tv Piers Morgan Tonight CNN November 17, 2012 12:00am-1:00am PST
and now i guess we'll have to say goodbye to the twinkie and goodbye to you, too. thanks for joining us. good evening tonight. rising fears of of a ground war in the middle east. today gaza was bombarded by israeli missiles and rockets rained down today in tel aviv and jerusalem. israeli troops are amassing and with a possibility of a ground invation. first, inside the capital where general petraeus testifies about gen gassy, the ex-cia chief brought down by an affair showed it was a terrorist attack. he also said it was intentionally withheld with his affairs of tipping off the terrorist group. the cia's talking points in response to the missile initially calling it a terrorist attack that was edited out of the final version. the change was not made for
political reasons. bear with me now as congressman, ranking member of intelligence. welcome to you. >> good to be here, pierce. >> we now know the white house, the statement coming from tommy. >> the talking points about the intelligence, and the white house and state department changing consulate to diplomatic facility for ak ras pep a line being drawn by the white house that they didn't change anything that the intelligence report went to susan rice other than what you named the consulate or dip the maic facility. what do you make of that? >> well, what is the issue that has been raised as a result of that? i think we all know the intelligence community had created the talking points that did come out about the incident that occurred. the purpose is to make sure that
any information or that they would give to the media would not be classified. i think that's how a lot of these issues with the talking points started and the issue that's been raised in the last couple of days has been the issue of having al qaeda taken out of the talking points and putting extremists in there. my answer to that is that the analysts who would have made those different changes and you have the intelligence committee that is analyzed and they give it to the administration or us. what happened in that situation is there are some who have said that by taking the word al qaeda out and putting extremist that changed the content. i don't see it that way. i think extremist covers a lot of different individuals and not only terrorist, but people involved in the militias in libya and other area, but that has been a debate today. has general petraeus' position
changed from benghazi to now? has she hifted? because he seems to convey the impression that he knew from the start that it was a terror group or this one namedance ar al sharia and there were other reports flying around that it may be connected to the video protest. >> first let me say his testimony today cleared up a lot of issues on both sides of the aisle. i think it was important that the director of the cia it was important that he testify. i think it was important for our country and the intelligence community and to bring closure to the issues involving him. one of the issues that a lot of people were putting out that he resigned so he wouldn't have to testify about benghazi. that's ridiculous and he stated today that was not the case. so as far as what his comments were when he came to our committee three days after the event, he basically said and this is what is out there now and it's been debated a lot that they thought that initially that it was a protest that was stimulated by the film. he also said at the same time that they felt strongly that there were terrorists involved
and they also said that they knew that that area of benghazi was a hot spot, but there was no direct intelligence that there was going to be an attack that day. >> the republicans now say that there's a clear line being drawn now and there was no protest and no one was at that benghazi diplomatic facility who was a protester about that video. can we say that for certain or could it be that there were some protesters and there was also a planned attack because it was september the 11th? >> the first thing, chairman rogers and i decided not to subject ourselves to the media until we came back into session because our job is to follow the facts and find out what occurred. we oversee the intelligence community and we deal with issues of national security. so that's clearly where our focus was as far as that is concerned. what the general basically said at that time is that there was a terrorist situation and that
there were people outside and if you look at the tapes and if you look at the information it was a chaotic type of situation. we had looters who came in and we had people with weapons running around and there didn't seem to be any command and control, but that changed three hours later. when they went to the annex you had a sophisticated operation of terrorists who knew how to operate weaponry and made direct hits and that seemed to be clearly a terrorist attack. now, the issue is the films and you can see the two situations occurring especially the one -- the first attack where it seemed to be chaotic and they were attacking our consulate. >> from everything, congressman, you've heard and gleaned from all of the evidence from general petraeus, it seems to me that there say collective view that
ambassador rice acted in good faith. she was repeating what she had been told by the intelligence community with no interference, it appears from the white house other than the name of this facility, and she was simply repeating what she'd been told. >> well, that's what my understanding is, but we have to follow the facts. she'd been given the information, and just the same information that our intelligence had been given and that's what she testified to and it's the same issue that occurred with general colin powell when he went before the united nations that there were weapons of mass destruction which there were not. these situation occur all of the time, but as far as ambassador rice is concerned, i don't know enough about the things she said other than what i've read and i think that hopefully she was ak acting in good faith and she
will be acting on her reputation and the job that she's done. i think president obama got it right when he said she received information from my administration and if you have an issue with what she said then you come to me, and i think he's right. he's accepting responsibility as far as this issue is concerned. you know, we have to move on and we know that there are issues involving benghazi and the most unfortunate thing is that we've lost four lives and i want to focus on, number one, why this happened, how did it occur and to make sure it doesn't occur in the future and these are the issues that we need to start focusing on and to make sure that we can protect the people who work for the state department or for the united states and hot spots throughout the world. the highest priority is to protect their lives in the future. >> congressman, thank you very much for joining me. >> okay. got it. >> my next guest has known general petraeus. the author of the new book "the generals." welcome, mr. ricks. >> thank you. >> you say at the start of this book there are no bad soldier, only bad generals. many people have taken a dim view of general petraeus', but where do you position him as a general?
>> one of the saddest aspects of the entire mess was that petraeus was one of our best generals in recent years. what bothers me as a nation is we're paying a lot more attention to the sex lives of our generals than to the real lives of our soldiers. we have a unch about of mediocre generals in iraq. tommy franks, ricardo sanchez, george casey. petraeus went in and got the united states out of the war in iraq and for that the nation owes him a great debt and yet we seem to have forgotten his combat tours and we focus on aspects of his private life. what i say in my book is we need to focus much more on high standards of professional duty, i would much rather have an excellent general who slept around a little bit than a mediocre general who kept his pants on. >> the hearings that went on today seem to have vindicated
him in many ways. he was remarkably composed given all he's been through in the last week, very forensic about the detail and at the end of the day cleared up a lot of the issues surrounding the benghazi incident and not pretending there hadn't been mistakes made and that there was some sort of conspiracy going. was that your reading of it? >> pretty much. i always thought fox news had gone whacko on this and was stirring up a lot of anxiety about a bad situation in which a lot of things are inherently unknowable. i have tried to report several times through the years on fire fights and incidents of combat. there is nothing more complex. you will always find con flicking story and that does not mean the people are lying. it simply means that combat is
one of the most stressful things anybody can go through. >> where do you think general petraeus ranks as a general in the last hundred years? >> i think he'll be remembered a lot like matthew ridgway, which is pretty much not at all except by the experts. >> he's a good general and a real standout and an exception in being not only a successful general in iraq, but also he understands the generalship in a way that a lot of the generals don't. a critical thinker who is able to understand the situation, adjust to it and get thousands of people to carry out a different sort of orders. that's what a general does. the reason i compare him to matthew ridgway was that ridgway was in the korean war who did exactly that same sort of thing, but is gotten by the specialist, who read books like mine. >> did the paula broadwell book that came out about general petraeus, did you like that as a historian? >> i -- i had introduced paula, actually, to my book editor. i knew there were a lot of people who say they have a book in mind, and i say here, talk to my editor.
i did blurb it, and i wrote something like this is a unique view of general petraeus. it feels like we're reading his e-mails. it's come back to haunt me. >>. >> i've been talking about it a lot this week, but on the theory of the general or political leader's sex life should be immaterial unless it affects his job. the converse argument is if he's got enough time to conduct a clandestine affair can he dedicate himself to the job at hand, what do you think of that? >> what i think is that spies are probably like soldiers. >> they're not really going to concern ems thises with the private life of a commander. what soldiers want in battle in a war is one thing. they want to survive. it's a legitimate request to want to survive. they will forgive a lot.
alcoholic leaders, racist leaders, pure sons of bitches like george patton. if they are feeling well led, and if they're feeling this guy is giving them a chance of surviving the war and so somebody like petraeus actually inspired through and said this guy will get me through and if i die in this war at least my life would not have been thrown away by some blow hard know-nothing general. >> military command from world war ii, thank you very much for joining me. >> you're welcome. coming up on the verge of potential ground wars in hamas and israel, the israeli ambassador to the u.s. joins us. ♪ ♪ israeli missiles pounding gaza today. the show of force posed days of
>> announcer: you never know when, but thieves can steal your identity and turn your life upside down. >> hi. >> hi. you know, i can save you 15% today if you open up a charge card account with us. >> you just read my mind. >> announcer: just one little piece of information and they can open bogus accounts, stealing your credit, your money and ruining your reputation. that's why you need lifelock to relentlessly protect what matters most... [beeping...] helping stop crooks before your identity is attacked. and now you can have the most comprehensive identity theft protection available today... lifelock ultimate. so for protection you just can't get anywhere else,
get lifelock ultimate. >> i didn't know how serious identity theft was until i lost my credit and eventually i lost my home. >> announcer: credit monitoring is not enough, because it tells you after the fact, sometimes as much as 30 days later. with lifelock, as soon as our network spots a threat to your identity, you'll get a proactive risk alert, protecting you before you become a victim. >> identity theft was a huge, huge problem for me and it's gone away because of lifelock. >> announcer: while no one can stop all identity theft, if criminals do steal your information, lifelock will help fix it, with our $1 million service guarantee. don't wait until you become the next victim. you have so much to protect and nothing to lose when you call lifelock now to get two full months of identity theft protection risk free. that's right, 60 days risk-free. use promo code: gethelp. if you're not completely satisfied, notify lifelock and you won't pay a cent. order now and also get this shredder to keep your documents out of the wrong hands--
a $29 dollar value, free. get protected now. call the number on your screen or go to lifelock.com to try lifelock protection risk free for a full 60 days. use promo code: gethelp. plus get this document shredder free-- but only if you act right now. call the number on your screen now! ordinary rubs don't always work on my arthritis. try capzasin-hp. it penetrates deep to block pain signals for hours of relief. capzasin-hp. take the pain out of arthritis. israeli missiles pounding gaza today. the show of force posed days of rocket fire between israel and hamas. the fire is taking a deadly toll. michael warren, welcome to you, sir.
>> good evening to you, pierce. >> it is a very dangerous, escalating situation, how will it resolve itself? >> it will resolve itself when they cease-firing rockets at innocent civilians. very simple. they have to stop and the confrontation will stop. >> the israeli rockets are firing and killing more palestinians than israelis are dying. >> well, we have thousands of rockets raining down on our civilians. over the last four years alone, something in the order of 3,000 rockets have been fired by hamas and other terrorists in gaza at our civilians. that's more than twice than the number of v-1 and v-2 rockets dropped on london during world war ii. no government can sit passively by when rockets are trying to kill us when all we want to do is live peacefully among ourselves and our neighbors. >> they're mobilizing ground
forces. are you preparing for a ground invasion? >> we are keeping that option open. yes, there is a call up of reserves. we do not want to escalate. we do not want to have ground action, but we'll take whatever measures are necessary to defend our citizens. >> would you like to live on the gaza strip? >> no, and i think the gazans should make a decision about the type of government they want. they should want a government not investing at 12,000 rockets, but is investing that money in schools and hospitals, in community centers. i hope that they'll make that choice some day. >> who is creating this ghastly situation in gaza. you have 1.5 million very oppressed people and very angry and helpless people and it is the appalling attacks on israel, but at the same time the catalyst for all of this disgruntlement, anger, resentment on the gaza strip is the abject poverty and appalling conditions that they're living
in. it can't simply be blamed on hamas. the international community has got to somehow offer the people in gaza more hope, doesn't it? >> the crossings have been open, and we're letting aid go into gaza. and it's hospitals during the middle of this. again, we have to blame the government of gaza which is a terrorist organization which has the destruction of israel and it's in their covenant and they're dedicated, and the united states of america and hamas wants to kill you. and if they're investing all of their income in rockets and in explosives and what do you expect? the people will be poor. >> maybe the position of egypt and today president mohammed morsi said this? >> translator: we are with them, what hurts us and the blood that flows from their children is our blood, too opinion.
>> what did you make of that? >> we preferred to look at egyptian deeds rather than words. egypt has played a constructive role in the past in mediating cease-fires with gaza and we hope that the egyptians will continue to fulfill a constructive role in the future. >> you must have been disconcerted by the tone of president morsi's rhetoric there. >> again, we prefer to look at the egyptian deeds and they will play a constructive role in helping convince them to stop firing these thousands of rockets at our civilians. >> is your intention at the same time to continue targeting hamas leaders and to continue, if you can, killing them? >> well, we'll take any measures necessary to stop the aggression against the civilians and we're taking immense precautions not
to hurt palestinian civilians. our planes have carried out hundreds of attacks and the number of palestinian civilians and have been very, very small. we regret any loss of civilian life, but we're fighting an enemy. keep in mind, pierce, we're fighting an enemy that is hiding behind its own civilian population while trying to kill a maximum number of civilian israelis. and it's between a terrorist organization and it is trying to minimize the number of civilians who are hurt. we make tens of thousands of phone calls that might be hit giving them ample warning to leave their homes. we send them text messages and leaflet their areas and they exercise caution and one thing i know that it aborted a bombing run along the long-range rocket because he saw children running around that rocket and that area and one of the rockets later hit outside of tel aviv. it is the price we pay for what we do. >> it is an awful price that the israeli people have to pay for the endless rockets fired at them and there's also an
increasingly large number of women and children being killed in gaza too and there is a humanitarian aspect of this. and the problem has got to get fixed. this has been going on for years and years and years, and it seems to be completely insoluble to any politician. what is the way to break through this? the way to break through it is for the palestinians to accept a state of israel that is permanent and legitimate and to sit down us at the negotiating table to negotiate whether it be borders, refugees, security, recognition. that's the position of the government of israel and the position of the obama administration and it's the position of the european union and the quartet. it is not the position of hamas and the terrorists. they're dedicated to our destruction. >> ambassador, thank you very much for joininging me. >> pleasure, pierce. >> joining me is the palestinian legislative council, a number of the plo executive committee. welcome to you.
>> thank you, pierce. we just heard from ambassador michael oren, very strong words saying this is entirely down to hamas and the grip that hamas now has on the gaza strip. what is your reaction? >> that's not only disingenuous, but it's very misleading and it has very little to do with the truth, but we're used to the israeli officials' spin. actually before hamas took over in 2007 the israelis continually used gaza as a firing range, shooting at will, killing, destroying. in 2008 and 2009 they killed 1,440 palestinians and mainly civilians. today they're killing over 30 palestinians mainly civilians, children and women and at the same time they're talking about surgical strikes and they use the label terrorist. every palestinian is a terrorist. the real issue, pierce, is that
there is an occupation that is a brutal seed of gaza. they have turned that area into a disaster area. they starve the people and they destroy the resources and cut them off from the rest of the world. >> we have about 80% who need food aid. we have 45% unemployment in gaza, and then they shoot at will and shoot anybody that retaliates. they say of course, these are terrorists and we're shooting civilians and so on. deal with the issues. i can give you the exact timeline and the exact dates as to what happened in this latest -- >> but if you're an israeli and you have been living under this hailstorm of rockets now for years, living in terror as well, it cannot be justified. you cannot just have the rule of rocket. >> of course, you can't, and the same way as you cannot have the captive civilian population totally at the mercy of a ruthless military occupation. so the projectiles that hamas sends into israel is in direct response to what israel is doing
so we can start discussing all of the different cycles of violence without addressing the real cause which is the occupation and without looking at a settlement that is unjust which is the israeli withdrawal from all of the occupied territories lifting the brutal seeds of gaza and not using gaza as a shooting range, killing at will and at the same time going back to the table by stopping settlement activities and acknowledging international law and behaving within a global rule of law as a civilized country and then we will have peace and you wouldn't need to constantly be shooting and killing and then crying foul should your victim respond in any way. >> does the plo have any real control over hamas? >> no, we do not have control over hamas. they are part of the political
system and they did win reelections and we were sanctioned, and at the same time we would like to have elections and we would like to have a democratic system where we can talk. it's not a question of control. it is a question of -- >> that is part of the problem. if you're an israeli listening to this it's all very well about you talking about how to resolve this, but if you have no control whatsoever over the activities of hamas why should they trust you? >> no, because hamas did acknowledge that should there be a negotiated settlement that's accepted by a referendum, by the palestinian people then they are quite willing to abide by it. actually, the person who whom israel assassinated on the 14th and started this spiral again was negotiating with an israeli, not justa i cease-fire, but also a long-term truce.
so in a sense, by just dealing with the surface issues and the latest expression of violence and not addressing the real issues then they're putting both people in jeopardy. hamas is responding. we do not respond violently and we do not condone violence, but at the same time the occupation is the most pervasive and brutal and cruel form of violence against a captive, defenseless population. in the west bank we don't have weapons and so on and there is no violence and then you have terror all over the place and the israeli army protects the settlers and defends them against the palestinians who are actually sitting ducks and civilian victims. so in a sense, the real issue is the occupation, the real issue is israel's sense of entitlement, of privilege, of exceptionalism as a country above the law and not bound by international law and international humanitarian law. when hamas was just part of the system and wasn't in control of gaza, israel did exactly the same and more and continues to do that. so the question is not whether
hamas is in control of gaza. the question is the occupation and israel's sense of impunity and of course, the international community's granting this military occupation immunity to carry out whatever it wants against the palestinians, not only that, but we get branded and we get labeled and we get blamed, and i've heard lip statements that they fail to address the real issues. >> thank you for joining me. >> you are most welcome. thank you. next they join me to talk petraeus, benghazi and the middle east coming up.
we challenged the manufacturers to offer even lower prices.n. now it's posturepedic versus beautyrest, with $400, $500, up to $600 off. serta icomfort and tempur-pedic go head-to-head with 3 years interest-free financing. plus free same day delivery, set-up, and removal of your old set. when brands compete, you save. mattress price wars ends soon at sleep train. ♪ your ticket to a better night's sleep ♪
let's check my panel, allen dershowitz and general mark clinic. welcome to you all. here's the thing about israel and palestine because it always comes back to this in the end. you could have all of the other middle east turmoil alike, but it always comes back to this. nothing new about what's going on now. if you spend enough time talking to a senior palestinian or senior israeli, by the end of both of those interviews that were conducted you find yourself nodding and you find yourself in their shoes. how do we get through the fact thatteth bo of both of them have pretty good arguments? >> i think the danger is that they both escalate as a result and what we both desperately need is for each side to be
deescalating. i always compare this to ireland. when i lived in the uk in the 1980s it would have been impossible to imagine a deal between britain and ireland. >> i say this a lot, and i think it's an absolute parallel. you have two implacable foes, generational implacable foes, living side by side, terrorizing each other, but what had to happen was the people had to realize there was a different way. >> you had to inch toward that. in other words, at that time it would have been possible, today it's impossible to make a deal between israel and the palestinians. it is possible to inch, and it would be possible in ten years or 15 years and what's going on now makes that farther away. >> it's the doves who empower the hawks and i'll give you an example of it. in 2005 israel conducted an
experiment and they spoke to gaza and they said this is a model and we will leave to gaza and then we will leave the west bank and then the question is what happens if the gas is used to fire missiles and the whole international community says they expect you to fight back and israel in h to do that and then came the goldstone report and put out by the, quote, doves. how did we leave the west bank because if we leave the west bank and hamas takes over and we try to defend our people, people like nick and others will attack us and therefore, it's been very, very hard to make peace because of the way israel is condemned. i support the obama administration's view. defending israel's right to defend its people by proportional means, and it's important for the international community to support that if you want to see israel eventually leave the west bank. that's the only way israel can leave the west bank if it knows it will have support, if it has to defend itself against rocket attacks. >>. >> general, it's an absolute mess over there and it has been for a long time. from a military point of view, is there anything that the
americans could be doing or pushing the israelis to do to try and somehow come to a resolution that can work? >> well, first of all, i think we have to accept that we're not going to kill our way to a solution here that in fact, in many cases the use of military force is counterproductive. however, there have been some recent advances in terms of our technology such that systems such as iron dome have made it more capable, a more capable israel in terms of defending against these rocket attack, but if you believe that the military is going to be a solution to these problems, i think we have another thing coming. >> tony blair, iron beingly is a man who solved the northern ireland issue and he's in the middle of all of this as a middle east peace envoy. he would say to me that this comes down to debate with each other to tiny little parts of territory. >> we know what the outcome will be. >> here is a peace deal and they are very close. >> fractional issues, but still
caused this terrible bloodshed. >> we don't know what a peace deal will be with hamas. hamas refuses to recognize israel. i asked from the peculiars lo which is how much control do they have? i have a lot of sympathy from the poor people of gaza and not hamas who are blasting rockets and the main booed of 1.5 million severely oppressed people living with no hope, no jobs. nothing. what is the way to try and get a better life for them? who can bring that to them? >> i agree with allen that israel certainly has a right to self-defense. a, i would contest the idea that this is an effective way to do
that. no israelis have been killed by this shower of hamas rockets which is absolutely unacceptable and deplorable and nobody had been killed until this action. >> you can't wait until it hits a school bus. you have to stop the risk when you have hundreds and hundreds of rockets. you can't wait until it hits a school. >> now israelis have died, and i also, you know, think that at the end of the day this will be an ineffective way of advancing israeli security. i do think that engaging with the palestinian authority is a way to undermine hamas and it's
>> back with general kimmett. let me start with you about the events today involving general petraeus and the benghazi hearings. it seemed to clarify a lot of messy issues in relation to this. was that your reading? >> actually, in some ways it made things more confusing. we now understand that there was a set of unclassified talking points used by susan rice and in the classified talking points which had a completely different set of conclusions in terms of who did this, when they did it,
how they did it. so i think we're left with more confusion, if, in fact, the article by eric schmidt in "the new york times" is correct it would indicate that these unclassified talking points had a specific purpose to deceive the american people, but more importantly to deceive al qaeda so that they could continue to monitor their communications. so i think there are still a lot of questions out there, and i'm not sure the last couple of days have clarified much. >> fascinating. let me turn to you nick, depending again when you talk to, there you have a top general saying it's gotten a lot muddier. it's just the danger when you have the need to keep stuff classified because you're going off to certain groups who may have done this and sending people off to ambassador rice to spinning off that it may have been a video protest. >> in some ways, mark is right it has gotten muddier. at the end of the day while it
is clear that security is inadequate in benghazi and while it's clear that susan rice's statements in retrospect do not look right, it is clear that they've been totally blown out of proportion. susan rice was not a person responsible in a meaningful way. she seems to have reflected the intelligence she was given and it is not decided by the white house. it's decided at a far, far more liberal level. so there's a lot of mysteries here and lots of enigmas, but it doesn't seem to me that one of them is susan rice's responsibility. >> there is also an each bigger picture which is the whole resolution of the arab spring and how it is playing out in the region. it's libya and we'll talk about that and everything is a tinderbox. >> gaza, gaza started this, and it didn't start with the assassination of the hamas guy. there were rockets coming over and over again. this is not a cycle of violence, the cycle of violence doesn't exist when you have one group
saying it's military to stop the rockets. it's a double human rights crime against accurate defense, but why would hamas start this at this point? they want to test egypt and they're winning. egypt is supporting them. qatar is supporting them, turkey is supporting them. this is what's so dangerous about this. this makes the likelihood of peace in the middle east much harder and it empowers gaza and weakens the palestinian authority and i agree with nick that it would be best that the palestinians and israelis sat down and treed to work it out among themselves, but this all relates to the big picture. and you've been to syria and it's an absolute basket case. >> and it is heartbreaking. you see these middle class -- i talked to one woman who a week ago was living this middle class existence with her husband and a nice home in aleppo and a bomb destroys her house and now her husband goes missing and she's
living with her family in a white tent in the middle of nowhere. this is happening day in and day out and i think the turmoil in gaza is a gift of president assad. it's a kind of distraction that he's delighted to have. >> the world in the arab community is paying more attention to 30 people being killed in gaza than 30,000 people being killed muslim on muslim and arab on arab and that's disproportionate. >> the arab spring fallout, what is your take on that? >> i think i would like to go back to allen's point which is exactly right. as you and i talked about three nights ago, egypt could be the clear player in this. morsi's been in power now for four and a half months and it would be very important to
watch, is he going to be a brag mattist and hang tight to the policy of the last 30 years and maintain the peace agreement and the egypt-israeli peace agreement or is he going to pander to his, not only to the masses and to the street, but to the fundamental philosophy of the brothers which is to break ties with israel goes well beyond gaza and could add to an already unstable middle east. >> thank you very much for joining me. >> coming up, the always honest jesse ventura with his take on a second obama term and how the republican party can recover. again? it's embarrassing it's embarrassing! we can see you carl. we can totally see you. come on you're better than this...all that prowling around. yeah, you're the king of the jungle. have you thought about going vegan carl? hahaha!! you know folks who save hundreds of dollars by switching to geico sure are happy. how happy are they jimmy? happier than antelope with night-vision goggles. nice! get happy. get geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more.
with jesse venture ona our sister network, true tv. >> i thought i wonder what jesse ventura is thinking of this. obama still president, nothing much has changed. can we expect anything to improve? >> well, i don't know. they spent $6 billion was spent to keep it the same and we could have used that money for a lot of different things, and they told us this time they are going to work together for bipartisanship and after all, they are politicians, they wouldn't lie to us, would they? >> the ones with the real problems, not the democrats, they got back in. but republicans who seem to have just run up against a large cliff. what are the republicans do to try to reinvent themselves, make them more relevant do you think? >> you need to change their
ideas rather than their people. if you bring forward the same people with the same ideas, you will head off the same cliff. they need to modernize and they need to change some of their basic principles that don't discriminate against women and their rights. republican policy creates a lot of static and tension with different groups of people throughout the united states, and i think they have to somewhat back away from that if you look at demographics. they don't do well with young people very good and they certainly don't do well with women, so they need to look at positions that look more toward youth and the opposite sex. >> what does president obama need to do? he has four years left. we saw with ronald reagan and bill clinton. with a second term and a better economy, you can achieve a lot and become quite popular in the process?
does obama have that in him? what do you want him to do now that he has four more years? >> the big thing he has going for him, he has four years he doesn't have to worry about getting re-elected. they start these elections about two years ahead of time usually. and that's where their focus goes on how do i keep doing this job, whether i'm a senator, congressman, or whatever it is, if you are a career politician, you always look out for yourself first. when the president's in this position, having been elected a second time, now he has nothing to lose. >> where do you you this he's been weak and where does he need to be stronger? >> i think he's been weak. my son was a huge obama supporter until obama ordered that american's death with the drone and then he lost my son. my son was so offended that a president could kill a united states citizen without a trial, without anything like that.
and my belief, osama bin laden has to stop prosecuting whistleblowers the way he does, and he needs to go to state's rights. let me say this. hooray for colorado and washington who took the first huge substantial step in ending this idiotic war on drugs. the people voted to legalize recreational marijuana to treat it the same as alcohol, and that's going to create a dilemma for the federal government now and this will be a good thing to see if the federal government will back off and allow states to have state's rights when it comes to things like drugs, marijuana, and a lot of the decision making. >> jesse, you ended on a slightly positive note. >> i'm a positive person. what are you stag ard about? i'm very pleased, we had the gay rights issue in minnesota where they wanted to put on our
constitution that marriage was between a man and a woman alone and it failed and so hooray for the state of minnesota for standing up and voting against discrimination. >> jesse, i can only say i totally agree with you on both the drugs and the gay marriage issue. so we end on a surprising consensus. good to talk to you again. >> good to talk to you. and i encourage everyone to enjoy "conspiracy theory." they were fun to make and i met all sorts of people i can't believe i met. it was a great time. >> i can't think of anyone better to host a show called "conspiracy theory." good luck, jesse. >> thanks, piers. good to talk to you. [ male announcer ] this is steve.
he loves risk. but whether he's climbing everest, scuba diving the great barrier reef with sharks, or jumping into the market, he goes with people he trusts, which is why he trades with a company that doesn't nickel and dime him with hidden fees. so he can worry about other things, like what the market is doing and being ready, no matter what happens, which isn't rocket science. it's just common sense, from td ameritrade.
this sunday, sir roger moore tells me about being james bond and his rivalry with sean connery. i think with all of the bonds, sean connery would win a fight. if you went in a bar and a big fight broke out, i think sean connery would be the hardest. i think you would pull the most women. i think they would gravitate to that little raised eyebrow.