>> what do you think tree can be can it b stronger than steel? can a te be biodegradable pltic? can it be fuel for our cars? or clothing? or medicine that fights caer? without trace ltic now -- with our tree cell tecology, we think it can -- weyerhaeuser. >> will not waste time with those who made t calculation that iis better politics to kill ts plan than to improve it. >> this week, a combative

president obama challens coress to give him a health re plan. >> the bottom line, thought the speech was partisan, uninformative, disinnuous. >> what will it ke for his fellow democrats to get their act together? >> i belie a public option would be essential to ou passg a bill in the house representatives. >> a public opon cannot ps thsenate. mendacious -- >> liar is a good on >> a cpaign film gets aresh look athe supreme court hear livelyrguments on campaign finae and free-speech. and the 9/11 attacks, eight yes later. let's face it, not a grea summeror president obama.

his approval ratings dropped steadily. it was also a noisy summ. most, from opponents o his proposal to reform heah care. the presidentold a joint seion of congress that it i time to stop the noise andet to wor > the time for bickering is over. the timeor games has passed. now is the sean for action. >> the president announced thre basic goalfor his heth care reform package. >> it will prode more security and stability for ose who have health insurance. it will pvide insurance for those who don't. anit will slow the growth of health-care costs for o famies, businesses, andur government. >> ble goals. i am sure all agree. the question is howe get there and how we pay fort. colby, youave been saying week after week that this gamis fa from over. it is a mistake to cou the president outoo early. what did you think ofthe spee? >> ihink he achieved a couple

of gls. one, he got the democratic party to underand that it is really the game to play and they are the oneshat going to ve to cry this. he wt beyond the congress and talked to the ameran peoe about wh he had in his plan. the fa is, early polls show there was a vorable sponse to wt he had to say. itlso reveals some shortcomingsfor example, deils. >> charles? >> i thoht it was one of the most elegantly deliver, smoothly argued sales of snake oil i have er seen given by a president. itas deceptive to the point of dishonesty, and yet heulled it off aonly he can. >>ll right. nina? >> i thought it was a que a brilliant speechaided and abetted by replicans and not just congressman wilso who hav't figured out how to

beha when a president delivering an address witho drawing attention to emselves in a negive way. >> like democratwho heced and bod in the 2005 bush state of the union? >> we can debate ts later. let usear from mark. >> i ought it was the best speech that barack obama has given sincthe rev. wright speech in philadelphiauring the caaign. he had to convince theeople in e hall that this was importan urgent, not just to e nation, but to them. he spoke with ssion. head been to school. he claimedwnership of the alth plan for the first time going beyond sugstions and semina and into specifics. i tught he did exceptionally well. >> snake oil -- charlesays it

is the coil. >> wel-- look, short of back obama smitting his resignation and givg a one wedg-- one-way tiet to chicag there's that would satisfy some people, inuding some fends we have this panel. >> if you like, would explain >> we do't need anymore sna oil at t table right now. i want to st onubstantive ansay, look, what he did was he laid out the kind of program, a pla that now gets thlegislative process going. max baucus on the finance committee will have to produce something next week wind - with or without republins. we havbills already working rough the house. you see at he was talking about. some of things tt outlined will not be inhe bill. the public optiois what wil be addressed and that think address in a way thawill make this bill saleable. >> could i be lowed to explain as the only disnter of the panel about thgenius of

the speech? it was the biggest fe lunch offering in thhistory ofhe countr n the one hand he says ifou have iurance, it will be lifetime, can't taket away, guaranteedno caps, if you don't ha it, you will get insurance. the detail i le -- erybody is going to get a fr conoscopy. 80 years ago it used tbe a chicken in every basket d now it is a colonoscope. >> don't go the. in the dark. >> and what is the ct here? alof this is going to be done at the cost of ls than $1 trillion - >> he said 900illion over 10 years. > how did he say we will get back? he said morehan half will come from squeezing waste fraud, and abuse out of medicare. when richard nixon us that rase in 1971, it was already a joke. that is an insult to the inteigence of the american people. wast fraud, and abuse, half a

trillion dollars. if that is so, w hasn't he wrung out? what is heaiting for? why does he have have a bill if he could save hf a trilln dollars, - >> rardless of the opposition -- he was behind the curve when he started his speech. will g ahead? >> politically at leasin the short term but i have move the ll quickly, otherwise they can use the momentum again >> with all due reect to the geleman on my leftthe presiden quite frankly, framed it differeny than this issue has been framed by a otr leader. he sd it to us, not what is it to each of us, at has en the debate too often about this.he saidwhat is in it for us, for l of us, is to be citizens in a country that really does practiced justi. and he cast itn moral tms, which is awfully important. as far specifics, and he did in fact call for an indidual

mandate whicis a republican idea he did go to pol for those who cod not obtain iurance, which is a jn mccain idea -- pool he didalk openly about local maractice reform. >> charles likes that one. >> b those were all ecifics. you must be kidding. onalpractice he threw a ball and that was so transparently insincere --e said i am going to try demonstration prect, but lieves it out of the bill.here he iremaking 16 of the economy anhe is leaving out tort reform. >> an idea -- >> he is saying the would be no tort reform in e bill. hat is what he said. it wouldn't matter if there were. but that is neithehere nor there a nse we know from states that ha a very severe caps on, whayou can award peoplend lawsuits, that it has not chang the equation on st.

>> that is not te at all. -- it has had a dratic chang >> why don't you try, youi lie charles. >> prericate. >> t fact is, we can have any of the big things u want, most people want, that is, ty can't deny you for prexisng condions, can't cancel, we cannot do that uess we have a large poolnd a large pool is onlyy mandate per individual. and that is mething thats diffent than the way we have done this in the country. i am not quiteure how t details will work out, butt is the central. >the so-called public option and the debateithinhe democrs. >>rankly, unless he is more clr about the notion of t public option we wilontinue to tug in different direions. >> i ca't support the current house bill primari because of some conces about the cost. democrats.

on from w york, amant about e nd for the publicption, d one from south dakota, who like lot of peopleworried abouthe cost. no public option, no billn the house. on thursday after the president's eech as he seemed to wobble a litt bit, marc. the reality is this, asof now. he senate will not go for a public option. >> that's right. and reality that theouse, progressive ucus and the hoe, and the core of nancy losi's support is commied. you ask peopleo vote for the publ opti which is controversl, popular with the liberal wing but with the understanng and a feait will be kcked out by t senatso it wilnever see the light of

day. about this, are ufied, and unified by what ni touched on earlier, the abortn is of the republicans and tting a face and a voice to opposition that has dominated thcovered the last three days, somody who be picked up -- picked out of south carolinand now he is the no >> they rawith it for two solid days. >> i just want to y something.really there is an art to being the oosition party at a moment like this in speech. they'relways yahoos in the party, but the rublican leadership looked so uncomfortable and white male and so, just kind of belligerent as th sat there, u have to learn to be in passive-- respectfully impassive. >> what about e issue? the house and senatbills, how

they aly to illegal immigrants? for them, yes or no? >> no. >> thais sort of a red herring. but lets go back to the public option for aecond. i think what will happ in the situation is the hse will pass a bill the publioption know fullell it will not pass the senate. t you will have at least 25 votes in the sate for public tion. what may happen, though,s they will go to conferce with the senate-pa bill that won't ve it but instead will come with a trigger. a trigger mechism that ys afr a certain period ofime, if the private insers do not respond thway they expected, then the public option would kick in. that seems tbe a asonable ouome in this debate. >> w goes first, house or sete? >> that bemes a real problem. i wi be very blunt about it, if y go to conferenc everybody, the srt money is l on the house guys. the house people kno the

subject. they livwith it. senators a doing television. and they a visiting new mpshire and iowa. house ople actually work. at that, quite frankly -- chanceof the senate's bng rolledn conference are high. >> i want to play sound bite from the presint. chles, what your reaction. listen to this. >> i will not sign iif it adds ondime to the deficit, now or in the futu, period. >> can he keep aromise like that? >> tally disingenuous. he said it will cost $900 billion -- getng it out of magic, medicare. he said there would be no decrease in any re of equality of treatment aftehe -- have a trillion dlars. absolutely upsurged. he sets up the kind of trigger that would undo iin the year 12, which nobody

believes. i did what say a word about nina -- th belated discovery of the virtues of the past of spect in the opposition. am not sure it was high virtue in her nd in the bush years -- if jowilson had been the other joe wilson, husba of valer plame, he woulde carried out in my shoulders as natial hero speaking truth to power. in fact an issue of illegal immigrantsjoe wilson who was disresctful and should n haveaid that, was correct. absolutely correct. >> really wasn't. >> the langue of theill ecifically prohits. >> it do. >> ls in america are not self enforcing. if they re, we would not have the illegal iens. if there were laws against illegal immigration. >>oes not matter -- >> it matters if you have

enforcemt mechanisms and the mocrats voted against requiring proof of cizenship. >> they vot against provisio that would have made it so tt citizens would very often not have t medical care. >> the ved against a pvision where u are required to prove yo citizenship. n absence of that, there is absolutely notng that would prevent illel aliens from getting that kind of ce. >> thais at variance with the the truth. >> not jt saying so will not make it so. >> otelevision it may work, but noin reality. >> what joe wilson did -- amican people want bipartisanship. barackbama made those geures in his sech on wednesday nht, but the portant thing ishis. what joe wilson d was giv rmission to work only with the from hiactions and the

defense of that by people ke lbaugh and other spokesm of the partyhat in fact this is acceptable behavio so american when it passed a bill with democratic votes -- obama made a partisan speech in absence of permiion. it was a hyper partisan speech nonetheless. >> campaign finan, free- speech -- anillary, the vie. >> does anyone belie that the rights of average cizens to be ard in washington would not be oveidden by massive campaign unlimited can ban ctributions>> they will disable the people ofhis cotry, from ever fixing the campaign finae system. >> senor john mccain and russ feingold, co-sponsorof the law that regulates finanng of political campais, it begins with lasyear's movie out hillarclinton for this by

citins united time for release during the 2008rimary. there s some corporate money inlved. is that why it is at the supreme court? >> that is extly why. it wenup to the supreme court. this is the mo interesting aspect. it went up on a relatively minor point, to see ifhis group had an exception uer the law. instead,fter words, they hear arguments in march th just are't -- justices ordered a re-argument oa huge question of wther congress could, as it had for a century a essentially, than corporate -- ban the rporate and union spending in elections. that you have too it through invidual contributions, not through the corporate ney, the union, general treasurfund. itooked very much that there may be five justes to say place. >> thewhat happens? >> corporatis and unions are already contributing tothey do

it through pacs,heir employees give it. i am big fan -- advocate of disclosu. t us know exactly where the money is coming from and alsoelieve in speech. and i alsoelieve that these institutions -- bor unions and corporations -- shou have the right speak about their issues, and they speak t same way individuals do, throh contributions. john mcin laid out the predicate, that it would be massive spending on campaign so be it. we already have it ght now i st think it ought to be fully disclose this makese a heretic -- >> it makes you rights. >> but the other interesting aspects that this group did not nt to disclose. there is aot of talking abo, you haveo have full disclosure. but when theases come to court the groups never nt t disclose.

let's be very blunt. in my earlier like i was a political hack and rai money, made me anti-cvin is, man give -- god gave money to the least attractive,interesting, ir minded of our creatures it is about money. it is about corporate dominance of politics. if yotake 1% of the exxon's prof of next year, that is morehan barack obama raised and spent and all campaign john mccain anruss fngold are solutely right. before teddy roosevt where we had united stes senators -- fromennsylvania, ssachusetts, senators from the u.s. steel, from sclair oil. this is a rrifying prospect. >>hat do we have now? >> exactly >> individual contribuons. >> $1 billionas spent inhe la campaign. ok, we have a first amendme. once we he a cgress

regulating political speech, yo are curtailinghe most precious assets america. you have disclosure, as colby id, that is what you need. open honesty and an en playing field. >> 9/ revisited. ground zero inew york. lice, firefighters, and police officers on the eighth anniversary of t attacks on 9/. september 11, 2001, the world trade ceer attack, pentagon attack. thweather was clear, crisp, and then at 8:46 a.m., the nation changed, colby, and we haven't recovered. >> we will not recer. we changed fundamentally because we were attack in a waywe never anticipated. now where we are is e post- 9/11 age, and it has affted

from the standpoint of ou civil liberties, from the standint of national security, the way in which we deal wit eachther and other countries the ft that we are in war in two locations. 9/11 is something thatill stay with this coury for generation >> charles? >> i thinke actually returning to a 9/10 mentity. the ony is because we have t had a second attack, becau we hadhat success, and because it is now eight yes, it see like ancient history. because it seems le ancie history, ournstinct is to returno the kind of insuciance we have befor9/11, lettin the gua down. rather unpreparedor the viciousness of the enemy tt is still out there and will t to do it again, but with weaps of mass destruction. >> nin >> certainly notncient

history to meet. -- m it to young peopleit probably is, because they were not cognizant in tt period. country today than we were on 9/10. >> mark? >>housands and millions probablyouched by 9/11 but i cannot get outf my mind the 256 new york firighters will jaws of death anfires of hl because at was their task. >> a as a direct consequen, we are nowighting to warts -- afghanistan d iraq. >> the real problem for oba is theris a lot of resiance amonhis own party -- inhe house and senate- to afghanistan. nterestingly, the president made a speech a feweeks ago where he called a war of necessit it is hard to s how th present -- president can argue it is a war of necessity and then somehow changthe course and withdraw.

in some ways he is, bute will have to deal with his rty, e way hes with health care, to get all e crowd -- not sure hohe stands on it. i think hes waiting from a briefing from e generals from afghanistan who are gog to give them -- mcchrystal will give him his plan. but it seems as if obama is committed on the paper, but not his heart. george will tt nobody accused of being a demrat recently there are gre doubts about the united states mission,hat constites success, and theof the couny is not convinced of the necessity anurgency. >>he country is a war weary

om iraq and excursion that it noregrets, even if charles does not help,nd nobody -- no foreign power has ever prevled in afghanistan andy view is we could have prevailed to a larger exte much earlier but this may be too late. let me just fini. >> h exactly what we prepare -- prevailed earlier > i would have put all ofhose troopshat were in iraq, i would have put them in afghanisn -- >> where and ahanistan? >> captured the talan that to bora -- can i finish what i was saying? i said last week that i have no courage of my convtion as to what is right he. and i rain an back. thpresident is -- i don't think any president shou be hemm into a policy that he may comto regret. nd if he thinks it is not worth the cane, he should ange the policy. >> colby, tactical qstion.

what happens if we pulout? >> it wi represent militarily a defeat the tiban will be there and alsol qaeda will havenother t it all depends on what the endgame is goi to be theren concerd. what doethe actual one to achieve? we could redefine thgoals, and not just political asons, b strategic reaso. is it possibleo degrade t taliban a point where the talibawill not pose a rticular threat in afghanistan and pakistan and c theyo this militarily and way othethan having a large number of troops in the ground? george will suggesd there was pushed bk. i ink obama has to really redened what he wantso aceve and then sell that to the country. i don't think had done this. >> let mask you -- why is the

enemy the taliban rather tha al qaed >> because al qaeda is not and -- in afghanistan, but pakistan >> they have nes, right? >> pakistan is a sovereign untry, we can't invaded. that is our oblem. >> we invad iraq -- >> on the day of 9/11, iq was an enemy statenot a friendly state. you do't invade france or britain -- you iade not to germany,ig difference. the problem is o9/11, the taliban haored al qaeda and allow them to operate an of course the risk is it the taliban retu, al qaeda will return. >> tt is the last word. thankou. see you next week. for a transcriptf this broadcast, l oo insidewaington.tv.