joining me now for more on this is david ignatius, foreign columnist and associate editor at "the washington post." he's also an msnbc contributor. david, it's great seeing you this morning. the top issue on a lot of american's minds right now is that massive supply chain disruption. were those concerns reflected in this phone call with the chinese leader? david, can you hear me? i don't know that david can hear me yet? david, can you hear me? no. all right, let's try to reestablish communication with david ignatius. we're just going to try to bore in a little bit more on this three and a half hour meeting between president biden and the leader of china. one of the key questions there has to be, what is the united states' position vis-a-vis taiwan? it was said during the readout of this conversation, this three and a half hour conversation, that the chinese leader warned president biden that the u.s. is playing with fire on taiwan. we're going to try to get some information on that. i don't know if we've reestablished communication with david ignatius. we have not. let's do something. let's

let's bring in richard haass, and columnist for the "washington post," david ignatius. richard, like an unbreakable mountain. i don't know where to go with that, given the history between china and russia. but let's talk about the dangers facing the world. the biden administration, the tough decisions they're going to have to be making. you have two countries who have designs on two different countries. taiwan and ukraine, they both look poised to strike. could yesterday's meeting, could the joint statement be basically a sign that both may move on their invasions at a time when it'll be hard for the united states to push back? >> look, joe, we can only measure capabilities. we can't measure intentions. i don't think either is imminent. the china pressure against taiwan, i think, is longer term. i'm not sure china has yet reached a point where it has all the military capability it would want and need. russia, though, is very close. if it wanted to launch a massive invasion against ukraine. look, these two countries have two things in common. one is their fundamental ill

david ignatius, here's the problem. kevin mccarthy has sacrificed his political soul to be speaker of the house. donald trump is saying, more and more every day, how little respect he has for kevin mccarthy because he's not siding with the really extreme members of that republican caucus. because he's trying at times to act like a speaker in waiting should act, needs to act. but he can't do that. so what we're seeing is, in the words of my grandma, you don't want to let that horse out of the barn. the horse is starting to get out of the barn, and pretty soon, you're going to see the most extreme members of the republican party inside the house caucus dominating what goes on there. >> i agree, joe. it's painful to watch some of the republicans pledge loyalty to a person they know is wrecking the party they grew up in. kevin mccarthy, it is hard to feel sympathy for him, given some of the leadership he's shown, but many republicans who know better just feel that they cannot break free of trump's influence, his gravitation

david: welcome to washington post live, i am david ignatius, a columnist for the post. today we are going to focus on public service with two people who served our country in significant ways. bob gates, former cia director and defense secretary who spent a half-century in public service, and later, we will talk with stephanie thompkins, director of darpa. let's start with secretary dates, welcome back to washington post live. good to see you. mr. gates: thank you, great to see you. david: you started working for the cia back in 1966 while you you are studying at indiana university. you took a stand to serve in the air force, then came back to the cia. tell us what drew you to public service in the first place. mr. gates: i was at the russian and eastern european institute at indiana university, earning a masters degree, and the cia recruiter showed up on campus back in the day when that was still possible, happily back in better days, but to tell you the truth, i met with the recruiter mainly as a lark in the hope of getting a free trip to washington, d.c. but when the

. >> welcome to washington post live, i'm david ignatius. today we're going to focus on public service with two people whose served our country significant ways. first bob gates, former cia director of defense secretary spent a half century and public service and later in our program we will talk with doctor stephanie tompkins, director of dark but let's start withsecretary gates. welcome back to the washington post live, good to see you . >>it's great to see you . >> secretary, you started working for the cia in 1966 while you were still in indiana university . then you came back to the cia. tetell us what you to public service in the first place. >> i was with the russian and east european institute at indiana university earning a masters degree at the cia recruiter showed up on campus that back in the day when that was still possible. happily we are back in better days but had to tell you the truth i'm with the recruiter mainly as a lark in the hope of getting a free trip to washington dc. but when they actuallyoffered me a job , i think

. >> welcome to washington post live, i'm david ignatius. today we're going to focus on public service with two people whose served our country significant ways. first bob gates, former cia director of defense secretary spent a half century and public service and later in our program we will talk with doctor stephanie tompkins, director of dark but let's start withsecretary gates. welcome back to the washington post live, good to see you . >>it's great to see you . >> secretary, you started working for the

. >> david ignatius. >> i want to ask my colleague carlos about his essay, which is extraordinary.ry has 20 years later as we look back on not simply the tragedy of 9/11 but the ways we responded. yet, as you and i discussed, that's not the whole story. that there are lessons learned in this period. maybe you could speak just a little about what you think those lessons are that are valuable for us going ford? not a source of shame or embarrassment but something we can build on? >> i think one of the lessons we can probably draw from some of the documents that came out of this period, such as, even the u.s. army and marine corps counterinsurgency manual which essentially serves as a word of caution on, you know, what we're doing when we embark on these wars and try to remake the world wars, and end up being insurgency wars. and i think that in some ways, documents such as that one help u.s. military and help our elected officials be more cautious before entering these kinds of conflicts. i mean, the overarching test that we passed, that we did not fail is that there was not a second