(glass shattering) (frustrated yell) (car horn blast) (yelp) my thanks to ben, jonathan, clare, eugene and a.b. and most of you for watching. "mtp daily" with chuck todd starts now. ♪ ♪ and welcome to wednesday. it is "meet the press daily." good evening. i'm chuck todd in washington. iran offered president trump an exit ramp to tensions in the middle east and it appears he is taking it. he said iran's strikes last

night in iraq in retaliation for general soleimani's death resulted in no u.s. casualties and caused minimal damage. president trump announced new sanctions on iran, he called for more nato involvement in the middle east and no mention of additional u.s. military action. he didn't rule it out and seemed to imply that he's not ratcheting things up more for now. notably, the president sounded at times as much like candidate trump as president trump and tou touted his own record and ripped into the iran nuclear deal and pinned the blame on the obama administration and the iran nuclear deal without any evidence for last night's attack. >> they chanted death to america the day the agreement was signed. then iran went on a terrorist spree funded by the money from the deal and created hell in yemen, syria, lebanon, afghanistan and iraq.

the missiles fired last night at us and our allies were paid for with the funds made available by the last administration. >> just so odd to see one american president do that to another american president in an issue of national security of importance like this. still, even as tensions are de-escalating a number of major questions remain about whether iran or proxies are done retaliating, whether the president might end up changing his mind about de-escalation and about the administration's long-term strategy in the region. our presence in iraq, the shifting explanations for striking in the first place and then there's congress' response. we'll get to more of that in a minute and questions of what it all means politically at the start of the election year and as impeachment takes center stage on capitol hill. so let's try to unpack this. i'm joined by a great team of colleagues here. richard engel is in iraq.

our white house correspondent kelly o'donnell there. elaine cooper for "new york times," pentagon correspondent. nbc news contributor available to us today and garrett haake on capitol hill. let's start in iraq with richard engel and, richard, i'm curious of what the reaction is in the middle east to iran essentially de-escalating, doing what they did last night, it looked like the equivalent of president trump's ordered air strikes on syria a couple years ago, designed more symbolically than they were as a strategic attack. >> reporter: so, yes. people here are expressing a degree of relief that the u.s. and iran aren't going to be now going into a conventional war. last night about 24 hours ago it looked like there was going to be a full-on war, that the u.s. potentially going to send in

fighter jets, iran was ready to intercept them according to the iranian media and we thought, okay, this is it. and iraq was very concerned that this country would be sucked into a war between iran and the united states. which would have -- would be fought not only on iraqi territory but ignite a new round of civil war here. officials are pleased that scenario if not likely seemed possible until hearing from president trump this morning didn't play out but they're not breathing a big sigh of relief because unfortunately history has taught this region that cycles of violence was started here do not tend to stop. and there is a concern that this is not over yet, that there will be potentially more actions, that there are shia militias still active that still can

cause flare-ups and could reignite this situation, could be right in this same position where i am right now or where we were let's say last night talking about the brink of war and are with heading to a full-on conflict. maybe next week or two weeks. just as a point of fact, in the green zone today there were two rockets fired just a short while ago and there were reports from the iraqi security service that is they didn't cause any damage or casualties. okay. fine. so we move on. but what if they had caused damage or casualties? they happen all the time now and likely fired the anticipation is of militia groups and what if they killed soldiers around if green zone, american soldiers? would we be back here talking about the same thing? are we on the brink of war? and then the president comes out an gives this news conference, so didn't happen yet today. but it's not -- no huge sighs of relief here.

>> let me move over to the white house now. kelly o'donnell, there was something that was omitted in his speech today that surprised me a little bit and that was any sort of fig leaf, olive branch to the iraqi government. almost seemed to be -- they decided not to engage in any iraqi diplomacy. iraq is the staging area to kill soleimani and on the receiving end of the symbolic retaliation. i would have expected the president perhaps to have been more -- >> reporter: conciliatory maybe? >> yes. >> reporter: i don't know if it's an issue to keep it as spare and simple adds possible. the speech was thought to be shorter than it ultimately was and the president did revisions, added some things there, and perhaps just to try to keep -- i'm guessing at that, to be honest. but you're right.

the u.s. partnership with iraq and the risk to iraqis is very great and other than the obvious acknowledgement that there was no loss of life on the u.s. side or the iraqi side is certainly allowing for this moment of pause or at least a deep exhale here but it's an ongoing difficulty with the u.s. and iraq as the government because of questions about will the u.s. remain with the military presence there? we know iran wants to see the u.s. pull out and the u.s. presence in iraq for these many, many years is part of both an agitation to some of the actors in that region, but also, part of the stability to try to keep a lid on resurgence of some of the hot spots, so it is a question, something the president did not engage in. he did reach out to the iranian people in sort of a modest olive branch to the -- >> almost more so than the iraqi people. >> reporter: yes. certainly talking about wanting

to include nato partners which is almost a head scratcher, as well. but another way to move in a new direction. >> let me ask you about the politics of this. i know -- some ways i'm not surprised to hear a speech like this from this president get so political but we have done this a long time. it was just so striking to me that the american president would basically accuse another american president of helping this other country attack us. again, i know donald trump does this all the time. any sort of alarm at all in that white house about thinking, maybe he crossed the line here? >> reporter: well, when the speech was revised and we heard his comments about the previous administration, it was almost striking he did not say president obama's name, he did not do that, but you wonder if that's part of the section that may have been added in or embellished, added to when he did revisions because he long made the argument by giving iran

back its own money as a function of the nearly defunct now iranian nuclear deal that it fueled their ability to pay for terrorist acts, a viety of nature and by extension to argue the military action used last night so basically saying any money goes back in iranian hands is paying for these evil acts that he's trying to fight. of course, it was iran's own money and it was part of a multi-nation deal. >> of course it was. >> reporter: they can spend it as they choose but the president conflates this all the time and very striking that he would attack his predecessor on a matter of this importance where u.s. lives and military readiness are all at stake. >> this was not a political -- at least we were told it was not supposed to be a political event. white house event. sournlded by national security team there. thank you, kelly. let's move over to the pentagon. kelly raised the nato question and my question for you, helene

cooper. what is the president asking of nato? have you gotten an answer from the pentagon what it is that suddenly nato's role, what is nato doing here? >> that's such an interesting question, chuck, because i just asked that question at the pentagon and they have no clue what the president is talking about. there was no plan to make a request of nato to take a robust role in the middle east so now we have officials scrambling to come up with something and a couple of the officials i talked to today said that, you know, possibly they will ask nato if there's more that they can do. nato isn't part of the anti-isis coalition group in -- that's been fighting the islamic nation and this one came out of left field for the pentagon.

>> i know that's not first time that he's done things like that to them when it comes to this. the other question i have for you sort of pentagon aspect of this, are they surprised at the fairly muted response from the iranian military? >> i don't think they're surprised. they are certainly -- there is certainly a little bit more of a spring in the step of the american military and pentagon officials today and you could see some of that last night. there seems to be sort of an exhaling, a feeling of relief. defense secretary mark esper just gave reporters here a press briefing and he said that they believe now that the united states has re-established deterrence. this is something that they've been talking about a lot today that the whole -- the deterrence has been re-established and the hope now is that there will be some space created, perhaps

forfor diplomacy but listening to president trump you didn't hear him saying he's look for a new way forward. he went back to his sanctions rhetoric. he said he'll continue to impose stricter sanctions against iran so i get the feeling there's many, many officials here in the administration who would like to see perhaps some sort of diplomacy start up but we haven't really heard that yet from -- and it does feel like both sides have gone straight back to the entrenched positions and that it means there's no reason why in three months we won't be back here. >> all right. well, i want to move to the capitol hill. garrett haake. this is where, garrett, it is interesting. you just heard the pentagon's not sure what the nato role is and perhaps that helps explain why and let me play republican

senator mike lee here, not the only senator complaining about the briefing from the administration but a few republican loudly complaining about the briefing. let me play his complaints and talk to you on the other side. >> the briefing lasted only 75 minutes whereupon the briefers left. this is not the biggest problem i have with the briefing which i would add was probably the worst briefing i have seen at least on a military issue in the nine years i have served in the quite senate. what i found so distressing about that briefing was that one of the messages we received from the briefers was do not debate, do not discuss the issue of the appropriateness of further military intervention against iran. and that if you do you'll be emboldening iran. i find it insulting and demeaning. not personally but to the office that each of the 100 senators in this building happens to hold.

it is not acceptable for officials within the executive branch of government, i don't care whether with the cia, with the department of defense or otherwise, to come in and tell us we can't debate and discuss the appropriateness of military intervention against iran. it's wrong. every time they pull a stunt like this, i'm willing to consider and introduce any and every war powers act resolution. >> garrett haake, that was -- look. when it comes to constitutional questions between the legislative and the executive, mike lee is a partisan for that for his point of view on the constitution, not a part son on any other level for a republican or democrat. he has his views and he cares about them deeply but he wasn't the only one complaining about this very -- sounds like a top down type of briefing. >> reporter: yeah. the reaction in the early part of the day after the house briefing and the senate briefing essentially a choose your own

adventure with democrats blasting the briefers saying this wasn't helpful and republicans saying they heard enough about the question particularly of whether of an imminent threat and no republican i talked to or the team heard from could describe what an imminent threat really meant coming out of the briefing. it is a classified briefing, limits of what they can talk about but the mike lee response that you just saw here i think blows a hole in the republican argument of what was discussed in that briefing. also, just to caveat, the bigger the briefing, the less useful they tend to be and republican and democratic administrations when you have all member briefings you tend to get less relevant information transmitted to the senators but, boy, you saw that anger in mike lee and his countenance and voice there and will be reflected in the house and senate votes coming up. the house vote tomorrow on war powers resolutions to limit the president's power going forward as regards to iran.

>> and, well, there might be at least a couple of additional republican votes because my guess is mike lee doesn't just speak for mike lee and rand paul my guess on the republican side of the aisle is sympathetic to mike lee's point of view on that one, as well. garrett haake, thank you. great way to start things off. thanks, very must have. up ahead, inside the iran briefing, first time congress is hearing the white house rational and i'll talk to the ranking member bob menendez next. members like martin. an air force veteran made of doing what's right, not what's easy. so when a hailstorm hit, usaa reached out before he could even inspect the damage. that's how you do it right. usaa insurance is made just the way martin's family needs it - with hassle-free claims, he got paid before his neighbor even got started. because doing right by our members, that's what's right. usaa. what you're made of, we're made for.

usaa i have moderate to severe pnow, there's skyrizi. ♪ things are getting clearer, yeah i feel free ♪ ♪ to bare my skin ♪ yeah that's all me. ♪ nothing and me go hand in hand ♪ ♪ nothing on my skin ♪ that's my new plan. ♪ nothing is everything. keep your skin clearer with skyrizi. 3 out of 4 people achieved 90% clearer skin at 4 months. of those, nearly 9 out of 10 sustained it through 1 year. and skyrizi is 4 doses a year, after 2 starter doses. ♪ i see nothing in a different way ♪ ♪ and it's my moment so i just gotta say ♪ ♪ nothing is everything skyrizi may increase your risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. before treatment your doctor should check you for infections and tuberculosis. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms such as fevers, sweats, chills, muscle aches or coughs, or if you plan to or recently received a vaccine. ♪ nothing is everything

ask your dermatologist about skyrizi. ♪ >> man: what's my my truck...is my livelihood. so when my windshield cracked... the experts at safelite autoglass came right to me. >> tech: hi, i'm adrian. >> man: thanks for coming. ...with service i could trust. right, girl? >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪

welcome back. as we mentioned we have seen members of congress speak out after being briefed on iran this afternoon. so far, from the reactions from lawmakers decidedly mixed and as you saw there from mike lee some less than mixed. joaning me is new jersey democratic senator bob menendez.

senator menendez, thank you for coming on. >> good to see you, chuck. >> let me just start with you. i don't know if you've heard about your colleague republican colleague mike lee. he called it the worst briefing he's received in his nine years serving in the senate. he was very upset about it, very upset about the lack of details but more upset about this admonition that said that you guys weren't allowed to debate future iran military potential confrontations. what was your take on this briefing? >> well, chuck, i went in with three specific questions which i got to ask. number one, what was the essence of the intelligence that gave you a determination that there was an imminent threat? what was the nature of the threat? what were the targets? and three, what was the

intelligence that led you to believe that the elimination of soleimani alone eliminates the threat? and, you know, since i can't get into the specifics i'll characterize it as saying i didn't get any substantive answers to any of those three questions and those three questions the answers are essential to understand whether the president's actions were the right actions, whether they were legal and more importantly where do we go from here. so i think that i also share senator lee's concern that this administration and there's always been a tension between different administrations -- >> that's right. >> -- on who has authority and this administration has total disdain for congress and the role under the constitution and the bottom line is from what i gathered they believe they have the authority to do everything they need to do because they were asked specifically and they would not say that -- what point do you need to come to congress if you consider other action?

>> do you trust your -- the briefers today? do you think what they told you was the truth even if they didn't tell you everything you wanted to hear? >> i think they characterized the intelligence in a way that was conducive to what they ultimately decided to do or did. and that's a problem for me. i spent a long time when i was in the house of representatives, we were told -- >> that's -- you're giving me -- that's a little wmd flashback for me here. >> for me, too. listen. i spent a long time when i was a house member and the vote was coming up on the war in iraq and i spent time in the intelligence room to determine whether or not there was evidence of weapons of mass destruction and i came to the conclusion not only was there no evidence of weapons of mass destruction, no imminent threat, and so i was in the minority including among democrats in voting against the war in iraq and i have visions again of intelligence being

shaped in a way that draws the conclusion and i was totally unsatisfied on that and on the belief the administration believes that they have every authority necessary which they don't. that's why i think senator kaine's war powers resolution as a member of the senate foreign relations committee is to critical. >> pentagon today, we just got a report from the pentagon earlier in the broadcast essentially feeling as if secretary esper's feeling as if, hey, the united states deterrence again and muted response of iran is proof of that. soleimani is dead. no casualties of iran's retaliation, seemed to have backed off. do the results trump your skepticism? >> no pun intended, trump my skepticism? >> didn't mean to do that -- sorry. >> the jury's out on that. you know?

this is a moment in time. but we'll have to see whether all of those proxy groups, hezbollah, whether the shia militias in iraq act or don't act and take actions. and which way is it for the administration? if he was the head of all those entities when you took out the head of these entities they have no direction. that means they can do what they want on their own. or if you're going to say iran's still responsible for them then he wasn't uniquely the one individual that could direct them so it's still remains to be seen what happens. >> you are not for the iran nuclear deal. you were one of the democrats against the deal and also against the president pulling out of the deal. i know that. the president seemed to hint today it's possible somehow that they could begin negotiations. can you imagine any administration getting a better deal with iran at this point than obama did given where we are today?

>> well, look. it's a tenuous moment to try to drive a deal but i'm talking to senator graham and i think this is a moment where if there is an effort for de-escalation, it is a moment to drive a diplomatic surge and to try to seek american leadership and engage our allies in a path that leads to a negotiation with iran both on its nuclear program and its intercontinental ballistic missile program. we should pursue that. if iran rejects that, that will say a lot. i won't say it's easy or won't be a straight path. >> right. >> but i think it's one that should be and can be pursued. >> other big story, the other "i" word in the senate side, impeachment. would you like to see speaker pelosi send the articles over? >> i trust speaker pelosi. she went through a very

difficult and, you know, detailed process in the house. i think she wants to guarantee that the house's will in terms of having a fair and honest process can be guaranteed in the senate. i trust her judgment. it will come over soon enough and then deal with the process. >> so you're okay with waiting still? >> i'm okay with trusting her judgment. i don't think we're going to be waiting forever. >> okay. gotcha. senator menendez, thank you for coming on and sharing your views. >> thank you, chuck. we got a lot more political fallout from the tensions with iran. plus the president's de-escalation means impeachment may be back on the front burner on the hill sooner than this president may have wanted. we'll dig into that. these are real people, not actors, who've got their eczema under control. with less eczema, you can show more skin. so roll up those sleeves. and help heal your skin from within with dupixent. dupixent is the first treatment

of its kind that continuously treats moderate-to-severe eczema, or atopic dermatitis, even between flare ups. dupixent is a biologic, and not a cream or steroid. many people taking dupixent saw clear or almost clear skin. and, had significantly less itch. that's a difference you can feel. don't use if you're allergic to dupixent. serious allergic reactions can occur, including anaphylaxis, which is severe. tell your doctor about new or worsening eye problems, such as eye pain or vision changes, or a parasitic infection. if you take asthma medicines, don't change or stop them without talking to your doctor. so help heal your skin from within, and talk to your eczema specialist about dupixent.

welcome back. as we mentioned there are many major political questions now that the president's apparent decision to de-escalate tensions with iran after last night's strike. joining me is carol lee, "the washington post" foreign affairs columnist and michael steele. the secretary of defense is saying, hey, america's restored deterrence, the iranians blinked essentially, doesn't say it that way. it seems -- not saying he's spiking the football. i think everybody's aware there are proxy groups out there and

it does feel like the trump administration thinks that they have exposed iran here. >> i think everybody feels some relief today that this has not led to escalating all-out war. i think 24 hours ago we had genuine fears that that might happen so it's understandable that people in the administration, people around the world are saying, okay, this is a better outcome than we feared. the problem is that this con phenomenon tradition, we are just in a pause. it is going on for 40 years. we were very close to real all-out conflict. we have stepped back but the underlying issues are the same and trump's i want to say strategy is the same. more sanctions. maximum pressure. it is obvious that doesn't work and leads to ever greater confrontation and on the path for real difficulties.

so no. secretary esper is not right to be spiking the football, congratulating himself on a great win. i'm glad that we are not -- it is not worse but i still don't see a clear exit from the dilemma. if the diplomatic process starts then let's talk about it. >> it doesn't seem as if by election day the middle east looks better than when he took over. >> no. not only that, chuck, but his whole argue systematic to bring troops home and the number of troops particularly in the middle east only increased. >> more troops in the middle east -- that's a -- >> big -- >> say that again. i interrupted you. he promised to bring troops home and yet since he came into office the number of troops specifically in the middle east deployed overseas increased. that's a huge democratic talking point. he made this big promise to his voters and the reason he gets in the box is two threads that

contradict each other in the foreign policy and bringing all the troops home but we're really tough and will take all of this military actioner and look at how much i rebuilt the military and those -- every time he is leading into one he is undermining the other and he hasn't figured this out. >> michael steele, what i find interesting about his base on this one is like 90% of the time the base just basically says whatever he says and blindly follow. not on this. there is a split. tucker carlson is willing to part with him. mike lee and rand paul stick by on this issue. >> you have the battle of the hawks versus the doves within the party itself. those who believe, you know, like a john bolton we should be engaged and, you know, maximum pressure all the time. >> weshld change, regime change. >> sort of a holdover. >> mike pompeo is part of this crowd. >> from the bush era of regime

change, taking the flag and helping to plant it elsewhere around the globe. then you have sort of the libertarian/not in my backyard don't want any part of that with mike lee and rand paul. and so, yeah. they're willing to step out there more and push up against that. why? because it doesn't necessary -- they can take the president on with something like this without losing any points because they have always kind of occupied the space and everybody kind of bakes them into the narrative. >> david, to me the real sort of -- the real sort of not obvious political response is going to be over the debate about should we stay in iraq or not. because they're going to be people in both parties when they hear iraq say, hey, why don't you guys leave? they'll say, yeah, mike lees of the world and maybe the barbara lees of the world. all the lees and people not named lee. >> we saw a little bit of that. >> the debate inside the democratic party, a joe biden is

going to be hesitant to pull everybody out and the bernie sanders wing is like, hey, let's get the heck out. >> we were talking before the snow about the possibility that iran's long game here, the reason that they were relatively restrained in retall yatding for soleimani is they think they win the prize called iraq. that's a big strategic -- >> they're long game thinkers and donald trump doesn't think about anything more than a week in advance. >> who will resist trump when he says we've had enough of this? it's time for the troops to come home. what have we gotten from iraq? and the problem is we will have a country, another country in the middle east that will implode and will -- i fear, will move as syria did toward a failed state. but i don't think you're going to hear a lot of restaresistanc

>> again, he is in this space that he can't seem to get out of where he's saying one thing or does one thing and then caught in this -- where he says he doesn't want to be. if he was to pull out the troops of iraq, maybe election calendar is as it is there wouldn't be repercussions and not hurt him in november so just strictly politically speaking but he criticized president obama for doing the same thing and then joe biden, i traveled with joe biden when he closed camp victory in iraq and tangled in this issue in an all sort of confusing ways, as well. but the president trump, he just has an issue on this. >> the key thing to what you're saying to noelte, step back fro president trump and talk about donald trump because donald trump's inclination is to not be there. president trump is faced with the reality that his rhetoric and inclination to not be there is pressed upon by those whoever time present to him, you can't

leave because of these circumstances and situations. >> also surrounded by two people in particular. it is bizarre. mike pence and mike pompeo. >> right. >> very much big hawks on this stuff. >> exactly. >> donald trump not. and they have -- >> in his ear and press on that, on that nerve that says, okay, all right, we'll stay. then you couple this action which i think a lot of people aren't talking about for a lot of reasons right now an i suspect will in a next few days, the alignment with the impeachment process and the hearing there. for trump, that's sort of a political solution. this event's a political solution. >> he thinks it is. although i think now crisis averted. go back to the regular scheduled programming. probably what's coming next week. >> right. >> it does feel as if that's where we're headed. >> wise people should think about the inevitably -- >> only wise people. >> everybody. everybody should think about the reality that the number of american troops in iraq is going to go down significantly.

so how do we keep faith with the iraqi government? how do we keep training the military and intelligence service with a lot fewer people? that's the issue that matters. >> can we find iraq another ally in the middle east than iran? their two most important allies are us and iran. >> if we were to completely pull out of iraq is we have no eyes there. that's how isis happened and the intelligence -- we have no intelligence abilities there for iran. >> we'll put a pin in this. there aren't many people in the world knowledgeable about this major story as a former cia director but leon panetta is and he joins me next. best... to managing your fleet...

to collaborating remotely with your teams. giving you a nice big edge over your competition. that's the power of edge-to-edge intelligence. it's beautiful. you want to take it for a test-drive? definitely. we're gonna go in that. seriously? i thought we were going on a test drive. we are. a heavy-duty test drive. woo-hoo! this is dope. i've never been on a test drive like this before. this silverado offers a 6.6 liter duramax diesel

that can tow up to 35,500 pounds. awesome! let's take these logs up that hill. let's do it. wow! this truck's a beast. are you sure there's a trailer back there? this is incredible. best test drive ever. [chuckle] best test drive ever. i was on the fence about changing from a manual to an electric toothbrush. but my hygienist said going electric could lead to way cleaner teeth. she said, get the one inspired by dentists, with a round brush head. go pro with oral-b. oral-b's gentle rounded brush head removes more plaque along the gum line. for cleaner teeth and healthier gums. and unlike sonicare, oral-b is the first electric toothbrush brand accepted by the ada for its effectiveness and safety. what an amazing clean! i'll only use an oral-b! oral-b. brush like a pro. let me tell you something, i wouldn't be here if i thought reverse mortgages took advantage of any american senior, or worse, that it was some way to take your home. learn how homeowners are strategically using a reverse mortgage loan to cover expenses,

pay for healthcare, preserve your portfolio and so much more. a reverse mortgage loan isn't some kind of trick to take your home. it's a loan, like any other. big difference is how you pay it back. find out how reverse mortgages really work with aag's free, no-obligation reverse mortgage guide. with a reverse mortgage, you can pay whatever you can, when it works for you, or, you can wait, and pay it off in one lump sum when you leave your home. discover the option that's best for you. call today and find out more. i'm proud to be a part of aag, i trust em, i think you can too. welcome back. as we said president trump today appeared to take a step back from the brink seeming to de-escalate with iran and

tensions are still high and major questions about the administration's strategy and whether iran or its proxy groups may take further action against u.s. interests. former secretary leon panetta, good to see you, sir. >> good to see you, chuck. >> so let me ask this. you were multiple administrations as we had been told. had plenty of opportunities to take soleimani out. and chose not to. i don't know what side of that decision or debate you were but walk me through the administration you were involved with, whether it was while you were at cia or defense, when that option was ever debated, why didn't you take it? >> well, it wasn't debated, chuck. the reason it wasn't debated is that there was understandable concern that if you try to go after and kill a high ranking general in a country like iran

that you're going to increase the risk of war with that country. and the decision was made that that risk,frankly, wasn't worth it. >> now, as -- how do you assess the iranian response and how should the u.s. government if you were there how would you advise the president to read the iranian response? >> well, you know, i give some credit to iran. i think this was a smart move to basically do a symbolic attack, firing those missiles, but not hitting any of our armed forces or not hitting any iraqis, as well, but just sending a signal they had the potential and firing it from iran. it was a very symbolic step that obviously pleased i'm sure the

iranians who thought that this represented an effort at retaliation. but at the same time, it also sent a signal that they were trying to de-escalate the friction between iran and the united states. i think it's smart for the president to recognize what iran was doing here, trying to step back from the brink. but the whole question right now is whether this president is going to take advantage of it or whether in the end nothing is going to change in terms of how the its approaches iran and nothing will change with regards to how iran approaches the united states. i still think both countries are dug in and a strategy and a policy that isn't going to produce any kind of negotiated settlement here. >> doesn't look like there's room for negotiation right now. but let me ask you this.

in regards to iraq, one of the omissions in the president's remarks was any sort of acknowledgement that iraq was the victim here. right? it was, we launched our attack on soleimani from iraq. the retaliation took place on iraq's soil, not on iran, not in the united states. so on one hand secretary esper's out there claiming today, hey, we have restored deterrence. if the u.s. is chased out of iraq is this going to look like a bad decision over time? >> yeah. i don't -- i don't think we restored any kind of deterrence. as a matter of fact, i think we are in a much weaker position because of iraq and what's happening to iraq right now. look. iraq has been incredibly important to the united states,

as far as its position in that part of the middle east but also because we have been able to establish a counter terrorism effort in iraq that has gone after isis and gone after al qaeda and gone after those that would ultimately try to attack the united states. it's been a very important relationship with iraq. i think the president made a mistake on not referring to the situation in iraq and recognizing that it was important for the united states in this situation to try to work with iraq to try to protect their security, as well. that should have been the signal that the president should have sent because if in the end this results in pushing the united states out of iraq make no mistake about it, we will be in a much weaker situation with regards to dealing with isis. >> let me ask you this. i'm sure when you were there and

others, the goal is to get iraq, other allies besides iran and the united states in the middle east there. is that essentially the larger problem here? if iraq doesn't feel it can essentially decouple itself from iran, how are we ever going to fix this, have this long-term relationship there? >> yeah. chuck, i think you're right. and i think that's where the united states has dropped the ball. going back a number of years, what we should have done is developed a coalition of forces in the middle east, a coalition made up of the moderate arab countries, coalition including israel because we had some mutual areas that we wanted to go after. one, we wanted to obviously protect against isis and terrorism. but two, we also had a

relationship with regards to contesting iran and what they were trying to do in the middle east. had we built that kind of coalition, both from a security point of view as well as the point of view of going and trying to repair those states that had failed in the middle east i think we would have been in a much, much better position in terms of dealing with the chaos that is now the middle east. >> leon panetta, former head of the cia, always good to get your point of view and perspective. thank you for coming on. preesh appreciate it. what nancy pelosi said of sending impeachment articles to the senate. let obamacare implode. nurse: these wild attacks on healthcare hurt the patients i care for. i've been a nurse in new york for thirty years. i know the difference leadership can make because i saw what mike bloomberg did as mayor. vo: mayor bloomberg helped lower the number of uninsured by 40%,

covering 700,000 more new yorkers, life expectancy increased. he helped expand health coverage to 200,000 more kids and upgraded pediatric care--- infant mortality rates dropped to record lows. and as mayor, mike bloomberg always championed reproductive health for women. so when you hear mike bloomberg on health care... mrb: this is america. we can certainly afford to make sure that everybody that needs to see a doctor can see a doctor, everybody that needs medicines to stay healthy can get those medicines. nurse: you should know, he did it as mayor, he'll get it done as president. mrb: i'm mike bloomberg and i approve this message.

(whistling) ♪(music playing) ♪this is the first day of my life♪ ♪i was born right in the doorway♪ ♪now i don't know where i am, i don't know where i've been♪ ♪but i know where i wanna go yeah, i've had some pretty prestigious jobs over the years. news producer. executive transport manager. and a beverage distribution supervisor. now i'm a director at a security software firm. wow, you've been at it a long time. the thing is, i like working. what if my retirement plan is i don't want to retire? then let's not create a retirement plan.

let's create a plan for what's next. i like that. get a plan that's right for you. td ameritrade. get a plan that's right for you. i am totally blind. and non-24 can throw my days and nights out of sync, keeping me from the things i love to do. talk to your doctor, and call 844-214-2424. if you listen to the political it sounds like we have a failed society. but nothing could be further from the truth. americans are compassionate and hardworking. we aren't failing. our politicians are failing. that's why i'm running for president. to end the corporate takeover of the government. and give more power to the american people.

that's how we'll win healthcare, fair wages, and clean air and water as a right. i'm tom steyer and i approve this message. transmitted tonight? >> no. >> anytime soon? >> do you listen when i speak, i said when we saw what the arena is that we would be sending them in, then we would send over the articles. we haven't seen that, so i don't know how many more times i have to say that or how many more times you want to ask it. >> that was speaker pelosi deciding to respond to a reporter question as pressure begins to build for her to send the articles of impeachment to the senate. kar carol e we've seen a little bit of a divergence here. you're starting to see some democratic senators say let's send over the articles.

we're ready. bob menendez said i trust the speaker's judgment. it's interesting she said when we see how they're going to do it, and i haven't seen it yet, but we're closer. >> we are much closer, and you heard -- i mean, there's just a lot of pressure building on her and what's happening now is that she's managed her house caucus, and the pressure of it not so much the senate democrats. >> she's not in charge of the senate democrats. >> exactly. and so she's getting pressure there, and she's getting pressure there. she's getting pressure from mcconnell saying i have the votes we're going ahead, so she is in this space where you can see her frustration because she's usually pretty level headed and doesn't engage in that sort of a combative way. she's getting frustrated. >> michael, it is interesting to me, both parties are a little nervous about impeachment. they're not 100% sure how this is going to break. >> they don't. >> you can see it. you can feel it. i think what makes that happen is makes it more palpable is what we saw over the holidays where this new information came

out after the fact, and no one had known about it before, and all of a sudden, boom, there it is. you know, you've got bolton as a possible, you know, witness as well. we don't know exactly what that means, does it help the president or not, so there's lot of uncertainty still around the question of what this impeachment trial is going to look like and how it plays out, even though mcconnell has the cards that he has which puts the republicans in a better position, playly if they move forward. nancy's trying to figure out what's going to be my counter move if i send this over and they show their behinds the wrong way. >> it's interesting how elizabeth warren went on sunday shows both to me and a couple of other places, and she basically walked up to the line of wag the dog with iran and impeachment. not many other democrats at least in the senate have gone down that road. >> they haven't. i think people have taken the iran crisis seriously. they've understood there's a real test between the u.s. and

iran. the impeachment issue feels like a long time ago, and so it's going to have to come -- in a dramatic way, i'm curious what pelosi's last card to play in this bargaining will be. you wonder if some new revelation like what we had over the christmas holidays about -- >> bolton's simply putting his head up. >> i think actually -- >> that reanimated the issue. >> it did. it gave it -- it split the screen for the first time in 96 hours. >> it gave democrats leverage, and then you had some republicans who were like yeah, maybe we should hear from him. i don't know. not by any means a majority but you wonder what's going to happen next week. what's the next thing. >> right. >> we could be -- you know, she has her big press conference tomorrow. that was interesting. the fact she chose to almost lower expectations for tomorrow and the articles i think maybe has as much to do with why she

chose to engage on that conversation. thank you, guys, much appreciated. and we'll be right back. any chag happens to it. so when my windshield cracked... my friend recommended safelite autoglass. >> tech: hi, i'm adrian. >> man: thanks for coming. >> tech: oh, no problem. >> tech: check it out. >> man: yeah. they came right to me, with expert service where i needed it. that's service i can trust... no matter what i'm hauling. right, girl? >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪ hi dad. no. edon't try to get up. hi, i'm julie, a right at home caregiver. and if i'd been caring for tom's dad, i would have noticed some dizziness that

could lead to balance issues. that's because i'm trained to report any changes in behavior, no matter how small, so tom could have peace of mind. we'll be right there. we have to go. hey, tom. you should try right at home. they're great for us. the right care. right at home. and unmatched overall value. together with a dedicated advisor, you'll make a plan that can adjust as your life changes, with access to tax-smart investing strategies that help you keep more of what you earn. and with a new brokerage account, your cash is automatically invested at a great rate that's at least 21 times more than other advisory firms. personalized advice. unmatched value. at fidelity, you can have both. ♪ more than this eh, not enough fiber- chocolate would be good- snacking should be sweet and simple. the delicious taste of glucerna gives you the sweetness you crave while helping you manage your blood sugar.

glucerna. everyday progress

well, that's all we have for tonight. we'll be back tomorrow with more "meet the press daily," and if it's wednesday there's an all new chuck todd podcast ready to download, and then a great one for senate campaign junkies. i've got republican strategist brad todd, long-time democratic strategist j.b.persh.

the two of them do senate races, every one of them on the podcast. get it now, junkies especially. "the beat" starts now. >> thank you, and we begin with breaking news. tonight, the president is embracing these new public signs from iran that both countries may deescalate after last night's attack. while that news appears very publicly welcomed by both parties in washington, the trump administration's ongoing handling of the iran crisis is coming under withering criticism and not only from democrats tonight but increasingly from some recognizable republicans. consider utah senator mike lee, a conservative who was one of trump's defenders on impeachment. right now the senate rolling out plans for how it would hold that trial. mr. lee just walked out of the trump administration's military briefing for members of congress late today where there are already reports of multiple moments of grumblinge