>> what do you think a te can be? can ite stronger than steel? can aree be biodegradabl astic? can it be fuel for our cars? or clothing? or medicine that fights ncer? without traceceltic now -- with our tre cell thnology, we think it can -- weyerhaeuser i will not waste time with those who madehe calculation thatt is better politics killhis plan than to improve it.

>> this week, a combative president obama challges ngress to give him a health care plan. >> the bottom linei thoug the speech w partisan, uninformative, disgenuous. >> what will itake for his fellow democrats to ge their act together? >> i belve a public option would be essential to r paing a bill in the houseof representatives. >> a public tion cannotass e senate. >> mendacious -- >> liar is a good one. >> a campaign film gets a fresh look at the supreme court hears lively arguments on campaig finance and free-speech. and the 9/11 attac, eigh years later. let's face it, not a great

summer for president obama. his approval rings dropp steadily. it was also a noy summer. most, from oppents of h proposal to rerm health care. the psident told a joint session of congress thatt is time to stop the noi and get to work. >> the time for bickeng is over. e time for games has passed. now is the season r action. >the president announced three basic goals for his health care reform package. >> it will provideore security and stability for thoswho ha alth insurance. it will provi insurance r the who don't. and itill slow the growth of health-care costs for our familiesbusinesses, and our government. >> noblgoals. i am sure we a agree. the question is how weet there and how we pay for it. colby, you havbeen saying week after week that this game is far from over. it is a mistake to count the president out toearly. wh did you think of th speech? >> i thi he achieved a couple

of goals e, he got the democratic party to understanthat it is really their ge to play and they are the ones thagoing to have to carryhis. he went yond the congress and talked to the american people about what hhad in his plan. the fact i early polls show there was a favoble respse to what had to say. it alsrevealsome shortcomings, fo emple, detail >>harles? >> i thoughtt was one ofhe mo elegantly delivered, smoothly argued sales of snake oil i have ever en given by a president. it waseceptive to the point of dishonesty, and yet he puld it off as on he can. all right. nina? >> i thought it was a ite a brilliant spee, aided and abetted by rublicans and not just congressman wiln, who han't figured out how

beve when a presidentis delivering an address witut drawing attention tothemselves in a native way. >> like democrs who hkled and oed in the 2005 bush state of the union? >> we can debatehis later. let hear from mark. >> thought it was the best speech that barack oba has given sie the rev. wright speech in philadelph during the mpaign. he had to convince t people in the hall that this wa importt, urgent, not just to the nation, but to them. he spoke witpassion. had been to school. he claim ownership of the health plan for the first ti. going beyond sgestions a semirs and into specifics. ihought he did exceptionally well.

>> snake oil -- charl says it is the coil. >> wl -- look, short of rack obamaubmitting his resignation and ging a one wee -- one-way cket to chico there's that would satisfy some people, cluding someriends we havon this pane >> if you likei would expla. >> we d't need anymore ske oil athe table right now. i want to ay on substantive d say, look, what he did was he laid out of the kin of program, a plan, that no gets the legislate process going. max bauc on the finance commtee will have to pduce somethg next week wind -- with or without republicans. we have bills alady workin through thhouse. you see what he wa talkg abou some of things that outlined will not be in the bill. the public option is what will beddressed and that think dress in a way that will make th bill saleable. >> could i be allowed to explain as the only dissenter of

the panel about the genius o the speech? it was the biggestree lunch offering in e history of the couny. on the one hand he says if you havensurance, it will be lifetime, can't ta it awa guarante, no caps, if you don't ve it, you will get insurance. the detail iove --everybody is going to get a ee lonoscopy. 80 years ago it usedo be a chicken in every baskeand now it is a colonoscope. >> don't go tre. >> in the dark. >> and what is theost here? l of this is going to be done at the cost ofess than $1 trillion- he said 900 bilon over 10 yes. >> w did he say we will get back? he said more thahalf will come from squeezing waste, fraud,nd abuse out of medicare. when richard nixon used that phra in 1971, it was already a joke. tt is an insult to the intelligce of the american people. waste, fud, and abuse, half a

trillion dollars. if that is so, why hn't he ung out? what is he waing for? why does he have to he a bill if he could save half triion dollars,- >>egardless of the opposition -- he was behind the curve when he started his speech. will get aad? >> politically at least in the short term but i have to move the balluickly, otherwise they n use the momentum again. >> with all due respecto the gentlen on my left, th president, qte frankly, framed it differently an this issue has been framed by any othereader. he said to us, not what is in it to each of us, thatas been t debate too often about this.he said, wh is in it for us, for all us, is to be citizens in a country that really does practiced justice. and he cast it in ral terms whh is awfully important. as far as scifics, and hedid

in fact call for an individl mandate which is republican id. he did go to pls for those who uld not obtainnsurance, which is aohn mccain idea -- pos. he d talk openly about local lpractice reform. >> charles likes that one. >> but tse were all specics. >> y must be kidding. on malactice he threw a ball and that was soransparently insincere -- he id i am going to try a donstration projec but belies it out of the bill.here he is reking 16 of the economy and hes leaving out tort reform. >> an idea -- >> he is saying tre would be no tort reform ithe bill. that is what he said. >> it wouldn't matter i there were. but that is neitr here nor there sense we know from states that ve a very seve caps on, wt you can award peop and lawsuits, that it has not chaed the equation on

cost. >> that is notrue at all. -- it has had a amatic chae >> why do't you try, youi l, charles. >> pvaricate. >>he fact is, we can have any of the big thingyou want, most people want, that is,hey can't deny you for e-exting coitions, can't cancel, we cannot do thatnless we have a large po and a large pool is on by mandate per individual. and that isomething that is dierent than the way we have done this in the country i am not qui sure howhe details will work out, b it is the centra > the so-called public option and the deba within the demoats. frankly, unless he is more ear about the notion ofhe public option we wl continue to tug in different dictions. >> i c't support the current house bill primaly because of some conrns about the cost. democrats.

e fronew yorkadamant about theeed for the public option, and one from south dakota, who li a lot of peop, worried abt the cost. no public option, no bi on the house. on thursday after the president'speech as he seemed to wobble a lile bit, marc >> the reality is this, as of now. the senate will not go for a public option. >> that's righ and realitis that the house, progressivcaucus and the use, and the core of nancy pelosi's support is comtted. you ask people to vote for the puic opon which is controveial, popular with the liberal wing but with the understding and a fr it will benocked out byhe sene so

it wl never see the light of day. about this, arenified, and unified by what na touched on earlier, the aboion is of the republicans angetting a face and a voice to opposition that has dominated e covered the last three days, sebody who en picked up -- picked out of south caroli and now he is the . >> they n with it for two solid days. >> i just want tsay something.really there is an art to being thepposition party at a moment like this ia speech. they' always yahoos in the party, but theepublican leadership looked so uncomfortable anso white male and so, just kind of belligeren as ey sat there, you have to learn to be in passive -- respectful impassive. >> what abouthe issue? the house and sene bills, how

theypply to illegal immigrants? for them, yes or no? >> no. >> that isort of a red herrin but l us go back to the publi option for second. i think what will haen in the situation is theouse will pass a bill the pubc option know fu well it will not pass the senate. but you will have at least 25 votes in theenate for public option. what may happen, thoug is they will go to confence with the senate-ss bill that won't have it but instead will comup with a trigger. a trigger meanism thatsays ter a certain period of time, if the private iurers do not respond e way they expected, then the public option would kick in. that seemso be areasonable tcome in this debate. >>ho goes first, house or nate? >> that comes a real problem. i ll be very blunt about it, ifou go to conferee, everybody, themart money is

all on the house guys. the house people kw the subject. they le with it. senatorsre doing television. and theyre visiting new hampire and iowa. house peop actually work. athat, quite frankly -- chances ofhe senate's being rolled in nference are high. >> i want to play a sod bite from the president charle what your reaction. listen to this. >> i will not sign it ift adds one di to the deficit, now or in the future, riod. >> can he keep a promise like that? >totally disingenuous. he said it will co $900 billion -- gting it out of magic, medicar he said there would no decrease in ancare of equality of treatment afr he -- have a trillionollars. absolutely upsurge he sets up the kind a trigger that would undot in

the yea2012, which nobody believes. i did whato say a word abo nina -- is belated discovery of the virtues of the past of respect in the opposition. i am not sure it was high virtue in hemind in the bush years -- if joe wion had been e other joe wilson, husband o valerie plame, he would be carried out in my shoulders as a nationalero speaking truth to power. in fact an issue of illegal immigrants, jowilson who was disrespectl and should not have saithat, was correct. absolutely correct. >he really wasn't. >> the lanage of the bill specifically prohibits >> it does. >> laws america are not self enforcing. if they werewe would notave the illegal alie. if there were laws against ilgal immigration. >> doenot matter --

it matters if you have enforcement chanisms and the demoats voted against requiring proof of citizship. >> they ved against provisns that would have ma it sohat citizens would very often not havgot medical care. >> theoted against arovision wheryou are required to prove ur citizenship. an absence of that, there is absolutely nhing that would prevent ilgal aliens from getting that kind ofare. >> that ist variance with the the truth. >> not just sayingo will not make it so. >> on tevision it may work, but not ineality. >> what joe wilson did- americ people want bipartisanship. barack obama made those gestures his speech on wednesday night, but the important ing is this. what joeilson did was give permission to work onlwith therom his actions and the

defense of that byeople like limbaugh and otherpokesmen of e party that in fact this is acceptableehavior, so ericans, when it passed a bill with democtic votes -- >> obama made a partisan speech in absence of perssion. itas a hyper partisan speech netheless. >> campaign finance, ee- speech -- d hillary, the movie. >> does anyone belve that the rights of average tizens to be heard in washington would no be orridden by massive campaign unlimited can b ontributions>> they will disable the people this countr fm ever fixing the campaign finance stem. >> senatorohn mccain and russ feingold, co-sponsors ofhe law that regulates financing of political campaigns,t begins with last ye's movie abou hillary clton for this by

citizensnited time for release during the 20 primary. therwas some corporate money volved. is that why it is at the supreme court? >> that is actly why. it wt up to the supreme court. this is the st interesting aspect. it went up on a relative minor point, to see this group had an exceptionnder the law. instea after words, they hed arguments in march at ju ar't -- justices ordered a re-argumentn a huge question ofhether congress could, as it had for a centurynd essentially, thaa corporate -- ban thcorporate and union spending in election that you have do it through dividual contributions, not through the corporatmoney, the union, general treasy fund. looked very much that there may be five juices to say place. >> tn what happens? >> corporaons and unions are

already contributi tothey do it through pacs, their employees give it. i a big fan -- advocate of disclore. let us know exactly where the money is coming fr. and al believe in speech. and i al believe that these institutions -labor unions and corporations -- shld have the righto speak about their issues, and they speakhe same way individuals do, thugh contributions. john cain laid out the predicate, that it would be massive spending on campais. so be it. we already have iright now i just think it ought to be fully disclod. this mak me a heretic -- it makes you rights. >> but the other interesting aspect is at this group d not wanto disclose. there is a lotf talking about, you have to ve full disclosure. but when the cas come to court the groups never want to

disclose. >> l's be very blunt. iny earlier like i was a political hack and raise money, made me anti-calviis, man give --odave money to the least attractive, inresting, fairinded of our creatures. it is about money. is about corporate dominance of politics. if you ta 1% of the exxon's profit onext year, that i more thabarack obama raised d spent and all campaign. john mccain and ru feingd are absotely right. before teddy roosevelt ere we had united statesenators -- from penylvania, masshusetts, senators from the u.s. steel, from sinclr oil. this is a terrying prospect. what do we have now? >> exact. >> individual contritions. >> $1 billion waspent in the last cpaign. lookwe have a first amendment.

once we have congrs relating political speech, you are curtailing theost ecious assets in arica. if y have disclosure, as lby saidthat is what you need. open honesty and an open playing field. >> 9/11 risited. ground zero in nework. poli, firefighters, and licefficers on the eighth anniversary of the aackson 9/11. ptember 11, 2001, the world trade centerttack, pentagon attack. the weher was clear, crisp, d then at 8:46 a.m., the tion changed, colby, a we haven't recovered. >> we will not rover. we changed fundamentally because we were attaed in a way we never anticipated. now where we are ithe post-

9/11 age, and it has aected us from the standpoint of r civil liberties, from the stapoint of national security, the way which we deal wh each other and other countri, theact that we are in war in two locations. 9/11 is something th will stay with this cntry f generatis. >> charles >> i thi we actually returning to a 9/10 meality. thirony is because we have not had a second attack, becse we h that success, and because it is now eight ars, it sms like ancient history. because it seemsike ancnt history, o instinct is to retu to the kind of insuciance we have befe 9/11, lettg the grd down. rather unprepar for th viciousness of the enemyhat is still out there and willry to do it again, but with weons of mass destruction >> nina?

>> certainly not ancnt history to meet. -- me. it to young people, it probably is, because they were not cognizant in that riod. cotry today than we were on 9/10. >> mark? >> thoands andillions probably toued by 9/11 but i cannot get out of mind the 256 new york firefigers will jaws of death and fis of hell because thatas their task. >> and aa direct consequce, we are n fighting to warts -- afghanistaand iraq. >> the real problem for ama is the is a lot of resistan among hiown party -- in the house and senate -- afanistan. intestingly, the president made a speech a few wes ago where he called it aar of necessity. it is hard to see h they esent -- president can argue it is a war of necessity and then somehow change th course and withdraw.

in some ways he is, but he will have to deal with his part the way he is th health care, to get all the owd -- n sure how hetands on it. i think he is iting from a briefing from the nerals from afghanistan who are going to gi them -- mcchrystal will ve him his plan. but it see if obama is committed on t paper, but not in his heart. george willhat nobody accused of being a docrat recent. there are ave doubts about the united states mission, what constutes success, and tre the cotry is not convinced of the necessity d urgency.

the country is a war weary from iraq and excursion that it w regrets, even if charles does not hel and nobody -- no foreign power has ever prailed in afghanistan a my view is we could have prevailed to a larger exnt much earlier but this may be too late. let me just fish. >>ow exactly what we prepare -- prevailed earli? >> i would have put all of those troo that were in iraq, i would have put them in afghantan -- >> where andfghanistan? >> captured the tiban that ra bora -- can i finish what i was sayin i said last week that i ha no courage of my coiction as to what is right re. and iemain an back. e president is -- i don't think any president shld be heed into a policy that he may ce to regret. and if he thinks it is not worth the cdle, he should change the policy. >> colby, tacticaluestion.

what happens if we pl out? >> it ll represent militarily a defe. thealiban will be there and al al qaeda will have another but it all depends on what t endgame is gng to be there in concned. what ds the actual one to achieve? we could redefine e goals, and not just politicareasons, ut strategic reans. is it possib to degradehe talibato a point where the talin will not pose a particular threat in afghanistan and pakistan andan they do this militarily ana way otr than having a large number of troops in the ground? george will suggted there was pushedack. think obama has to really refined what he wants to hieve and then sell that to the country. i don't thinhe had done this. >> lete ask you -- why is the

enemy the taliban rather tn al qaa. >> because al qaeda is n and -- in afghanistan, but pakist. >> they haveukes, right? >> pakistan is a sovereign country, we can't invade that is ouproblem. >> we inded iraq -- >> on the day of 9/11,raq was an enemy sta, not a friend state. you d't invade france or britain -- younvade not to german big difference. the problem isn 9/11, t taliban rbored al qaeda and allow them to operate d of course the risk is it t taliban return, qaeda will return. >> that the last word. thank you e you next week. for a transcript of this broadcast, log onto insidewashinon.tv.