and holbrook used to say this too, richard holbrook. >> rose: he didn't get along with him. >> no. but i think holbrook recognized his color political ability to maneuver, to debate, to get what he wanted so that can be frustrating i think for the west. for a long time the bush administration found he was the yes man, he did as they said. he was easily led. he went along with everything the whole western project and then i think he got very very disillusioned with the west and with americans in particular. especially over civilian casualties as you know but also over the reluctance of the west to confront pakistan and what was going on. that really turned karzai against the west. he became disillusioned. i saw him fatigued just last week and he went on to the same thing saying that he thinks america is against him trying to stuff his efforts to make peace with the taliban and so on. so a lot of that is past the peak and it's become sort of a personal vendetta now again the west. i think he feels betrayed and badly used. and so that he cannot get over. but i think his ability to mane

policy generally once to come up with big plans, the big solutions it is not an accident that richard holbrooke was in the state department pushing for what i would say is save more activist policy the and found himself rather unwelcome in the obama administration and arguing for the policy based on the previous clinton administration before the bush administration before the retrenchment of the obama administration. but it is often through the state department when i worked in the state department in different presidencies of reagan and clinton, of course, you have different perspectives but the state department is generally for a large role for the united states with international affairs a larger role for them. simple as that. more complicated than that the you put it that simple and not be so wrong. afghanistan your chronicle of your policy makes me want to repeat who said american policy does not change? does continuity is not a source of success in afghanistan but characteristic of its. to more specifically how it maximalist responses? it depends on the challenge. that is thought to be be

. >> tell the story of when you society, richard holbrook was there, and you were backstage. karzai was there. you were not there. karzai new that tom preston, he was a friend of yours. he was going to interview karzai. >> that is right. he says this is tom preston. of saad mohseni. he goes nuts. that is not a patriot. out as to whyind the taliban, in terms of their operations, why did they have a support base in the country? the reason was because the government was so corrupt. the taliban had reemerged. we did stories on that. he labeled me as pro-taliban. >> how much of the country supports the taliban question >> less than 10%. peoplea survey of 4000 face-to-face across the country. less than 10% of the population. they do not have a base inside the country. paid? they who makes it the taliban? students have been brainwashed. there is no shortage of poor, impoverished young men living on both sides of the border in pakistan, getting funding from .ifferent groups >> karzai would not sign a security agreement. >> yes. >> at the same time both candidates leading will support

> before we talk about osama bin laden and how they protected him, in your judgment, here is richard holbrooke talking about you. i thought you might like to see this. >> the people who join the taliban down because of it dealing that they've been corrupted or abused by the government, the 25% but join because of perceived injustice, that is our mission, to help the afghan government eliminate those issues that are so famous and well covered by journalists, brilliant journalists including john burns, dexter filkins, carlotta gall. their coverage has been terrific. the other 70%, the floating people who pick up guns and a culture where guns are very popular, it's a long-standing historical tradition, that you have to deal with by a much better public information program. >> he mentioned dexter. what pakistan knew about bin laden from may 2 2011. now that he's dead, the most intriguing question -- did any officials help hide them. the fact that he was hiding in an urban area raises obvious questions like who was taking care of him and how. it is only 35 miles from the capital and home to a milit

it's a quote from richard holbrooke who was america's special envoy to afghanistan and pakistan as you know before he died in the last two years. he once said to the british foreign secretary in fact, maybe we are fighting the wrong enemy in the wrong country. it was when they were grappling with the problem of the taliban in afghanistan, the obama administration was trying to work out what to do. the insurgency had gotten so difficult in afghanistan that they had to order a surge of troops. so the foreign troops had gone up to 120,000 in at anniston and they were losing the war. it was a very critical moment, and the surge had its place and had to be done. but at the same time holbrooke put a single on it. they were fighting the wrong enemy in the wrong country. surely when you fight a war you have to go to the source which was across the border in pakistan and that's where al-qaeda had taken refuge after 9/11, after the american intervention. within months they moved across the border into the pakistan tribal areas. in some of these areas you are looking at. the taliban as well who h

richard holbrook, working on behalf of the obama administration tried to get other people to run against president karzai. there was a reason for that because they wanted to see a vigorous afghan democracy, but there was the position that we really wanted to see president karzai defeated. robert gates, in his book, basically said as much. they wanted to send somebody to defeat karzai because they did not want him. but those kinds of disagreements, when they are aired in public, such as in esther gates and his otherwise fine book, are memorable in afghanistan. they read our press. we have public disagreements with the afghan president, it is something that contributes to a negative relationship. i will not put all of this on mr. karzai. he has made some big mistakes and failed to rein in the corruption, including from his own family, but we contributed as well and we need a fresh start. host: we have this tweet, from the pottery barn theory, we broke it so we have to pay to fix it. and we brokeke it, it in the 1980's for strategic reasons. the soviets broke it, they invaded afghanistan. a

you worked for hillary clinton, and you interviewed with richard holbrooke to get job.iews. hillary clinton -- when he died, he was this sort of elder statesman, and he died tragically while he was trying to solve the war in afghanistan. go figure. that's stressful. and she told the story, at his funeral, of him following her into a ladies' room in pakistan. similarly, for my job interview at the state department, he was -- you know, we went up. we talked to secretary clinton. he threw his luggage at me. walked all the way to georgetown. i had been on crutches for a while, and he knew this, and i'm hobbling after him with his luggage. then he proceeds to go into the bathroom. and i'm like, "whoa, not that kind of a guy." not going to do that kind of an interview. and he's throwing me hardball questions about afghanistan. gets into the shower. the door is, like, ajar. i'm turning away. he conducts the entire interview while showering. without breaking stride in this incredible narrative about afghanistan and the details of troop deployments, and should we escalate, shoul

richard holbrook, working on behalf of the obama administration tried to get other people to run against president karzai. there was a reason for that because they wanted to see a vigorous afghan democracy, but there was the position that we really wanted to see president karzai defeated. robert gates, in his book, basically said as much. they wanted to send somebody to defeat karzai because they did not want him. but those kinds of disagreements, when they are aired in public, such as in esther gates and his otherwise fine book, are memorable in afghanistan. they read our press. we have public disagreements with the afghan president, it is something that contributes to a negative relationship. i will not put all of this on mr. karzai. he has made some big mistakes and failed to rein in the corruption, including from his own family, but we contributed as well and we need a fresh start. host: we have this tweet, from the pottery barn theory, we broke it so we have to pay to fix it. and we brokeke it, it in the 1980's for strategic reasons. the soviets broke it, they invaded afghanistan. a

richard holbrook, working on behalf of the obama administration tried to get other people to run against president karzai. there was a reason for that because they wanted to see a vigorous afghan democracy, but there was the position that we really wanted to see president karzai defeated. robert gates, in his book, basically said as much. they wanted to send somebody to defeat karzai because they did not want him. but those kinds of disagreements, when they are aired in public, such as in esther gates and his otherwise fine book, are memorable in afghanistan. they read our press. we have public disagreements with the afghan president, it is something that contributes to a negative relationship. i will not put all of this on mr. karzai. he has made some big mistakes and failed to rein in the corruption including from his own family, but we contributed as well and we need a fresh start. host: we have this tweet, from the pottery barn theory, we broke it so we have to pay to fix it. guest: we broke it and we broke it in the 1980's for strategic reasons. the soviets broke it, they invaded af