prevail in all those places. >> rose: let me do a history about 2008 and the aforementioned richard holbrook. i'm in a car on the way to the airport to fly to tehran to do an interview with ahmadinejad, the president. holbrook is on his way to see you. >> yeah. >> rose: at the same time. we have a conversation. i think he mentioned it to you he talked to me. and then-- is coming from france and we're all on the phone. >> he was in libya. >> rose: yes. >> indeed. >> rose: so my point is, what kind of advice were you getting, first of all, what was richard there for, just for support. he didn't have a government position at that time. >> no. but he had predicted that war. actually he wrote an article in "the washington post" where he said anwar would erupt. and he, you know, unless the effort was done by the western powerses to really stop it and there was some effort done but it wasn't enough, obviously. but he was there, actually. >> rose: he was there for moral support for you. >> it was very important. because this is exactly the point that i am trying to say, richard holbrook didn't bring

i read the memoir that richard holbrook worked on. clifford is talking about his growing conviction that johnson would have preferred nixon to humphrey because he thought that nixon was closer to him on vietnam and humphrey would turn away from him. so all these things that i use -- >> charlie: we have at the same time all of these conversations now about lyndon johnson agonizing over vietnam not knowing his principal, talking to senator russell, his great friend and mentor, i can't get out of this. >> this is the fascination about this man. you can look at those 1964 tapes or listen to them and read them and realize even as he was escalating, he knew. >> charlie: he knew all of the vulnerabilities. >> this is why you go back to his psycho drama is he had this inbread -- bred fear of seen as weak, so i think he was torn. by 1968, he was so angry that his dream of being the next fdr loved by all the people had been shattered. >> charlie: the great society would have given him that opportunity. >> that's where they thought he was going.

of blocking or ran from having pipelines, trying to discourage it transit trade, and the late richard holbrooke was so proud of the fact that it that the transit agreement that goes from afghanistan to pakistan to india. there should be routes that go from iran to pakistan to india. it is in everyone's interest. i would refer people to john hopkins, someone who has written about the old silk road. everyone could benefit, turkey could, all of the countries along the old silk road. >> this is one area where support is not unanimous. [laughter] i have a great respect for our and the work she has done here. i think this would be absolutely the wrong time to send that signal. iran is doing everything it can now to try to find ways around the increasingly effective sanctions. this is why there is a tension between the need to engage and find areas of cooperation, and still keep up of very strong front. if we were to send a signal now that we want to encourage pipelines to iran, it would send exactly the wrong signal. [inaudible] >> i am talking about no longer blocking them from doing this. obviously

of blocking iran from having pipelines trying to discourage transit trade, you know, the late richard holbrook was so proud of the fact that he had gotten a agreement from pakistan to india. well, there should be routes that go there. it's in everybody's interest. i would refer people to fred star at johns hopkins sites. he's written extensively about the silk road. everybody can belt. turkey can benefit. all of the countries along the old silk road. >> this is one area where trance force is not unanimous. i have a great expect for barbara and the work she's done here. i think this this would be absolutely the wrong time to send that signal. iran is doing everything it can now to try to find ways around the increasingly effective sanctions that's starting to bite. this is whereas i sit in my opening remarks there's a tension between the need to engage with iran, find areas of cooperation like afghanistan and still keep up a very strong front. i think if we were to send a signal now that we want to encourage pipeline to iran, it would be a strong signal. >>[inaudible] >> no. i'm not talking abo

there was a very good agreement that was sponsored by richard holbrooke. it took years to get that. it made a big difference in the terms of interaction. iran is a big country. i am stating the obvious. as a long border with afghanistan. it is a strategic concern about what happened in afghanistan. they have a community within they are feeling in touch. they had a big problem. the taliban did affect them very badly when they were in charge in afghanistan. they killed nine or 10 of their own diplomats. ignoring iran would be a big mistake. engaging them effectively is the only way. pakistan is not more important than just an engagement. there is a lot to work on there. i do not see this as a show stopper at all. they are all worried about afghanistan that returns to kill. none of them wants afghanistan to go back into the hands of the taliban. the pakistanis have been suffering enormously. long answer to a very good in short question. i'm sorry. >> thank you. i'm a journalist. i want to follow on what you said at the beginning about the strategy. you look at the violence in the south

i'd like to just pay tribute to richard holbrooke because dayton has his name 'em blaze softened on itjust to go back briefly, if we could, the negotiations that president clinton brought everybody to having led the bombing of the targets and having brought it to a point where it could actually have a negotiated peace, it wasn't inevitable, though, when the three leaders went to dayton and holed themselves up for that many days. it wasn't bound to happen, was it? this. >> thanks. i think that's right. and it was for anybody who had the, i guess, privilege of actually being there and holed up in dayton for those weeks, quite an extraordinary moment because on the one hand you had going on on the outside this horrible, terrible human tragedy, and in the room people who were responsible for them. and trying to find a way to, on the one hand, not lose sight of the enormity of the crimes that were being committed on the outside, and yet the need to deal with these individuals and try to find a way to reach an agreement. and i think there are many kudos that can given to richard, but perhaps

there was a very good agreement with richard holbrooke between pakistan and afghanistan. it took years to get that. it made a big difference in terms of the interaction that is not just words. iran is a big country with a long border with afghanistan. it also has strategic concerns about what happens in afghanistan. they have a shiia community. they have a big problem about drugs. they do not like the taliban because the taliban affected them badly when they were in charge in afghanistan and even killed nine or 10 of their own diplomats. ignoring iran would be a big mistake. in gauging it is the only way. it is not only iran. -- in beijing it constructively is the only way. it is not only iran. -- engaging iran constructively is the only way. it is not only iran. there are other countries. they are all worried about an afghanistan to go back into the hands of the taliban. pakistan these are suffering enormously. they're suffering more than afghanistan from the taliban. it is a long answer to a very good and short question. i am sorry. >> i wanted to follow up on what you

number one, first and foremost, ammonium nitrate -- you and the department and the late richard holbrooke and others have worked long and hard on this issue. for those who have not paid close attention to it, it is really the main ingredient in improvised explosive devices. it is outlawed in afghanistan. unfortunately, not in pakistan. almost like they're rushing current, ammonium nitrate coming from pakistan as well as other places into afghanistan. i want to ask you about two areas. number one, can you tell us a little bit about and provide a report in terms of our own work, a press report. secondly, the legislative efforts within the government of pakistan to not just impose statutory remedies, but also to better regulate it. >> senator, thank you for leadership on this important issue. this is a direct threat to our troops and also to the people of afghanistan and pakistan. in november 2010, the united states launched what we call operation global shield. it is a multinational law enforcement effort involving 60 countries and international organizations aimed at stemming the flow of i

bridges, the minerals, access to ports -- there was a very good agreement, very affected by richard holbrooke, with afghanistan and pakistan but it took years to do that. it made a big difference in terms of interaction which is not just words. iran is a big country, stating the obvious, with a long border with afghanistan, and also strategic concerns about what happens in afghanistan. they have the shi'a community with whom they are feeling in touch, they have a big problem about drugs, and they do not like the taliban. the taliban themselves affected them very badly when they were in charge in afghanistan, and even killed about nine or tint of their diplomats. ignoring our ron would be a big mistake. -- iran would be a big mistake. it is not only a iran, pakistan is not -- maybe even more important. lots of work on that but i do not see this as a show stopper at all, because they are all worried about the afghanistan there. trying to build. and none of them wants afghanistan to go back into the hands of the taliban. the pakistan's are suffering enormously. a long answer to a very good and s

i would like to pay tribute to richard holbrooke because it has richard culbert's name of course on it and just to go back briefly because the negotiations with the detention brought devotee to have led to the bombing of targets and having brought it to the point where it could actually have a negotiated peace it wasn't inevitable that the treaty had led to dayton and pulled themselves up for that many days. it wasn't bound to happen, was it? >> thank you. that's right. it was, for anybody who had the privilege of actually being there held in dayton quite an extraordinary moment because on the one hand, you had going on in the outside this portable terrible human tragedy, and in the room people who were responsible for them and trying to find a way to on the one hand not recite the enormity of the crimes being committed on the outside and yet the need to deal with these individuals and try to find a way to reach an agreement. and i think there are many that can be given but perhaps the most important was he understood the history of the region and the background of the conflict and did

it was very good agreement which was response iive and very effectively richard holbrooke in afghanistan and pakistan. it took years, but made a big difference of interaction. which is not just words. iran -- iran is a big country. i'm stating the obvious with the long border with afghanistan and also a strategic concerns about what happens in afghanistan. and they have a share community with whom they are feeling in touch. they have a big problem about drugs. and they don't like the taliban. because the talibans themselves did affect them a very badly when they were in charge in afghanistan and even killed, i think about nine to ten of the diplomats. so ignoring iran could be a big mistake. engaging it is the only way. but if not, iran and pakistan is if not even more important in terms of constructive engagement. so it's a lot of work on that. but i don't see this as a back -- show stopper at all. because they are all worried, all of them about the afghanistan that returns to kill, and none of them -- none of them wants afghanistan to go back into the hands of the taliban. the pakistan

you know, the late richard holbrooke was so proud of the fact that he'd gotten a transit agreement thatgoes from afghanistan through pakistan to india. well, there should be routes that go from iran to pakistan to india. it's in the everybody's interests. and i would refer people to fred starr at johns hopkins who's written extensively about the silk road, the old silk road. everybody can benefit. turkey can benefit, all of the countries along the silk road. >> i have to say this is one area -- >> where we disagree. >> -- the task force is not unanimous. [laughter] i have great respect for barbara and the work she's done here. i think this would be absolutely the wrong time to send that signal. iran is doing everything it can now to try to find ways around the increasingly effective sanctions that are starting to bite. this is where, as i said in my opening remarks, there's a tension between the need to engage with iran, find areas of cooperation like afghanistan and still keep up a very strong front. i think if we were to send a signal now that we want to encourage pipelines to iran, i