>> get over the heads of the bloggers and the ads and the yak yak. that covers the debate at times. the polls showed those that watched the speech and approved of the plan, 58% in the c.b.s.

poll think president obama is diagnose a good job. the number is lieding. the white house thinks was what they did, they got a little back in august. and they want to reenergize democrats who said the president was not forceful enough in rebutting republicans and advocating what was important. gwen: the president said my man, okay, what was the president's man exactly? take it apart. let's talk about cost and how do you pay for something like that. >> the president says he wants to hold the costs to $9 bth over 10 years. he has ways to do that, first by extracting savings from medicare, billions of dollars. there are experts who say there's a lot of waste and inefficiency. the question is can you reem that out of medicare. there's also, going to be a

question of he seemed to -- to give some endorsement, but it is not clear whether it would happen this way or it would place a fee on insurance providers. there's details to be filled in. >> the president thinks those concessions were the olive branch he needed to get it moving again. >> yes, he made a point of mentioning republican ideas that he wanted to include in his plan, as yet unwritten, including one proposed by senator mccain and a prop opponent from last year and another pilot project for reform, which is something that the republicans have been supportive of in the past. the tails are left to be worked out. that's what he wanted. he wanted to say here are things that are most important, but i'm not going to say that we close off all options, including the public option. he is for it, but with other ideas. >> speaking of republicans, gwen mentioned and he mentioned,

senator olimpia snowe and if she could turn out being the only republican on a bipartisan bill. >> she's one of the most moderate republicans. she's one of six from the finance committee that has been working on. >> only republican participating. >> exactly right. so she's more singled out. and now with ted kennedy's death, the democrats have 59 of the 100 seats and you need 60 votes to cut off a fill buster. they're thinking if they could get all 59 democrats to vote with the party on that question, they would need one more republican. snowe seems most likely, but she would be in the spotlight. she would be the 60th vote. one of my colleagues asked her, are you willing to do that? she said, i won't comment on that. that's dangerous territory. there play have to be a plan-to-that picks up at least a

couple of other republicans. the divide is not the only divide here. the democrats especially in the house are kind of all over the lot. there was a letter at one point from liberals saying they wouldn't vote for a bill that didn't have a public option. there were blue dog centrists that said they couldn't vote for it with a public option. did the president resolve that? the democrats in one place now? >> no. in the house it is a little less of a problem, doyle, because first the house rules are different than the senate rules, because a bare majority st all you need. it is coneach seveable that you have a revolt from the liberals, that they didn't get the public option or a revolt from the blue dogs if the costs aren't cut. but the thinking is at the end of the day, they'll get a bill out of the house, it'll be different than the senate and that's -- the rubber will meet the road then when you resolve that. >> part of the strategy is to get bills passed.

they'll figure this out in conference. they don't need to figure out the bottom line. just get a bill past the senate. doesn't have to have a public option. and sit down at the table. >> what is the timetable? gwen: what will we see next? >> the coming week is the self-imposed deadline by baucus, for a bipartisan bill. that doesn't look likely other than what we talked about. at some point, they're going to have to move fast. >> the vice president still thinks -- >> you have got a lit of when will go first? the house could move faster. they have bills ready to go to the rules and to the floor. but there's a number of especially conservative democrats in the house that say, wait a minute. you are going to make me walk the plank or something that is not popular in my district. i'm up for re-election, let's see what the senate does. >> let's talk about what everybody else is talking about.

all the wonderful high-minded substance, is overshadowed by one moment on the house floor, two words. you lie, from joe wilson from north carolina. you're from north carolina. i wanted to clear that up for everybody. how much did that help or hurt what the president was out to do? >> if i had power, i would joe wilson's bank account to find out how much rahm emanuel paid him for this. this couldn't work out better. there the white house is saying, time is -- time for bickering is over and then all of a sudden, you hear at the town hall in the august. that's what the white house loves. the democrats in the house today on friday decided they're going to see if they could milk this for longer by officially rep manding congressman wilson who apologized but not on the floor. gwen: not with a lot of

contrition. >> could you help clear up or the issue that he was shouting about, which is -- seems to be the one that is aroused by most passion on the right is will this cover illegal imgrants or not? >> it is not a simple answer. there is language in the various bills. there's not just one bill. saying no subsidy for illegal immigrants. fine. but the republican critics, including people like joe wilson say there's no verification in the bill. how do we know if we don't ask for proof of citizenship whether or not you get that. the answer to that is if you do these tax subsidies, the irs has mechanisms of course, in which legal residence. gwen: the federal government won't subsidize an illegal alien program. >> it does expressly ban that but does it have adequate enforcement? and is there a public option?

can an illegal immigrant buy this plan that the government would offer as a competitor to private insurers. the bills don't say they can't. and a congressional research service says there's nothing in the bill that says -- gwen: how can you stop? >> the white house today said they won't allow in their plan, they would bar illegal immigrants from buying the public -- >> even in the change, which would have private programs as well, for which you really question where is the subsidy there. accusations that are potent. gwen: that's the big question about the end of this week for me. how much did the outburst and how much did the debate that followed the outburst and the discussion of this issue, how much did it expose what is really the problem for the president and for congress on this issue, which is meem are so head up about it that it is almost impossible to get the details out?

>> they are really worked up about it. but i think from talks to -- talking to members of congress, there's a lot of people dead set against it. they and their members of congress won't vote for it. not one republican said they would vote for this. okay. that's kind of into that conversation. they could get a bill through without that. we talked a minute ago about the senate. i think in a way that the notices of -- noise of august and the town hall meetings, it told you where the dine might bes were. that does not mean you can't pass a bill. >> there play be more people gwen: the court returned early to pass a a bill that could overturn finance law and sotomayor raised the key question in the case. how far are they willing to go in overturning existing law. we got to listen in. >> i know we asked for further

briefing on this particular issue of overturning this but are you giving up earl here argument that is there are statutory indication that is would overlook the question? >> no, but what the court addressed specifically in the washington right to life case is the lines bear to be drawn are not line that is are ambiguous and invite litigation that hold the threat of prosecution over an individual. gwen: so justice sotomayor was trying to get to the point of the heart of this. >> how widely is the supreme court going to open the door to corporate money and politician now? if you remember when this case first came to us in the spring, it had the narrow question. it rose from a movie done by a conservative advocacy group. it was an attack movie on hillary clinton who in 2008 was running for the presidential election. they put out a movie that is

called hillary, the movie. the case deefled when citizen's united wanted to put it on video on demand and the federal election commission said no, that conflicts with the 2002 law that says you can't right during an election season have corporate money that is spent -- for or against the candidate over broadcasting. it is a portion of -- of the wide law that is known by sponsors and fine gold and mccain of arizona, and russ fine gold of wisconsin. we start with this narrow question of this video on demand, did it violate the election law? supreme court here, and oral arguments in march. it comes back though with this wider question that justice so the maier was referring to. it says we're in the going to decide this question. it tells us in june, that it is going to decide the larger question, of should long 1257bding court precedent that says, that government can actually restrict corporate expenditures and elections, and

on candidates, should those stands r stabbed ever stand? are those violations of the right of free speech. what she was asking. it was the first question. it didn't sound like a question to be the first question. it got to the heart of the thing. do we have to rule broadly here or can we as ted olson argued, rule on the statutory question dealing with the 2002 haw. >> this was argued last spring. the normal court term would have started in october. so what is it that they had to do it in september? >> they realized they wanted to address the larger constitutional question of -- you know laws that are on the books in the states and laws on the federal books that say, that government can restrict corporate expenditures near an election time. and that's an important question that frankly women affect the 2010 races and future races. when they couldn't reach that,

they didn't have enough, you know briefing on the larger question. in june they said, come back in september and come back early. the two sides will address it. i think the idea is they could get a ruling out before the end of this calendar year. and they already did a lot of work on the question because the briefing had begun frankly late in 2008 and in march. >> wait a minute. i thought courts liked to decide cases on narrow grounds, rather than wide grounds and i thought the supreme court especially and chief justice roberts -- very fond op sticking with precedent and not overturning decisions they already made. what happened? >> that's that's the question that lots of liberals hope they will ask. they know chief justice john roberts during the hearings talked about not wanting to jolt the system. and mccain and fine gold in their brief in the case, coming in involved as a friend of the court, said a ruling that is is

broad will jolt the system. their point s look, elections are about individuals having their say, not corporate money or labor union money. what chief justice john roberts suggested from the bench, are how solid are some precedents when general alaina kagan in representing the government in defending these regulations, said, these go back for 100 years. for 100 years, congress has been concerned about corporate wealth in the elections and the corruptive effect. we haven't sanctioned those for 100 years. and this play not be valid. >> is justice kennedy going to be the swing judge? >> that's a good question. in almost every case, it is kennedy, the swing vote. not here, just as he has consistently been against government regulation in this area, he's very much in favor of broad political free speech rights. in fact, in a key 1990 case that

is probably going to be undercut if not completely overturned, he dissented. the majority. arguments was that they are looking for ways to roll some of it back in. >> and you know that we're often surprised when we finally get a ruling. >> that's why we're there. and we're waiting on it. thank you, joan. >> today is of course the eighth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. anniversary of the events that sparked wars in afghanistan and iraq iraq. eight years of heightened security at home and eight years of uncertainty about how to combat terror. except this year, we have a new administration coping with that. does that make a big difference? >> i'm going to switch for a moment into french and say the more things change, the more they stay the same. >> you said it in english. >> my french is so good. >> it is, go back to the campaign and look -- barack

obama said he would do in the war on terror, was he promised that he would be just as tough or tougher than george w. bush. he would attack targets in pakistan. a statement to prove he could be a hawk that got him in hot water during the campaign from hillary and others. he also said that he would close guantanamo bay and bring the judicial parts of this war back under the constitution. no more secret prisons. no more extra legal stuff. what happened? on the foreign pasht, the war, he did basically what he said he would do. he started to draw down the war in iraq and shift resources to afghanistan. in fact he did get tougher or the bushies would say not really tougher, but the pretore strikes in afghanistan and iraq picked up. he went on a charm offensive to reset relations with the muslim

world. that will take a long run. and on the legal side, it is a different picture. he announced that guantanamo bay would be closed in a year, but it hasn't happened yet and nobody in the administration can promise that it will happen on -- on target. he suspended the military tribunals, they're back operating again. there wasn't a way to handled cases they figured out. he had a review panel look at the question of detention without trial. that's going on. and rendition, sending suspects to other countries where they would be -- they came around and recommended let's keep on with rendition, but, don't worry about it, we'll have the state department do tougher monitoring of what happens on the other end. i'm not sure a -- so -- it is really, candidate, obama becomes

president obama and collides with the harsh reality. >> what is the harsh reality with regard to guantanamo bay. this sounded simple to close it. gave them a year to deal with things that are messy, in terms of rebate rating prisoners to other countries and figuring out how to retry prisoners. it is september 11th and we're a new months from a year. >> peter, you probably have the same conversation i have with meem if the white house. if they said there was one decision they could have made a different way this year, it is the way they rolled out guantanamo bay. it just turned out to be tougher and -- folks back home, the whole idea of moving some of these prisoners to maximum security facilities in the united states turned out to be wildly unpopular. they looked at kansas and the kansasians didn't want it. there's a supermax in michigan where there's unmoment, you could employ prison guards.

they didn't want it. turned out people in europe didn't want them. the europeans are coming along to some extent. there's some progress. there's 226 prisoners. 120 haven't been reviewed yet and 98 are from yemen and nobody can quite figure out where they would go. it is a mess. >> let me ask about the flip side, the anti-terror side. and in terms of the potency of al qaeda, what do we know at this point? eight years in and eight years after trying to seek retribution and the war in afghanistan, where do things stand? >> that's a good fundamental question. i think it is helpful if you go back and remember what it is like in 9/11 and the months after. we were all hearing reports that al qaeda had the capability to do all kinds of things. they blew up commuter trains in madrid, they blew up hotels in bali, there were to bomb embassies in europe that were

interrupted. as we know, they had a plan that was advanced to blow up several planes in the atlanta, using liquid in bottles. what happened as a result of the bush administration's all fronts war on al qaeda, with a lot of help from other governments is -- that that organize has been reduced in its numbers and its capabilities. there are probably still 300, 400 different estimates, real al qaeda people hiding out in pakistan, including osama bin laden but they haven't gotten near pulling off anything spectacular in quite sometime. obviously, islamic terrorism and militancy is a problem lots of places but al qaeda itself -- >> we don't know precisely where they are, because they're not thank you. gwen: thank you all very much for that. we thank you everyone at home. we're done here, but the conversation continues online

with your questions and our answers. that's the "washington week" webcast extra. you could find it at pbs .org/"washington week." we'll see you next week on "washington week." we leave you tonight with another look at today's 9/11 observances. good night. ♪ >> on a day when others sought to stop our confidence, let us renew our purpose. how we came together as one nation as one people, as americans. united not only in our grief but in our resolve to stand with one another. to stand up for the country we all love. ♪ >> corporate funding for

"washington week" is provided by -- >> we know why we're here. to stand behind all who serve. >> to deliver the technology vital to freedom. to help carry hope to those in need. around the globe, the people of boeing are working together for what matters most. nast why we're here. >> major funding for "washington week" is also provided by the annenberg foundation, the corporation for public broadcasting and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you.