Sunday Snapshot -- War: What It's Good For

Despite the economic crisis, CBS' Schieffer opened his interview with Pres. Obama with questions about his new strategy in Afghanistan.

Schieffer: "This is a hugely ambitious plan. 22,000 more troops. You're gonna increase spending by 60 percent. You said in your announcement we must defeat al-Qaeda. ... This has really now become your war, hasn't it?"

Obama: "I think it's America's war. And it's the same war that we initiated after 9/11. ... The focus over the last seven years I think has been lost. What we want to do is to refocus attention on al-Qaeda."

Obama, asked if he's given U.S. commanders in Afghanistan a green light to go after people in safe havens in Pakistan: "I haven't changed my approach. If we have a high-value target within our sights, after consulting with Pakistan, we're going after them. But our main thrust has to be to help Pakistan defeat these extremists. ... Our plan does not change the recognition of Pakistan as a sovereign government. ... But we have to hold them much more accountable. And we have to recognize that part of our task in working with Pakistan is not just military."

After the jump, more Afghanistan, the economy and a look at WH '12.

(KATHERINE LEHR)

Obama, on critics saying more troops will inflame the situation: "I'm very mindful of that. ... I'm enough of a student of history to know that the United States in Vietnam and other countries, other epics of history have overextended to the point where they were severely weakened. And the history in Afghanistan obviously shows that that country has not been very favorably disposed towards foreign intervention."

More Obama: "And that's why a central part of our strategy is to train the Afghan National Army so that they are taking the lead increasingly to deal with extremists in their area. That's been one of the few success stories that we've seen over the last several years is the Afghan National Army actually has great credibility. They're effective fighters. We need to grow that. ... We now have resourced properly this strategy. It's not going to be an open-ended commitment of infinite resources. ... What I will not do is to simply assume that more troops always results in an improved situation."

Obama, asked if agrees that things in Afghanistan are worse than ever: "I do. ... Let me make sure I'm clear. They're not worse than they were when the Taliban was in charge and al-Qaeda was operating with impunity. We have seen a deterioration over the last several years. And unless we get a handle on it now, we're gonna be in trouble."

Obama, asked if things are going well enough in Iraq that he may consider speeding up the withdrawal of troops from there: "No, I think the plan that we put forward in Iraq is the right one. ... I'm confident that we're moving in the right direction. But Iraq is not yet completed" ("Face the Nation," CBS, 3/29).

SOLDIERING SUPPORT

During an appearance on "Fox News Sunday," Defense Sec. Robert Gates was asked if Obama has narrowed the U.S.' mission in Afghanistan.

Gates: "I think the near-term objectives have been narrowed. I think our long-term objective still would be to see a flourishing democracy in Afghanistan. But I think what we need to focus on and focus our efforts is making headway in reversing the Taliban's momentum and strengthening the Afghan army and police, and really going after al-Qaeda, as the president said."

Gates, asked if al-Qaeda still has the operational capability to attack the U.S.: "They certainly have the capability to plan, and in many ways they have metastasized, with elements in North Africa, in the Levant, in the Horn of Africa and elsewhere. ... So I think they do have those capabilities. They clearly have been inhibited by all the things that have been done over the last six or seven years. ... I still regard them as a very serious threat, yes."

Gates, asked why Obama decided against committing additional combat troops: "The president has approved every single soldier that I have requested of him. I have not sent any requests for units or troops to the president so far that he has not approved. Now, the reality is I've been at this a long time, and I don't think I've ever in several decades run into a ground commander who thought he had enough troops. That's probably true in all of history. But we have fulfilled all of the requirements that General McKiernan has put down for 2009, and my view is there's no need to ask for more troops."

Gates, asked if the commitment to defeat the Taliban and al-Qaeda is subject to review: "I don't think so."

Gates, asked if the U.S. has given up on the idea of getting allies to send more combat troops to Afghanistan: "No, we haven't. And in fact, I think some of our allies will send additional forces there to provide security before the August elections in Afghanistan. But I think what we're really interested in for the longer term from our partners and the allies is helping us with this civilian surge in terms of experts in agriculture, and finance, and governance and so on. ... Also, police trainers."

Gates, asked if he's seen any developments in Iraq that might cause him to slow down Obama's timeline: "I haven't seen anything at this point that would lead me to think that there will be a need to change the time lines" (3/29).

Meanwhile, Special envoy/ex-UN Amb. Richard Holbrooke and Gen. David Petraeus appeared together on "State of the Union."

Petraeus, asked why Obama said no to additional combat troops in Afghanistan: "He certainly hasn't said no. What everyone has said is let's get these forces on the ground. Every request for forces and every recommendation that General McKiernan and I made through this year, this entire year, has been approved. And, as I said, we'll take that forward, do the assessments. And I think it'd be premature to get beyond that right now."

Holbrooke, on many Dems warning Afghanistan could be Obama's Vietnam: "I served in Vietnam for three and half years, and I'm aware of certain structural similarities. But there's a fundamental difference. The Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese never posed any direct threat to the United States and its homeland. The people we are fighting in Afghanistan, and the people they are sheltering in Western Pakistan pose a direct threat. Those are the men of 9/11, the people who killed Benazir Bhutto. And you can be sure that, as we sit here today, they are planning further attacks on the United States and our allies."

More Holbrooke: "In terms of the deliberation itself, the president shared at least four meetings, by my count, of the full National Security Council -- very unusual, very impressive. He ran the meetings himself. I've been in meetings with presidents since Lyndon Johnson in whose White House I served. And I have never seen a president take charge of a meeting the way President Obama did continually."

Holbrooke, on Afghan Pres. Hamid Karzai's reaction to Obama's speech: "He said it was a great speech, and he agreed with every word of it. And you will note that the president, for the first time at the presidential level, addressed corruption directly and frontally."

Petraeus, asked if he agrees with ex-VP Cheney that the American people are less safe because of Obama's policies: "I wouldn't necessarily agree with that. I think that, in fact, there is a good debate going on about the importance of values in all that we do."

Petraeus, asked if the line was crossed in terms of torture during the Bush admin.: "We certainly did not. Now, there were some incidents that did, and we learned some very hard lessons from Abu Ghraib and other cases. And we believe that we took corrective measures in the wake of that. And that is very, very important. But it is hugely significant to us to live the values that we hold so dear and that we have fought so hard to protect over the years."

Holbrooke, on Cheney's comment: "I don't have a clue what he's talking about. We are treating Afghanistan and Pakistan as a single theater. We are going to address it in an integrated way. We are going to give it more resources. And that is where the people planning the next attack on the United States or on our European allies are certainly doing it. So I just do not understand what his comments were referenced to" (CNN, 3/29).

SURGE YOUR ENTHUSIASM

GOPers reacted favorably to Obama's Afghanistan plan.

Senate Min. Leader Mitch McConnell: "I want to commend the administration. The surge in Iraq worked. I wish they could bring themselves to say that and I think the surge in Afghanistan is likely to work as well under the brilliant leadership of General Petraeus. ... The administration is essentially adopting the policies of the Bush administration and both Iraq and Afghanistan."

More McConnell: "I want to commend them for it because we know for sure that post 9/11, we did not have another attack on the homeland here in the United States. That was no accident. It was not blind luck. It was because we were on offense going after the terrorists where they are. There are significant numbers of them in Afghanistan and in Pakistan and I think the president is adopting a policy that gives us a chance to succeed. Are we going to be able to turn Afghanistan into a western style democracy? No. But can we stabilize the country and protect America from another attack here on the homeland? I think so. And I think the policy the president is pursuing are likely to be supported by virtually all Republicans."

McConnell, asked if he agrees with Cheney's comment: "I think we're going to find out. We'll find out. I do think closing Guantanamo, having an arbitrary date to close Guantanamo is a dangerous decision. ... I do think, though, that staying on offense in Afghanistan is the smart thing to do. It's the kind of thing President Bush would have done. I applaud the president for his flexibility in doing that" ("State of the Union," CNN, 3/29).

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ): "The outlines of this proposal are good. The best way to get out of Afghanistan fast is people to think we're staying. We have to more than double the size of the Afghan army. ... I would have announced that 10,000 additional that have been requested would have been sent. ... And the main thing I would have done in that speech, I'm sorry to say, tell the American people it's going to be long and hard and tough. ... You've got to prepare the American people for a significant expenditure of American blood and treasure. I think the president laid out the threat very well."

More McCain: "On the issue of Pakistan, we have to have a policy that's oriented to Pakistan, not Afghanistan" ("Meet the Press," NBC, 3/29).

(DON'T) BLAME CANADA

And Canadian PM Stephen Harper was asked if he will consider keeping Canadian troops in Afghanistan longer.

Harper: "Our objective now is to train the Afghan forces so they can take over day-to-day responsibility for their security by the end of 2011. That's what we're working on. ... But we're going to continue to be there and continue to assist with governance and development challenges."

Harper, asked if he heard anything from Obama that would make him change his mind about keeping Canadian combat troops in Afghanistan longer: "We're not planning to do that. In fairness, when I met with President Obama, he didn't make that request" ("Fox News Sunday," 3/29).

A LEAN, MEAN, FIGHTING MACHINE

Obama was also asked about his 3/30 scheduled announcement regarding the auto industry, the budget and AIG exec bonuses.

Schieffer: "You've told them they're gonna have to cut back, present a different business plan. Our sources tell us that as far as the White House is concerned, they're not there yet. Do they have to do more in order to get this money?"

Obama: "Yes. They're not quite there yet. ... And so what we're trying to let them know is that we want to have a successful auto industry, U.S. auto industry. ... But it's got to be one that's realistically designed to weather this storm and to emerge at the other end much more lean, mean, and competitive than it currently is. And that's gonna mean a set of sacrifices from all parties involved."

Obama, asked if he has abandoned the middle-class tax cut: "Absolutely not. ... I've delivered that middle-class tax cut for two years in the stimulus package. So people will be ... seeing their tax cuts in their paychecks starting on April 1st for 95 percent working families just as we promised. I strongly believe that we should continue those tax cuts. We should make them permanent."

More Obama: "What I've also said, though, is we've gotta pay for it. Now, in my original budget we had a way of paying for it. And some of the proposals that we have made, members of Congress have said, 'Well, we're not quite comfortable with that.' So what I've said is, if you don't wanna pay for it in those ways, let's find another way to pay for it. ... I'm gonna be pushing as hard as I can to get it done in this budget. If it's not done in this budget then I'm gonna keep on pushing for it next year and the year afterwards."

Schieffer, on the AIG exec bonuses: "Congress expressed outrage. You seemed outraged. And then ... the House passed the bill to get that money back. ... You seemed to throw a little cold water on that. ... Have you now, on reflection, decided that maybe you let that go a little too far?"

Obama: "Oh, no, I think that the anger was justified. And had we not seen some healthy expressions of anger we wouldn't have gotten $50 million of those bonuses back. ... I said at the time that it is important to keep our eye on the ball. My most important job is to get this economy moving again. ... What I don't want is that larger project to be threatened by ... some of the behavior that we've seen on Wall Street."

Obama, on his meeting with bankers at the WH: "I talked to them. And what I said was, look -- first of all, there are a lot of bankers that are doing good work in the community. ... I understand that. But understand that for the average single mom ... a taxpayer-assisted firm is paying out multi-million dollar bonuses, that's just not acceptable. Show some restraint. ... Show that you get that this is a crisis and everybody has to make sacrifices."

Schieffer: "And what did they say?"

Obama: "They agreed. And they recognized it. Now, the proof of the pudding's in the eating. So I expect to see that restraint operate. ... I said to those folks, 'Let me help you.' ... It's very difficult for me as President to call on the American people to make sacrifices to help shore up the financial system if there's no sense of mutual obligation and mutual help. Now, the flip side is I've gotta explain to the American people we're not gonna get this recovery if we don't see a recovery of the financial sector. And there's no separation between Main Street and Wall Street. We're all in this together."

Obama, asked if he's lost any friends: "I don't think I've lost any friends. But I'm sure I've strained some friendships. ... This is not a caretaker presidency right now. Every decision we're making counts. And my team understands that" ("Face the Nation," CBS, 3/29).

NOT SO TINY TIM

Treas. Sec. Tim Geithner made the rounds, appearing on "This Week" and "Meet the Press" to talk about the economy.

Geithner, on whether the markets responding positively to the new phase of his bank plan made him feel like the comeback kid: "We're facing still a lot of challenges. Can't judge a plan on the reaction one day one week. But we've done a lot in these eight weeks."

Geithner, asked if recovery will start at the end of this year: "Most private economists believe you're going to find a more durable bottom in the second half of this year and then have growth come back. ... We're going to emerge out of this stronger."

ABC's Stephanopoulos: "Stronger, but as affluent as we were in the past?"

Geithner: "We want to have sustainable growth. We don't want to have a recovery which is going to be artificial and short-lived, just produce the seeds of the next crisis. We want to have a durable recovery based on a stronger foundation that has a stronger, more productive economy emerging through it where the gains are more broadly shared across the economy as a whole."

Geithner, asked if income inequality will go down: "It should go down."

Geithner, on some saying banks ought to be shut down: "The approach we're adopting, again, is to make sure that there's capital in the financial system where we need capital. And that capital will come with conditions. ... Make sure these institutions emerge stronger, not weaker. We don't want to be sustaining the weak at the expense of the strong."

Stephanopoulos: "But is that plan B, if your plan fails, is that plan B, go in, take them over, shut them down eventually, unwind their assets?"

Geithner: "The way I would describe it is that we need to move to make sure the banking system is able to provide the credit recovery needs. When they do that, again, with strong conditions to protect the taxpayer, make sure they restructure where they need to restructure. But, you know, our system doesn't just depend on banks. ... And so we have a very aggressive program in place to help provide credit directly, going around banks, get those markets working again."

Geithner, asked if he can get through the rest of this year with the money left in TARP: "We have substantial resources. We're going to use
them quickly, as carefully as we can, make sure they're diverted to things that are going to get credit flowing again. And we'll cross that bridge when we come to it, in terms of whether we need additional resources."

Geithner, on critics saying he is too beholden to the Wall Street culture: "I've worked all my life in public service. I've spent my entire professional life helping this government and this country do a better job of dealing with financial crises and helping protect the economy from the damage these causes. I would not spend a penny on helping a bank for the purpose of helping a bank. Everything we're doing is for the people that depend on this financial system."

Geithner, asked how he could have handled the AIG situation differently: "I don't think our choices would have changed. We had no good choices in those conducts. These were contracts that were set well before the government came in. ... But we moved very, very quickly to make sure that we were going to get them to renegotiate future payments, that there were strong conditions on compensation going forward. ... Now, where we have the chance to go back and recoup, where there was evidence of malfeasance of fraud, we will do that."

Geithner, asked if Goldman Sachs should give back the money it got back from AIG: "We have no legal ability now. That's why I went to Congress last week, to propose a broad change in resolution authority so that we have the capacity to do what we do with banks now."

Geithner, on Obama's auto industry announcement: "It's important to know that we want to have a strong automobile industry. We want it to emerge from this period of challenge stronger. That's going to require a lot of restructuring. We're prepared as a government to help that process if
we believe it's going to provide the basis for a stronger industry in the future that's not going to rely on government support."

Geithner, asked if Chrysler is really too big to fail: "I'm not going to get ahead of the president's [announcement]. As I said, it's very important for our country that we have a strong automobile industry going forward."

Geithner, on the single most important thing he's learned over the last three months: "That to get through this, governments need to act. Great obligation responsibility for governments to act to solve these things. The market will not solve this, and the great risk for us is we do too little, not that we do too much" ("This Week," ABC, 3/29).

Geithner, asked if there's more risk for the gov't than there is for the investor in his toxic assets plan: "The choice we face is whether to have the government take on all the risk in solving this, which we don't want to do. So if you compare this to the classic alternative, which is again, the government sits back, hopes the market solves this, which would be much more damaging to the economy, or the government takes on all the risk, buys all the assets itself, makes up a price, would risk overpaying, provide a much greater subsidy, this proposal is a much better approach to solving this problem."

Geithner, on New York Times' Krugman saying the plan is an "indirect, disguised way to subsidize purchases of bad assets": "The investor's money is at risk. They can lose all their money. Now, again, you have to compare these to the alternatives. ... Life's about choices. Life's about alternatives. This is a better way to help get these markets working again."

NBC's Gregory: "Are you this morning providing a guarantee to those investors that the rules of the games will not change? If they make money in these transactions, that Congress won't try to go get their gains and change the rules?"

Geithner: "We have to do that or they won't come."

Gregory: "So the rules of this program won't change?"

Geithner: "No, they cannot change."

Geithner, asked if the banks will need more money: "We have a substantial amount of resources that Congress has authorized. We're moving forward to use those resources as quickly as we can to get them where they need in the economy."

Geithner, asked if Treasury Dept. nominations have been a priority: "Absolutely. And we've had some terrifically talented, dedicated public servants working at the Treasury from day one. And look at what we've done in this period of time. ... Confirmation process always takes time. ... People forget when you look back at transitions how long it takes to get people in office."

Geithner, asked if he wants people with expertise on Wall Street to come work for him: "We need people who have experience in policy, in markets, in banking, in supervision, and we're going to get terrifically talented people to come work for the country."

Gregory: "So Wall Street people don't have a taint in your book?"

Geithner: "No. We're going to make sure we ... get people with experience, as I said, in markets and in banking. Not just in policy. ... We're trying to protect the interest of the taxpayer. That requires people that have knowledge and expertise."

Geithner, on his gov't regulation proposal: "Core thing is to make sure that the institutions at the center of our financial system are subject to much more conservative, much tougher requirements on capital and leverage that are applied more evenly and more effectively, frankly. We need to make sure that hedge funds and derivatives come within a framework of oversight so we protect the system from the risks they may present. And we need to make sure the government has the authority it needs to come in more quickly, to help contain the damage, restructure the system, so we can have a stronger system going forward."

Gregory: "But is the government really capable of moving in on companies that may need it? Does the government have the level of expertise to unwind something like AIG's financial products division? You're having your own problems even staffing up the Treasury Department. Isn't that a lot to ask the American people to support?"

Geithner: "But there's no choice. ... What would you prefer, that we live with the kind of choices we saw in Lehman, AIG? Catastrophic damage, or the government putting huge amounts of taxpayer dollars at risk to help and contain that damage? We need a better model."

Geithner, asked if the economy will be fundamentally different: "I think people will be living within their means more, which is helpful."

Geithner, asked if he's been able to shore up his credibility as not only a steward for economic policy, but as a spokesman for Obama's policies: "I knew we were going to face really tough choices. We were going to have to do things that are going to be deeply unpopular, hard to understand. We're not going to get it perfect everywhere. But this is a great privilege for me, a great honor to help this president do what it takes to help get this economy back on track" ("Meet the Press," NBC, 3/29).

FINDING BALANCE

The budget also continued to be a topic of debate. During a joint appearance on "State of the Union," Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) and Rep. John Spratt (D-SC) were asked about Obama's budget proposal.

CNN's J. King, on financial bailouts: "Nobody likes spending billions of dollars that go to the big banks. But the president, in his budget, said, I'm probably going to need $250 billion down the road, so I'm going to be honest and I'm going to put it in my budget. You have decided in your budget to take that out. Now some say that is a gimmick so that you get a lower deficit number than the president, but you know you're going to have to spend that money."

Spratt: "We don't know it and we're essentially saying, come make your case, the burden of persuasion is upon the president. Nobody likes funding these things. We would like to see more definition than we got in the last packages. So this is our way of exercising a little leverage over it. If it's needed, we will be there to support it. But let's not create a presumption it is needed and see if we can't make the most of what's in circulation already."

Conrad, asked if he's willing to pay for health care reform through higher energy taxes: "Well, that's an option. But, look, what we have done is provide for a deficit-neutral reserve fund. The administration has said all along they want to do major health care reform and we agree with them entirely. They are exactly right. And they have said they would pay for it over a period of time, and that is what we've provided for."

King: "Both of you made your names in the Congress as deficit hawks. ... How much do you feel you're maybe having to compromise your hard-fought principles to be loyal to this president who has a very, very ambitious agenda?"

Spratt: "He has only been in office as president a few months. And for the most part what we're looking at, these horrendous deficits, is something that is carried over from the previous administration."

Conrad: "We inherited it from the previous administration, a doubling of the debt, a tripling of foreign holdings of U.S. debt, and an economy in shambles. And so when that happens, obviously, deficits and debt go up dramatically in the short term. The great challenge here is to put us on a more sustainable path. And, look, in fairness to the Obama administration, they made their estimates of the revenue available to us three months ago. In the intervening period, those deficits have eroded and, as a result, we have had to make changes in the president's proposal."

Spratt: "Senator Conrad and I are moving the budget towards balance within a reasonable period of time. From about trillion-8, thereabouts, to mid 500 billion in four to five years' time. That is not an acceptable number. I want to see the glide path of deficit reduction continue onward for the second five years, but that is a pretty ambitious target and one we think we can hit partly because what is swelling the deficit now are non-recurring items such as the TARP, such as the cost of taking over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These things, we hope, won't recur in 2009 and 2010. And that gives us an opportunity to drive this budget down to an acceptable, for the time being, debt level" (CNN, 3/29).

Among the GOP reaction:

McConnell, asked if he would lose any GOPers if the Senate voted on the budget right now: "I don't think so. And I think the big fear is going to be losing Democrats. ... I think they have serious concerns on their side about this budget which is completely disconnected to and unrelated to the current economic crisis in which we're facing" ("State of the Union," CNN, 3/29).

McCain, asked how concerned he is that the admin. will have to raise taxes to meet its goals for spending on major programs: "That's always the inevitable result of increasing spending and increasing the size of government. They've earmarked $634 billion for cap and trade; by the way, a betrayal of everything I've ever believed in about cap and trade, which I'm a supporter of. They have earmarked or budgeted for hundreds of billions of dollars in increases in spending in health care to bring down the cost of health care."

More McCain: "So my great worry, my great worry is the trillions. The $10 trillion we already owe, the $1 trillion or $2 trillion that the Chinese now own. The Chinese comments about a world currency and their complaints about our fiscal policies concern me. There's only one thing worse than the Chinese owning a lot of American debt, and that is Chinese stop buying American debt."

McCain, asked if GOPers should provide a detailed budget alternative with numbers: "Yes. ... We're working on it, working very hard on it" ("Meet the Press," NBC, 3/29).

BORDERING ON ACTION

In other foreign policy talk, Obama was asked about the situation in Mexico.

Schieffer: "You talked about sending more aid to the Mexican government. But things down there are really serious, as you well know. It's my understanding that 90 percent of the guns that they're getting down in Mexico are coming from the United States. ... Do you need any kind of legislative help on that front? Have you, for example, thought about asking Congress to reinstate the ban on assault weapons?"

Obama: "I think the main thing we need is better enforcement. And so this week we put forward a comprehensive initiative to assist those border regions that are being threatened by these drug cartels to provide assistance to the Mexican government to make sure that on our side of the border we've got more personnel, more surveillance equipment.

More Obama: "President Calderon I think has been very bold. ... The drug cartels have too much power, are undermining and corrupting huge segments of Mexican society. And so he has taken them on in the same way when ... Eliot Ness took on Al Capone back during Prohibition, oftentimes that causes even more violence. And we're seeing that flare up."

Obama, asked if the situation is threat to U.S. security: "I don't think that it is what would would be called an existential threat. But it is a serious threat to those border communities, and it's gotten out of hand."

Schieffer: "Are we anywhere close to putting U.S. troops on the border?"

Obama: "Obviously there have been calls to increase National Guard troops on the borders. That's something that we are considering. But we want to first see whether some of the steps that we've taken can help quell some of the violence. And we want to make sure that we are consulting as effectively as we can with the Mexican government in moving this strategy forward" ("Face the Nation," CBS, 3/29).

APRIL SHOWERS BRING REPUBLICAN FLOWERS

And during his appearance on "Meet the Press," McCain was also asked about the future of his party and whether he'd support AK Gov. Sarah Palin (R) for POTUS in '12.

McCain, asked how the GOP gets back to power: "The party of ideas, party of inclusiveness, outreach to other ethnic aspects of the American electorate; in my part of the country especially, Hispanic voters. We have to recruit and elect Hispanics to office. We have to welcome new ideas. ... Let's let a thousand flowers bloom. Let's have different clashes of ideas, sharing the same principles and goals."

McCain, on Palin: "I'd like to see her compete. I think we've got some very good candidates: Jon Huntsman. ... Bobby Jindal, Tim Pawlenty. There's so many. There's a lot of good, fresh talent out there."

Gregory: "But would you support Palin?"

McCain: "Oh, I'd have to see who the candidates are and what the situation is at the time. But have no doubt of my respect, admiration and love for Sarah and her family" (NBC, 3/29).

ROUNDTABLE ROUNDUP

The "This Week" roundtable discussed Geithner and the WH economic policy, as well as Obama's Afghanistan plan.

George Will, on the 60K troops that will be in Afghanistan: "Which will be twice the number that all the other nations of NATO, combined, have in there, and almost none of those are in a combat mission. When he says a 'clear and focused goal,' that's code word for I'm not using the Bush language of, we're going to create a flourishing democracy. He says we're going to combat terrorism in a country in which no one knows, because the income statistics in Afghanistan are a little primitive, but at least 40% of the economy is poppies for the world's heroin trade."

Cokie Roberts: "He's also proposing a lot. He's not using the term 'nation building,' but he's talking a lot about going in with nonmilitary aid into the communities in Afghanistan and Pakistan, tripling of the nonmilitary aid to Pakistan, and the truth is, that that is probably the best answer, is to get the economy into some sort of state where people are able to exist, and not fall from the terrorists" (ABC, 3/29).

The "Fox News Sunday" roundtable discussed Geithner's plans to regulate the financial markets and have private investors buy toxic assets, the situation in Mexico and Iraq/Afghanistan.

Weekly Standard's Kristol, asked if Geithner's plan to regulate the financial markets is a radical power grab: "It's a pretty radical and somewhat reasonable response to a pretty radical situation. ... I think parts of it are sensible, and parts of it perhaps not. But the notion that you do need a new regulatory scheme to take care of the non-bank type banks that were not regulated adequately, clearly, in the late '90s and over the last decade -- that's not unreasonable. So I think it would be foolish for conservatives to say, you know, 'Everything was great. We just need to sort of somehow hope this crisis goes away and go back to the system we had in 1999 or 2004.'"

Fortune's Easton, in reponse: "I think it's going to be the most dramatic entry by the government into the private sector since FDR. ... This idea of monitoring systemic risk has been around. It's a good idea. ... But this goes so much farther. You're talking about regulating executive compensation. You're talking about monitoring firms to see if they're acting in the long-term interest, not the short-term interest. You're talking about the government getting in and controlling and guiding decisions of private executives, and I think that why you saw even Democrats reacting to this plan the way they did this week" (3/29).

The "State of the Union" roundtable discussed the budget, Afghanistan and the auto industry.

CNN's Bash, on Obama's Afghanistan strategy: "It's very similar to what we heard after he made his announcement on Iraq. ... You have Republicans for the most part coming out and saying, we support him. ... We think he's doing what he perhaps wouldn't have said that he would do during the Democratic primary, because at that point, many Republicans are saying he was trying to appeal to the left. So you definitely see a reversal with this national security issue, as you did with Iraq. Democrats are not coming out as much as opposed to this as I perhaps thought that they would, but they're very cautious, unlike Republicans, who are pretty gung ho about it."

CNN's Starr: "Remember the Dick Cheney remark of a few weeks ago, Barack Obama has made the country less safe. ... That's why he has to politically make the full-out effort on this war to show that he's doing everything he possibly can. But he has also got to show that he has got game here" (3/29).