>> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." >> susan rice is here. see is the national security adviser to be president of the

united states. previously, she was the united states ambassador to the united nations. she has received criticism for perceived entrenchment and foreign policy. >> ultimately, global leadership requires us to see the world as it is, with all of its danger and uncertainty. we have to be prepared for the worst, prepared for every contingency. but american leadership also requires us to see the world as it should be, a place for the aspirations of individual human beings really matters. where hopes and not just fears govern. where the truths written into the founding documents can steer the currents of justice. >> welcome.

>> it is great to be back. >> the president making a series of speeches. is he defining obama doctrine? >> for good reason, one is wary of the term "doctrine." i think what he is saying is really crystallizing what has animated his foreign policy from the outset. the united states is the most powerful and important country in the world. we have been for a long time and will be for a long time. in recent years, our power has increased when you consider our military has no peer, when you consider our economy is strong and growing. we are becoming more and more energy independent each year. we have a vibrant, diverse population that is attracting immigrants and is demographically strong. we have a network of alliances around the world that is unmatched from asia to europe. we have all of the most powerful tools of leadership in the world

looks to us for help, whether it is a typhoon in the philippines or searching for the kidnapped nigerian girls. what he was discussing was how we should lead, not whether we should lead. he outlined a viewpoint that is important for the american people to understand. we will use our military might when necessary to defend our core interests, which are security, of people and facilities overseas, when it is necessary to preserve the economic well-being of americans, when it is necessary to protect our partners. >> where is our core interest under attack now? >> nowhere, except through the persistent threat of terrorist activity, which we see overseas.

the president talked about the fight of al qaeda and its affiliates. we don't face a nationstate that poses a direct threat to the united states. there are countries that are rising that have strong militaries. there are countries that are irresponsible, like north korea, that could pose a threat. as he said yesterday, the most direct threat we face for the foreseeable future comes from extremists, particularly al qaeda and its various affiliates around the world, that they wish to attack our interests or personnel. what has changed is that we had previously in afghanistan and pakistan, the al qaeda core, the senior leadership. very strong and controlling. they have been largely dealt very severe blows and are much weakend from where they were in the past.

what happened is we have successfully degraded al qaeda in afghanistan and pakistan. affiliated groups, some loosely affiliated, some really indigenous in their origin, groups like al-shabaab in somalia or al qaeda in the arabia peninsula in yemen or in places like mali or boko haram, which is affiliated with al qaeda in nigeria. or we see in syria with the rise of extremist groups in the context of the civil war. these smaller, weaker, regional-based groups are still dangerous and have aspirations to attack american personnel, american embassies, american facilities, and some are trying to develop the capacity to potentially attack the homeland. >> what is a strategy against them? >> that is what the president outlined yesterday.

we will continue to work to ensure that the al qaeda core in afghanistan and pakistan is degraded, but at the same time, we need to devote attention to these regional-based al qaeda affiliates. yesterday, the president announced the establishment of working with congress with what we hope will be up to $5 billion for a counterterrorism partnership. the key word is partnership, because what the long-term strategy must be for dealing with these dispersed groups in various countries that often have a regional or local agenda in the first instance, is to enlist and build the capacity of partners themselves to take on the fight in their own backyards, not us they're on their behalf, but sometimes supporting that's providing the support they need, whether it is capacity building, whether it is material support, and sometimes it will be support for airlift,

refueling, as we have done with the french. this counterterrorism partnership fund will be the foundation of an evolving strategy that will allow the eye and states to be effective against these groups on a global basis without having to resort to u.s.-direct action. >> as you said, you decimated the ranks of the original al qaeda led by bin laden. these other groups have grown during the years of the obama administration? >> they have evolved and they have become more diffuse. these groups have been around. it is not new that we have a terrorism threat emanating from the portion of africa that borders on the sahara. that has been there since the 1990's and beyond. we have had a terrorism concern based in africa back to 1998,

when air embassies in kenya and tanzania were bombed. what is the case is where you have weak states, fragile states, that are not able to control all of their territory and where you have conflict zones such as in syria, you have the potential, and indeed in instances, the reality, of extremist filling the void. >> will we seek them out regardless of the wishes of where they are located or do we have to get the permission of those governments were there located in order to go after them with drones and other measures? >> our preference to work with the host government. where we see a continuing threat to united states and we can act with near certainty of avoiding civilian categories, we will do so if necessary to defend the united states. >> what is their threat to us?

do we have intelligence that they are trying to launch an attack against the united states or against united states embassies and the like around the world? >> that would be the definition of the continuing imminent threat. it would be to the united states, whether to personnel deployed overseas, embassies, diplomatic facilities, or whether to the homeland. all of those constitute threats to the united states. >> the president seems to be articulating a point of view around the world and the world is changing, as he said in that speech, and he said this a couple of times. the most important thing i can do is not screw it up and not make huge mistakes, because i think he perceives iraq and afghanistan as serious mistakes that drained the united states. >> i would not put it that way. i don't think that is how he put it yesterday, either. the president affirmed yesterday

his view that what we have been doing in afghanistan has been absolutely essential to our national security. it was necessary after 9/11. from yesterday, the surge that he ordered in 2009 was necessary. we think it serves our interest to bring the war in afghanistan to a responsible end. there are times where we must do what would must do. >> he seems to be concerned that we would get sucked into a war. >> let me finish the thought. he said two things. yet when circumstances where it may be necessary for the united states to act unilaterally. in those circumstances, we have to ask tough questions and be mindful of international opinion. we will not ask permission to do what we must to defend the

united states and our interests. he also outlined at some length his view as to when we ought to use force or not to address issues of global concern that are not directly implicating the security and the economic well-being of the united states or our allies. he spent time talking about those concerns. when the issue is global, and syria is a good example of that, or libya, there are others, that our strong preference and our aim should be to act multilaterally to the greatest extent possible because they are global concerns. and when we do, it has more legitimacy and is more likely to succeed. >> an interview was just done

with prime minister netanyahu. it suggested that the president is motivated to speak on these issues because he feared he was losing grip on the narrative of america's role. >> i would put it differently. i don't think it is a question of losing grip on a narrative. i know the president was looking very much forward to the opportunity presented by the occasion of the commitment at west point, which had long planned to do, to lay out in clear terms his view of american leadership and to make it clear that there is no question that america must and lead on the world stage. no one else will if we do not. there is no question we are retreating from the world. of course we are not. it is not whether we will lead, but how we will leave. what he essentially said is that we have to lead with our brains. we have to use our logic and wisdom and not just our impulses.

when we do, sometimes that means acting with restraint. always it means acting to the greatest extent possible, consistent with our values, our laws, and our leadership role. the other thing he said is our leadership role is not defined solely by our military might. it is defined by the strength of our economy, alliances our moral leadership, our values. when you look at how we lead in the world, we are the nation above all they can rally other countries to achieve the goals that we desire, whether it is trying to bring iran to the negotiating table -- >> do you accept the fact that after the president, after what happened in syria, with respect to the redline and the threat of military force, that some people in the region, people who are enemies of iran, had some

question about america and where it stood and how it was prepared to lead? and that made the president have to go to those countries and reassure them? i am thinking of saudi arabia and king abdullah. >> i think at the time there were friends and partners of the united states in the middle east that reacted with concern and skepticism. i was just out in the region a few weeks ago. i was in israel and i met with prime minister and the senior national security team. you know what they said? they said that president obama was right. they never anticipated that we would be able to get cymer to it knowledge that it had a chemical weapons program, much less get 92% of their declared stockpile out of the country. we will get the last 8% out. they said that that was the president's choice and decision to threaten credibly the use of

force, but when the syrians back down and it knowledge the stockpile and offered to dismantle it, and we took them up on that, that was the right choice. i also think, having spoken to other key american allies and partners in the gulf, including the saudi's, that they too understand that that turned out to be a wise choice because the goal was to protect not only the people of syria, but israel that was directly threatened. >> prime minister netanyahu also said that to jeffrey goldberg. he said it was a smart move by the president of united states and i applaud what he did with respect to the agreements to give the chemical weapons out of syria. are you saying that whatever reservations that our friends in the monarchies in other places had about u.s. leadership in the world, they have been reassured and it is no longer an issue? >> i can't speak for them.

i did speak to them, i won't speak for them. i think they probably appreciated that. i will say this -- the notion that the united states is unprepared to use military force is belied by the facts. it was president obama that surged our forces into afghanistan. we will bring to a close at the end of 2014 our combat mission in afghanistan after the longest war in u.s. history. this president has been willing to use force to defend our interests. we used force collectively in the context of international law in libya, to deal with the threat that qaddafi posed. libya is having a difficult time today. >> what is our role to influence libya? >> in libya, we have tried hard to help a government come to the

fore that is legitimate and has staying power. for a while, that was the case and now they have had a series of prime ministers handing over to another. they have a rebellious congress that is at odds with the government. we have tried very hard to help them build their security apparatus. gaddafi ran that place for 40 years as a one-man band. there were no ministries that function. there are no institutions of the state. they were starting from scratch with no history of how to govern. unfortunately, the various militia in libya but came to the fore during the revolution have turned on each other and there are extremists within libya that have gained some prominence and they are now being countered by those that are anti-extremist. it is a messy situation. >> with respect to the question of understanding with the present strategy was, i want to read two editorial opinions.

the address did not match. the hype was largely unexpired, and was unlikely to quiet detractors on the right or left. >> you will not be surprised to hear that i think that is rather ungenerous and also inaccurate. if you read the scope of that speech, and i encourage people to read it, not just listen to it, it lays out, in very clear terms, a vision of american leadership. it is assertive, it is strong, it indicates when and how and whether the united states ought to be using force. it defines the counterterrorism strategy in updated terms and unveils a new set of tools to deal with that threat that has evolved and diffused. it then turns to the critical question of how the united states leads by mobilizing nations of partners towards our collective ends.

that piece has gotten less attention. it is vitally important. most of the problems we face on the international stage, whether trying to prevent iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon through sanctions and diplomacy, or punishing and isolating russia for its actions in crimea in its effort to destabilize -- >> he did not mention crimea. >> he mentioned ukraine. >> not crimea. >> crimea, we believe, is part of ukraine. what are we prepared to do? >> i don't know if the sanctions, in the near-term, cause russia to be crimea. several things have happened that are important. first of all, russia's economy

as a result of the sanctions, has stopped growing. it is close to negative growth. the capital outflow was unprecedented. over $100 billion in just the first few months of this year. the major banks in russia are losing value and profit. >> at the same time, they just signed a 30 year gas deal with china. >> which had been long in the works. it will be very interesting to learn what price the chinese agreed to pay for that gas. i'm willing to bet money was a bargain for the chinese. beyond that, russia is paying a significant price in terms of this international standing and also in terms of its economy. >> how is that affecting them? it is paying a price and

international standing. is it affecting their standing? is it affecting their action? >> i think it must be to a certain extent. russia has taken some different steps along the way that could have gone either way. it had more than 40,000 troops amassed on ukraine's border and for a moment of time, we thought there was a risk they might cross over into eastern or southern ukraine if they head into crimea. they have not done so. in the last week or 10 days, we have seen incredible indications that those forces are redeploying to their home barracks. i cannot tell you with certainty why putin took that decision. it is notable that he did. in addition, we have now a successful election in ukraine, which was certainly not assured several weeks ago. first-round winner, decisively, in all parts of the country, mr. poroshenko, who is well-known to the russians, well-known to the west. he served in more than one previous government in ukraine.

>> what is the hope that he might do? what is your hope that this election will achieve? >> i will answer that, but let me say that if the russians hope to make an election that was credible in the eyes of the international community possible, they did not succeed. i do think that the collective action of the united states and our partners has had an impact. with respect to ukraine, we have had an impact. we have mobilized the resources of europe, of the imf, of our own treasury, to help support ukraine through this very difficult economic period. now mr. poroshenko hopes to unite the country and take advantage of the economic moment that the international support revives, and find a balance so ukraine can choose as it wants to, both to have close ties to europe but also to recognize

that russia is his neighbor and it has to live side-by-side. >> you know and have access to intelligence information that we know. what do you think they want with respect to ukraine? russia? >> i think they want a ukraine that is maximally influenced by russia. >> and we want? >> we want a ukraine that can chart its own future. >> what is -- >> that is as simple as letting them choose their leadership, choose whether they want to apply for membership to the eu, whether they want to apply for russia's original coordination. our view is that sovereign countries ought to be sovereign. they should not have to be invaded or threatened by their neighbors. >> did europe make a mistake? did europe, the eu and the member countries, should they

have responded quicker to ukraine and made a deal earlier so this might not have happened? >> i don't know that it is as simple as making a deal earlier. in fact, when it occurred, the chain of events unfolded very quickly. i think that going back many, many months at the point where the yanukovich government was flirting with greater integration and the europeans were offering that, but this whole period will be an interesting fertile ground for historians to delve into. i think that if you look at it carefully, there were many miscalculations made on all sides. >> did we see it coming? >> i think we saw that ukraine was fragile, that there was a

real chance that the popular sentiment could be unpredictable. i don't think we saw that russia was going to make a play on crimea. i don't think the russians had an idea to make a play that far in advance. >> and yanukovich? >> i don't think it was long-plan. i think it was a substantial measure of what happened to him. >> what do you think will happen? how will this unfold in your judgment, in terms of the future of ukraine? >> most countries don't. if you look at the vote down the road in the united nations, it was overwhelmingly rejected, the russian effort to annex and

occupy crimea. the international community utterly rejects this. they cannot have any legitimacy because in the 21st century, if we start to acknowledge that countries can take bites out of each other, we are on the road to anarchy. >> your policy is that it was an illegal action by the russian government and we have to exercise every amount of pressure we have on russia to get them to pull out of crimea? >> you are now putting words in my mouth. i said it was an illegal act. we do not recognize it. we have exerted significant sanctions on russia as a consequence of that decision.

>> if it does not cause russia to change its mind, what will we do? >> this is not an issue from a united states perspective for the use of force is contemplated or implicated. it is -- we want to strengthen the government in kiev economically. we want to hold the pressure on russia through economic means. this well may be an issue that we wrestle with for some time, the issue of crimea. >> do you have any information that suggests that vladimir putin acted in part because he believed president obama was unprepared to stop him? >> none whatsoever. >> there is nothing to indicate that he thought he could get away with it and therefore, he did. >> those are two different things. did putin calculate that the west would not go to war over crimea?

perhaps. that is different from, did we have information that he thought president obama was weak? president obama was strong and led the international committee to punish russia. russia is suffering significant economic consequences. >> is all of europe on the same page with the president, including germany, which has extensive commercial relationships with russia? are they on the same page on what we ought to do? >> germany is very much on the same page. the president has met with and spoken to chancellor merkel all throughout this crisis. almost every couple of weeks, if not more frequently. when she came to washington earlier this month, it was there that they reaffirmed, the two of them, and other european leaders join suit, and saying that if russia were to destabilize the

election last week, such that it could not be conducted credibly, then we were prepared to lead europe and the west towards sectoral sanctions. >> what has changed in syria that makes the administration seemed to want to do more than it was repaired to do several years ago in supporting rebels? has the nature of the opposition change though that you can clearly identify who is good and bad? has what you have done to the cia had an impact? what is the dynamic that makes the administration willing to do more? >> there are several answers.

first of all, the situation itself in syria is getting worse, not better. let us be honest. the humanitarian situation is appalling and heartbreaking. the outflow of refugees, the number of displaced, the use of chemical weapons early on, the use of barrel bombs on a daily basis, snipers shooting at children, it touches every human heart. that is not a unique situation to syria. we have seen it in the congo, sudan, and many other places, but it is getting worse. secondly, as the conflict has evolved and as assad has prosecuted the war, he has lost control of significant parts of his territory. into that void have come

extreme terrorist groups. there is one group who is active in syria and iraq. then there are al qaeda elements and affiliates which we worry about as well. >> would they have been there if we had done more? >> the answer to that there is not a degree of military involvement, or military support for the opposition, short of direct military involvement, which the president has excluded, that could have necessarily countered

the investment that iran and russia have made on behalf of bashar al-assad. in my own view is the answer is, no. it may have changed the trajectory of the conflict. it still would be a regional battle. we would still have areas outside the government's control that were attractive to extremist groups. >> how far are we prepared now, because of the change in circumstances, to support those in opposition to the government? >> let me answer that. there is one of the piece to your prior question. we have been supporting the opposition. the united states government has been actively supporting the opposition, armed and unarmed

elements of the opposition, for quite a while. i don't know that you know how much we are doing. >> no, i don't. >> i am not going to get into that. let me just say that we have been providing support and increasing it for quite some while, over the last couple years. the quality, quantity, and the efficacy of our support has increased, and will continue to increase. we have been able to identify who among the moderate vetted opposition partners we want to work with. >> you can work with them, arm them, and supply them? >> it is something that we think we are learning to manage. >> that was the reason for not doing more earlier. >> the other challenge has been

that some of our friends and partners, who have also been supportive of the opposition, have not been in every instance over the years particularly discriminating as to whom they gave their support. the good news is that we have gotten to a point where all the partners who are involved in the enterprise of supporting the opposition are now of the same view that we have to be very careful as to who we support. we want to support those elements that are not extreme, that are moderate. we are coordinating and cooperating in a much more effective way. that is another thing that has changed. the situation is worse. the ability to have an impact in is greater, we think. >> are we going to look at a stalemate there? >> there is no military solution to the crisis. >> is russia prepared to play a

positive role in finding a diplomatic solution? is what is happening in ukraine hindering that? >> let me reiterate, there has to be a political solution. there is no military solution. it is a negotiated solution of the sort that we and the russians and other members of the united nations security council envision being implemented. >> we tried this in geneva. it failed, did it not? >> it did. >> bashar al-assad was gaining on the ground? >> that is why i say that there is not a military solution by which there will be a clear-cut victor, either the opposition or the government.

in all likelihood, the two sides will be ready for negotiation when both sides don't see that they have the prospect of a military success. if you recall, about a year ago in may of 2013, secretary kerry was in moscow and agreed with president putin that we ought to push the two parties to the negotiating table on the basis of a framework that had been previously negotiated in geneva. it took the parties, the russians, and the opposition a long time, many months, to be willing to come to the negotiating table.

by that time, they performed admirably. in the months that ensued the tide turned further in al-assad's favor. at the end of the day, there still needs to be a solution. we don't want to see the institutions of the state dismantled. bashar al-assad can not be part of a credible transition. >> you say to him that there is no way where you remain in power? >> i don't see a negotiated settlement. some of the people around bashar al-assad will have a place in the transition. >> you're saying to them that there is no place for you?

>> no, there is no leadership >> no, there is no leadership role for you here. >> what is the likelihood he will agree to that? >> he has not, as of yet. >> can we make the alternative worse? >> the alternative becomes worse when one of several things happens, his backers remove the support, his economy becomes untenable. thus far, they have not indicated a readiness to do that. i am just giving you analytically the elements here. that is one thing that could turn the tide. the economic circumstances for bashar al-assad could change the

tide. or the international community deciding that there is a basis for collective action. >> is he using chlorine gas? >> there are disturbing reports that he may be using chlorine gas. we are concerned about it. we have tasked the chemical weapons inspectors to investigate. they are. the chlorine gas is unlike the sarin gas, the gas it used earlier to deadly effect. it is not a banned substance under the chemical weapons terms. but, it's use in combat is banned under chemical weapons conventions. if they are doing it, it is illegal. that is why the investigation is important.

we attach great significance to what it may be able to find. >> a quick question about russia. dmitri medvedev said we may be entering a new cold war. >> i don't think it is a new cold war. russia does not lead an ideological block. it does not lead anybody in the 21st century. for another thing, the united states has said that it is not a a dual superpower world. our strength is not matched by any country, certainly not russia or china. when you look at our military, economy, demography, natural resources, and numerous diversity, partnerships and alliances, there is no peer. the cold war was premised on a divided world, ideological camps. there is no ideology behind

putin's russia, except for power and money. >> money meaning? >> money. you know, crony capitalism. >> before i leave that region and go to china, i want to ask this question. setting a date for the takedown of troops, some have criticized you for setting numbers. why is it necessary? what is the incentive to do that? >> i appreciate that question. let me explain. we have been at war in afghanistan for 13 years. that is the longest war in american history. i don't think any american in the fall of 2001 would have

thought that in 2014 we would still be in combat in afghanistan. our combat mission will end at the end of 2014. what remains are two tasks. one is to train the afghan security forces. we and our nato partners have painstakingly invested in their establishment, training, and professionalization. i can tell you from having been there repeatedly that the quality and efficacy of those afghan forces are vastly improved. they are not yet at the point where they can do every function independently. interestingly, what they have learned to do are the high-end logistics functions, the intelligence functions, making

sure their supply lines work, that they can pay their forces. that is the level of training and advice that we are giving. >> that is one aspect. >> that is one aspect. the other aspect is ensuring that we are able to support continued counterterrorism operations against al qaeda in afghanistan. when our commanders on the ground in afghanistan made their recommendations to the president, it was also the same people who said we ought to have a ramp down plan. we should continue at the beginning of 2015 to train and advise the afghans, what they call the corps level. we will use the duration of most

of 2015 to complete the corps-level training that our commanders think are so important to giving -- here is why we ramp down, because the afghans, visit the advice of the commanders, the afghans need to see the horizon at which they will be required to stand on their own. they have made enormous progress over the last two or three years. our commanders believe that by the end of 2016 they will not need the same level of support. they have recommended this gradual drawdown of u.s. forces. at some point, charlie, those people who say that you're going

to tell the taliban how long to wait. at some point, we are going to be gone. 15 years will be a long time. if the idea is that you say when you're gone, you give the taliban warning, we will be there forever. that is not the view of the afghans. it is not the view of the commanders. it is not the view of the american people. >> you think things will change for the better with the new president? >> yes, i think. i think that is a fair bet. i hope so. >> fair enough. in iraq, if we had been able to make a similar agreement to what you hope to make in afghanistan, would we be looking at in iraq that is not so divided joined sunni and shia and a resurgence of al qaeda, if there had been antiterrorist troops remaining in iraq? >> recall what happened in iraq. there is a lot of revisionist history going on here. it was president bush who signed the agreement with the iraqis to to agree to end our military

presence. that was signed before he left office. for those people who say why you going to tell the enemy when you're gone, that was the first instance. he decided on a date certain when our combat mission would end. it ended. what president obama said was that if we are able to negotiate with the new iraqi government an understanding, and they prove, that allows us to stay with the protections our forces need, wherever they deploy, and then we would be willing to get behind a small residual to help do counterterrorism with the iraqis. >> i know they did make it. >> they regret that now. >> they advised the afghans to not make the same mistake they did.

>> i don't know if that is true, but i heard that. it was not that the united states made a deal with the iraqis nobody can argue the counterfactual. al qaeda is largely a function of what is happening in syria. they started in syria and moved back into iraq. there were some remnants within iraq. the syrian conflict has been a large factor in fueling what has arisen in iraq. the united states has maintained an advisory presence in iraq, in our embassy. it is roughly the sort of arrangement we would have in afghanistan after 2016. that advisory role has been valued by the iraqis as they have now had to step up and deal

with this threat. the iraqis -- the question you pose is one for the iraqis. we were not ever going to be doing the fighting for them. we are still able to offer support and advice. indeed, we are doing so today. what the president said yesterday, as part of his counterterrorism partnership agreement, is we are going to ramp up our support, not only to the opposition in syria, but to the neighbors of syria who are battling this challenge. >> edward snowden made some statements. was he trained as a spy? has his information damaged any person we can identify? >> he was not trained as a spy. we have no idea where that assertion comes from.

and, has edward snowden done damage? he has done immense damage to the national security of the united states in ways that i wish i could describe in public, but i cannot. indeed, the illegal unauthorized revelations have given our enemies, including al qaeda, insights into how we gain information and intelligence on them that have enabled them to change the way they operate and be much more difficult to track. that is just one example. >> are we in negotiations to bring him back? is there any kind of consideration that he would do something and we would allow him to come back? what are the conditions for him coming back? >> that he stands trial. >> nothing else? >> no. we have the best justice system

in the world, with all the protections for defendants that anybody hope for. he faces very serious charges. he should come back and face them in court. if his intentions are honorable, as he claims, which is hard to imagine given the damage he has done, then he ought to be brave enough to face the justice system that is the foundation of the country he loves. >> let me turn to a note of -- as a north carolinian who knew maya angelou very well, she was an inspiration to so many people, including young african-american women who have gone on to have great success. what did she mean to you? >> charlie, i appreciate you asking the question. she was a huge figure for me,

personally. part of the reason being, not just because she was an african american woman, but in my youth, before i was corrupted by the business of national security, i was a poet. >> you are a poet? >> i love writing and studying poetry. she was from my earliest days as a student of poetry one of my very favorites. as i grew up and had more opportunities and exposure, i got to meet her on a number of occasions. she had such grace and warmth and dignity. she was extraordinaryly affirming of everybody she touched. as a woman and as an african

american, i had a great deal of fondness and appreciation for her. her loss is big. it is huge. in her poetry and her novels, in her teaching of students in north carolina. she was a great woman. >> thank you. >> thank you. a pleasure to have you here. susan rice is now the national security advisor to president obama. thank you for joining us for the hour. we'll see you tomorrow night. ♪

the following is a paid advertisement from star vista entertainment and time life. ♪ wouldn't it be nice if we were older, then we would have to wait so long ♪ ♪ pretty woman ♪ i've got sunshine on a cloudy day