From Andrea Mitchell and Libby Leist
Aides to Sen. John Kerry tell NBC News that he returned to Kabul tonight to continue negotiations with Afghan President Hamid Karzai. And Kerry will be in place tomorrow for an anticpated announcement by Karzai about the election results. Hillary Clinton said this afternoon she was "encouraged" that Karzai will abide by the constitution and accept the Electoral Complaints Commission results that left him with 48% of the vote.

Kerry spent the day in Islamabad before returning to Kabul, where he had spent the weekend. Aides say Kerry spent a lot of one-on-one time with Karzai on Saturday and Sunday, including dinner both nights.

Kerry has been coordinating closely with the State Department. A senior State Department official said, "We have been telling Karzai ... to accept the results. That will be imporant."

If there is a runoff, the official said, the administration expects Karzai will win. Secretary Clinton, Kerry and the U.S. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry have made it clear to Karzai that he will have U.S. support if he agrees to tackle corruption, the official said.

The official said the election mess must be sorted out in the next three to four weeks before the Winter season starts and that a runoff election would take two to three weeks to complete.

"There is still enough time barely to have a credible election," the official said.

From NBC's Andrea Mitchell
An official at the Vienna talks says it is not clear yet whether Iran will agree to proceed with the International Atomic Energy Agency's proposal to ship their low-grade enriched uranium to Russia for reprocessing.

Iranian officials met with the U.S and other western diplomats today in Vienna -- shortly after Iranian television declared that Iran would not agree to deal with France because of past disputes with France. 

France, in recent weeks, has been taking a harder line on the Iran talks than the other U.S. allies.

Today's meetings lasted about two hours and 45 minutes. 

They are due to resume at 10:00 am tomorrow -- to go into greater depth and see if they can reach an implementation agreement on what was proposed in Geneva.

from NBC's Andrea Mitchell
Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin today expressed skepticism about sanctioning Iran over its nuclear program. Putin made his comments in Beijing, in what will be widely viewed as a diplomatic rebuke to the U.S. and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Clinton just wrapped up a two day trip to Russia and is now flying back to DC.

"There is no need to frighten the Iranians," Putin told reporters in Beijing after a meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organizatin, the AP writes. "And if now, before making any steps [towards holding talks] we start announcing some sanctions, then we won't be creating favorable conditions for them to end positively. This is why it is premature to talk about this now," he said.

Clinton had her own difficulties over Iran on the trip, as Russia's hardline Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov restated his opposition to sanctions yesterday. Later yesterday, she met with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, who did not publically disagree with his Foreign Minister.

Privately, according to State Department officials traveling with the Secretary, Medvedev repeated assurances that he'd given President Obama at the UN: that sanctions would be unavoidable if Iran did not disclose its nuclear program.

Following up on commitments made in Geneva two weeks ago, Iran is supposed to meet next week in Vienna with International Atomic Energy Agency experts to discuss turning over its declared low-grade enriched uranium to Russia for reprocessing--eliminating that  part of the stockpile from any potential future weapons fuel use.

Iran has also commited to invite IAEA inspectors into its Qom facility by October 24th, and to meet again with Western diplomats before the end of the month.

From NBC's Andrea Mitchell
GENEVA -- A senior U.S. official tells NBC News that the significance of the proposal to farm out Iran's enrichment is that if it is done it would remove most of their stockpiles of enriched uranium.

Although they could always produce more that takes time and the official says it could extend by at least a year the time frame before they could produce a bomb.

Officials in Geneva are trying to avoid overplaying the proposal because, one said, "We don't want to spook the Iranians. But if they end up doing this, it would be a very big deal."

If they now refuse, it raises serious questions about whether they their nuclear program is really peaceful as they claim.

More on the talks from NBC's Michelle Perry, also in Geneva:
A U.S. official said the talks in Geneva today represent the beginning in a process to move on practical steps that will address the international communitiy's request that Iran be transparent on the Qom site and in allowing IAEA inspections.

The Oct. 18th talks will be held at an "expert level" and will be an opportunity for confidence building measures that will serve to allay concerns aboput Iran's intent regarding their nuclear program.

The talks today were "sober" in terms of a first step, but there needs to be "practical implementation" now.

There was the bilateral talk between the Iranians and the U.S., as had been reported during the lunch, and there were "several other encounters" between U.S. and Iran during the rest of the afternoon. They discussed "specific issues" such as Iran's nuclear program and U.S. concerns over human rights in Iran -- the three American hikers being held in Iran also came up. The U.S. official said the Iranians recognize this is an important issue for us.

From NBC's Andrea Mitchell
GENEVA, Switzerland -- The talks between the P5+1 and Iran have ended and, per a senior U.S. official, all parties have agreed to a second round of talks by the end of the month.

The U.S. and Iran had their first meetings, direct talks -- in 30 years -- during a lunch break in the group session.

Deputy U.S. Spokesman Robert Wood confirmed that "On the margins of the meeting this morning Undersecretary of State William Burns met with the Iranian representative Saeed Jalili."

Prior to the direct talks during the lunch break, the opening plenary session was a restatement of previous positions by both sides, according to sources inside the meeting.

A U.S. official tells NBC News, "The morning session was their first encounter since July 2008, so it was largely a statement of the positions of the Iranians and the P5+1, which included the need for unfettered access to Qom, and the need for concrete steps to demonstrate that the Iranian nuclear program is peaceful."

Here's some color and details on the lunch, according to a U.S. official inside the talks:

The lunch was buffet style. Officials from the P5+1, as well as the Iranians, dined and mingled. Some ate while seated; others stood at tables. They mostly collected in the backyard of the Villa le Saugy, with a view of Lake Geneva and the Swiss Alps. Many different groups would huddle together, quietly discussing issues in sidebar conversations.

Some menu items: Trout almondine, sliced, cold Sablefish, assorted cheeses and meats, cooked chicken with sauce, rice salad with olives, potato salad, tomato salad with olive oil, carrot salad. For dessert, there was chocolate mousse and creme brulee. For drinks, there was lots of strong coffee, wine (Domaine de La Republique et Canton de Geneve), Pinot Noir and Chardonnay.

From NBC's Andrea Mitchell
According to representatives of the Russian government, Russia's President Medvedev praised President Obama effusively during a question-and-answer session with students at the University of Pittsburgh.

Asked about Iran and sanctions, Medvedev reportedly said, according to a transcript provided by the Russians:

"I have this feeling as though I'm still in the meeting with Barack Obama. Yesterday he asked me this very same question. We spent about a half hour talking about that yesterday! I tried to answer that yesterday and I'll try to answer that today in this beautiful hall.

First of all, we are all responsible for global affairs. Since we share this responsibility, no state should refuse it. In this sense, Russia is a responsible country. All of us are involved in promoting nuclear energy and the right to the peaceful use of it. Iran as a state has a right to its own peaceful nuclear program. This is our clear position. That is what I said to Barack Obama yesterday.

I do not believe sanctions are the best way to achieve results. Sanctions were used on a number of occasions against Iran but we have doubts about the results. Nevertheless when all instruments have been used and failed, one can use international legal sanctions. That is common…I think we should continue to promote positive incentives for Iran and at the same time push it to make all its programs transparent and open. Should we fail in that case, we'll consider other options.

In response to a question on the state of relations between the U.S. and Russia:

I would like to see them better than they are today. But today they are better than they were yesterday. The truth of the matter is, one year ago, I got an impression that our relations had hit a dead end, they almost slid to the level of the cold war. I don't want to blame anybody...The bottom line is, we didn't want that to happen. What really matters is to see to it that the number of differences between our countries, our politicians, be smaller. I am very comfortable with communication with the President of the United States for several reasons. We are of the same generation, we had the same kind of education. When I was a postgraduate student, I read legal reviews at the time that were edited by Barack Obama. Had I known he was an editor, I would have read them more attentively.

The mindset is important. Today, when I'm communicating with the U.S. president, I get the feeling that he's attentively listening. He doesn't preach to you as a mentor, which is not very nice. When you are preaching to others, it's not nice. People like him not only here in the United States but in other countries as well. So he's managed to do certain things that others have failed to do. I believe if personal relations between the leaders are good, then it will be easier to build better relations for the future.

(For example), a recent decision by the President of the United States regarding forgoing the third site on ABM missile defense. Of course, this decision was determined by Barack Obama's mindset.  It was not pro-Russia nor pro-Chinese nor pro-Europe, this was an American decision. What's important is Barack Obama listened to my position. Perhaps it was part of the basis for his decision. We are learning to listen to each other. This is a change from the previous administration. I think these are bold, courageous decisions, to change decisions of previous administrations concerning foreign policy. This was a complex decision. I tried to put myself in his shoes. It would not have been easy for me. It deserves our respect. We don't know what will happen next, but if we are continually attentive to each other, our relations will have a good future.

From NBC's Andrea Mitchell
Senior White House and Justice Department officials briefing reporters on a conference call just now insisted that the White House would not be involved in tactical decisions about the interrogation of detainees under new procedures approved by the president. Officials said the National Security Council interagency role would be "policy guidance" -- only.

The new unit will be headquartered at the FBI and overseen by the NSC's counter terror chief, John Brennan, who used to run the counter terror center at the CIA.

The briefers said they would also create a unit to do scientific studies of "best practices" of interrogation to find out what works.

They pledged that the U.S. would no longer "render" suspects to countries that torture prisoners and that renditions would be overseen by the State Department.

The CIA would still have a role, but a much smaller one under the new system, and the CIA would no longer be involved in running detention camps.

Here's CIA Director Leon Panetta's message to CIA workers today:

Message from the Director:

Release of Material on Past Detention Practices

Today, as part of a number of Freedom of Information Act cases, the government is responding to court orders to release more documents related to the Agency's past detention and interrogation of foreign terrorists. The CIA materials include the 2004 report from our Office of Inspector General and two papers-one from 2004 and the other from 2005-that discuss the value of intelligence acquired from high-level detainees. The complete package is hundreds of pages long. The declassification process, a mandatory part of the proceedings, was conducted in accord with established FOIA guidelines.

This is in many ways an old story. The outlines of prior interrogation practices, and many of the details, are public already. The use of enhanced interrogation techniques, begun when our country was responding to the horrors of September 11th, ended in January. For the CIA now, the challenge is not the battles of yesterday, but those of today and tomorrow. It is there that we must work to enhance the safety of our country. That is the job the American people want us to do, and that is my responsibility as the current Director of the CIA.

My emphasis on the future comes with a clear recognition that our Agency takes seriously proper accountability for the past. As the intelligence service of a democracy, that's an important part of who we are. When it comes to past detention and interrogation practices, here are some facts to bear in mind on that point:

The CIA itself commissioned the Inspector General's review. The report, prepared five years ago, noted both the effectiveness of the interrogation program and concerns about how it had been run early on. Several Agency components, including the Office of General Counsel and the Directorate of Operations, disagreed with some of the findings and conclusions.

The CIA referred allegations of abuse to the Department of Justice for potential prosecution. This Agency made no excuses for behavior, however rare, that went beyond the formal guidelines on counterterrorism. The Department of Justice has had the complete IG report since 2004. Its career prosecutors have examined that document-and other incidents from Iraq and Afghanistan-for legal accountability. They worked carefully and thoroughly, sometimes taking years to decide if prosecution was warranted or not. In one case, the Department obtained a criminal conviction of a CIA contractor. In other instances, after Justice chose not to pursue action in court, the Agency took disciplinary steps of its own.

The CIA provided the complete, unredacted IG report to the Congress. It was made available to the leadership of the Congressional intelligence committees in 2004 and to the full committees in 2006. All of the material in the document has been subject to Congressional oversight and reviewed for legal accountability.
As Director in 2009, my primary interest-when it comes to a program that no longer exists-is to stand up for those officers who did what their country asked and who followed the legal guidance they were given. That is the President's position, too. The CIA was aggressive over the years in seeking new opinions from the Department of Justice as the legal landscape changed. The Agency sought and received multiple written assurances that its methods were lawful. The CIA has a strong record in terms of following legal guidance and informing the Department of Justice of potentially illegal conduct.

I make no judgments on the accuracy of the 2004 IG report or the various views expressed about it. Nor am I eager to enter the debate, already politicized, over the ultimate utility of the Agency's past detention and interrogation effort. But this much is clear: The CIA obtained intelligence from high-value detainees when inside information on al-Qa'ida was in short supply. Whether this was the only way to obtain that information will remain a legitimate area of dispute, with Americans holding a range of views on the methods used. The CIA requested and received legal guidance and referred allegations of abuse to the Department of Justice. President Obama has established new policies for interrogation.

The CIA must also keep its focus on the primary responsibility of protecting the country. America is a nation at war. This Agency plays a decisive role in helping the United States meet the full range of security threats and opportunities overseas. That starts with the continuing fight against al-Qa'ida and its sympathizers. There, alongside all its other contributions, the CIA is helping our government chart a new way forward on interrogation, one in keeping with the President's Executive Order of January 22nd. You, the men and women of this great institution, do the hard work and take the tough risks that intelligence and espionage demand.

I am very proud of what you do, here and abroad, to protect the United States. Your skill, courage, commitment, and focus on mission make the CIA indispensable to the nation. It is a privilege to serve with you.

Leon E. Panetta

From NBC's Andrea Mitchell and Mark Murray
In Monrovia, Liberia today, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was asked by a New York Times correspondent about her well-publicized reaction to a question she thought she was getting on husband Bill Clinton's views on a policy matter.

But she gave a NON-answer.

Question from the NYT reporter: "Can you reflect on what you have accomplished, and how you measure that. And then the second part of my question is connected, and maybe I'm asking it at my own peril, but I'd like to bring you back to the comments you made in Congo, 'My husband is not the secretary of state, I am,' that has gotten more attention than anything else you've said here. What was going through your mind when you said it, and do you regret it?"

Here was Clinton's full answer: "Well, first of all, let me say that this has been an absolutely wonderful trip. I'm grateful to all of the countries that received me and my delegation. This was a very important trip that both President Obama and I wanted to make early in the administration -- to send a very clear message that the Obama administration is committed to developing an even stronger and closer relationship with not just the governments but also the people of Africa. We are near the end of this trip and it is only appropriate to be here in Liberia, where our relationship goes back so many years. And at every stop we have emphasized the importance of fulfilling what President Obama said in his historic speech in Ghana, the future of Africa is up to the Africans, just like the future of Liberia is up to the Liberians. But all of us know that given the conflicts and the challenges that have often prevented the African people from realizing their full potential, the U.S. stands ready to be a partner and a friend in helping to overcome the obstacles and create the environment for the kind of development that President Sirleaf is working on so hard here.

She continued: "So I've had a great time on this trip. I opened this newspaper, and I think it looks like she's having a great time and from my perspective the most important part of this trip are the relationships that we have built, the commitments that we have discussed, the problems that we have honestly explored. We have not shied away from raising the difficult problems that exist and stand in the way of the people of Africa realizing their potential. Uh, and I think that will stand the test of time, and I'm very proud of the trip that we have made together."

Meanwhile, when the New York reporters asked Bill Clinton about his wife's reaction from earlier this week, he replied, "I haven't seen it," the New York Post reports. (Hat tip: JMart.) 

From NBC's Michelle Perry and Mark Murray
On MSNBC this afternoon, New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg (R) told NBC's Andrea Mitchell that he had no regrets about turning down the opportunity to be President Obama's Commerce secretary.

Video: Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., discusses some of the factors which may prevent a health care bill from being passed before Congress breaks for their August recess.

"I wouldn't have been any good on health-care defense, and wouldn't have been good on [the] budget. I made the right decision; I just should have made it sooner."

Mitchell interjected, "You weren't going to be great cheerleader?"

Gregg replied, "That's true."

Video:

 Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., discusses the major push Democratic leaders are launching to win over health care critics within their own party.

Also, Mitchell interviewed Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden (D), who said he'd be willing to work through the August recess to hammer out a health-care bill. Mitchell asked Wyden what his wife thought about that.

He said she wasn't exactly thrilled.

From NBC's Andrea Mitchell and Libby Leist
The State Department has released excerpts of Secretary of State Clinton's foreign policy speech later today.

On the foreign-policy challenges and President Obama:
-- "...the international agenda today is unforgiving: two wars, conflict in the Middle East, ongoing threats of violent extremism and nuclear proliferation, global recession, climate change, hunger and disease, and a widening gap  between rich and poor. All of these challenges affect America's security and prosperity. And all threaten global stability and progress."

-- "For President Obama and me, the question is not whether our nation can lead, but how it will lead in this new global context."

-- "...we have the right strategy, the right priorities, the right policies. We have the right President. And we have the American people, diverse, committed, involved and open to the future."

On the foreign-policy priorities:
-- "reverse the spread of nuclear weapons, prevent their use, and build a world free of their threat;"
-- "isolate and defeat terrorists and counter violent extremists while reaching out to Muslims around the world;"
-- "encourage and facilitate the efforts of all parties to pursue a comprehensive peace in the Middle East;"
-- "pursue global economic recovery and growth - by strengthening our own economy, advancing a robust development agenda, expanding trade that is free and fair, and boosting investment that creates decent jobs;"
-- "combat climate change, increase energy security, and lay the foundation for a prosperous clean-energy future;"
-- "support and encourage democratic governments that protect the rights of and deliver results for their people;"
-- "and stand up for human rights everywhere."

On "smart power":
-- "Not everybody in the world wishes us well or shares our values  and interests. Some will seek to undermine our efforts. In those cases, our partnerships will help constrain or deter their actions. And to these foes and would-be foes, let me say: You should know that our focus on diplomacy and development is not an alternative to our national security arsenal. You should never see America's willingness to talk as a sign of weakness to be exploited. We will not hesitate to defend our friends and ourselves vigorously when necessary with the world's strongest military. This is not an option we seek. Nor is it a threat; it is a promise to the American people."

-- "...smart power counsels that we lead with diplomacy, even in the case of adversaries or nations with whom we disagree. We cannot be afraid or unwilling to engage. Yet some suggest that this is a sign of weakness or naiveté - or acquiescence to these countries' repression of their own people. That is wrong. The President and I believe that refusing to talk to countries rarely punishes them. And as long as engagement might advance our interests and our values, it is unwise to take it off the table."

On Iran:
-- "We watched the energy of Iran's election with great admiration, only to be appalled by the manner in which the government used violence to quell the voices of the Iranian people, then tried to hide its actions by arresting foreign nationals, expelling journalists, and cutting off access to technology. As we ... have made clear, these actions are deplorable and unacceptable... Neither the president nor I have any illusions that direct dialogue with the Islamic Republic will guarantee success. But we also understand the importance of trying to engage Iran and offering its leaders a clear choice: whether to join the international community as a responsible member or to continue down a path to further isolation."

From NBC's Andrea Mitchell

A spokesman for CIA Director Leon Panetta says Panetta's comments to The New Yorker were made to make it absolutely clear that he "profoundly" disagrees with former Vice President Dick Cheney's contention (made on the day of Panetta's interview with journalist Jane Mayer) that President Obama's policies have made the U.S. less safe.

Panetta's spokesman says that was what motivated Panetta's response.

Video: CIA Director Leon Panetta claims former Vice President Dick Cheney's criticism of the Obama administration's approach terrorism almost suggests he wishes the U.S. would be attacked again to make his point. Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., discusses.

He says Panetta was not saying that Cheney is hoping for another attack on the homeland, pointing to the words he used: "When you read it, it's ALMOST (emphasis added) as if he's wishing this country would be attacked again, in order to make his point. I think that's dangerous politics."

In other words, Panetta was conditional -- not directly accusing Cheney, is his spokesman's point.

*** UPDATE *** More context on Panetta: As is clear from the article itself, Panetta spoke to Jane Mayer of The New Yorker after returning from Obama's speech on detention policy and interrogation -- and being briefed on Cheney's speech earlier that day. So the comments were off the cuff -- his raw reaction to Cheney's criticism.

From NBC's Andrea Mitchell and Mark Murray
In a statement to agency employees regarding the back-and-forth with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, CIA Director Leon Panetta tells them to ignore the political controversy.

"My advice -- indeed, my direction -- to you is straightforward: ignore the noise and stay focused on your mission. We have too much work to do to be distracted from our job of protecting this country. We are an Agency of high integrity, professionalism, and dedication. Our task is to tell it like it is -- even if that's not what people always want to hear. Keep it up. Our national security depends on it."

Video: CIA Director Leon Panetta says officials from his agency "truthfully" briefed lawmakers on interrogation methods in 2002, countering House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's claims. NBC's Andrea Mitchell reports.

Yet also in the statement, he appears to take Pelosi's charge head on. "Let me be clear: It is not our policy or practice to mislead Congress. That is against our laws and our values. As the Agency indicated previously in response to Congressional inquiries, our contemporaneous records from September 2002 indicate that CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, describing "the enhanced techniques that had been employed." Ultimately, it is up to Congress to evaluate all the evidence and reach its own conclusions about what happened."

Below is the full memo.

Message from the Director: Turning Down the Volume

There is a long tradition in Washington of making political hay out of our business. It predates my service with this great institution, and it will be around long after I'm gone. But the political debates about interrogation reached a new decibel level yesterday when the CIA was accused of misleading Congress.

Let me be clear: It is not our policy or practice to mislead Congress. That is against our laws and our values. As the Agency indicated previously in response to Congressional inquiries, our contemporaneous records from September 2002 indicate that CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, describing "the enhanced techniques that had been employed." Ultimately, it is up to Congress to evaluate all the evidence and reach its own conclusions about what happened.

My advice-indeed, my direction-to you is straightforward: ignore the noise and stay focused on your mission. We have too much work to do to be distracted from our job of protecting this country.

We are an Agency of high integrity, professionalism, and dedication. Our task is to tell it like it is-even if that's not what people always want to hear. Keep it up. Our national security depends on it.

Leon E. Panetta