tv Mc Laughlin Group PBS September 27, 2013 8:30pm-9:01pm PDT
from washington the mclaughlin group. the america original for over three decades, the sharpest minds, best sources, hardest talk. issue one, smile, yes. handshake? we'll see. >> nuclear weapon and other weapons of mass destruction have no place in iran security and defense doctrine. and contradict our fundamental religious and ethical convictions. our national interests make it
imperative that we remove any and all reasonable concerns about iran's peaceful nuclear program. >> at the u.n. this week, the new president of iran said that he was backing a new effort for diplomacy over iran's nuclear program. mr. rouhani won a few months ago. some international observers are now daring to believe that despite 35 years of estrangement and ranking, the new iranian president can usher in an era of day talk between the u.s. and iran. at the u.n. president rouhani said that iran was able to engage and result oriented talks to build mutual
confidence. on iran's nuclear program. the new president also noted that iranians had voted for, "a discourse of hope both home and abroad." they did so in june when he was elected. iran says president rouhani would be willing to cooperate on a range of foreign policy issues including syria. question, was new ground broken at the u.n. this week between the united states and iran? pat buchanan? >> yes, it certainly was. with this fellow, rouhani, tough, intelligence, iranian diplomat, a hardliner, but someone who has been given the franchise to negotiate with the americans to get rid of the sanctions on iran because those are really hurting badly. i believe that this fellow rouhani is basically committed to do that and get that accomplished. he knows what the americans are going to demand and what they're going to want. there's a real possibility we could have a deal with this
fellow. frankly the opposition to this, him and obama comes from israel, comes from the war party in the united states, the mechanics, washington post, wall street journal, and all of those who don't want the talk between united states and iran. >> what about that? >> lindsay graham has called for authorizing war on iran right now. >> what does it have to do with him and mccann? >> he wants to attack the nuclear facilities and the wholedefensement of iran. >> he campaigned on reengaging with the west. apparently they got the message because he does have running room and the sanctions are crippling. the value of their money has been sanctioned against iran, they are crippling. yes, they want out from under them so they want a nuclear deal. he said we could get a nuclear deal in three months. that's a little ambitious probably, but if they're willing to put a cap on the
uranium that they enrich. this is doable. in mid-october, their diplomats are going to meet with katherine ashton, the europeans, john kerry will probably be there. they have already put these confidence building measures out. they're inviting proposals back. we're going to see pretty soon whether this is serious or not. and it sure looks serious to me. >> they can use the energy for civilian purposes and cardiac equipment and they want to sell their oil and they want to generate their own electricity over there and for the helm. >> i think that they ran the calculations. can i say one thing? they've made a calculation that if they go nuclear, they set off the arm's race in that area that they cannot win. >> and so they want to sell their oil. >> the number one difference this week compared to past year is israel is not sitting in between teheran and washington
and a possible conversation about anything, including iran's nuclear ambitions. last year if you roll it back one year, the united states, when the general assembly met a year ago, the united states was engaged in its presidential election, completely preoccupied. and the israeli prime minister seized the stage of the world to give more of a theatrical performance in u.n. history, using a red magic marker to show the world how close that iran was to developing a nuclear weapon. that set the tenure of the entire conversation around the atmosphere of the fear over the possible acquisition of the nuclear weapons by teheran. >> before we turn to you for the definitive answer on this, obama at the u.n. >> to resolve our concerns over iran's nuclear program peacefully. although we are determined to prevent iran from developing a nuclear weapon.
>> reporter: the president also emphasized caution. >> the roadblocks may prove to be too great, but i firmly believe the diplomatic math must be tested. >> president rouhani was also cautious and critical. at the u.n. he was sharply critical of u.s. foreign policy including the use of sanction on the iranian economy, "these sanctions are violent pure and simple. whether called smart or otherwise, unilateral or multilateral, sanctions beyond any and all rhetoric causes belligerence, human suffering." rouhani also criticized the use of the u.s. drones. "terrorism is a violent scourge and knows no country on national borders. but the violence on extreme actions such as the use of drones against innocent people in the name of the combating terrorism should also be condemned." the israeli government told its
diplomats to leave the hall before mr. rouhani spoke. there was no public handshake between rouhani and obama. something the iranian president later explained in a charlie rose interview. >> well afterall we're speaking of two countries who have had no relations for 35 years. so it is clear that to begin talks requires some preparation work. and whenever the prep work is completed, i believe that it is possible to have a meeting. perhaps if we had more time here in new york we may have been able to coordinate what was necessary for that meeting to take place. >> the new leader of iran. >> let's start remembering the fact that this is a man who said that we were able to create a common environment in
order for us to complete one of their major nuclear facilities. this is a man that is an expert at creating common environments. that's what he does. he does it very well. he is very sophisticated. but the basic policies and my judgments are just the same as they were. so as far as i'm concerned, this is just a pre-tense as far as what these people are coming forth with. this is a very, very dangerous time for the world because if we let iran go forward with their nuclear program and they're not very far from completing it, they've got hundreds of feuds. what do they need it for? they're a country swimming in oil and energy. they don't need nuclear energy. the only reason they are doing it, of course, to develop nuclear weapons at some point or another. excuse me, let me just finish if you don't mind. all i'm saying to you, it makes no sense to believe that these people would have energy up on every level and building for
nuclear electricity. this is preposterous. >> the holocaust didn't exist, as he said that and this man did not do that. do you understand? >> yes. >> he made other different comments. we don't have to go into all his comments. that's not the point. i'm really concerned here about what this country can do and what threat they represent and from the israeli point of view, there's an old theory. you never take the slightest risk of the catastrophic outcome. they could destroy israel within the matter of minutes. >> and what would happen to them? >> let him finish. >> they have to defend themselves against it. on a second level after israel gets bombed, i'm sure that iran will get bombed. >> israel got 80 to 100 bombs. you may not like him. he said what do you think i am, nuts? that we're going to build one bomb and the americans have 10,000? any american man that knows
that is stupid. >> not everyone was impressed with hasan hrouhani -- hassan rouhani. >> what in his speech was peaceful or dove like? he called the united states a warmonger, making no confession on his nuclear program. he talk about israel, he didn't even mention israel, but mentioned that palestine was occupied, meaning israel has no right to exist. i saw no element of peace in that speech at all. the iranian regime has more than a 30-year history of supporting terrorists around the world. they suppress the iranian people that have protested for democracy. this is not a regime you want to get get its hands on nuclear weapons. >> do you want to comment on that guy? >> well i want to say one of the key things that happened this week, president obama basically said outright that iran as the signatory of the non-proliferation nuclear treaty could continue to create
nuclear energy for electricity. the israelis are not a signatory to that treaty, finding themselves now up against the wall with how they can deliver rhetoric that puts pressure on the situation. >> the israelis don't want iran to even have a peaceful nuclear program. and there is a debate among their leadership and in their public that is every bit contention between pat and you do have members of the israeli cabinets saying look, we're going to have to find a -- cabinets saying look, we're going to have to find a way. and now there is an opening and the president of the united states is taking it. >> let's clear something up. both nations have nuclear reactors. i've visited the one in israel. but you know the eyeglass is up on the side of the mountain, you can see it fully functioning. but as i visited them there. go ahead. >> the basic point is that the united states' bottom line,
iran can have a peaceful nuclear program because they signed the npt as all other nations can. no bomb. the israeli position is no nuclear program at all. they've got to stop enriching uranium, they need to shut it down now, they need to get it all out of there. no capability. but the truth is that the iranians agree they don't have the capability to build the bomb. >> no, they have not reached that level of the uranium. >> they don't have the capability. they'll be able to develop the amount of the nuclear efficient material within a very short period of time. >> it's about 20% uranium, it's not enough for one bomb. >> that's why they've got the 3,000 new century pieces. >> and something to tell them that they cannot have a peaceful nuclear program just because they have a lot of oil. that's like saying to the u.s. you can't have renewal energy because you still have a lot of coal. i mean they're looking to the future as every country should. >> on friday the new york times had an excellent piece of
journalistic coverage which i think the audience would find satisfying. we'll be back to this issue repeatedly, i'm sure. exit question, if the u.n. was taking round one with them, who came out ahead? rouhani or obama? >> rouhani. he refused to take that meeting as though he was a guy sitting on a rope line, shaking hands with the president of the united states. >> well, there was a lot of behind-the-scenes ground work leg for the meeting that didn't happen. and the iranians in the end decided that it was a bridge too far for their domestic politics. same thing happened in 1995 when clinton was in office and there was a new diplomat and they were trying to do it. to read a lot into that, it is ridiculous. both of these leaders won because they are finally getting together after 35 years of a stalemate. >> i think rouhani comes out ahead because that we need
discussion and obama admitted in his own speech that iran can proceed forth with a peaceful nuclear generating facility and israel has been sidelined out of the conversation. >> mark? >> no, i don't think this is the kind of gesture that franklin spires confident that he wouldn't meet with the president. it wasn't the big issue one way or another. but i do think that we are in a very, very, very delicate situation for iran. >> i'll represent the point of view of rouhani. he has hardliners at home. >> yup. >> therefore he did not want to shake the hand now. that will come later. this man has a great deal of diplomatic cunning, which is precisely what is needed in order to maintain constituencies at home so that there will be a reason and some moment during these proceedings. >> yes. >> but i think that you feel around the edge of something that is very important. is that correct? >> i would agree with that.
issue two, crews talked upon. >> i intend to speak and support of defunding obama care until i'm no longer able to stand. >> as ted cruz, the senator from texas did speak on defunding obama care. >> when you have a law causing people to lose their health insurance, you have a law that's not working. >> reporter: he spoke occasionally veering off target. >> i do not like green eggs and ham, i do not like them. >> he spoke comparing obama care defunding to the appeasement of the message. >> he told the british people to accept the nazis. yes, they'll dominate the continent of europe, but that's not our problem. let's appease them. >> and he spoke and admitted fatigue. >> i will confess as we sit here a few minutes before 7:00 a.m., i'm a little bit tired.
for >> reporter: in the end, senator cruz spoke for 21 hours and 1 minutes on the floor of the senate, a marathon speech that began at 2:41 p.m. tuesday and ended the next day wednesday at noon. as he stated, senator cruz wanted to bring attention to the affordable care act. obama care. the legislation that the senate considers a job killer. and not affordable. this is directly from the republican majority and the house of the representatives playbook. >> the joint resolution is passed. >> reporter: the gop house voted last week to defund obama care, but the u.s. senate is predominantly democratic. that majority does not want to defund obama care. president obama's health care act is the law of the land since 2010 three years ago. requiring everyone to be covered by health insurance.
enrollment for the still uninsured, it begins on october 1, tuesday of next week. all u.s. citizens of all ages will have a six-month window until the end of march, 2014. to buy health insurance if they do not already have it. if uninsured people do not buy in during the six month window, they will face penalties from the irs. question, republican leaders have questioned cruz's strategy. was that true? >> well john, the obama care passes out of the existence on october 30. it doesn't exist. what cruz is doing, you can't do in the senate as they are trying to get the house to hold for him as it is the house majority and not to renew obama care. but the problem is obama and the rest of them will say they are shutting down the government if they don't renew obama care. i argue what they ought to do in the house is pass bill by
bill, pentagon state continuing resolutions for each department. >> and they're not going to listen to you anymore than listening to their own leaders of the house. i'm grateful for that. >> is that buchanan? >> i think it is that way. >> they are just suggesting the idea that it is really far off on the fringe, even fringier than what ted cruz is doing. i mean ted cruz, he called it a filibuster, it really wasn't. it was against the bill that he eventually voted for after taunting the house into passing this bill that would defund obama care and then announced it was going nowhere in the senate, which is true. and then they got mad at him and then he decided he would have to stand on the senate floor and prove his manhood or whatever it was. >> okay. now, more cruz on obama care. >> when you have a law, and it is killing jobs. when you have a law that is hammering small businesses. when you have a law that is forcing people into part-time work and into working 29 hours
a week. when you have a law that is causing skyrocketing insurance premiums. when you have a law that is causing more and more people to lose their health insurance. and you have a train wreck. >> question, was cruz right? >> well, i checked with the bureau of labor statistics just this very day and they say that 88% of the jobs that have been created this year are part-time jobs. a large part of the reason for that number of part-time jobs, which is unprecedented in american history is because people are apprehensive about the impact of obama care on and the cost of obama care on full- time jobs. if they are part-time jobs, they don't qualify under obama care. now, i happen to support national medical service, the national medical care, but we have to do something about its effect on the job market because this is a disaster for the average american family. >> first of all the white house is coming back with a whole different set of statistics, saying that this is not
correct. that obama care is causing the creation of part-time jobs. and maybe there's a fix that you'll have to work 40 hours a week to be eligible for the health insurance instead of 30 hours. but i have never seen the sort of subversion of the law that has passed both houses that have been signed by the president, approved by the supreme court. and the minority of the minority, basically it is acting like what they did back in the days of the school desegregation. and what cruz is mostly worried about is that once it goes into effect, people are going to love it as he said they will be hooked on it, that it will be cracks. >> let me ask you this question and then you can say what you want to say, maybe. if anything, what about the gop and obama care? the answer to that, they passed two amendments. one, delay the individual mandate for one year. two, strip congress and their staff from their exemption of
buying insurance on the exchanges. do you follow me? >> i do. this would require though the republican leadership to focus on fixing the law that is now in place and upheld by the supreme court and not clinging to the sinking ship politically of trying to defund this law. so the problem here is that the gop is, as they just said it, they clung to the minority within the minority as they lost sight of 2016 here and the fact that barack obama -- >> can you give us two comments. >> no, now let's look at this. let's turn it 180 degrees. from the perspective of the left, the equivalent on the lift is if president obama would have invited the leadership of occupy wall street to camp out in the rose gardens for two to three weeks. for >> but the liberal base would have been highly entertained by it. and they would have pushed people from the center off the party. >> which is what they need to look. >> the one chance to stop at this that the house, they've got to
defund this thing and that's legitimate. within their power. but look at cruz and paul. they don't have four years between them in the senate and both being talked about as the presidential candidates, why? because they're speaking for the enormous segment of the country. >> and do you have barack obama? >> that is the government adviser. >> leading the government. >> issue three, written off. >> there is a crime for the crystal writing, which is being made into teaching keyboarding skills for students. obviously as technology becomes more important, keyboarding skills are going to be critical for our students to learn. >> reporter: the kids are back in school and they are learning reading and arrhythmia tick. or the cursive writing is traditionally taught after they learn how to pin. but get this, cursive writing is no longer a part of the "the common state standard."
the benchmark national list of skills that the schools use when adopting the curricular. this means that cursive is no longer considered by a core skill that youngsters must learn. so? at the local level, individual school districts are deciding whether to bother to teach their students cursive writinganymore. in fact many schools, instead are opting to teach kids how to type. many schools are equipped with computers. teaching kids how to use a keyboard is a priority. subordinating handwriting. in fact only 11 of the 50 states actually mandate cursive being taught in school. the students themselves don't seem to miss cursive. listen to this. >> i absolutely hate it. >> or this. >> all you really need to know is your name, your last name, and you really don't need to know anything else. >> russian is stopping the teaching of cursive writing,
i.e. handwriting, the first step down a slippery slope for producing a country in which literacy disappears altogether. pat buchanan? >> i think there's an argument for that, john. no doubt that the enormous part of the population right now deals with these computers and texting and all these otherthings where they get their alphabet and they learn it all. there's a huge segment in the american population raised on writing and cursive writings, especially the generation that you can see some of the letters you get from the old er women that are beautifully scripted in everything. it's a great loss in terms of literature. what they are doing, they are programming and putting people into a box for the future economy, where they know this thing and how to do this, but they don't know a great deal else. >> i think it's nice to have, a nice skill to have, but i don't think that it has anything to do with literacy. and thinking back over the last week or even months, the only time that i have used cursive is when i sign my name. i don't use it anymore and i
think it's going to just fade away like an organ if you will. i mean i think that forcing kids to go through all the flourishes. >> what kind of cursive are you talking about? >> what does the evidence point to so far? is it fostering a resolution like a third eye or devolution. do you understand the question? >> what i want to tell you is that my 9-year-old and my 5- year-old sons love cursive. i agree with you on the lost art form part of it, but i also don't think that it has much to do with literacy because they can move a lot faster in the world of information right now if they knew how to type. >> suppose you have software that hears you give it an instruction and then it writes out in whatever form you like,
cursive writing, exactly what you're saying. i mean where does that go if it reaches the further extension of technology? do you follow me? >> yeah, i think i follow you. all i can say is that i agree with what you just said. you know, you look at the younger generation. never mind the younger generation, but anybody involved in reading right now, they are all reading off the platform, which is a whole different kind of thing. they communicate with those platforms. and what is where the whole world of technology has gone. i would love to have everybody learn how to read and write in that old style. but this is the new style. believe me, somebody that has been involved in print journalism, i felt that. >> well, i get notes. and there are some young people and stuff like that. and they see that spot run. i mean, it is printed out. you know, you wonder if there is something really lost in that and in terms of spelling, everybody, they've got spill check, they don't know how to spell, you know. i shouldn't say, you know, not being able to read and writing
and all that stuff, but sure you can. in terms of the literary value, how can they read some of the older things? are they going to be able to read some of the documents written that way? >> it may be a possibility down that line. one kind of nuclear atmospheric blast. one giant kind of strike. and we could have the electromagnetic post wave, destroying all electronics on the planet. plunging it straight back into the pre-literacy stage of 2005. if our minds lack the tools and the means of literacy. do you understand? >> i could do cursive writing and i'll be just fine. >> out of time. sorry, bye bye.