. >>> and the netanyahu speech today and some backlash including congress peter welch, who is our guest next. >> even if israel has to stand alone. israel will stand. >>> and we'll turn from international politics to this hillary story. you probably heard about it. but how much of a story is it? the cyclists the co-hosts everyone will get in on that one. unique set of nutrients. that's why there's ocuvite to help protect your eye health. as you age your eyes can lose vital nutrients. ocuvite helps replenish key eye nutrients. ocuvite is a vitamin made just for your eyes from the eye care experts at bausch + lomb. ocuvite has a unique formula that's just not found in any leading multivitamin. your eyes are unique so help protect your eye health with ocuvite. that's it. good job. nice coating. and get this one next. whoa! what are you guys doing? making sure nothing sticks. otherwise, we gotta scrub all this stuff off. huh, what? nobody thought of this before? what's wrong with people? dish issues? not with improved cascade platinum. it powers through... your toughest, starchy messes... b

. >>> we head to capitol hill where peter welch joins us. good day to you. >> good day. >> let me start with the big change in policy and now disagreeing with bipartisan u.s. policy on the hope for some kind of palestinian state. i asked george mitchell who was of course senate majority leader and president obama's special middle east envoy about this last night. take a listen to what he said. >> i think he had to do it to win in his mind. the fact that he did it on the last day suggests that he probably would have preferred to win without it. but felt it was necessary. it is very painful for me because when i was in the region, i met with the leaders of nearly 20 arab countries and almost without exception they did not believe his statement when he made it in 2009. >> it is striking there, of course former senator mitchell has worked on both sides of that conflict. and he said that bibi netanyahu may not have wanted to close with this and it was desperate but how will it be viewed by you and your colleagues now it is a full break with a two

i will represent peter welch, democrat from vermont, tweeted out, no single individual has done more harm, to harm the vitality the vitally important u.s.-israeli relationship than benjamin netanyahu. that was one democrat's perception. he obviously didn't attend the speech but what about the whole back and forth, after this, the political overtones? >> well, after this we move from the speech to the deal and what you're going to have congressman welch is in the minority. you don't hear this conversation among democrats even who didn't attend the speech that he has ruined this relationship. they didn't like he made the speech with the house speaker without the administration's knowledge the plan for the speech but they're not using that kind of rhetoric. we see going forward that the prime minister made a very compelling case against this sunset clause for why, with the sunset it rewards bad behavior. he wants a condition the deal needs to be conditioned on good behavior. the problem is that the administration's pat response to all of this has been for weeks you know what? if we just

let's bring in democratic congressman peter welch from vermont. he attended netenyahu's speech.e speech. what did you think of it? >> i think short-term, it's helpful to netenyahu, he's very good at those speeches and he gets a very receptive audience in congress. long-term i think did he some damage. what he's done here strategically is decided to give a full embrace to a boehner-led republican congress. and basically really accelerate the tendency for this to become much more partisan. and he obviously repudiated the president, who has an enormous amount of leadership in foreign policy. so i think in the long run he's accelerated a really bad dynamic that we've not seen before. of having israel have a partisan component to it. that's damaging in my view. to our effort to have a really strong continuing relationship with israel. >> i read some of the analysis this morning about the repercussions of the speech. and some believe that he was able to change some minds. that he was so persuasive that for anybody on the fence about the iranian deal that perhaps he had them shift into

. >> peter welch of vermont. >> thank you very much. i feanded the speech. i have a strong relationship in support of israel, strong opposition to iran. voted 10 times for new sanctions and to enhance existing sanctions. voted five times to condemn the government of iran for human rights violations, signed letters and did everything to support strong israel and to challenge belligerent iran. and i went to the speech because i was hoping i would hear from the prime minister something that would justify why he came in the first place to give this speech two weeks before this election and why he arranged this speech totally behind the back of the white house with speaker boehner and why he wanted to make a decision that put at risk what has always been a strong bipartisan approach towards israel and turn it into a partisan battlefield. i came away from this speech disappointed. you know a nuclear iran is off the table. the president has made that clear. in his position, trust but verify. his position, no deal is better than a bad deal. what i heard from the pri

. >> peter welch of vermont. >> think you very much. i attended the speech. i have a strong relationship in support of israel. strong opposition to iran. i voted 10 times 40 sections and to enhance existing sanctions to condemn the government of iran for its human rights violations, signed letters, basically everything i can to support the strong israel and to challenge illiterate run. -- to challenge be literate iran -- belligerent iran. i wanted to know why he arranged this speech totally behind the back of the white house speaker boehner. i want to know why he made the decision that put at risk what has always been a strong bipartisan approach. he turned it into a partisan battlefield. frankly, i came away from the speech disappointed. a nuclear iran is off the table. the president has made that clear. in his position, distrust, but dvverify. his position -- no deal is bettea deal is better than no deal. i heard no plan b from the prime minister what would happen if we had no negotiations. does that mean the military strikes? does it mean we fall in vice p

. >> peter welch of vermont. >> thank you. thank you very much. i attended the speech.ong relationship in support of israel, strong opposition to iran. voted 10 times for new sanctions and enhance existing sanction. voted five times to condemn the government of iran for its human rights violations. i have signed letters and basically everything i can to support the strong israel and to challenge belligerent iran. but i also went to the speech because i was hoping that i would hear from the prime minister something that would justify why he came in the first place to give this speech two weeks before his election. and why he arranged this speech totally behind the back of the white house with speaker boehner. and why he wanted to make a decision that put at risk what has always been a strong bipartisan approach towards israel and turned it into a partisan battlefield. frankly i came away from the speech disappointed. you know, a nuclear iran is off the table. the president has made that clear. in his position, distrust but verify. his position no deal is better than a ba