever stable in the 20th century? tom rogan? >> the history going back, it's always been a deeply tribal culture especially in the south and east. >> you're mumbling. >> i'll speak more eloquently. so pakistan -- afghanistan -- >> why did you mumble as a decoy effort? >> decoy? >> when you're not quite sure of the answer you suddenly get the mumbles. >> all right. let's do it then. 19th century unstable because of the british influence in terms of imperial trade routes. 20th century, more stable. russian -- soviet invasion 1979 whacking the government. i know this stuff a little bit. but the south and east of the country with the tribal culture means it is very hard to impose centralized government. i think what we will find -- the problem with the president as much as he made the right

decision in keeping an extension of troops, it's not quite enough troops there. the military wants more to do the train, assist, intelligence. what eventually will happen is secure the arterial lines of communication, roads from kandahar to kabul, and secure kabul as best you can but areas like helmond province unfortunately will be tribal politics. >> under four decades the king y was ruled by muhammad shah. >> it wasn't very pleasant but it was stable under the taliban. >> afghanistan was modernizing before the soviet invasion i believe. is that correct? >> well, i think that's right but the soviets went in there and knocked that government over and put their own government in, which lasted about two or three more years. then the taliban took over.

they were under control. you're right. al qaeda was operating under the taliban. and, frankly, i think we should have gone --. >> a narco state. i mean, their main --. the taliban now has gone into that business as well. >> called a state because they've never had a strong central government. it is still a collection of tribes running various parts of various regions. that's who we've had to work through in order to have something resembling stability. >> you know, when it breaks down that's probably what's going to lap to it. >> are iraq and afghanistan better off or worse off than when president obama took office? >> far worse off. >> go around the horn. >> they're far worse off. both are in horrendous shape. they've got scores of thousands if not hundreds of thousands dead. and millions of homeless. >> i don't think either of them are worse off than when he took

office. to suggest that obama is to blame, let's go back to the original sin in the invasion of iraq which happened under the previous president. that was the biggest strategic, bumbling mistake ever. >> so was the 2011 withdrawal. and the president is not in my mind telling the truth when he blames that purely -- that could have been done. look. iraq is worse. afghanistan is better. >> you mean the withdrawals from afghanistan could have been done? >> or iraq, yes. >> well, they're in bad shape. at least they don't have as many american troops there as they used to. and that has become our new strategy now to try to keep things as stable as we can without having our people on the front lines but the casualties the afghan army has been taking have been horrendous. it's not going to end before obama leaves office. i suspect he is going to try very hard to bring it down to 5,000. he didn't want the current surge in the first place. >> right. >> you know, i think it's vice

president biden, he likes to have the cap numbers. >> but to do what? i just saw a report, a newspaper report about schools that were built that are not -- they're empty. and others that are supposed to be built that weren't and the money has disappeared. >> it may be how it's prioritized now. >> is that in chicago? >> that's afghanistan, john. we're supposed to build schools. remember? part of the -- >> the answer sounded like chicago. >> you like chicago, john. i know you want to bring us back there. it's okay with me. >> the answer is, iraq and afghanistan are worse off now. issue two. crumbling cease fire. >> that discussion about transition is the key test of the seriousness of the assad regime, of russia, and iran, to support what we have put into

words. >> only two months old. but as officials met for peace talks in geneva, syria's cease-fire was crumbling. president obama had hoped the february cease-fire would encourage russia to push its lly, bashar al-assad, to relinquish power but instead, it seems, russia is preparing to crush rebel forces in the northern city of aleppo and further degrade the power of u.s. supported rebels fighting r. assad's regime. in response president obama is considering escalating his support for those rebel groups. according to "the wall street journal," the u.s. may provide these rebels with antiair missile systems to shoot down syrian and possibly also russian jets. a sign president putin feels confident russian military jets

simulated an attack on a u.s. war ship in the baltic sea. what do you think is happening here, clarence? >> i think the russians are rattling their sabers at us, at the same time trying to extend their control in syria, without getting too deeply involved in the combat over there. but this is -- they've pulled us into their sphere of influence, and the cease-fire that was broken is probably not going to get reestablished very quickly. but it needs to be genuine. >> what the russians are doing makes more sense than anybody else. they want to keep their ally assad in power. they want to keep their base at tartus, both of those bases, they want to preserve the regime. and so they're fighting the rebels both bad and good rebels so to speak. it's the americans who don't make sense. we're supporting the rebels and we'd like assad everthrown but the al qaeda and the isis

people we'd like to fight them are aligned, the saudis and the turks want to overthrow assad. the whole thing is really a mess. as we talked before, more than 250,000 dead and millions homeless. something like 9 million people displaced. it is a horror show. >> but the american position is that assad if he continues in power, the fighting doesn't stop. if you want to bring the fighting to an end you've got to figure out a way to transition assad out. and i think the president was over in that region and talking to the european allies and basically said there are no good options. and in that interview he did in "atlantic" magazine he said he'd be much more willing to take more risks in syria if he hadn't come in with two wars on his hands and is looking at another situation with a lot of the same dynamics to send more americans in there, more weapons in there, to have probably the same bad outcome. he's just not interested.

>> the problem we have is putin is playing us a fool repeatedly and the tangible quality to that is what's happening in the sense that we tell these rebel groups, we say to the suny arabs who are allies, don't fund the al qaeda groups because we'll support these groups and the cease-fire will work. then putin breaks the cease-fire and keeps doing it again so the monarchy keeps throwing money at the al qaeda groups so it spreads. and absolutely we have, syria is a great example. we have very poor allies. >> more fire power is the answer? i don't think so. >> the president is moving in that direction. >> one of the dumbest things i think we could do is start handing out surface-to-air missiles to rebels to shoot down russian planes. i mean, what is -- is there anything there that's worth the confrontation between the united states and russia or even between our nato allied turkey and russia? that's the kind of thing you want to avoid.

>> i suspect the president is holding the line on that. he's been thought to be thinking about this for the ast six years maybe. >> you bring them in there and that possibility is wide open. >> let me remind you that putin is growing desperate. russia's economy is nearing a tipping point. the sanctions remain in place. russia runs out of farm reserves next year. the russian ruble will collapse. >> the economy is in tough shape, no doubt. it's not getting better. oil prices aren't helping him because they're heavily reliant on that. but i wouldn't say he is -- >> even more dangerous, right? >> look. he's a tough, autocratic ruler of russia. they've always had that. every czar has been that. and we can't get along with these people. what is the matter with this country? >> i don't know that it's a question of getting along with him. it's a question of him being

assertive outside his country in order to distract from his economic problems. that doesn't mean inability to get along with him. he's acting in what he thinks are his best interests. >> what are we doing giving war -- war guarantees to the free baltic countries? we're going to go to war to fight for astonia? are you kidding? >> what are we doing standing up for putin all the time? >> i'm not standing up for him. we got to deal with the guy as one of the people in the world -- >> they are dealing with him. they're pushing back. >> it's like ping. you got to deal with him. >> the great balance. what do you do? how do you do it? i think isis is a direct symptom of assad killing young men essentially and unless you resolve that, isis will keep going and -- >> he doesn't have any problem with us bombing isis. donald trump said he'd like to

see the russians bomb isis. >> yeah. he gives lip service to that, but his actions don't follow up his words. >> keep assad in power because it's a lie. does that make sense? >> you keep assad in power you don't get rid of isis. >> here's the question. is syria headed for partition, yes or no? >> ultimately i think it's either going to be partition or i think the shia who are the minority and the christians, john, are going to come in for real hell if the sunnies win that war. >> eleanor? >> i don't know what it would be partitioned into and for. so i'm going to say no. >> west-east-north but not functional -- not formally, no. >> i'm changing my question for you. did you get my message? >> the kurds up north. >> did you get my message? is putin fearful of being overthrown in a coup? >> no. >> not likely to happen. >> he is very popular. believe it or not.

because he -- >> only 84, 85%. mblingts he knows how to handle his -- >> he knows how to handle his publicity and information, propaganda with his own people. that's his primary concern. >> he fears a coup --. >> that doesn't mean a coup is inevitable, though. >> he's just paranoid all the time. whether there is an actual coup threat or not. i would not depend on there being a coup threat right now. >> you're cusing him of paranoia? >> yes. i'm diagnosing him of paranoia. >> you better watch your step. >> it's typical. every auto carat is paranoid because they can be overthrown like anybody else. >> you becoming a problem for him? >> i hope so. >> issue three. state of the two-state solution. >> i firmly believe that the action that israel's government has taken over the past several

years, the steady, systematic expansion of settlements, the legalization of outposts, land seizures, they're moving us and more importantly moving israel in the wrong direction. they're moving us toward a one-state reality and that reality is dangerous. >> speaking to the liberal, pro israel, j-street group this week. vice president biden criticized israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu. the prime minister, mr. biden said, is damaging peace efforts with the palestinian people. and while the vice president condemned palestinian terrorism, his sharp words on the israeli settlement construction in the west bank raised some eyebrows in washington and tel aviv. that's because as the mclaughlin group noted on january 22, israel relies

heavily on u.s. diplomatic support. still, note this. in his own speech to j-street, secretary of state john kerry promised the u.s. would not give up on a two-state solution . are joe biden and john kerry right or wrong? let's try that on you. >> well, i think the two-state solution is not comatose but it's in suspended animation right now. we haven't seen netanyahu so much displeasure with the status quo and for all of his talk about moving and making progress, president obama has laid off on criticizing him but now we see joe biden being very public and up front about it in the last year of the obama administration. and we can hope that there might be more of a -- of a dialogue on this at least to set things up for the next administration. >> so he has demanded prospects for the two-state solution --

>> prospects are damaged anyway as far as i can see. >> yeah. there is some speculation that the administration might put forward some plan by the end of the year to be sort of a token effort. but i think what you're seeing is a generational split in the jewish community, and younger people are more willing to criticize netanyahu. you saw bernie sanders, the democratic candidate, kind of playing into that in the new york primary, of all places, and politically, a couple years ago, that would have been unthinkable. so there is kind of a willingness to put some pressure on netanyahu from american jews. >> but i think it's irrelevant, because look. netanyahu didn't want to get out of gaza. he's been building settlements every year, new settlements in the west bank. there are 650,000 israelis in east jerusalem and on the west bank. he has said this past week that we're never going to give up the golan heights. they belong to us now. i think kerry tried this for 18

months. made an heroic effort. got nowhere. i think it's a waste of our time really to try to push beebe netanyahu in this direction but there is no doubt what eleanor says is true. you talk about americans and younger americans and kids in college and things that israel is no longer the ideal of nations it once was. >> both kerry and biden are right. >> they're both going to be gone in six months. >> paying lip service to the two-state solution. israel has concluded that the middle east is too roiled to risk palestinian statehood. >> the issue here, yes. the settlement construction is profoundly negative. i mean, every administration since truman and the creation of israel has said that republican and democrat. but the problem is as well that the israelis in terms of their diplomacy and this is why i

think there should be concern in the foreign ministry know that people who really do hate the israelis around the world and there are quite a lot of them actually in europe, use that because they see how hamas -- the viceage of -- the revolutionary, some kind of appeal to it when the reality is they are blood-drenched murderers so the israelis essentially hurt themselves by not drawing attention to the positive moral contrast that i think most of the case is. >> it's hard to disagree. bibi is saying, look. we gotten misall around us. hamas, hezbollah. good heavens. we don't know who is going to wind up in damascus. we're not giving up a thing. we're going to keep what we got. i think us talking about it is talk. >> but in their own self-interest if they want to be a jewish, democratic state, they've got to come to terms with pop in that -- population in that area. >> how are they going to divide that up now? i think those who say they've reached the point of one-state solution are right. >> better than that. multiple choice exit question.

is the two-state solution, a, in suspended animation, b, omatose, c, morabund, or, d, dead? >> i think defacto it's dead. >> i go with a, suspended animation. things change. netanyahu is not forever. >> suspended animation. >> it's come back to where i've began. suspended animation. >> two for suspended animation. >> three. >> one for d.o.a. how about you? >> i'm reflecting. [laughter] >> i think a's -- it's too close to call. issue four. a question of lawful presence. >> it's not normal. 's really hard to understand that immigration could take me and separate me from my daughter. >> protesters gathered at the u.s. supreme court this week in support of president obama's executive action on immigration amnesty.

26 states are challenging the amnesty that would affect 4 million illegal immigrants. two issues are before the court. first, whether the 26 states have sufficient grievance or, "standing to sue" the federal government for harms the states claim mr. obama's amnesty will impose. specifically, the states claim they will have to spend millions of dollars providing driving licenses to illegal immigrants. cond, whether the amnesty is unlawful. usurps es claim amnesty congressional authority on immigration law, but note this. the supreme court has the vacant seat so if the justices vote 4-4, mr. obama's amnesty will be denied. question. what happens if the court

splits? pat buchanan? >> in the federal appellate court decision, if it stands -- then the federal appellate court decision stands and the obama issue is canceled. i think it is an easy question and easy call. i think they do because it will take considerable amount of resources. does the president of the united states have the authority to do what he did? and i think at least four justices of the supreme court are going to say no. he did not have the authority. that this is a question in which clearly the congress of the united states has got to be engaged, cannot be an executive decision, and president obama in previous -- before he took his executive decision was saying i don't have the authority. i don't have the authority. so they're probably going to be reading the president's statements. >> this is very narrow. this is very narrow. and previous presidents eisenhower, george h.w. bush,

george w. bush, ronald reagan, have all taken similar actions to apply to classes of people that have been caught up in our immigration system. the standing texas is claiming that it would cost money to give driver's licenses, that is the phoniest excuse i've ever heard. one, they can just charge more for the driver's licenses or they can deny them as they currently do to these people. this is not amnesty. this is a three-year moratorium so that the parents of children who are u.s. citizens can work lawfully instead of having to hide in the shadows and work off the books and be taken advantage of by businesses. >> the question is whether the president has the authority not whether it's a good idea. >> he has the authority based on several previous presidents. yes. >> and i have to say i'm with pat on this. i think to take that action in a country of laws, look, the president as a law professor,

his precedent is there, that this would be unlawful. but as a politician he's changed. >> i would agree with you. >> and the executive power, the expansion of that in terms of this act, it really is against the grain of law and it's against the tradition of american law. >> i would agree with you he was trying to make a decision that would last longer than his administration, but by confining it to his administration it is part of the managerial executive functions of the executive branch. >> clarence, is it confined to his administration? >> well, a new president can come in and change the policy. >> in other words presidents can decide these things whichever way they want. >> right. he's choosing not to focus enforcement powers on deporting parents with children who are u.s. citizens. how can you be in favor of that? >> he is suspending enforcement of the law. it is not whether i agree or disagree. it is whether he has the power to suspend enforcement of the law. >> i wish immigration law was that simple but it's not.

that's why people are confused because a lot of people are in the country who are not documented, but they're not breaking the law. they're in some kind of gray area. >> why don't we get rid of congress then? >> let's try it again. >> if he was trying to go beyond his office or the term of office, i would agree with you, but he's not. >> but congress has taken ownership in the coequal branches of government that we have. >> lawyers and lawyers scrub this to make sure this is something that he could do within his realm of authority. and if they do come down with a decision it'll be for -- a -- >> why did the lower courts say you don't have the power? >> this is a political decision wrapped up in legal trappings. >> the lower court said he doesn't have the power. >> one lower court said he doesn't have the power. >> predictions, pat? >> trump will win all five primaries on tuesday. >> hillary clinton will win all five primaries on tuesday. >> they will both win all five primaries. >> they'll each win four out of

the five. >> i'll change the venue. brazyl -- brazil's senate will vote to impeach the president. bye-bye.

hello and welcome to kqed "newsroom." he's been a political cartoonist for more than two decades, now a pulitzer prize winner. jack ohman will join us. leading california gop candidates sit with senior political editor scott shafer to share their vision. first, bay area based tesla is expected to build what's supposed to be the largest manufacturer of lithium ion batteries, rising from a nevada desert near reno and touted as a potential game-changer in the efforts to reduce greenhouse