this sunday, in afghanistan, will the president commit to more troops in the war as this commander wants? iran, will talks push that country to give up the nuclear weapons? >> if iran does not take steps to live up to the obligations, then the united states will not continue to negotiate indefinitely. the u.s. ambassador to the ee then the economy, a staggering unemployment of 10%. despite the massive stimulus, where are the jobs? >> today's jobs report is a staggering reminder that it comes in fix and starts and we need to grind out this recovery step by step. >> plus, prospects fade from public options. part of the health care plan. and the president goes for

the gold but comes home empty handed. the 2016 games to be held injury ohio, not chick kag go. strong opinions about what it means. and david brooks and e.j.dione and mike murphy. finally, in our meet the press minute, remembering william sapphire, who appeared on this program 99 times throughout the course of his career. but, first, news about iran and this morning's newspaper, the new york times reports that they may be closer to producing a nuclear weapon as it comes as the international inspector irs with ahmadinejad. what does it mean for the negotiations with iran? here with us live is the u.s.

ambassador to the united nations, susan rice. welcome. >> good morning. thank you. >> this is what the article says. iran has the ability to produce a nuclear bomb. and the senior steve members of the united nations nuclear agency have concluded in a confidential analysis says came from intelligence agencies and it's own investigations. but the report's conclusions, described by senior european officials, goes well beyond the positions taken by several governments, including the united states. first off, does the u.s. concur with these conclusions? >> well, dad, i'm not going to get into characterizing the confidential report but suffice it to say, our whole approach is predicated on an urgent need to prevent iran from obtaining a

nuclear capacity. and that's why a off nighted p5 plus 1 proved to our satisfaction that their program is, as they claim, for peaceful purposes and open up their facilities to inspections, freeze their uranium enrichment program, commit as they have done and follow through on that commitment to provide fuel for enrichment outside of the fuel or face real consequences. >> but they have to know how to make a bomb? >> i not in a position to characterize that report. but whether they have it not now, whether they will seek it or get it down the road, we are -- >> why can't you say whether they have it or whether they are going to have it -- >> well, we share the concern that iran with nuclear weapons would pose a grave threat to the u.s. security and the security of allies and in the regions and

that's why we're determined to take the steps necessary. >> given that the president has talked about a deadline of september, what is the deadline for iran to put up, negotiate away it's noou cleeier potential or face consequences? >> well, we're very much in intense negotiations now. what happened last week is a constructive beginning but the onus is kwarly on iran to adhere to the commitments that it has made. if it doesn't, time is short. we are not interested in talking for talking sake. we are not interested in negotiation. they have to demonstrate con clues 1i68 that their program is for peaceful purposes. >> you talk about consequences. how much leverage does does the u.s. really have. charles critical of the approach saying you don't have china and russia really on board. this is what he wrote on friday, dot tally. in return for selling out poll 4r57bd and czech republic, by

unlat ree be a bro gating we get what? grudgingly offered and dubious authority and, in any case, leading nowhere because the chinese have remainedress lawsuit against any security council sanctions chls confusing ends and means for shows of applied unity, good feeling and pious concern about iran's nuclear program, whereas the real objective is precious time for iran to finish the race to acquire the bomb. is this a cat and mouse game? >> this is a serious process where we are gathered align with china, russia, germany, france, and the united states presenting iran with a very stark choice. either they give up the program successfully to our satisfaction or they will face additional pressure. that is the p 5 plus 1 plan.

it's true that china has historically resisted sanctions but we have moved them on north korea where we have now in place with the unanimous support the toughest security sanctions in the world. we are united to presenting this to iran and iran now has the responsibility either to adhere to its obligations international or face that pressure. >> what crippling sanctions are you suggesting? >> there are a range of sanctions, david, under nsideration and there are those that we might pursue under the security council and those that we can do outside of the security council with partners in europe and elsewhere and those that we can take by ourself unlately. there's a wide range. >> economic sanctions? >> economic and otherwise. but that is one option but right now we are in a period of intense negotiations and it's not an infinite period. it's a very finite period.

>> so what's the period? >> well, we have very important milestones that we are -- >> but the president said september and now you're saying a finite period. so what are you saying? >> the president said we would take stock in september and indeed we did. we presented iran with a very stark choice on october 1st. now we have some deadlines that the iranians themselves have committed to. they will meet october 19th at the expert level toll discuss the tehran research reactor. that's an important step. the iaea director today confirmed on october 25th the reactor will be opened to iaea inspections. they said that they will come back to inspections in october. we will see whether those steps are indeed fulfilled and if that ll fulfill them, obviously we are in a two-track posture and we have it before us. >> you're talking about engagement with iran.

most americans when they think about engagement with iran, they is wha they think about. they think about the hostage crisis in 1979 if i interview in a year from now what would you like to say? >> that we are on track to conclusivelily prevent iran from having nuclear capacity. we have refused to engage in negotiations and the iranians have pursued their enrichment program unabated and we are in a different place now. we have unity among the p5. >> but the question i have is what the is relationship that the u.s. uld like to have with iran? >> well, obviously is iran without nuclear outcomes and peacefully integrated that no longer pose as threat to the neighbors and treats it is people with respect and allows them to participate peacefully in a democratic process. that's the iran that we hop to

see. the people of iran have a great opportunity to be much more constructive players in the international community and that's up to them. but we hope very much that iran would be in a position where it could be a responsible player. >> let's turn to afghanistan and the other breaking news. eight u.s. soldiers. back in august, the president addressed the subject of afghanistans speaking to veterans and this is what he said. >> but we must never forget. this is war not of choice. this is a war of necessity. >> if this is a war of necessity, why wouldn't the president immediately grant the request to fully resource this war of necessity? >> well, let me begin by pointing out what has been and remains our objective here. the objective, dafrd, is to prevent al qaeda from being in a position to launch attacks on the american homeland again. our goal is to disrupt,

dismantle, and defeat afghanistan and prevent it from obtaining a safe half ven and to prevent them from attacking us on 9/11. that is the clear goal. the president set out in march and he said in march when he laid out in march, that we would review where we are. we would review the goals, the methods, and the resources needed to obtain them. in the interim, we've had several things happen. we've had general mcchrystal come in with his assessment on the ground. he has said that the taliban is gaining in strength and that we have a deter are rating situation in afghanistan. we have political security and economic progress and at the same time, we've had an election in afghanistan which has not lived up to the hopes and expectations of the afghan people. we are now in the process that i'm part of, which is a very responsible process to assess where we are how the

circumstances now affect our strategic goals and what methods and resources we need to obtain them. that is a responsible, necessary process. >> and if this is a war of necessity, as the president said, why would he not immediately grant the wishes of his commanders to fully resource the war of necessity, to fully resource, which is the promise made by presidential aids, this war of necessity? >> we are fully resourcing it. we have put in place 21,000 additional troops. they are still completing their deployment. we have increased the number of civilians and the resources to afghan and pakistan substantially. the president has to make a judgment based not only on military assessment of his commander on the ground but also his diplomats, the commander, the security and the nato partners involved and pakistan next door which is politically important to this situation and

the entire global effort. the president, as 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 defeat afghan globally. we are going to do what is necessary to accomplish our goal in afghanistan but we are not going to do it without having taken stock, without going through a comprehensive assessment where all voices are heard and the president make as judgment. there is no decision more serious, david, than putting americans into harm's way. the president will do what is necessary to keep america safe. but he's going to do it after a thoughtful and careful analysis. >> general mcchrystal said this after speaking to military officials in london, about the views of the national security, whether you go in with a lighter footprint without committing more resources, just focus on counterterrorism. this is what he said this week. >> you have to navigate from where you are, not from where

you wish you were. a strategy that does not leave afghanistan in a stable position is probably a short sided strategy. >> is the president committed to at least not leaving afghanistan unless it is steep? >> the president is committed to doing what is essential to keeping america safe and obviously we have made important and substantial investments in afghanistan. we are not talking -- nothing is talking about walking away from afghanistan. >> will the president stay in afghanistan until it is -- >> the president will do what is necessary to keep it staf safe. that is related to afghanistan but also pakistan. >> he will not commit to staying in afghanistan until it's stable? >> we will commit to staying in afghanistan until it keeps america safe. >> but those are two different things. >> they have threats from multiple corners. >> but they are two different things? >> they may be two different things. i am not going to judge the

outcome. it's a very important step to ensure that we are not just reacting and operating on auto pilot. the president's responsibility to the american people is to look at circumstances as they evolve, to make a judgment about what is necessary in the current circumstances to ensure that we are doing all that we can to prevent al qaeda from being in a position to attack us. whether from afghanistan, pakistan, somalia, southeast asia, or any other place where is we have been active and on the offensive. >> is politics the political pressure from the left to not to escalate -- >> absolutely not. this is a president that is going to do what is necessary irrespective of politics. >> going for the gold in coppenhagen, it was wrong for the president to not bring the games home? it's never a mistake for the

president of the united states to fight on behalf of our country and that's what he did. he and he would do it again in a nano second. this was about competing with three other compelling candidacies for the olympics and bringing that home to the united states. the gai day i'll get concerned is when we have a president in the white house that retuesday fuses to fight for the united states because he's concerned about pundits or political criticism. >> finally, talking about the united nations, the body where you are now serving as or ambassador, recently during the u.n. general assembly meeting in new york, the americans saw the parade of anti-americanism. you see chavez of venezuela, iran, and ka dauf fee who may soon be speaking as far as we know, you once said that the u.n. is i am perfect but also indispensable. when you look at that showing,

what is the indecibel start? >> david, there are 192 kouchbt trees in the united nations you picked out bar room drama. the united nations is critically important to our national security because it's one place where we are marshal with the force of law to do things that we need to protect our security. for example, when we got the security council last june to pass the toughest sanctions on the books today against any country in the word, north korea, we got something much more powerful than anything we could muster on our own. we are not able, given trans national threats, proliferation terrorism, to tackle this alone, even a country as powerful as our own. sometimes the u.n. falls short. it doesn't do all that we want it to do and particularly in cases like human rights and in cases of atras teas.

and that's an area where we need to push for importance. but when it comes to national security, like terrorism, we have seen progress come from the united nations when we can get them to come together and pressure countries like north korea to do what is necessary to keep us and others safer. >> thank you, susan rice. >> thank you, good to be with you. up next, unemployment rises while public option on health care falls. and also the president makes for a fail bid for the 2016 games in chicago. what it all all means. plus, our "meet the press" minute. remembering william sapphire. only on "meet the press."

our special round teanl after this brief commission break.

we are back with our round table. welcome to everybody. lots to get to, including health care and the economy and the big left and right. 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 to allow some time whereas on the republican side there is a sense to go faster and faster. there is by partisan urgency there. there is an i peal to governments to make constructive decisions about problems in the worlds that gompments can then fix and then we're in '09. as much as we are in counsel ser insurgency, starting in 2009. >> where is the public? the public is to flood the place

with american troops and that will be a militarily, played in afghanistan, back here at home, it's a huge political price to play for the president. but like all politicians do in the white house, is to romance their way where there are a lot more troops, that's the critical mistake. you have to be either all the way in or all the way out. >> i think that's the critical mistake s. that you cast it as a choice. if you don't do what general mcchrystal does, then -- they don't want an involvement of over five years and costs more than a trillion dollars. we ignored iran for more than six years. it's very candid. if you want to do counter insurgery right, you need good

government. he talks about governance and cooperation with afghanistan. what they are looking for is a responsible way to defeat al qaeda. and the president's original commitment back in march was to corrupt and defeat al qaeda and that's the cart of our interest in afghanistan and they are not going to abandon that. >> but that's the change and that's a terrible change. first, taliban would take over and secondly what we're really fighting about here is pakistan. >> pakistan is going better than before. >> threatening the pakistan regime, they have 50 to 100 nuclear weapons, that's the real gain here. and if we need to control al qaeda, that would be -- >> but if we are trying to prevent some sort of solution here that involves us subpoena me meanting drk what sort of solution is that for afghanistan?

ultimately we can't win a recounter insurgency. what they say is, good luck if you're a third party in coming in and doing this. and we don't have a reliable partner. >> and that's the point that the president makes. the only way we can win the population is to guarantee security and that means a hell of a lot more troops politically more painful but the other strategy, get all the way out and make some sort of fortress strategy. my point is, the politics are all bad. the politics of what you have to do to win is all bad. the obama administration is all in this flux. >> but they know -- >> something that is very serious and make as serious point about this priority and what the president has not

accomplished and we turn to an incredible source and that is "saturday night live". >> almost one near and nothing to show for it. you don't believe me? you think i'm making it up? take a look at this check list. now, on my first day in office i said, i'm going to close guantanamo. is it closed yet? no. i said weed be out of iraq. are we? not the last time i checked. i said i'd make improvements in the war in afghanistan. is it better? no, i think it's actually worse. how about health care reform? hell no. >> does the biting rachel maddow, the change of promise? >> does the idea of the war that

bush and cheney haven't been able to wrap up until less than a year, that's true. >> but a lot of people on the left have been critical about the wars in particular and. >> sure. >> other things that have not been accomplished. >> i've been among the most critical but i would not expect it to be done by now. >> the reason it's funny is because it's true. the honeymoon is over. they have tremendous expectations. that's the hang over of any campaign promise and now domestic policy with economy, health care, afghanistan and everywhere else, the wheel is turning. >> the government is hard. a lot of what they are doing, they can promise to close guantanamo but it's actually hard to close t they can promise to employ sanctions on iran but the second push and cheney term policy. >> where we do that week after week to any president of the united states and the fact is

they are going to get a let care bill. what they are missing is an economic situation and i think they will, it's a lot more attention to a job, not going to call it a second stimulus but i think they are going to do more because that level of unemployment is not good substantivelily. >> i think you should be a sell tigs producer because you could not have done better to set me up. it's a huge topic that people have been talking about all week long, is the economy, the news, of course, that the unemployment rate has hit the highest level. jobs data, cloud recovery. look at this chart. the unemployment rate since the recession began, december of

'07, 4.8% and 9.8% before it's expected to go too long. vice president biden spoke about all of this on friday. >> there are going to be peaks and valleys in this process. this is not a straight line to recovery but we are recovery. we will recover. >> which is it? >> well, we're not getting jobs. in the stimulus package pass, the white house has put out what the country would look like in the past and the unemployment rate peaks around about nine and it comes down to it at 7. we're not around 7. we're at 9.8. now, they say it could have been worse around us. they say it didn't work the. the fundamental problem is that we went on a 30-year spending binge. there is no magic elixir. the economy has to come back to

some sustainable level with some sustainable level of debt and there's just nothing we can do to make that hang over even easier. >> the problem, though s. we didn't get here in this particular crisis. the crisis where that graph started in december of '07 because of big government spending. we got there because of a collapse of a financial system brought on by large part of regulatory decisions. you can argue about how it happened but that's not all about how it happened. the spending -- there's a great argument to be made that it's definitely the solution, too. when each, as they may not call it a second stimulus, you're right, it's turned into a unemployment on national levels. >> but where's the money going to come from? the money is just not there. they will wrap some of this into a stance tags bill. but the money is just not there. i find no hunger. and secondly, it's not federal

spending that got us into this mess. it's private debt. it's a fundamental societyal problem and we can change the sort of fiz of private debt for more private debt and we are doing some of that. but that's not going to get us out of this problem. >> mike, let me turn to you. should there be a focus on relieving the debt, reducing the debt, or, as more liberal economists are saying, you have to prime the pump to be more specific about jobs? >> i'm with david on this. i don't think it's a by partisan out of control spending but the politics is going to take this over and even though washington is a huge issue, jobs are the issue and the kitchen table politics that are going to rule the strategy, taking a big curve through the spending machinery, it's a failure.

and i think that's a backlash. >> the banks did get bailed out and they seem to be doing a lot better. >> there are a lot of people that think the banks did a lot better than they d which is a big change in the democrats in power. but david to his credit, blaming capitalism, he's saying that the system did not work because we accumulated all of this debt and we out to be smart enough as a country, when you are in a hole economically, you need to dig out, that's a time and they are in the balance, what i think obama is going to do is lay out a vision that in the short term we've got to get people back to work and in the long term -- and that's possible. >> let me show you really interesting numbers. we'll put it up on the screen. 17%, that's the broad unemployment rate when it includes people working part time who can't get a full-time

job. 33, the average number of hours in a workweek, why? because employers are not fully employing their workers. they are working more part time than full time. they may move up to 40. is the will the president doing a good enough job of selling this solution? >> i think he needs to do a better job of pushing back anti-government rhetoric. he's tried at the end of that health care speech to do precisely that. but i think there is more work that needs to be done. but your numbers point to what needs to be have. in a country, employers that's why it's going to take us a long time to get out of it. >> but we have a stimulus package. we're spending hundreds and billions of dollars that we don't have and they promise to

bring the unemployment rate to 7. they p haven't done so. >> what is the alternate plan? >> it's a five-year spending freeze. how would we -- >> the republicans had a 400 billion stimulus package. the problem could be, we will pump money into the economy. we could pump money in but people want to get their balance sheets balanced. and that's going to be the situation. >> aren't there ways to put that money into the economy a lot faster than he did? he went through the appropriations way. if he had a by partisan approach, for working people, would it put a lot of -- >> a by partisan approach on a stimulus? really? >>. >> the real problem is making a deal with some republicans, they cut aid to states. what is helping pull this back, states are raising taxes and cutting spending.

you need a lot more help and obama had more of it and it was gotten rid of. >> if there's a bumper sticker to be found, you could probably find it on twitter. because that's where there was 140 characters or less. the president goes this week and makes the personal bid to make the olympics to chicago. he doesn't get it. and there on twitter is newt gingrich and he says, president obama fails to get the olympics while unemployment goes to 9.8% while iran continues nuclear program. it was an unfortunate fact for the president. >> well, the unseemingly cheering for the right is going to be the taste that linger as long time after this failure. certainly the president tried to get something and he didn't get it and people that hate the president feel that that is a cause for celebration. but to see the weekly standard post chicago loses chicago, chicago loses, cheers erupt at weekly headquarters i think says a lot more about the right right

now than it does about this loss. in 2012, they got the olympics after blair tried for them. in 2014 russia got them and then all head of state to make the debate. obama did nothing unreasonable and it would be a chicago a shock for chicago to win. >> after complaining about the republican come pain, but there are two big issues here. one, the president looks weak and it's bad politics for him. i was for the olympics here but there's a second thing going on. i think last week it was pretty clear that jarrett was running the white house. >> when obama wins, i would say republican -- there's no way he would go unless -- there is that internal washington story, unless i have -- i have to say, i'm with obama on this.

he took a risk and comes out somewhat assume mill ated. he put the country ahead of his own personal prestige. i actually don't mind it. i think he was over it already. >> i think rachel was right on this issue of the right cheering. the slogan for country first. on obama, i think one of the things that went wrong here, our olympics committee counted the votes completely wrong. people on that olympics committee seemed to lie and they had said, if you go, we got it in the back. >> the white house or the staff and -- again, i think the professional staff is ignored here, get rolled by the brazilian minister of sports. that bothers me. >> listen, every member of every

country in the finals said that every head of governor head of state, the last two olympics -- >> it's a special category, one, and you don't put a president -- >> sure a. standard but carlos is second rate. >> at this point carlos knows. >> i'm sure. you are huge in spain, it would have been a shock if chicago won. >> i want to get to something playing out here in our conversation, that i think is something. the left ride in our politics is shock as it has ever been. i asked if you thought the conspiracy was alive and well and he said, you bet its. it's as brilliant as ever. we have tom freedman writing in the new york sometimes that the political environment is one in which violence is possible in the way that there was israel

before rabine was assassinated. we have this on the house floor, from florida saying this about republicans. >> the republican health care plan is this. die quickly. that's right. the republicans want to you die quickly if you get sick. >> >> there is a debate that is not helping america. rachel, what is the significance of the left-right divide in the country right now and what is the end game for both sides? >> i think which always lament the bipartisan divide. i don't think there was ever a time where we felt as left and right except for when country is facing such adversity and i think as i lebanon early i want conservatives and the republican party to be robust and participating in a strong argument that advancing the

countries interest so i'm not hoping for the demise of any enmies. >> is it on both houses, grayson -- >> democrats were wow, a democrat did it. on the house floor just this year, republican members saying -- >> but he said, death of the uninsured is a holocaust. >> he apologized for the holocaust. and i pressed him for that comment on my show. but the democratic plan is drop dead and we've had republicans say that it's to kill senior citizens. but that's so normal for republicans right now that it hasn't attracted any -- >> i think this is a media circus and this is not where the country is. if you're trying to build an audience show, this works. it's not where the country is. we have more in this country than republicans and democrats. we have frankly people that i consider for america, from rush

limbaugh, and all of these guys, they don't control the republican party. they were all against john mccain in south carolina in the last primary season. and john mccain won the south carolina primary. they couldn't control voters in south carolina. they have actually no power. it's a media circus. most americans are where they are always been. and one of each. >> and what that does is tell the debate, and the language and anecdote, and so facts and more debate, colorful debate and i would take your prime tame and fox prime tame and say that the

media does play a role in the whacky part of this. there's a good left right to be had. if you don't reform health care, a lot of things will happen over time. but when grayson comes on and that is what the media covers. david, democratic congressman of carolina, a thousand people in durham, really a good town meeting and it didn't blow up. a a tv producer told him before the meeting, if your meeting doesn't blow up and doesn't get on television, i think if we're going to be moan a certain kind of harshness, we've got to ask our serves, what gets reported and it doesn't take alan grayson to get to that. >> it always bled if it bled. we have always covered conflict

and it always happens to follow conflict. that means -- >> but there is real influence. there is real political influence. sarah palin's new book, which part of sarah palin's book are you reading? >> um, the part that i'm referring to most is the part where it energized the campaign and the part i'm looking for least is the disagreements that took place within the campaign.

>> the master of subtlety. >> but the issue of influence, whether the harshness of the debate becomes what controls the politics and ultimately influences the political party which is still a part for -- >> barack obama was not evidence of that harshness. john mccain was not evidence of that harshness. even people who voted in primaries, they don't go for that. it's a margin on the edge and if sarah palin is the republican nominee, i will eat my hat on the air. but she will not be. had he said, she would not be a winning republican party in 2012, and in fact where she would win, she has done nothing to win her appeal beyond the base.

>> i think it would be wonderful if the republican party nominated sarah palin. is would be an interesting test that she needs. does this kind of far right work? it's not where the country is. unfortunately, agree that they are not going to nominate sarah pail. she will sell a lot of books. >> she will sell a lot of books. number one on -- >> i totally agree with david schmidt. i do wish my friends steve felt that a year ago when they were asking her to put her on the ticket. the truth is, i'm going to agree with david here too, the noisiest part of the machine has par less influence than the main streen than the republican world thinks she does. and you can case study that out in the last election. so i -- the question is, whether

or not our party will learn that due to obama's mistakes that turning up the volume is not the are reason we are going to do well in the midterm and the fact is, we have to modernize to be successful. >> i think there's a little bit of reckoning. she was the vice presidential nominee and she is going to sell a zillion books and the last person she co-authored a book with is a white supremacist i believe to be. and to right her book she's the biggest name in republican politics and you can dismiss her and say she's not going to be the nominee but i think they have to listen to what has happened. >> i think i'm a well documented nonfan of sarah palin, at least as a politician. but that is guilt by association. that's the problem. >> sarah palin does a lot of

things but she's not a white supremacist. >> no, i don't think she is but why would you pick somebody that is the league of the south, where someone is saying that they are revolting to be a black sister-in-law? why do you do that? >> that guilt by association stuff -- >> it's guilt by choice. it's guilt by choice. >> it's nonessential to the questions but -- >> the popularity right now. >> but governor rick perry may win a republican primary because he talked about sus session. you haven't had somebody win on sussession since 1878. it's not guilt by association -- >> that one line which you're deducing perry from, who i and pose in that primary is not the reason that he's going to win. >> we'll have to leave it there. the debate will go on. we'll continue our discussion online with mike and rachel

online. watch our "meet the press" take two extra on our website. listen for updates from me at mtp.com. up next, our "meet the press" minute. william sapphire only here on "meet the press."

political columnist william sapphire died last sunday at the age of 79. he appeared on this program, amazelily, 99 times. and one of our favorites was in january 1996 to talk about one of his most popular columnist. >> in this corner, the man who william clinton would like to punch, william safire. you said the first lady was a

congenital liar and they said the white house president would like to punch safire and then they said clinton-white so forth, did you have any problem writing first lady clinton congenital liar? did you ever think should i really be using those words? >> well, frankly, the first word i had in mind was provaracator and then liar and i'm in the opinion business. why can't i express my opinion with the sinful english word that everybody understands and i decided to go ahead and do it. >> and bill safire, if you walk outside, as a white house prop pra tif -- >> boxing gloves.

>> william safire and his family are in our thoughts and prayers this morning. and we'll be right back.

that's all for today. thanks for watching. we'll be back next week. if it's sunday, it's "meet the press." ( piano music playing )

by putting an end to paper medical records, we have ushered health into the digital age. saving lives, sometimes when seconds count. managing chronic conditions. making amazing new discoveries. and, oh yes, saving a lot of trees. kaiser permanente. thrive.

>> this is "the chris matthews show." >> ask not what your country can do for you -- >> tear down this wall. >> i can hear you. >> the time for change has come.