>> from our studios in new york, this is "charlie rose." >> what i was trying to lay out to everybody is that we agreed to take $800 billion worth of

cuts, the $487 million that we agreed to. those are based on downsizing, getting more efficient, and providing a force that is more effective. >> ray odierno is here. he is a four-star general and the 38th chief of he is best in known for a moment in the 2000 surge and capture of saddam hussein 10 years ago. i am pleased to welcome general odierno. >> thank you. it is great to be here. >> take me back to that moment, and what that meant. >> at the time it was important. we had been looking for him for about six months. we started in june of 2003. we figured out early on that we were going about it the wrong way in the beginning. we had the cards and the faces on the cards. we thought they were somehow

related. we realize the award. it had a lot to do with family, people that he worked with we started to put the puzzle together. we probably did 30-40 raids thinking we were close. finally, on december 13, we got him. we got a good lead. i remember getting a call that we had captured number one. at the time it was important. we went in and toppled his regime. with him so out there, it was a question of what that would mean. it was important for us to capture, to make sure that he would never be able to come back. >> what did we learn from him? >> i'm not sure how much we learned. i think we learned about the inner workings of the government.

about how he full all of his people that worked for him. >> that is the interesting point. he was trying not to fool the united states, but his own people so they would be in fear. >> what was interesting, all the generals i talked to were part of the regime. they were -- and there still are that think we have chemical weapons. that they were there. they had been moved and hidden. they all believe it. that we just didn't find them. it is very interesting. people always ask, when your own people who you generals think you have it, you understand may be why we serve believe that they had them as well. it is very interesting. as i look back on that, why did he just let the inspectors come in. for him, that was weakness. that showed weakness. he had to continue to show that

he was in charge of that regime, a leader in that region. by admitting that he didn't have these weapons, and he thought it would show he had weakness. >> do you believe he thought the we would never attack? >> i absolutely believe that. he thought he was going to be able to handle and that we would not come in there. it would not be a regime change. we would put pressure on him, maybe negotiate. there are varying opinions on that. he miscalculated. as i look, miscalculations by other leaders, based on their interpretation of our actions. >> talk about that. >> i talk about preventing conflict. for me, one of the things we do is we provide the ability to prevent conflict. it is about deterrence. it is about having people think that you have the capability to

conduct operations that would maybe make them think about what they are doing. if to make sure that we don't lose that ability to deter. and make sure that it is still something the president has is an option. it certainly should be the first option. i think it is certainly one you want to sustain. that is what we are trying to do to make sure we are able to sustain capability. >> and the reaction. what happens on day two. >> that is right. the lesson that we learned, our lesson from iraq, and the last 10 or 12 years is that we knew what to do to topple the regime. we didn't know what to do after we toppled the regime. we didn't have understanding of the devastation it has occurred inside of iraq for 20 years before we got there. we didn't understand the depth

of issues between the shia population, the sunni population. we relied on others that provide information which was not true because they were x patriots. we underestimated and did not understand. if we had known that, we might have done things differently. >> why didn't we know that? >> if you think about it, we had very limited access. we didn't have people on the ground understanding. it had been a while. what we do is we collect -- >> we have the relationship of for kuwait and help them in terms of the iranians. >> what we underestimated was the fact that sanctions had an impact. that changed. the regime began to change after we kicked them out of kuwait. that had more of a significant impact than we thought on the

regime. we just didn't understand. unless you are there, it is difficult to understand how much supression went on inside of that government. it didn't matter if you were sunni or kurd. it was everyone who was suppressed. and the violence was testimony. >> when you look at that war, and for all of us who like history, you look back, and there seems to be a rising level of violence there. >> yes. my view of this is, when we left, the violence was at a low level. we had set up for success a country that if they were willing to move forward politically, that it would move forward. it has in fact moved forward economically. its revenues are up. what is happened is you continue

to have this distinct mistrust between the three major groups. in fact, even amongst shia, you have mistrust. what has happened is these political differences over time, you have this growing animosity, mistrust. others exploit this. then you start to have violence. you see al qaeda. >> that was my next question. is al qaeda coming back? >> there is probably some iraq you nationalist they're doing it. you have some al qaeda doing it. >> al qaeda affiliates. >> and sometimes they have joined together. then you have internal shia strife. you have iranian influence because of their concerns and what they do. you see all of these things come together.

then the kurds have their own thoughts on how to -- and there's always been mistrust. we have just watched this play out. >> have and we watched, they are doing reasonably well. >> they are doing really well. in northern iraq, every time that you go back there, it is incredible the difference that you see. continuing to grow, a lot of investment by turkey in those areas. relatively secure. there was a bombing recently. the first one in many years. they have been able to maintain relative security. >> can you get them out by 2014? >> we can. i hope we do not have to. in afghanistan, we are making good progress. i was out there in january.

>> how do you define progress? >> the afghan military has taken complete control of security. they have done it through this last fighting season. they have performed very well. so, we think they have the capability to provide security for the nation. they have proven it. they have the will, which is important. i still think we have to help them build institutions that allow them to sustain. they have established local police that have been effective. it is about how they sustain it over a long time, and that takes institutional development, continued leader development. the post-2014 force would do those kind of things. leader development, institutional development. it would be something along

those lines. the president would make that decision. >> what difference would it have made if we had troops remaining in iraq where there was a failure to negotiate? >> i think it would have made a difference. i think that having u.s. presence there would have, if nothing else, we became an agent that would continue to allow people to reconcile with each other. i think there are be a bit more trust between the entities if we were there to help with that. unfortunately, it didn't happen. in my mind, it is a shame. i haven't given up on iraq though. i will say i still think there is hope. >> hope for what? >> with the economy growing, if we can get the right political leaders to sit down and talk over time, i think we can move forward. you know, as we watch the middle east, there is growing concern

that the problem is bigger than syria, bigger than lebanon. because of this divide we are seeing. >> playing out in many places. >> for us, that is something we are watching. we want that. nobody wants to see that happen. we think there is so much potential in that region. i want to go back to iraq for one second. here is a quote. you will appreciate this. this is what fred kagan who said about you in general petraeus after you had returned. great commanders often come in pairs. they can be added to the list. he said the subordinate every successful campaign pair has played a key role in designing

and ample minting the campaign planned, and history does not always justly appreciate such contributions. why did the surge work? all of us understand the awakening was taking place. therefore you had put additional american troops, but it has to be much more complicated than that. >> it is opposite. the awakening happening when they realized we are putting more troops in. >> there had been some examples of that? >> they were very small. what had happened is we had gone through a time of almost civil war between the sunni and shia. when the americans came with greater numbers, we were able to go through greater differences, and the people felt more comfortable coming forward. they were tired of violence. a qaeda had worn out its welcome. they didn't want interference from iran.

when we decided to put more people on the ground, a give them more confidence. that is when they decided to come forward. that in my mind, they were ready to do it. we've been provided them security to do it. there is a couple of other things. it was about getting out among the population, us understanding that we had to be out there with the iraqis and police to make them feel comfortable. once they felt secure, they would come forward. they would tell us who the individuals that were trying to provide peace and security in the region were. it was about getting them out among the people, regaining their trust, and with additional forces we have had to enable us to do that, they enable us to conduct more broader operations, and specific targeted operations on only those individuals that were leading in conducting the violence inside of iraq. it enabled us to do that together with our special operations forces.

all of that and together. the big realization in all of this was we were always focused inside of baghdad. i had a conversation with a couple of iraqi leaders when i got over there for the second time. they told me, the key is always the outside of baghdad. that controls what goes on inside of baghdad. we uncovered a map in one of our raids from al qaeda. the plan was to control the outskirts of baghdad. i then realize, that is what we have to focus on. we have to control the access to baghdad. we put a lot of effort into putting some people more into baghdad, and taking control of baghdad and putting a ring around it that made it difficult for people to come in and out. it was a combination of all those things. that is open big need the additional people for. in reality, the success was on the backs of the young

commanders, captains, the soldiers who actually executed this and did it with the ability to adapt and flexibility they showed in executing this. what i learned as a leader, i got to give them limits and let them operate within those limits. they were able to achieve was significant. we see the same thing in afghanistan. >> when you killed -- what was the name of the al qaeda leader? >> yes. >> killed by forces under the command of general kristol. >> yes. >> did that break the back of al qaeda? >> it didn't. it was as simple. we can find you, no matter who you are. we can kill you. that was a strong message. there were people who came up behind him.

they continued on for another year and a half or so. it sent a strong message. it also enabled us to understand that we had the capabilities to do this. working together, the special operations and conventional forces, we continue to improve our abilities. we understood how we pass information. we understood the link between these two kinds of forces would make us more successful to be built on that. it was interesting. we were younger at the time. we came together in the summer of 2003 and we started talking about this cooperation. >> between? >> the fourth infantry division and special forces, which led to capture of saddam hussein, and the capture of key members of

the regime. that began it. we started to carry that on. general mcchrystal continued to refine and improve the tactics. we just got better and better. we see it play out in afghanistan as well. >> much has been written about that you went to iraq as one person, one army officer. and you came out of it as a different kind of army officer. in your own words. >> i would just say, it is mischaracterized. we all change. we all learned. the key of being a leader is you have to continue to constantly learn. i learned a couple of things. in order to be successful in

this environment and in future environments, you have to take a multipronged approach. the thing i learned is you have to ask the question why. why is something happening. it is not that it happens or what happened. it is why it happened. if you understand why, you can pick the tool that is the best tool to solve that problem. in some cases, we are picking the wrong tool to solve a problem. you understand, some tools are, full military power to do it. some is, you might have to use economics. my to do social things, political things. if you figure out why something happened, then you come up with the right solution. i think early on, i didn't think about the why enough. as i grew more experience, and

her stood that we had understand why this event was happening. once we understood that, we can figure out the right tools. or, we could give the commanders the right information so they can figure out the right tools. i think that is what i learned. that is why as i look to the future, as i develop our leaders of the future, it is about them understanding how to operate in this complex environment. you must understand social economic aspects of culture. >> and the religious. >> and the religious. >> and that is what you're trying to teach. >> that is right. and all of our military schools, our war colleges, we are changing how we do this. >> you do think this is an active criticism, in iraq and afghanistan, we didn't use those. even if we asked the question

why, we didn't use the tools as well as we would have liked. or what ever reason, corruption or security issues, the employment of those cultural economic understandings did not come into play the way you envisioned. >> in the beginning for sure. as we learn more we got better at it. that is what i would say. there is a couple of lessons i have learned though. in terms of when you come into a place where there is instability, what were the drivers of instability? what was driving instability. what was his security, the fact that nobody had any jobs? the fact that they there a -- the fact that there is a combination of no jobs and trying to raise a family?

we had to figure out, once we figured out what was driving the instability, that allowed us to put the real tools and. yet understand what those drivers are. what is causing this? we learned that you have to have a joint effort. it has to be intergovernmental. you have to figure out where you have common objectives, common goals. it took us a while to understand that. it took a while for some of the other organizations to trust us, to work with us. whether it be the u.n., even working together building our state department. that happened on the ground. we don't want that happening again. we want to have those relationships built prior. so we understand how to work, and we understand how we can work together.

if we have to go somewhere else, we are prepared to deal in this joint environment we are going to be asked to operate in. >> what did you learn about interrogation? >> a couple of things. when we went in, we thought it was going to be like desert storm. we thought we would get prisoners and put them to the rear, and turn them loose and be done. we had no idea that we would have to detain people for such long times. as well as under a counterinsurgency type of atmosphere we have the information to target. we weren't prepared to be frank. we didn't train properly our people. we didn't have the proper oversight. we didn't expect to have to do this for such a long time. i think we went into it in trial and error in some cases,

thinking that how it used to be done, or done under different conditions. it took us unfortunately, we had have serious incidents to figure out how you probably do interrogation. it is a very difficult question. when people's lives are at stake, you want to get the information as quickly as possible. we also learned get information, but it might not be the right information. >> they would do anything to stop the pain. >> that is right. you have to understand that there are better ways to do this. we learned how to do that. >> what are they? >> it is about consistently interrogation, it is about building relationship with the person you are interrogating. over time you get reliable information. >> that is what i'm interesting in. i wonder where the experience of that is. people under enormous pain will say anything to stop pain. >> there is a time factor.

the conundrum is if you think a big event is going to happen where can you wait three months? if it is going to happen tomorrow, so that is the conundrum that you have. in our military, we have the represent the moral and ethical values of this country. no matter what the situation is. that is important that we do that. in some cases, a got away from us. >> what does that mean? >> what i would say is, the most of the cool thing for the military is you go out on an operation and you see your best friend killed, or you see your best friend lose legs. it is about controlling your

emotions so that we continue to focus on the mission and do it a proper way. we don't let our emotions get caught up with ourselves. when emotions get caught up, this is easy to say but difficult to do. you do things that are not in line with her ethical values. you run into improper interrogation. use of improper force. it gets us into trouble. ultimately, something like that will cause people to lose faith in us, and our enemies will exploit that. one of the things we have to talk about is the importance of maintaining these moral and ethical values that allow us to do the job, do it right, and gives us the respect that we need in order to execute these operations. it is important american people believe in us.

i think the large majority do. it is important that we sustain them. >> sequestration is having an impact? >> we're going to significantly reduce the size of the army. >> how does that play out? >> it plays out in different ways. as i look to the future, you want and are many -- you want an army that is going to be regionally engaged around the world. we have to be capable of preventing conflict, shaping the world in a safe way. the problem we have is sequestration, let's put aside the bottom line number. the problem we have is the way it is executed is leaving us with difficult decisions. i have a triangle. i have readiness, strength, and modernization.

the size of the army. i have to keep those in the right balance. so we stay ready, continue to modernize. we have to balance that with the right -- we are not in balance. i can't take people out fast enough to meet the bottom line numbers. if you take me 3-4 more years. what happens is, i now have a force that is not as ready as i want, not as modern as i want, and will not be for another two or three years. that is the reason the way this has been executed has been problematic for us. what keeps me up is that i may be asked to do something and i'm going to have to send soldiers into harms way not properly ready. to me that is not taking care of our young men and women. >> is that the reality today? >> that is the reality today and the next 2-3 years. wax you to send men and women

into harm's way. >> i could. we are sending in advisers to train them to be advisors. they are prepared to do that mission and protect themselves. if i had an unknown and tendency today, and i had to send 50,000 soldiers right now, i would have 20,000 that are trained to the level that we believe is the right level. i had about 30,000 that wouldn't be ready. what i have to do is by the end of next summer, putting every dollar that i have into making sure i can train about 50,000 soldiers. that leaves the rest of the army with not enough money to maintain the level of training they need if we have an extended conflict or more than one small conflict we might have to respond to. that is what i have to deal with for the next 2-3 years. as the biggest impact of sequestration. >> what is your fear about syria?

>> my view is, what started as do you change the regime with serious is not much different problem. my thoughts are everything in the middle east are linked to each other. we have this fight over the regime. >> through hezbollah, supporting one side in syria. >> saudi arabia, and maybe sunni extremist group supporting the other side. it is spilling over to lebanon. it is going over to iraq or in iraq. the worry is, this is going to expand across the entire middle east. that is what i worry about. syria, the chemical weapons, that seems to be so far going ok. if we can get that, that is big. that will help. it still not relieve this

pressure we're seeing between the sunni and shia playing out. i worry what that means for the future. we do not want people to miscalculate. that is the concern. >> people like ryan crocker are saying maybe we have to rethink our relationship with assad, because of diplomacy, because of the strength. >> this is an incredibly complex problem. there are lots of ideas. i think the best way is this is going to have to be a multinational solution. >> and does what russia and the united states offer the potential?

>> that would be the best solution. let's take a look at this. what is happening to the region. that is politically, some discussion. what i worry about, we could find ourselves in a mess. the president has been clear. for him, the priorities are weapons of mass destruction, making sure they stay secure. and terrorism. all three of those could end up playing out in this scenario. even though the united states is working on energy independence, there is many of our allies that are so affected by the oil issue, it creates instability. >> that would lead to an

interruption of energy sources and therefore a huge impact on power balance. >> and you know that terrorism goes to ungoverned regions. as more regions become ungoverned by this uncertainty, you have to worry about terrorism. any country that has wmds, we do not want them to get into the wrong hands. it becomes a real problem. those are things we have to watch out for. i think in my mind, those things threaten the united states. the president has been clear, he talks about those three things. that is a we have to watch for as we look at the middle east in the future. >> did you read the piece about the head of the quds force is? >> i did. very thought-provoking piece. i have studied him for many years. >> david petraeus even communicated with him.

it is said that he is frequently in damascus. >> i can't speak for that. what i do know is that one of the concerns throughout the middle east is that this web of the force continues to extend in many different places in the middle east. and creating instability. >> this is an orangutan. >> at as part of the issue. >> he has only one boss. the ayatollah. >> i can't comment on the inner workings. i couldn't tell you that for certain. >> but you're fascinated by his operation. >> and it is something but you have to be aware of. i think that for us, for me, this is about instability. is it creating more instability?

>> i will leave you with this, i know you have meetings to get to. it is interesting that we have now and play diplomatically, israelis, palestinians, russia, and it ran in negotiations with the -- the p5 plus one taking at the same time. these parties are somehow connected. it connects them to hezbollah, who was fighting in syria. and the saudi's are watching with great concern. it just goes on and on. all those forces, which have this enormous -- but things are in motion now which would seem to be perhaps a good thing. >> all of us in uniform, i can't

speak for everyone. a large majority would say we are always happy, but we are trying to come with the mic solutions to these problems. i think it is always important. it is never bad to talk to people to see if we can come to some agreement. for us, my job is to make sure we are prepared in case it doesn't. that is what we focus on. that just means that it's our responsibility. >> general sherman said war is hell. it is often said that it is the military people most of all who least likely would like to go to war. >> anybody who is experienced war will never want to do it again unless they have to. they understand the sacrifices. they understand the chaos. the sacrifice that goes on, unfortunately, i have several friends and young men and women

who i know personally who ahve given their lives for this country. who have been severely injured for their country. who did it because they want to protect our security. i will be prepared. i will do everything i can to get our soldiers prepared to do that. those of us who experience it, you know what to do it unless you have to. if we do it, we are going to be good at it. >> that is with the country expects of you. thank you. >> thank you, thank you very much. >> back in a moment, stay with us. ♪ >> why would we need it?

>> it is a mixture. >> you and i can do that. >> i don't understand them. her leadership could run the kitchen with a woman from the village. >> julian fellowes is here. he is the creator of downton abbey.

the show has won nine emmy awards and gained millions of fans around the world. after a year-long hiatus, it returns to masterpiece in january. here is a teaser. >> you have a choice before you. you must choose death or life. >> he is not an orphan. he has his mother. >> it is time for you to come back to us. >> downton abbey returns to masterpiece on pbs. >> i am pleased to have julian fellowes back at this table. are you ready for a new season? >> you know, it has gone over well. it is always a relief.

the longer you go one, you hope it still has a punch. we seem to be ok. >> take us back. how you created this. >> originally, it came about like everything else, a complete chance. i was trying to set up a different project with the producer of a novel. we thought we'd got it going. we had a dinner to say goodbye to it. in the middle, he said have you ever thought of going back into costing the theater for television? i was reluctant. i felt like i was asking for the second bite of the same cherry. i was nervous of it. in the end, i did come around to it. i was intrigued by the idea of

writing a series. i had never done that. >> what can we expect this season? >> i suppose, our starting point is that matthew is dead. we jumped six months. we have a gap. we come in and mary has been a widow for six months. so, we have a slight disagreement in the family as to whether or not it is time she started putting yourself together, or should she be allowed to grieve for as long as it takes. the all take one side or the other. that is quite nice for us. it means we begin on a disagreement. mary is returned to the land of the living, it is one of the main themes of the series. there are other main themes that push you through. but, that is mary's journey. >> you have come to a hideous

time. now you must remember your son. he needs you. there he much. >> i know. i don't think i'm going to be a very good mother. >> why not? >> somehow, with matthew's death, all the softness that he found in me seems to have dried up and drained away. maybe it was only there in his imagination. >> you, my dear, there is more than one type of good mother. the fact is, you have a straightforward choice before you. you must choose either death or life. >> i think of the two grandmothers here. maggie and shirley mcclain.

how good can it get? >> we have these women who are almost exact contemporaries in real life. you have a violet nostalgia for the past. everything is getting worse. shirley is completely different. she has modern clothes. she wants to get going. she likes the idea of higher travel. although they are at the same stage of their lives, they are facing in opposite directions. that was fun to write. >> e of just been renewed for your fifth season. >> we have. it starts filming in february, which is -- >> two months. >> will you know, or will the audience tell you? with characters come to a place and you say, this is where i should say goodbye?

>> i do not think we are ready to stop now. our audience is still increasing. the audience for series four was greater than the previous ones. i don't think we are ready to go now. no, we're not going to be there. you must take them to the next war. no, no. >> casting. what has been your most brilliant stroke of casting? >> there were three people i wrote the parts for. one was maggie to play violet. one was hugh. >> did she say yes immediately? she is one of the most interesting woman we know. >> i don't remember anyone saying yes immediately. the point was she said yes. hugh for robert.

i absolutely had him in mind. one of the hardest things is to find an actor that has that kind of inner niceness, and likability. we have had unpleasant heroes for so long and films and television. that is great. there is something in that tradition of the kenneth more people. jack hawkins. those nice people. that i miss from the screen. i really wanted to have that and robert. hugh has that. what brenton has got is that since of danger that you never feel you know bates. there is the stuff going on inside of him. at the same time, he is a

sympathetic character. that is a difficult double to bring off for an actor. i think he does bring it off marvelously. all the others, when they would be sent to films, they all jumped out of the screen. i member watching jim karcher. this is karcher. those moments are lovely. >> you are about to star on chinese television. >> it has started. we are doing well in china. >> it is a huge number. >> it is a big addition to the audience. >> any difference in their reaction that is different from the u.s. or britain? >> no, it seems to have this involving quality, which i can't really analyze. if i could, i wouldn't write anything but hits.

something about the recipe has worked. >> what is that? >> when i was little boy, my mother used to let me fool around in the kitchen and make things. little gray cakes. one day, i made perfectly clear is. i took it out of the oven. she said to me, how did you do it? i couldn't, i didn't know. by accident, i had made perfectly clear is. i feel by with downtick, i made it perfectly clear. >> did you ever make perfect eclaires again? >> no. the essence of it is the relationships, the very different classes of people here. in the end, it is how they react.

how these people react to not only the events around them, but the events of the world, and how they connect each other. it is the individual stories of the personalities who have created late against the architecture of war. >> and change. >> and change. >> that is a pretty good analysis. you start the show saying, i get it. this group, this crew. as the show continues, you realize that what they have in common is far more than what separates them. when we go through the war, when we have death, these different elements, they are all responding in a kind of human way to these things. they are together in that. they are together in the war. together in a lot of it.

it sounds terribly pollyanna, but i do believe that for most people, what we share in terms of the human experience is much more important than what separates us. politicians spend so much time trying to make us concentrate on what makes us different. actually, i want people to concentrate on what makes us the same. >> in tragedy, you see what is the common qualities that come out. take a look at this. this is your cast at this table. >> it was a proper page turner. very vivid. i think that fascination that i had upon reading it had translated on screen. people want to know what happens next. >> and you get invested in all of their lives. late against the canvas of society. >> absolutely. >> that is right. you don't feel it quite so much

in the first season. the outside world. that really invades in the second season with the war years. the effect of the spanish flu. this third season we are about to show here is much more about the family and the house again. the world of downs and we have grown to love >> it would be enough just to have the lord and lady. >> you need the yen and the yang. they mirror each other. they are completely intertwined with the people upstairs. you need that contrast of things. >> they have said it pretty well >> they are wonderfully distinctive. >> gem as carson, and hugh as robert. they weigh equally in their love lives and their private lives.

i think we were very lucky in that. >> what is an average feeling? do you know? >> i know what we get. about 25 million. >> how many episodes? >> here, it is change. they put into 90 minutes instead of one hour. i never quite know. i think it is six or seven. it is nine for us. we have an hour and a half. >> whatever the number is, it is spectacular. look at the awards, the viewer reaction. it is a spectacular connection. but when the character and audience.

>> the emotional involvement with these characters, they know they are fiction. i know they're watching television and actresses in make up. however, their eyes are brimming as they ask please make [indiscernible] you realize you have somehow got below the epidermis. you are in their inner life. i find it quite humbling. >> thank you for coming. >> no, thank you. it is great to see you. >> downton abbey will premiere on masterpiece on pbs on my birthday, january 5. thank you for joining us. see you next time. ♪ >> live from pier 3 in san

francisco, welcome to the late edition of "bloomberg west," where we cover the global technology and media companies that are reshaping our world. i'm emily chang. our focus is on innovation, technology, and the future of business. let's get to the rundown. >> should you be able to make cell phone calls in flight? federal regulators take up the issue tomorrow in what could be the first step to turning the friendly skies into the chatting skies. spotify get the lead out. they are the first site to