>> production assistance for "inside washington" provided by allbritton communications and "politico." >> i will not vote and many of us will not vote for a final compromise without a public option. >> this week on "inside

washington," now trouble from the left on health care. is the public option dead? >> this is just one sliver of it. >> the congenial debate continues. >> you continue to support a nazi policy, as obama has? >> on what planet do you spend most of your time? >> afghans risked their lives to vote. terrorist bombings escalate in iraq and the maliki government does not ask for american help. we lose two legendary news man, columnist robert novak and "60 minutes' minutes' don hewitt. captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org--

i am looking for somebody who can tell me of the public option and president obama's health plan is still viable. democratic senator kent conrad says not in the senate. >> the fact of the matter is that there are not the votes in the united states senate for the public option, they're never have been. to continue to chase that rabbit i think is just a wasted effort. >> after saying last weekend that the rabbit will probably be taken off the table, health and human services secretary kathleen sebelius if the little fellow a new lease on life. >> absolutely nothing has changed. we continue to support the public option. that will help lower costs and give american consumers more choice and keep private insurers honest. >> roger simon, what is the status of the public option right now? dad, ally, or comatose? >> i believe without the public

option, barack obama is not going to get health care reform through congress. he is the head of a left-of- center party. they want the public option. kent conrad is not the whip of the senate. he is not the guy counting votes. dick durbin is. when i see him on television saying that the public option is dead, i will believe it. >> colby? >> i am reminded of when in korea, he was surrounded on the left and right and he said, "is we have just where we got -- we have just where we want the." that is where obama is. he has that left and the right and the blue dogs and the commentators. i do not think he will pull a

chester and knocked out his enemies, but i do not think he is out of this yet. lyndon johnson said to clarence mitchell when they were pushing the civil-rights bill that they had to have that, and said, "how many votes do you have, clarence?" this is what will come down to, how many votes out of the senate. >> charles? >> it doesn't have a chance. mara liasson of npr put it correctly -- there is no left wing democrat who will lose his seat if the option is left out of the bill. there are moderate democrats who will lose his seat if it is in the bill. that will determine how it goes. there will be no public option. there might be a co-op idea, which is a trojan horse. >> nina?

>> i don't think there will be a co-op idea. it would not surprise me if the bill passes the house with the public option and the senate passes a bifurcated thing that does not have the public option, and it is all resolved in conference, probably without the public option. that will be the big trade-off. ok, you drop the public option, and give on x, y, and busy. >> you have the blue dogs digging in their heels, united jerrold nadler saying he would not vote for it, he said that howard dean -- you saw howard dean said it has to be there. >> 50 opposition a chance to, and waved signs and -- if the opposition a chance to come in with signs and talk about death panels. in 1965, it was the last of the

great society and a considerable bipartisan support. >> the other thing he did with the civil rights bill was to count votes. he has clearly 40 votes against him in the senate. all the republicans will vote against him. with the public option in, and probably without a public option, they will not vote for it. he has kent conrad who will go somewhere else or says he will not support the public option. where does he get the 60 votes? if he tries the other thing and goes with the 50votes, that will blow on him. where is he getting 60 votes? he has to do the math. if they if not do that >> -- >> why does he bother to support the republicans anyway? >> he is not according to republicans. are you kidding? all of his arguments are with the democrats.

the left the democrats on the public option and the blue dogs on the cost. he likes to blame on republicans, but he is within his party. he has a majority in the house that is huge and he has a super majority in the senate. >> but not a filibuster-proof. >> he does not have 60 votes because ted kennedy cannot show up. he does not have 60 votes but even if he got every democrat who was there. that is the first thing. the second thing is that barack obama is not lyndon johnson, and these are not the same times. lyndon johnson did not have to cope with talk radio and cable tv. these are just very different times. >> why not pass the bill you want and let republicans filibuster? >> you will end up with a slimmed down bill that everybody agrees is going to be high regulation of insurance companies, so everybody is a

little -- everybody is eligible and no preconditions and you do not get caught if you get sick and the caps on payments are lifted. there will be individual mandates so that young people are going to have to pay into the system. and to subsidize the older folks. everybody will agree on that. all the other stuff will probably fail. >> if he could come up with a bill that cuts down a substantial number of those who are uninsured, you have achieved quite a victory. >> i have more questions about health care and the debate. >> my obligation to the american people says we will get this done one way or another. >> peggy noonan rights in "the wall street journal" that. the idea that works is marked by clarity. where is the -- every big idea that works is marked by clarity. where is the clarity in this debate? >> that is the problem. there are too many moving parts, like the human back. most people have back problems.

mr. obama has back problems because there is a question of controlling costs, who do you cover, a question of delivery of services. of course, these are all real problems, but it is just too hard to explain. there is not a single thing. >> what i don't understand is thae nazi analogies. people showing up with loaded weapons. how do they get away with that? >> that is a provocative act and act of intimidation and has no place in politics. weapons at a political rally -- maybe they are trying to say that the second amendment is a viable and that they are emphasizing the rights of the second amendment, but this is no way to of political discourse. also, it is potentially very dangerous.

>> i want to say something about this. during the bush administration, there were lots of people turned away from rallies or even push away from the outer parts of rallies because they had a john kerry button. maybe not even displayed three little old ladies were. the administration always sends to the secret service. now they're people outside with guns. people say, "well, they are not breaking the law." this is clearly a decision by the obama administration to not have a big fight with gun rights people. the secret service decided that was threatening, they would arrest those people. i personally consider it threatening. >> i would as well, although i think it is highly exaggerated. nancy pelosi talking about people carrying nazi signatures. how many? have a dozen, perhaps? it is of a two-part honest citizens who are angry, middle- aged, -- it is a way to tar

honest citizens who are angry and middle-aged. msnbc edited out a clip of a guy with a gun, and he was actually african-american, a stunt by a local talk radio host through all that was left out of that report. it implied that it was right wing nuts. >> there are right wing african- americans, charles. >> but he is obviously not a racist. >> he does not have to be a racist. >> to get back to the issue, it isn't against socialism and death panels -- it is against socialism and death panels. as barack obama said, here we are in mid-to-late-august, and there is no clarity in the obama position. he needs to tell us what he wants. does he want a public option? would he accept co-ops?

tell us how he is going to pay for it. is he going to tax health benefits like max baucus wants? just millionaires like nancy pelosi what? how far is he willing to go to get it to the house and senate? is he willing to do reconciliation? would he find a filibuster? on and none of those three critical points has there been any clarity. >> there is a good reason, i think, for it. you start out with something like health care that has been defeated for 50 years, you have to know where everybody is on this issue. you have 51 of 35 members and you have to know where they stand. -- 535 members and you have to know where they stand we need to know where the votes are on the public option. we need to know where the votes are on all of these issues. time is on his side. >> i don't think so. >> time is on his side and we

will be talking about this next january. >> it has been out long and costly flush if that is the case. >> let me ask you about the letter ted kennedy has written to the governor of massachusetts asking them to change the law so that there will be no vacancy in that senate seat before the special election. the law was originally change to keep it mitt romney from putting somebody in there. >> who was behind that change? edward kennedy. this letter is touching, but his hypocrisy is staggering. the tradition in massachusetts had always been in the appointment, you do not have a vacancy, and you go ahead. as a way to keep that romney from appointing a successor to president terry, the president -- edward kennedy was the one who changed the a little bit. now all of a sudden finds the virtue of having two seats occupied at the same time.

>> look, he wants to make sure that massachusetts has two senators -- >> he did not carry about that for years ago. >> no, he did not, but now he does. >> he could not go to h feetis -- sister's could not go to his -- he could not go to his sister's funeral. they could do without his vote if they pick up republican vote or two. >> afghanistan. at week's end, there were counting votes in kabul. at least 26 people were killed. many of them in the taliban- southern stronghold. maybe 40% to 50% of the nation's voters showed up.

people have some hope for democracy, i guess. but i keep wondering if this is aware of necessity. -- a war of necessity. the president keeps saying it is. is it? >> i do not know if it is a war of necessity until i look next door, pakistan. i do not know if you have a hostile taliban-type government on the border of pakistan, the experts to go will be pakistan. then you are in real trouble you talking about a country with nuclear weapons. >> here is a country with 30,000 villages, tribal allegiances with a shift on a daily basis. how do you pull that together? >> another world where we do not know what we're fighting -- where we are fighting to reno what we are fighting for, but it is not clear if we will get there.

if they are voting in the 40%, 50%, that is about with the united states is, so should we be too concerned about that? does it really matter who they lacked? they elect a government that is a free -- that is afraid to leave the city of kabul. they have an american and nato troops fighting to create a democracy and the applause for democracy have never flourished. -- in a place where democracy has never flourished. >> our initial, swift victory in toppling the taliban give us the idea that we could create in afghanistan a democracy. that was an illusion. i think what our objective is is a minimal objectives. we know that the enemy will be active and will have some influence in the south. our objective is to maintain the

capital and what used to be the no. alliance. and to hold that line. i think the minimal objective is achievable. the idea of a single, unified country that is democratic is a complete solution. >> how long does this last, colby? >> president obama defined the objectives early on as defeating the taliban, defined as a threat to the region and the united states. nation-building is a completely different thing. if he goes into the area of nation building -- >> how to defeat the taliban without the nation building? >> -- here is > terrible sight -- here is iraq -- terrible sectarian violence during the week. the maliki government did not call in terms for assistance. a close political adviser to the

government's sad that we want them out of here as quickly as we can. >> we have had a problem with nouri al-maliki as recently as his success in basra. he attacked the sadrites, but it was a close victory and with american help. he always overestimate his strength. in taking them out, he again overestimated his strength and he again cc is weaker. this is a winnable war, but it could be on winnable if the iraqis assume they are in control in a situation where they are not quite ready. >> i do not agree with that at construction at all. in august, we have had two american casualties in iraq. two. this is an iraqi problem. how the iraqis handle this, the fights with the sunnis and

shiites, that is their business. if they want to get us out sooner, that is their business. pack up and let's leave right now. we have done the job that we had to do. we do not have to stay there. winning a war is their business. >> well, we destabilize the country and now we say that it is broke and we will not fix it, and that is what the iraqi government wants. maliki's decisions are probably wrong for his country, but they are good for the united states. thousands of lives and $1 trillion they're prepared by us 10 years of health care reform. -- $1 trillion there. that would buy as 10 years of health care reform . >> how exactly would you have used them? but we have in iraq is the situation where you have the potential of an extremely important strategic ally, and

requires a slight bit of patience and a few more months rather than a quick and complete withdrawal. >> let me ask you about this story in "the new york times" about the cia hiring and training but water contractors to go out and assassinate al -- black water contractors to go out and assassinate al qaeda types. >> it is the ultimate in contacting problem. >> by the way, congress never heard about this. >> you have to have a government responsible for itself. in the coming weeks, we will have much more of this kind of stuff. the inspector general's report from the cia on torture is going to come out. i think that eric holder is probably going to assign a prosecutor to look into whether everybody exceeded the rules laid down by the bush administration. we will probably have the

inspector general's report out of justice about whether the lawyers there acted improperly in setting down the torture rules. >> doesn't all this public airing of dirty laundry defeat the purpose of intelligence gathering? >> in the case of the investigation, you expect the justice department to launch -- the high justice department officials said, talking about this issue, that people died as a result of interrogations'. you have to do something in that case. >> blackwater -- we are never going to bend the cost curve on assassination. american agencies wanted to assassinate them, they used to do it themselves. we did not go out and spun a $20 million. >> i liked that idea, but there is a counter argument. what were these assassinations

to ostensibly do? ok, it never happened, but it was ideas but if you want to kill a guy in pakistan, and you use a drowned and two out of washington or wherever. but if you want to kill a guy in hamburg, killing him in the west is hard. you want to have a contractor, because it is easier to deny. that is why it goes this way. not that anybody had an idea of let's do it outside. the reason the program in the end was a band it was because it was shooting bad guys in hamburg and paris. >> contacting out is an old practice of the cia. they hired the mafia to go after castro. this is nothing new. >> that did not work out well. >> as i recall, that was the kennedy boys, wasn't it? >> yes, it was. normally this does not work out well.

>> i think it is a wonderful policy, if you give -- >> allied guise of people cannot control -- >> let's say you find somebody in brazil or yemen, not exactly your friend, you shoot them. >> let me ask you about a guy who was in prison. 270 people died, 189 of them americans. he was just released by scottish authorities compassionate reasons. >> he battered by soon. -- better die soon. >> terrible miscarriage of justice. by the way, this guy looks healthy to me. one guy, the scottish secretary of justice, it was his decision and his alone. in fact, the scots have granted 80% of such requests over the last 10 years.

>> look, this is a scandal. decadence masquerading as compassion. somebody at "national review" did a calculation, that despite served 11 days for each person he murdered. -- this guy served at 11 days for each person who murdered. >> i guess we are all agree on this one. >> robert novak, we brought you on, i got to be honest, to be the senate. >> i've never been as an act in my life. -- a cynic in my life. >> whether you agree with him or not, you ought to agree, the prince of darkness, he loved that, and nobody worked harder. >> he was a journalist, like the late mary mcgrory. in washington, things are not

always what they seem. for example, i deeply loved charles krauthammer it in the case of robert novak, i met him years ago. i knew him as a parent. our kids were in high school together. there was a show with the to the people in washington and we spent half an hour together to talk about washington, d.c. nothing ideological at all. he was a professional, not an ideologue. >> colby and i will elope in massachusetts. he was very interesting. what really distinguishes him was his independence but he was a columnist who did reporting, so he did not have to be edited by anybody. he said what he believed. it was his independence that made him so in valuable. >> he was always very nice to be even though i am sure he considered by politics deplorable. it was a surprise to him that people did not like him because of his politics.

he was always able to separate in his mind his court humanity from his political beliefs. >> that is absolutely right. is so funny that he was called the prince of darkness that was his public persona, but he was such a decent person that is a mismatch. >> don hewitt -- we could do a whole show on a don hewitt. he did the kennedy-nixon debates, produced the first half-hour network evening news broadcast for 36 years. he produced "60 minutes," in which he demonstrated that it is possible to make money doing news. i will leave it to others to decide whether there was a good or bad thing. and another great newsman died, the former washington bureau chief of "the wall street journal." see you next week.

for a transcript of this broadcast, log on to insidewashington.tv.