(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN KERRY, (D-MA) SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN: It would be entirely irresponsible for the president of the United States to commit more troops to this country when we don't have an election finished and know who the president is and what kind of government we're working with.

JOHN THUNE, (R-SD) SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE: I think we will be dealing with some government in Afghanistan under any circumstance. What's important to me and I think what's important to most Americans is that we have a strategy that can succeed and that it be properly resourced.

And I think that's the decision the president needs to make, and I hope he will make it soon.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BAIER: Well, Afghan President Hamid Karzai is expected to announce tomorrow who he plans to proceed after this U.N. backed group invalidated tens of thousands of votes in the election this summer.

He is reportedly, according to wires, indicated in private meetings that he may be open to a runoff election. But what about putting in more troops before that is all determined? We're back with the panel -- Charles?

KRAUTHAMMER: Two points. First of all, General McChrystal and Petraeus are as aware as anybody in Washington about the irregularities in this election and the damage it did, and still recommend troop surge as a way of saving Afghanistan.

Second, the administration acts as if this Afghan election, the flawed Afghan election is sort of an act of god sprung out of nowhere. It's been on the books for a year. The Obama administration was in power for almost eight months when it happened.

We have envoys here and there, special envoys, ambassadors on the scene. Where is all the smart diplomacy exerting all kind of pressure, diplomatic, economic, et cetera, to achieve our ends?

If there has ever been a regime in the world dependent on the United States and subject to American influence, it's the one in Afghanistan. If we withdraw, these guys will end up hanging out of trees.

And yet it is not just a failure of Afghanistan this election, it is the failure of our diplomacy. Our guys ought to be in there and telling Karzai either you have a runoff and soon, or you and your opponent Abdullah Abdullah, will make a coalition government right now and no need for any further elections.

BAIER: Juan?

WILLIAMS: I don't think we're in a position to run Afghanistan. I think it has been tried and failed before.

And the second thing to say here is that when you think about the fact that we have been in that country for eight years, we have tried to stabilize that government. We put everything in place for a legitimate election in August, and still the corruption overflowed.

It then leads to the question -- can we have sufficiently strong partner to battle Al Qaeda? And that's what is necessary for General McChrystal's strategy to work. General McChrystal laid out that strategy before the election. He has stuck with it, as you say, but he is a military man, and he is saying this is what I'm going to need on the ground once we have a stable government to work with.

So he is looking for either a new election or a coalition government to be formed with Abdullah Abdullah and Hamid Karzai, but that pushes back the White House's decision making.

And that's the problem. How long does the president really have before winter comes and we have a delayed election -- certainly we can't have this decision delayed until spring.

BAIER: You heard Senator Kerry there. I was a common theme on the Sunday talk shows, and here is the White House chief of staff and how he phrased this decision.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

EMANUEL: It would be reckless to make a decision on U.S. troop level if, in fact, you haven't done a thorough analysis of whether or whether, in fact, there is an Afghan partner ready to fill that space that the U.S. troops would create and become a true partner in governing the Afghan country.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BAIER: Steve, "reckless" about troop levels?

HAYES: When my editor Bill Kristol heard that comment, he took to The Weekly Standard Web site and criticized Rahm Emanuel, giving four points, that that was a bogus point to be making.

McChrystal has since heard from somebody close to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates saying that Gates was surprised that Rahm Emanuel said that on the Sunday shows. So making news, it suggests to me that clearly the White House is in some level of disarray over are how to proceed on this. And the second point I would make is that Rahm Emanuel spent a lot of time on the Sunday shows talking about the failure of the Bush policy, the failure of eight years of policy. They didn't ask the hard questions. And yet the Obama White House is actually using the Bush White House's top policymaker on Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, to talk to Karzai about the possibility of participating in a runoff.

KRAUTHAMMER: The idea that the administration today is shocked, shocked to discover corruption in Afghanistan is absurd. This is not a new situation. This is obviously a fig leaf that the administration on a certain amount on Afghanistan is trying to create if it wants to retreat, and it is not a credible one.