>> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." >> a malaysian airlines jetliner was shot down over ukraine yesterday. it was traveling from amsterdam to kuala lumpur and was thought the plane was shot down by

russian backed separatist in east ukraine using surface to air missiles. the president spoke earlier today. >> here is what we know so far. evidence indicates that the plane was shot down by a surface-to-air missile that was launched from an area that was controlled by russian backed separatist inside the ukraine. we also know that this is not the first time a plane has been shot down in eastern ukraine. they shut down the ukrainian transport plane and are bringing helicopters and claimed responsibility for shooting down the ukrainian fighter jet. it includes arms and training and heavy weapons. this was a global tragedy. it was filled with citizens from many countries.

they endorsed this investigation and we hold the members to their word. >> twice served as acting director and consultant for cbs news. tell me how you see this so far based on what we might know so far. >> aced on what the president has said and based on the folks i have talked to, it is clear the separatists shot down the aircraft. they thought they were shooting at a ukrainian military

transport and they turned out to be wrong. one of the things that is interesting to me is the web postings. the ones they made immediately where they were taking responsibility and then those web postings were taken down. some of the chatter picked up by the ukrainian government about these guys posting about should downs and realizing the mistake they had made. it was clear they were not targeting a civilian airliner but a ukrainian government airliner that would've been the third this week. >> is it easy to make that mistake? >> not if you are a nationstate and you have the sophisticated airline radars of a nationstate. but if you are a rebel group or a separatist group, you're

guessing as to what you're shooting at and very easy to make a missed eight. at 30,000 feet, you can't tell what is a tour and what is a civilian aircraft. >> do we know who was manning the weapons? >> i don't think so. the interesting question is the degree that was three levels for me. this is clear to me that we were at this level. he encouraged them, he has funded them, he has equipped them. in that way, he is already complicit in to what they did yesterday. the second level of complicity would be, did he actually give them this particular

antiaircraft missile system and did he train the separatists on how to use it? that would be a second degree of complicity. the third degree of complicity is, were there russian special forces that were there and who assisted the separatists in the shooting down of this aircraft? that would be as far as you can go. that would be difficult. at minimum, he is complicit in supporting these guys which are well known publicly. possibly his own guys were there when that happened. >> how will we find this out? >> there is only one way, and that is through intelligence sources. an investigation of the crash site is not going to tell you

that. that particular antiaircraft system is long gone. that is nowhere to be found anymore. the only way we will find out the degree of russian complicity is through intelligence. >> they might have access to it in eastern ukraine. >> i am sure they do. >> what else? what kind of forensic evidence? >> we want to make sure that the conclusion that this is a missile strike is the correct one. you will be looking for an explosion going where the fragments of the aircraft are going into the aircraft as opposed to a bomb where the fragments are coming out. >> what will be the consequences for -- and this is a diplomatic

question -- for vladimir putin? and secondly, for the fight in the ukraine. it and third, the relationship between russia and the u.s.? >> great questions. the first piece of this is, if it turns out to be what it looks like, russian separatists firing this with or without direct support from the russians -- but in any case, the separatists did this, it puts tremendous pressure on the united states and on western europe to take harsher action against russia in response. >> i merrily sanctions? >> i would say primarily sanctions but also possible direct military support. those should be on the table and will be on the table. the sanctions to date have been modest when you compare them to the iranian sanctions. number two, i think there will be a lot of pressure on putin

from the world in general. the embarrassment factor here. one of the interesting things is to look back at the soviet union shootdown of a south korean airliner in the 1980's. and it was really a turning point in the cold war, i think. because it told the world in essence what the soviet union was all about. i think this has the potential to do that and make it clear what he is all about. in my mind, he is a thug and he is a bully. he is willing to do things that the rest of the world simply sees is going way too far. i think it has the potential to change -- something responsible nations do not do. >> help me understand more about

the kinds of weapons being used. >> this is one of the most sophisticated air defense systems in the world. there is only one other system more dance than this. >> an american system? >> it is a russian system as well. they have both. this is a very advanced system but this is the important point. you and i could not operate that system. it's not flipping a switch and pushing a button. you have to be trained, you have to be experienced to use that system successfully. >> military planes fly at what altitude? >> all sorts of different altitudes. >> they might have given them these weapons in order to shoot down a military craft and therefore promote the separatists and the ukrainian government.

>> in terms of where this particular system came from, there are two possibilities. one is the system was in the military arsenal. so they could have gotten it. >> i think i read reports that the ukrainian military had these kinds -- >> it was part of the ukrainian military inventory. the separatists could've gotten it from there. >> wouldn't they know if one was missing or not? >> we should be asking them just that. they also could've gotten it from russia and one of the many pieces of military hardware that he has given the separatists. >> do we have other evidence? generally. in terms of what intelligence tells us. >> the answer is, it depends.

first of all, the are not a unified group with a single commanding control. there are individual separatist groups probably responding differently to what moscow asked them to do. i think that vladimir putin has lost a bit of control. he created this to some degree and gave them dangerous weapons. i think it is questionable how much control he has over them. >> there would clearly be a huge international response to this because the world always response to that. and with an accusing finger. >> yes and i think it will be

pointed near vladimir putin. >> mike morel, back in a moment. stay with us. ♪

>> violence threatened to engulf afghanistan last weekend as the contenders in the presidential election both claimed victory. the first round of voting forced a runoff in the pulmonary results released on july 7 showing a lead of 12 points. his opponent rejected the results and threatens to create a parallel government. last saturday, the candidates reached an unprecedented agreement. the deal brokered by john kerry set the stage for an auto that would have international observers recount more than 8 million votes. abdulla also formed a unity government. i am pleased to have him on my program. i have known him for a number of years and have seen him in different places. this is especially an appropriate time. thank you for coming. >> you're welcome. good to talk to you.

>> where are we in terms of this audit? and when will we have conclusive results? >> the audit has just started. we are in the second day of the audit process. we are satisfied that it is moving forward. there are some small issues that hopefully will be taken care of in between. it would be between three and four weeks before we have the preliminary results of the audit. includes all the ballots and boxes. >> was this a dramatic breakthrough mediated by secretary of state john kerry? >> absolutely. it was a very salient situation.

there were different ideas including the pronouncements of the government. not even a parallel government because they truly believed that there was massive fraud and systematic fraud. that is the background and we are in the verge of a serious crisis and it was a very timely intervention thanks to secretary kerry and president obama himself who took a keen interest in order to help the audit in recognition of the fraud. and mobilizing the international community in order to pursue the most comprehensive audit ever in the history of elections around

the world. that helped us avert a crisis. it helped into the process. we deal with the audit process in good faith. as well as the agreement on the political situation. these are essential for the future of the country and hopefully afghanistan will emerge stronger when the audit is completed and once the unity government is formed. >> it is an important statement for democracy. >> the achievements were the result of many contributions for

our partners, the united states, and the international community as a whole. it is much more than just one election. it is about who sends it and who doesn't. this is a stage we're just at the beginning of the audit process. we have the hopes of the people and the trust of the people is strengthened on the democratic process but we are at the beginning of the process. >> you have complete confidence in the results of the audit and will abide by them? >> i will abide by the outcome of the audit. we are observing and monitoring it and part of the observation. the internationally supervised audit is something that we have asked for.

we will be contributing to the process but down the road, we are true participants. and what we are asking for is the people of afghanistan deciding the future of government. >> help me understand what is the commitment to unity government? have you said that you will form a unity government and whoever wins will have the top post and the other will be prime minister? >> we agreed on the formation of the national unity government in the presence of secretary kerry. and there is a technical agreement on the issue of the

audit. it is important for both agreements to be implemented in good faith. we are dealing with it as such and both are important as it is on the taller auditing. it is important for the future of the country and creates a sort of win-win situation instead of a winner take all. as much emphasis we do on the fairness of the audit process, we realize that there are needs of the country that has to be addressed and the formation of the national unity government will help. >> how will afghanistan be different?

if you are the top guy or if he is, what is the essential difference between the two of you in terms of the future of afghanistan and its relationship with the united states? >> we will complement one another in many ways. should we work in the same system and there are certain capabilities, i would say, with both of us. i give you a book full of reasons why i would be a better option for afghanistan. but now the campaign is behind us. the first round of elections is behind us. it depends on both sides, and my experience in the country and knowing the country, being in the country throughout difficult

times and also the beginning of the political process. i was the central figure in that regard. it was a peaceful and civilized transition of power. and we established a framework where at the end of the day, one person is involved. it is my expertise, both are complementary to one another. >> this is a fierce campaign. >> there is no doubt about the differences but i would say that knowing the country, knowing the

people better, that is very important. and of course they are both committed to this. we all have learned the recent campaign was a recent experience that might help us to look forward towards a better future for our people. one of the conditions that i was trying to put in the political agreement was to have an overhaul of the elect oral system.

they don't need to go through the same painful process that our electorate go to. it is important to create a reaction as a whole. and we will have a much better -- delivering to the people, these are the ideas that i have committed my life, throughout my life, throughout the resistance

against the soviets, the resistance and the opportunity that was part of the government and part of the opposition. i did not accept things after the fraudulent elections. we can help the country is all rather than the far of the corrupt system. >> what influence do you believe president karzai had on the outcome of the election? >> he was not neutral. he took sides. supported one side. that one side was not me. i asked him to stay impartial and it was good for him, it

would have been good for the country and for the future of him as a leader to serve the country in the last 13 years with ups and downs altogether. it would have been much better had he listened to our advice. and he would have been the one that would've brokered a deal in between us so that we can solve the problems. he damaged that position. i still respect him as my boss and as leader of the country. but nevertheless, he took sides and that also led to the process

that damaged his position. >> you believe he was part of voter fraud? >> i would say he is part of supporting one candidate and humiliating himself as well as close associate that meddled with the electoral system and our institutions. with the outgoing president, but unfortunately, he chose to do such that he could have done much better for the country and left a better memory for the people of the country had he been impartial.

>> i realize you're dancing around a criticism of the president and at the same time, to commit voter fraud, i assume is a criminal act. did they and did he, in their participation of the election, commit a criminal act? >> you call the dancing around an issue, criticizing. i have criticized him for the past seven years about many things, including his role in the recent elections. but what is important for us is to leave the problems of the elections behind us and look towards a better future for the people of the country, but his role was not positive. >> do you believe that regardless of who is president

thomas there will be and should be negotiations with the taliban and? >> i do believe in negotiations with the taliban and but it should not be the sole element of dealing with the taliban at the same time. we should defend and assure our people that we would be defending their rights and their achievements against terrorism and against those resorting to violence only the day before yesterday in a suicidal attack in one of the provinces. 95 people were killed and a whole small town was destroyed. these are crimes against humanity. we are here to protect these people's rights and keep them open for negotiations. >> any people have argued for a long time that it does not have a strong central government. that this huge amount of power is wielded by tribal leaders.

has that changed or is that a fact of life in afghanistan? >> a fact of life in afghanistan has been that for many years, the people were deprived -- and there was an opportunity. a lot has changed. unfortunately, the mentality of some of our leaders has not changed. if you look at the younger generation, you will be finding them vibrant, forward-looking, very creative. which has risen above those old ideas. there are leaders in this country that are stuck in the old mentality. mentality above the leaders has

not changed that much. it is because of that sort of mentality that there is no belief in those and touche and. there is no belief in the rule of law. based on that mentality, we have list a lot. even under the current presidential system, we could have elected mayors. the rule of the elected province should have been enhanced. but there was a tendency towards conciliation of our not in one office but in one person. that is why i give you the example of the timing of the bilateral security agreement. they decided that afghanistan should sign the bilateral purity agreement. one person decided not to do so

and it has led to missing a lot of opportunities. the demographics of the country, the cultural issues should be taken into account in the political system of the country which has a tradition of self-rule in a way that at the same time, a united afghanistan is something that never in our history was there cause for disintegration of the country or that movement in the country. it must've been the people wanting to be united. and a certain evolution of the authority of robbins as was needed. and hopefully, it will -- >> you say a bilateral agreement

meaning there will would be some american troops left there. is it essential for american troops to remain beyond 2014 because -- and my question is how many? because without that, you might see the same kinds of consequences we have seen in iraq. >> i would say that the signing of the bilateral security agreement is essential, and at the same time, leading sacrifices of the troops as well as asking people. they have moved from one place to the next.

we are not really ought to be in order to create a stable foundation for this country. the terrorist organization cannot turn back and attend world peace. the presence of troops will be needed for some time to come. meanwhile, it is important that the commitment is there for long-term support and it should not be where the international unity is committed to afghanistan while the leaders are not committed to help their own people and help strengthen the rule of law, to up hold the ideals of democracy that is the

only means for survival. it is not an idea that you have to take it or leave it, but survival of the country is related to this. which is there provided an opportunity. and i see a great opportunity. at the same time, continuous support and commitment is needed and hopefully, the future opportunities will be utilized in a much that are way than what has been done in the past few years. >> it is said the taliban took advantage of the corruption of the karzai regime and was part of what enabled them to come back. do you agree? >> the gap between the people in the government, because of

corruption and bad government, because of a lack of commitment to the democratic principle and to the rights of the people, that helps the insurgency and it feeds the insurgency. on top of this, absence of a policy, we are releasing prisoners without -- they are not joining the battlefield. a policy of conciliation which has not only elements of dealing with the insurgency, but also assurances to the millions of peaceful people that are committed to a peaceful afghanistan. so confusion in the policies has led to the strengthening of the

taliban and. i have no doubt about that. >> how potent a force to you believe the taliban are? >> there is strength as far as the numbers are concerned, it is difficult to put a number on them. but at the same time, they will be stronger if the government of afghanistan is not seen as legitimate. it would be stronger and they will find ways if the government of afghanistan is not committed to the ideas of its own people. if there is no justice, or no rule of law. italy is that strength. otherwise, they can turn into isolated groups in different

parts of the country and eventually, they want to continue the war. they will be very limited isolated groups. they see no future for themselves fighting to have to join the peaceful process. the strength will depend on not just how strong of an m, but the national police and national institutions. it is one part of it. the civilian government is legitimate, committed to the rights of the people and delivers an opportunity for the peaceful people where it is a very important element dealing with the taliban. >> i know it is too early to say, but what will history say

about america's involvement in afghanistan? history to bickley says it is not a place to get engaged and involved because the afghans always reject the presence of international or other countries. they did it with russia and the soviet union and in the end, they did it with the united states. >> the history could be relevant to the current situation. as far as the soviet union was turned, the people resisted. i was a student in the faculty at that time, but i knew that i

would be part of the soviets because they have occupied our country and when i graduated, i joined the resistance. the people of afghanistan migrated under the soviet occupation of afghanistan. those are different circumstances. this question of yours i was faced with after september 11, 2001 when there is the prospect of american troops coming to afghanistan. i anticipated the people of afghanistan would welcome the american troops because we knew that the forces, the conditions which were imposed upon us, we were not able to reach on our own. your people will be regarded as helping afghanistan in a

critical moment of history and the people are grateful. but your people, helping us in a very difficult time. this attitude should not be interpreted as the views of millions of that and who have benefited from your support. nevertheless, there have been some mistakes, some big mistakes, perhaps. the fact that you have helped us and made sacrifices alongside the afghans, those who will judge it in a fair manner rather than being contaminated by self interest.

in the broad sense, the afghan people would be grateful for the help you have wrought us. and this was a turning point in our history, you helped us against the soviet union once towards the end of the 20th century, and you helped us once again at the beginning of the 21st entry. >> over the mistakes you mentioned? >> listening to one person as opposed to the voices of millions of evil in afghanistan. and turning towards iraq, the attention towards a rack at a critical moment. and considering the indigenous forces, those who have helped

against the soviet occupation and against the taliban and al qaeda, and the beginning of the main challenge was a mistake it is the indigenous forces of afghanistan that were committed, they should have been transformed rather than trying to isolate them and creating a security vacuum. there were a lot of them, but at the same time, they helped. a majority of our people are appreciative of that.

>> thank you so much for taking the time to talk with us in understanding your own vision for afghanistan and its future. >> you are welcome and good to talk to you. >> one of two men who may likely be the next president of afghanistan. back in a moment. stay with us. you talk in the book about resetting with russia and whatever happened in the reset with russia did not work. >> that is not true. >> explain to me -- >> we had a different president and it is a significant -- >> the most powerful prime minister was the prime minister. >> he sought advantage to the reset. it accomplished a new start treaty because we had one expire and they did not know what we were doing and we did not know what they were doing.

getting sanctions on iran that i worked hard to negotiate to the oh that could begin to rein in the iranian so we can get them to the table which is where they are today. and clearly, helping us in terms of refueling and resupplying. my view is we got what we could from the reset. it might have had a longer life is good and had come back into office with a different attitude but the signs that i saw, starting with the protests in the street in russia in december of 2011 after the rigged or limit three election and he blames me for the protests, so it was clear to me that he was not going to continue the kind of cooperative relationship we had built up when you became president again which is why wrote a memorandum before he took office and on my way out the door talking about a different approach.

the reset was successful insofar as we had clear objectives. a lot of diplomacy is transactional. not always because we do have some friends and allies with very clear values. >> it looks like it is likely they will have to extend beyond. you would support that if? >> i would take a hard look at what the iranians that the weighing. there have been two messages. the message from the political side and the message from the supreme leader. i do believe that this is serious enough that we should look carefully at an extension. but in return for what?

what will we get as an extension of the talks? >> what should we demand? >> you can negotiate in public about that but what is iran willing to do to reassure the united states, the west, the p5 plus powers, everyone concerned about nuclear expansionism, what are they going to do? >> are they assurances -- they even said having a nuclear weapon is against the kuran. now you have leaders saying that we need 190,000 centrifuges. >> that makes no sense. he is in a position that may or

may not be a negotiating position or it may be a substantive session. what do we know? i could make the case that he said that to make it clear to the united states and the rest that, come on guys tom i have the supreme leader saying this and you know that is not going to cut. you got to help me get it through. and our response is we have our own problems, my friend. a lot of people who don't trust you and have good reason not to trust you. we have a congress that is very suspicious. and that is a conversation going on right now. >> is the most important relationship with china? >> is with europe.

>> but the dominating forces are the united taken china? >> i had a very good relationship with kathy ashton who was the first rap for foreign affairs. the relationship with china is absolutely consequential and that is not just a semantic inference. we have to have a very clear understanding with china which is why we put together the strategic and economic ilog. they are prone to mistreat us and occasionally we are prone to mistreat them so we have to keep the channels open. it is a big danger. and it could have blown up our relationship or years to come. but because we had invested so much time and effort into building a relationship, people to people, we were able to weather that.

it is such a consequential relationship. >> if i don't mention this, people will write and say i didn't mention benghazi. a new investigation coming up. two questions. what is the question of if there was enough security and if you knew -- you have spoken about that. he did not know but also listens to recommendations made by the first commissions. the other question has to do about talking points and things that are not necessarily having to do anything with you. is it going to be, do you believe, an effective campaign item for those that believe that the president was paying more attention to the campaign than to the definition of what was going on?

>> i don't think so and i certainly hope not to cause over the last five years, we've had democrats and republicans in the white house when terrible attacks on americans have occurred. we lost 258 americans, marines, and embassy personnel in beirut under president reagan. and the way that was handled at the time was with deep regret and shock and as clear an investigation is to be held to try to learn from it and apply the lessons. because those were terrible times for the united dates. my husband was president when we had attacks on our embassies in tanzania and kenya. again, the first time ever an investigation withheld at madeleine albright's direction and it was made public because

we wanted people to know what we have learned from that. we have had many attacks on facilities and personnel, the civilian work of the united states, the state department, aig, and foreign nationals that worked for us. and there is no way to express the deep regret and tragedy of the loss of americans, diplomats and friends, someone i sent there. an ambassador and information specialist. we have had losses. there is a big plaque busting people who have died in the line of duty as civilians. we know how much our military has sacrificed. in the american people want answers, i believe there have been many answers it in.

that doesn't mean everybody listens to it. so between congressional investigations, the independent board that was convened, there are many answers out there. we will see what one more investigation means but i think it is important to put this in a historic context. >> thank you for spending this time with me. i appreciate it very much. thank you for joining us. see you next time. ♪

>> live from pier 3 in san francisco, welcome to "bloomberg west," where we cover innovation, technology, and the future of business. i'm emily chang. ahead this hour, the ambitious agenda of netflix. the streaming company is planning aggressive international expansion as well as bigger and bolder original shows. this coming after netflix passed the 50 million subscriber mark and posted a big rise in second quarter revenues and profits. silicon valley is becoming a must visit location for potential 2016 presidential contenders. days after rand paul rallied conservative tech workers, former secretary of state hillary clinton is in town meeting with executives from twitter and facebook.