you got to be there first thing. >> you saw the president with his jacket on and -- >> i like that. >> we'll see more of that. great night tonight and a beauty tomorrow. warmer weather back in the forecast for tomorrow. back into the 70s. but that's the last of the warm temperatures for the rest of the week. ged get ready for a serious little preview of october. just in time for the start of october. outside right now a mostly clear sky is in place over washington. it's a beautiful sunday evening outside. up 12:00, it's a beautiful monday morning over washington. 62 to 63 degrees. that's the current temperature. after a 77-degree high today and a 61-degree start and had about a quarter inch of rain in washington today to go with the 1.4" we had yesterday. around the rest of the area, a lot of western suburbs already dropping back down into the 50s. 59 in fairfax. 52 in culpepper, virginia. 49 in baltimore. milder alongside the chesapeake

bay. all the rain is gone and rainfall totals for the weekend, over an inch and a half annapolis. an inch and a half in prince george's county and down toward springfield, virginia. the rain -- we have a chance for rain coming back as early as tomorrow afternoon but it will be a short -- a fast-moving, short affair for a rainfall around here. rainfall amounts of the next weather front as it comes through is less than a tenth of an inch. just enough to get your clean car dirty. cool tomorrow with clear skies. there's your next weather front blasting through he during the course of the day. it will have a fast-moving, band of showers. and then, strong westerly winds are going to push down a real piece of canada in the fall and we're going to to feel the changes around here. washington is not been below 50 degrees since may 19th. we may get below 50 degrees at least once or twice this

upcoming week here in the washington area. and plenty of wind around tomorrow and tuesday. wind advisories across much of the great lakes so it will be breezy around here. morning, clear skies and cooler than this morning. wake-up temperatures, low 50s in the western suburbs to up near 60 alongside the bay. for tomorrow, sunshine in the morning going over to mostly cloudy sky. brief chance of quick passing shower late tomorrow afternoon and tomorrow evening. most of the rain chances, probably until about 3:00 and 11:00 tomorrow slrn evening timeframe with highs tomorrow in the 70s. look at your seven-day forecast. you'll see what i'm talking about. check it out. only 77 tomorrow. 69 on tuesday. 68 on wednesday. 67 for a high on thursday. overnight low temperatures dropping way down into the low 50s, even, i think, the upper 40s in town. there may be a chance of some frost in central west virginia by wednesday, thursday morning. >> chuck bell, thank you,

appreciate. it coming up in sports, oh, jim zorn. jim zorn, jim zorn. there he is on the sidelines today jumping up and down. perhaps he's jumping up

one can only imagine on what's going to said on all the sports radio stations. although shows. >> a blogosphere alert. >> i'm sure people are calling in and getting in line to voice their opinion. losing to a team who went 0 for 2008 is an embarrassment. now redskins nation is calling for jim zorn's job in an effort to salvage a season that began to unravel last week. albert haynesworth said -- it don't matter in joe gibbs was

here. for now jim zorn's job is safe. according to a source, the organition is not expected to make any moves. jim zorn here looking like he needs a hug. very first redskins po sgs on fourth and one, clinton portis gets the handoff and runs left and he stops. a blown opportunity in the red zone. the skints 2 for 9 inside the led zone at that point. ensuing lines possession. it's third and 13 at the 42 yard line. roie quarterback, matthew stafford can't find anyone open so he runs it himself and the kid from georgia can move. makes fred smoot miss a 21-kbrard pickup for the lie ones. a 21-yard touchdown and the lyons take a 99-yard drive. second quarter.

7-0 been lions. and stafford, haynesworth gets injured on the play. he injured his right hip down on the turf for a while and he would have to be carted off. he returned in the second half. detroit would add two more field goals and take a 13-0 lead into of time. third quarter, the skins rally on their first possession and second half, jason campbell throws a strike to a wide-opened santanna moss. racing down the side lines for a 57-yard score and redskins cut the lead to 6. months had 178 yards receiving. fourth quarter. redskins still down 13-7 on second and 15. ten pi for delay of game. -- penalty for delay of game. check out his lips? what are you doing? >> he said more than that. letter than quarter. stafford airs it out deep for calvin johnson and chris horton trying to break it up and he can't do that. called for pass interference. he can't believe it.

nine penalties on the skins in the game. jim zorn? he can't believe it either. jumping up and down. now the lions have the ball. maurice morris gets the ball in the e zone. the a lions take a 18-7 lead. they need a touchdown. and the pats not near the end zone. play goes nowhere. that's it, the lions beat the redskins 19-14, their first win since december 23rd, 2007. lindsay was in detroit and has more. >> hakim, based on what i saw on the field after the game the redskins pretty much made the lions just feel like they won the super bowl after losing 19 straight games. when you look back at the game the redskins offense didn't come alive until the second half and on defense they allowed to lions to convert on 10 of 13 opportunities. the redskins were outplayed on

both sides of the ball. >> we got opportunities, too and, they beat us. that's all i can say. >> it's tough. it's tough. i mean, we knew that detroit was going to come up here and play what their capable of and that's great enthusiasm in their home field and get that losing streak all over with. >> reporter: the biggest can question was why this team continues to play down to the level of its opponent. why is it so difficult to execute with the weapons they have. for theirst time the redskins players are suggesting an attitude shift might be needed. >> we have a lot of people in here that think they are better than they are. you can look at them and tell, you know. this isn't the preseason. this is the real deal. and like you said, there's a lot of guys running around here who think they've arrived. >> growing up, i always heard i

had a bunch of potential. potential isn't nothing until you turn it into something. and this team, we really got to potential and talent and that means nothing. it's a team game. if we don't play as a team and together as a good team then we won't be anywhere. >> a sense of urgency is more now than it's ever been. if you think about it, you know, you don't ever want to be in this position. but we really got to push each other and find a way to get this thing turned around and get it turned around quickly. >> reporter: the critical question means, could this loss mean coaching changes? when asked if that was a concern of his after the game, jim zorn let out a sigh and said, not for me. from detroit, hakim, back to you. elsewhere in the nfc east the giants traled to tampa putting their unbeaten word on the line. and philadelphia michael vick makes his debut.

michael vick not a factor in this game. 7 yards rushing. kevin kolb had great day. a 64-yard touchdown and check this out. he flips it in tend zone for zig. kolb threw for 27 yards. eagles downed the chiefs, 34-14. giants take on the bucs. new york shuts out the buccaneers 24-0. bucs still winless. next week the redskins get their chance against tampa bay. jimmie johnson dominates at dover. joey lagono is lucky after suffering this. joey slides down to the infield and slides back on the track and runs into the number 23 card, reed sorensen and he starts to flip. a very, very scary sight.

lagano flips about ten times. he got out of the car and he was okay. final lap and jimmie johnson who led 271 lapse takes the checkered flag. mark martin finishes after that. mark still has the points leading for the cup. john sound and hamlin 35 points back. let's show this, the cover of the "examiner" tomorrow. >> ouch! that might be a little tough. >> tampa bay is coming. >> when we come back, the little pest that made for a huge distraction while the pope spoke. seriously, look at the left. we

time for our look at the odd and strange. czech republic.

the pope giving a speak when all of a sudden a spider shows up. look on the right side of your screen. that's not your tv. it's the pope. the pontiff addressing hundreds of people in a mid evil kals and he's forced to avoid it as it crawls all over him. the spider doesn't stop. we sped up the video and the story here isn't just the disrespectful spider. no, no. they are clapping for this reason, i think. the pope, as he addressed the audience, unflappable. he doesn't flinch and he doesn't kill the spider either. we'll see you back here tomorrow. "meet the

-- captions by vitac -- www.vitac.com from nbc news in washington, this is "meet the press" with david gregory. >> this sunday the president on the world stage in a time of growing danger. the u.s. says iran has a secret underground nuclear facility capable of weapons production. >> iran is on notice that when we meet with them on october 1st, they are going to have to come clean, and they are going to have to make a choice. >> what now. and afghanistan. military commaers want more troops as the white house considers a new strategy.

with us former president bill clinton on this president's hard choices. >> i think what the president is saying without saying it because he hasn't said yes o no yet is that an american surge in afghanistan may be a necessary issue for success. >> and the growing gop op sdmrigs. >> their agenda seems to be -- >> and a special debate on the way forward between iran and afghanistan with senator from virginia jim webb and republican from arizona, john kyl. then the white house intervenes in a high profile race for governor in new york urging fellow democrat, governor david paterson, want to seek re-election. what will he do? what does this race say about the political mood of the country? speaking out live this morning in an exclusive interview, governor david paterson.

first, breaking news overnight. in a new show of force iran test fired several short range missiles. the head of the revolutionary guard telling reporters that a multiple missile launcher was at theed for the first time, that iran would test medium and long range missiles during further drills in the next few days. this, of course, just two days after strong condemnations from the u.s. and allies over the existence of the secret underground uranium enrichment facility in iran. we'll get reaction in just a moment to these latest developments with two key senate voices, democrat jim webb and republican john kyl, but, first, news of the nuclear enrichment facility was the first of many topics we covered when i sat down in new york with former president bill clinton. >> i would like to start by asking you about these latest developments on iran and the discovery of an underground facility. the bottom line is from the administration's point of view

is this the time for engagement or is it the time to get tough? >> well, my answer is both. that i you know, i know what i read in the newspaper, but my impression is that the united states knew about this for some time and then a couple of days ago, you know, iran gave a kind of half-hearted notification to the international atomic energy agency about the site. then the u.s. must have shared what they knew because you've got the very tough statement from the president from russia at the u.n. and then the british and french leaders, prime minister brown and president sarkozy joined with president obama and his statement. the chinese, i'm assuming, have been notified because they've been working closely with the russians and americans on the north korean nonproliferation issues to strain the ability to spread whatever technology they have or to allow the north koreans to add to their stock.

i think when the secretary of state kept saying iran has a choice to make, iran has a choice to make, it now looks, reading in the newspaper that, what they were saying is we want to talk to you. you can't avoid talking about this. we have to resolve this, and i believe the president has now said by the end of the year, and i think hillary had said something like december, so my view is this is the very time to talk to them because we're in a difficult situation now, and it not a question i want to emphasize about whether we trust them or not because we have demonstrated that we have the ability to verify, and i think the u.s. wanted to talk because they knew about this and they knew that iran was about to get in the position where they might be irreversibly putting themselves on a conflict course not only with us, but as you now see, with the europeans, the germans endorse the statement

with the russians, and presumably with the chinese just becae they haven't said anything, we shouldn't draw necktive conclusions. they normally take a little longer. >> is this the moment where the president says to iran we got you and now it's time to act or you're going to face serious consequences? >> i think that's what they want to communicate with them, and i think the reason they want to have talks is if they have talks and they don't just hurl assaults in the press about it, they can more explicitly lay out things they may not be prepared to say in public yet about what the options are if iran continues down this path and they can also talk about where we might go together if they reverse course, so i always think it's a good idea, if

possible, to look somebody in the eye and have a chance to ve a conversation before there's a total breach, but i think this is actually healthy that this is broken. the iranians must have known that the americans knew. somehow they muf found out that or they wouldn't have voluntarily notified the iaea about it. >> from iran to afghanistan and the bottom line question there, will committing tens of thousands of additional u.s. troops to the war in afghanistan make america safer? >> the answer to that is maybe. that's why the president hasn't answered yet. i think what general mcchrystal has said is that we have to have an afghan version of the iraqi surge in anwar that worked well there. i think what the president is saying without saying it, because he hasn't issued that he has said yes or no yet, is that an american surge in afghanistan

may be a necessary condition for success to make america safer. that is, to constrain the al qaeda, to keep the heat up on them, to keep the taliban from taking over more of afghanistan and giving the al qaeda more freedom to roam and more options to plan out of area terrorist attacks against us, the europeans, or anybody else, but it won't be enough, and my guess is that what the president wants to do is to see how this afghan election is resolved and if president karzai is a a judged the victor without having to run in a run-off with mr. abdullah, whether he will turn around and include him then in the government and maybe even one or two of the other candidates for president. there's at least one other person that's supremely qualified on merits to be a part of the modern functioning government, so i think that what the president has done here is

not to diss the general or saying -- he is saying, look, my responsibility is not just to win military battled, but to see that it leads to something bigger not only for ourselves and our security and for the people of afghanistan, and i got to decide whether we got a partner there, which means there has to be a functioning afghan government. he also -- and he the secretary of state have said on more than one occasion, mr. holbrook has, that we have to have a development strategy there, a political strategy that works with the grassroots level. in iraq when that surge worked, you had iraqis who were sick and tired of the al qaeda in iraq, who were willing to, you know, hitch up withs and risk their own lives. there are a lot of people now who are bringing up the ghosts of vietnam. what really happened in vietnam was allhese things are, as i say, they're away games for the american military. we're not on our home turf,

which means to succeed, there has to be a partner, and the definition of partnership is someone willing to risk their lives in their home area to prevail, because they think it's necessary to build a decent life and a better life for their people. the south vietnamese army collapsed ten days after the last helicopter left with americans and hever vietnamese we could take, and we're not there yet. we may get there and that's what the president is trying to determine, and we should give him some time to make the decision. >> what specific threat does al qaeda pose to the united states? >> they have proven that among all the nonstate actors, they have the power to organize and execute lethal assaults for from their home base. since we've basically driven them into the mountains of the

territories in pakistan and the ill-defined border between pakistan and afghanistan, they are movements have been constrained. their communications have been constrained, and they've not been nearly as free to organize and mount such attacks. sfoo former swuf state condoleezza rice saying this week if you abandon afghanistan, you'll have another 9/11 in the u.s. >> well, i think, you know, that's -- it's impossible to know that with certainty because our people have done such a good job now even going back to the time when i was president and working with the intligence and law enforcement and money tracking people around the world, that we prevented par, far more attacks in america and in the rest of the world than have occurred, but i would agree with her to the extent that if they have freedom of movement in afghanistan, it will increase by some significant factor the likelihood that they will attack successfully.

if not in the united states, somewhere else, against people that we consider our allies and that we have to be concerned about. >> let me talk about the clinton global initiative, fifth annual, and what you have achieved here. the focus on girls and women on their economic empowerment around the world, but also on the direct threats that they face. i had an opportunity to go to one of the sessions this week, one of the determines, and from a u.n. report, this is a startling fact. at least one out of every three women around the world has been beaten, coerced intosex, or otherwise abused in her lifetime with her abuser usually someone known to her, and the concern is that that fact, that problem is not getting better. >> well, i agree with that, and what we wanted to do here was to focus on both the positive things that need to be done in education, in access to the workplace, in health care, care for the children, and in the negative things we need to stop,

including violence against women. you would be amazedow many of the young women who work with our foundation in countries around the world as advocates trying to get people to exercise prevention and not communicate hiv and aids -- you would be amazed how many became hiv positive because they were raped going to and from school. we have to talk about that, and then there's this whole problem of trafficking, which has gotten worse in the economic downturn, which disproportionately affects young women, but also affects some young men who are sold into bondage as basically serve tud for indebted work that they can often never escape from. >> this initiative is premised on your own frustration as president with a lot of talking and not a lot of action. >> yes. >> what is it you've bn able to measure in terms of the progress from cgi? >> well, we know that in areas of health, education, better

environment through fighting climate change and improving access to clean water and increasing people's livelihoods, primarily true through microcredit and modest investments in ag cultural that 250 people in 150 countries have had an improvement in their quality of life. 48 million people with access to better health care. 33 million people with access to various kinds of educational advances. millions ask mi -- and millionsf people getting micro-credit loans. we can measure all that. we also know that in doing this, we've helped to strengthen what's called the civil society movement around the world. that is, we helped to partner with governments, philanthropists, big foundations like the gates foundation, and small non-governmental groups all across the world to create more citizen power, and it's really important in the womens and girls issues.

we believe that by doing this, we're not only doing these specific things -- yes, here 200 million people whose lives are better off, but we're creating a sense of empowerment, a sense that citizenship in the 21st century requires more than paying your taxes and voting and occasionally running for office. that even if you are never until political office, you have political responsibilities. you make your society stronger and better. >> let's talk about some of the big challenges back home for president obama, and on health care as this debate rolls through, you remember it well. do you think the president has levelled with the american people on this fact that americans are gng to have to pay higher taxes if they want health care reform? >> well, i think he has made it clear that it costs some money to insure more people, but -- and i have no criticism of what he has done. he has been in a terrible disadvantage in the lawmakering phase. remember what omar twain said.

two things people should never have to watch being made, sausage and laws. he doesn't have a committee chairman saying i'll -- while they're developing the bill, he set out certain principles, and he is vulnerable to whatever anybody wants to say about any of the bills runng throu congress, whether that's his position or not. he has said it's going to take years to fully reform the system. i don't accept the fact that we have to charge a lot more money to cover the 46 million people that aren't covered. what he is saying is if we have the right preventive primary care, if we start charging for comprehensive care in the chronic cases, 10% much the cases, they got two-thirds of the medical expenses, and if we do more on pblems like childhood obesity, that we can, to use the phrase that's popular in washington, bend the cost curve and reconcile this so our

costs will be closer to our competitors, and so we can cover everybody. now, let me just say, i have had several big business leaders to me privately express extreme support for passing any kind of bill that starts this progress because they say this is killing america economically. look what's happened in the last several years. corporate profits are up. the cost of health care has gone up three times the rate of inflation, and wages are flat. median income, before the economic collapse, after inflation was $2,000 a year lower than it was the day i left office. why? because all the things tha could have -- first, we haven't created enough jobs, but, secondly, all the money that could have gone to wage increases is going to pay t employer portion 6 employees health insurance. i don't think it's fair to say that we're going to -- that the american people are going to have to pay a lot more to cover everybody. what the american people will pay a little more for in the

short-run, i think, is security. that is, everybody has health insurance today could be cut out by -- often happens in america. >> security could come with additional taxes. >> yes, but he will have to raise some more money in the short run partly because of the way the congressional budget office scores this. if they string this coverage out as he proposed to do in his speech over four years, then i think the revenue should be quite modest. >> let me ask you a broader question. in 1996 you declared the era of big government over. the era of big government over appears to be over in and of itself. whether it's the stimulus, whether it's bail-outs, financial regulation, or the issue of health care, do you think the president has done a good enough job selling government as the solution? >> i think that it doesn't matter how hard he sells. the people have to see the results. the president is suffering now from what is something totally

beyond his control. he really has a bind in this recession because when you come out of a recession, even a milder one than we've been through, what normally happens is the stock market goes up for six months, the gdp numbers go up for six months, an after a year people start hiring back. it's rationale, but painful. what i think we need here is a strategy both for the country and for the administration to try to jump-start the jobs. the only strategy we have is to move aggressively now to do much more than we've been doing in energy efficiency. that helps us meet our climate change responsibilities, and it creates more jobs and less time for less money than any other strategy available to the government. >> i know you and president obama, when you get together as you did recently, talked a lot about the economy. has it come up yet where he says, jeez, mr. president, so what happens when you're nine months into the job and the honeymoon is over? >> well, we laughed about that. i think he gets that. you know, that's what you -- a

president has to be prepared to spend political capital, and you get hired to win for the country, not to be popular today. i always tell everybody any poll is a picture of an unfinished horse race, except the election day polls. so i wouldn't worry too much about it. i think there's still a lot of goodwill for him. the american people know he is highly intelligent. they know he is working his heart out. they know he has put together a good team. they know he is thinking about the right things. their ambivalence, their uncertificate reflects more than anything else not only their stirring up in the republican opposition, but the real troubles average aricans are having in their own lives. keep in mind, health care is complicated. it's personal. it can spark fear. it's expense he have, and the people that got the money want to keep it. the change is hard. i think we're going to get the health care bill, and i think he can then swing into the energy and get an energy bill.

i think he is going to succeed. >> wur wife famously talked about the vast right wing conspiracy targeting you. did you look at this op sdmrigs on the right to president obama, and is it still there? >> you bet. sure it is. it's not as strong as it was because america has changed demographically, but it's as viral as it was. they accused me of murder and all this stuff. it's not really good for the republicans of the country what's going on now. they may be hurting president obama. they can take his numbers down. they can run his op sdmrigs up, but fundamentally he and his team have a positive agenda for america. their agenda seems to be wanting him to fail, and that's not a pripg for a goo america. we actually need a credible debate about what's the right balance between continuing to expand the economy through stimulus and beginning to move back to fiscal balance. we need a credible debate about

what's the best way to get to universal coverage. now, the one republican who has come up with a good idea is senator snow. she deserves a lot of credit for saying when we did this medicare prescription drug bill, instead of giving the government the power to negotiate for lower prices, we gave the drug companies a chance to offer them, but we held the power in reserve, and if there was any state in america where there was no competition, we could do it. let's do that for health care. that's a good idea. that's the kind of debate the country needs, and i hope that the republicans will come forward with it. >> do you worry about a repeat of 1994 politically? >> there's no way they can make it that bad, for several years. number one, the country is more diverse and interested in positive action. number two, they've seen this movie before because they had eight years under president bush when the republicans finally had the whole government, and they know the results were bad.

number three, the democrats haven't taken on the gun lobby like i did, and they took 15 of our members out, and it will be -- whatever happens, it will be manageable for the president. >> before you go, mr. president, you left the presidency, but you have hardly had a low profile with global initiative and other things. do you think about a return to either public office or another form of public life? >> no. that's hillary's job now. we've totally switched roles. she spent most of her life in a non-governmental sector, and that's what i do now. i love what i do now, and while i can't touch as many lives and as many things as i did as president, the things i do focus on we can have a huge impact, and i'm trying to convince people that all of us need to be doing the kind of thing i'm doing now. i think 21st century citizenship is going to be exciting, and i like being a part of it. >> will she run for president again then? >> that's up to her. you know, we're not getting any younger, but i'm proud of what

she's doing now. i think she's doing a good job, and i'm honored -- i think it's pretty thrilling that she and the president have established t the relationship they have, and it's a good argument for remembering the big things for the rest of us. >> mr. prident, thank you. >> thank you. joining us now to discuss the way forward on both iran and afghanistan, a key democratic member of the senate foreign relations and armed services committees jim webb of virginia and the republican whip of the senate, john kyl, of arizona. welcome to both of you. >> thank you. >> mr. kyl, let me start with you. the news overnight, the iranians test firing missiles in the wake of these developments this week on an underground enrichment facility. has iran now upped the antee with the united states in this confrontation? >> i don't know that i would put it that way. it always seems that they can't wait to show us that they have the capability of moving forward with their missile program or their nuclear program at the very time that we're trying to get them to talk, and i think it

illustrates the fact that at a certain point talking is counter productive rather than productive, because time is not on our side. all the iranians need is time to develop their nuclear weaponry and their missiles, and as a result of that, at some point you have to say that the talk has to stop and solid action in the form of sanctions or some other way of stopping them is necessary. >> senator webb, this issue of a nuclear program, is it in your mind now clear as day that the iranians are trying to build nuclear weapons? >> i think what we have right now is a way -- a process in place where we can really start to explore with the iranians what their intentions are. this is the value of opening up the dialogue in the way we're going to see in the coming week. i have two very important concerns right now with respect to the iranian situation and also the others. first is we're going to face this situation. other countries in terms of

nuclear power proliferation around the world, we're employing to be -- thether is it's very important mou to get the international community written large involved in tighten i tightening the way that we talk to countries like iran about the situation, and china is key. we've seen european nations step forward here. this was -- we say this was the united states and its allies, but it was basically the united states, the u.k., and france with germany coming in later. we had a good strong statement from russia on for the first time with the hint that they might agree with sanctions, but china always has been neutral, and china has become iran's greatest trading partner. they have been giving iran approximately 30% of the gasoline that it's been receiving right now through shell companies, and let's not forget that china enabled pakistan to become a nuclear power. >> do you think iran is building weapons? siptd that a key question? >> i think we have the formula

through which we can now fully explore that issue. i'm not going to sit here in the united states senate and make that judgment. we do have the process in place where we can fully explore that issue in a way that will hold them publicly accountable. >> senator kyl, is there any doubt in your mind that they're building weapons? >> well, they're trying to build a nuclear weapon. they, fit of all, have to get the fuel to do it, and that's been very clear that they are trying to make that fuel, and it's also clear that they are getting closer to the delivery capability, putting that nuclear weapon on top of a missile that could either reach europe or eventually a place like the united states. it's clear what their intention is, and the question is how do you get in there to see fully what they're doing and find a way to stop it. without international support, it's very hard. we haven't even exhausted the possibilities for unilateral u.s. sanctions that could also squeeze tha leadership to the point that they might -- i mean, what we're trying to do here eventually is to get a regime change with the group of people in there that are more representative of the iranian

people, who we really can talk with in a way that might end up in a good result. >> senator webb, that's an important point. what should the american people be prepared for here in terms of a confron taegs with iran? is it sanctions or is it military action? >> well, i don't think -- as people have said -- and i agree with -- you don't take any of the options off the table, but we also shouldn't be playing what if here. we have a process now. i believe that russia coming forward for the first time now and saying that in concept they are not oosed tthe idea of sanctions is a key indicator that we're starting to get true international consensus, but, again, china needs to be much more overt in assuming its role as an international power. not just in the iranian situation. you see it in many other places, supper as burma, where i was just dealing with a very similar situation in terms of unilateral

sanctions on one side. you know, european countries and the united states with china becoming a pncipal trading partner. >> no senator kyl, to you that question as well. what should the american people be preparing for as this confroation escalates? saekzs or does the united states need to think about military action? sfli agree with senator webb that you never take anyption off the table. you don't play what if games, and i think that he is also absolutely correct that china remains intractable. they a lot of reasons not to want to help us in dealing with iran, and if you go through the united nations, china is a critical partner. there are things that the united states can do union lat ramally. there are things we can do in connection with our european partner partners. it always seems as if the sakes are a little bit away, but maybe if we talk for three months, we swoent have to impose them. i think the point has to be to the iranian that is we're going to impose these saekzs. in fact, to do something so they see that we have the capability

of doing it and then say but we'll lift it if you will agree with our demands to have iaea inspections or whatever else we're going to be demanding. i think without that kind of stick, just the carrot approach does not work with these people. they know how to play rope-a-dope. they've been doing it for years. >> we'll come right back after this to tackle the other major policy challenge facing the president. that, of course, we know why we're here.

to redefine air travel for a new generation. to ensure our forces are safer and stronger. to take the world we share to tomorrow and beyond. announcer: around the globe, the people of boeing are working together-- to make a difference. that's why we're here.

how can you get your retirement plans back on track? consider oppenheimerfunds, whether the markets are up or down, we follow a consistent investment approach. ask your advisor about oppenheimerfunds. and see how our numbers can help you reach your destination. call your advisor for a prospectus with compte fund information. read it carefully and carefully consider fund investment objectives, risks, charges and expenses before investing. mutual funds are subject to market risk and volatility. shares m lose or gain value. oppenheimerfunds. the right way invest.

tdd# 1-800-345-2550 when my broker said, "i make money wh you make money," tdd# 1-800-345-2550 he neglected to mention tdd# 1-800-345-2550 he also makes money when i lose money, tdd# 1-800-345-2550 withdraw money or do nothing with my money. tdd# 1-800-345-2550

tdd# 1-800-345-2550

sdmrimplts we're back to consider our skupgs with jim webb and john kyl. let's turn to the issue of afternoon stan, and senator webb, here's an assessment of the commander on the ground in afghanistan as reported by the wash waub post this week. the top u.s. nato command ner afghanistan warns in an urgent confidential assessment of the war that he needs more forces within the next year and bluntly states that without them the eight-year conflict "will likely result in failure," a krgd to a copy much the 66-page document. he says failure to gain initiative and resers insurgent momentum in the near term, next year, risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no

longer possible. can and should the president do anything but say yes to the idea of more troops? >> i think that the president is taking the right approach here by examining carefully where to go forward, and they're seeing that from all the top advisors as well, because the real question for us right now is as a country are we going to formally change from counterterrorism policy to a counter insurgency policy? if you are moving towards a counter insurgency policy, have you to have a couple of things. one is you have to be able to move the people that you are trying to win over toward a valid system, and in afghanistan it is questionable whether there is a valid national government. secondly, you have to be able to do so in a way that you have a clear end point for the involvement of your own military, and here's a situation we're in. we are talking about increasing united states military presence. you may reach a tipping point

where they become viewed in historical terms as an occupying force. at the same time we say we want to grow the afghan army and police force to 400,000 people rsh afghanistan has never in its history had a valid national army larger than about 90,000, and that was only for a brief period right before the soviet invasion. can they grow their military into -- and their police force into a 400,000 force with a viable government? before we jump forward with a total formal change in policy, we need to be examining what is achievable. >> secretary of defense gates says it is a mistake to fix an end point, set a deadline for troop withdrawal. >> i would agree, and i've said that before. we can't say that on a certain da date, but we should be able to say clearly what are the conditions under which our military condition is going to end? we're sitting here with two very interesting molgzs to examine in terms ofow you fight

international terrorism. on the one hand we have the situation in somalia a week ago where we had special forces unit come in over the horizon, take out four al qaeda terrorists in a country that's totally destabilized, somalia, and then went back on the show, got the people we mete need to get, left no instra structure behind. on the other hand, we have iraq which, contrary to what president clinton just said, is al qaeda's dream right now because we put in a huge infrastructure which a lot of it is still there in order to supposedly go after al qaeda, which is long gone. they were gone by the time the surge began. they're mobile. which way is the best way for the united states to tackle this problem? we sdesh to have very careful consideration before we move in the direction of nation building. >> senator kyl, why are more troops the answer in afghanistan? >> well, i think the generals are the ones that can best explain that to us.

the hints of that are in the report that you cited. general mcchrystal makes clear that to successfully pursue this counter insurgency policy, you not only have to beat the taliban, but you have to keep them from coming back in, and that's what we haven't had enough troops to do and the afghan army and police don't have the capability of doing that. the problem is you take an area back from the taliban. you kick them out. then if you can't leave enough people there to hold the area, stabilize is t so the folks there know that they don't have to worry about the taliban anymore, if you leave, they'll be right back in, and that's why you need more troops. i think that's what general mcchrystal would tell us if he were allowed to come back to washington and testify. >> in fact, former secretary of state and national security advisor condoleezza rice said this week sheut it bluntly in an interview. "it's that simple. if you want another terrorist attack in the u.s., abandon afghanistan." if the president does not say yes to 40,000 additional troops, as general mcchrystal wants, would you say he is abandoning afghanistan? >> what i would say is that it

is a recipe for disaster, and, again, that's almost -- those are the sentiments of general mcchrystal. you quoted part of that report in che made that clear. by the way, secretary clinton herself said if you let the taliban back into afghanistan, i can't tell you how quickly al qaeda will be back in. of course, it's true that if al qaeda has the opportunity to roam freely in afghanistan, to train people there, to plan more 9/11s, they'll surely try to do that. >> senator webb. >> i don't think anybody is saying that we should abandon afghanistan. the question is how you fight terrorism, international terrorism, and in this case we'r widening the envelope to say taliban. taliban means government rsh are you really going to say that we are going to be responsible for putting in a viable national government in a country that really hasn't ever had one? >> why not have a lighter footprint? >> we need to be smart, and that's why we need to have this debate. when i was a journalist in afghanistan in 1994 i was with

the marine corps and army. i was with the 22nd that was doing a fine job mobile. they had been out for 93 days going out and killing the bad guys, and that is really what you need to be doing if you are going to fight insurgencies. you need to kill the people that need to be killed and allow the local forces to come together around the people who should be protecting them. that should be our ultimate strategy, and i think that's what the debate is going to be. >> but that -- it gets to the larger question of whether you could do that with fewer troops as the vice president and others have argued. we don't need a surge of forces in afghanistan to accomplish the goal that we first went to war with eight years ago, which was to defight al qaeda. >> well, and, again, iraq is a classic example of that. when we went into iraq, there weren't any al qaeda in iraq. it was al qaeda's dream that we went into iraq, built this huge force structure on the ground that tied our military down. al qaeda came in for a while. they left before the surge. my son was in