year. the big story, the republicans finally succeeded and obama is being forced out of office in 18 months. you did it! and so many great people of already announced they are running for president. like, who should i even before? marco rubio, who is better than marco rubio #hillary. who is more knowledgeable about foreign policy? hillary. hillary's campaign slogan is it is your time. which i assume is what she says into a mirror when she is dead lifting 200 pounds. i am excited about hillary running. though i am not sure she is excited about having to run. i think she feels the same way meryl streep feels when she has

to audition for something. are you kidding me? you're going to make me go through this? you know i want to win. now listen, this next part is repeat after me. i want all of the media to put some think -- to put their hands up and swear something. ok? i solemnly swear not to talk about hillary's appearance because that is not journalism. [applause] [applause] [applause] also, cecily strong looks great tonight. now, i don't want you to take any of this poor in endorsement of hillary clinton because i would not endorse a candidate i do not play on snl. she has her work cut out for her, her calendars are a who's

who of who's that? jim webb, lincoln, silas, peter welch, those last two were characters from the adventures of huckleberry finn and you did not even notice, did you? how about that? and let's not forget martin o'malley. oh, i don't have anything to add. that is just his campaign slogan. let's not forget martin o'malley. lincoln chafee is thinking he can enter the race. it is like watching a dog look for its dead owner. like, oh. he does not know. a lot of people want to elizabeth warren to run for president but many think she is too idealistic and her policies are two liberal. let look at president obama. everybody thought that about him and he did not end up doing

any of that stuff. now, the republicans feel they are ideologically diverse. even people like chris christie, who is a democrat. jeb bush is probably in the race. the presidential race, not the hispanic race. that was an accident. by the way, jeb is an acronym for jeb alice bush. i think he thought that sounded way too elitist so be way over compensated. kind of like if benedict cumberbatch decided to go by skeeter. marco rubio is running for president. when jeb bush found out he said --. marco rubio makes mitt romney seem relaxed on the air. i hope marco rubio gets comfortable on camera before he has to go on tv and endorse

jed. chris christie has said if he is elected president he would crack down on legalized marijuana because he believes marijuana is a gateway drug. like a bridge to other drugs. in t wants to shut down that bridge. oh no, i am just talking. chris christie's approval ratings in new jersey are at an all-time low. the only thing new jersey approves of less is that dominican guy. ted cruz. it is like the right-wing thought, what is the exact opposite of the a black resident? how about a canadian latino who will never be president? no, it is true. he was born in canada, the son of cuban immigrants. i kind of cannot believe he was not in hillary's announcement video. another consideration for

president rand paul has announced he was taking over the families not being president business. and yes, that is way and that. -- that is ramnd. as an he ran for president but he did not get elected. the american dream, of course, is the model name of random paul's wig -- rand paul's wig. let's talk about my favorite person in the white house, my leader, michelle obama. michelle, you take care of that garden when you can because in

18 months you know bill is going to want an above ground pool. but seriously, michelle obama what it an amazing woman. a fierce advocate for lgbt writes, the founder of the let's move campaign to combat childhood obesity. it is a dream to sit next to you but it is a nightmare to eat next to you. i have a confession. you know when i got up to go to the bathroom for about 20 minutes i hid a cheese pizza behind the toilet in there and i ate it. sorry. of course mr. president. thank you for taking time away from being on jimmy kimmel to be here. it is amazing to be seated with the president having this fancy dinner. i know this must have cost a ton of food stamps, so thank you. a lot of you probably don't

know this but president obama and i grew up together in chicago. i remember we used to go down to the basketball courts, i would lace up a pair of jordans, he would slip on a pair of my moms skins and we would just miss three corners until sundown at which time we would have to stop and pray to mecca. that those were simpler times. now you have problems with congress, with vladimir putin, with israel. we cannot get rid of these problems by holding hands and singing kumari. co moyock, -- kumbuya. kumbuya, of course is the city where president obama grew up in africa. your hair is great now. -- grey now.

president obama, i bet you wish you were coming into office in 2016 and set of 2008. you should have let hillary win first, then it could be you running away from her successful presidency. you probably at this a lot. you are like madonna. you have both given this country so much, but in about a year and a half, you have got to stop. mr. president, it was a true honor to be here tonight. and thank you to the white house press correspondents association, whatever that is. but i have to finish up because the exterminator wants to get in and i have a bathroom pizza to finish. so thank you very much and good night. [applause]

>> cecily strong. thank you. wonderful. now, to bring our evening to a close i would like for all of you to remain seated while carol lee escorts the president and the first lady from the stage. [applause]

[applause] >> did you for a moment say all my god when that helicopter -- >> i did for a moment but then i saw our troops and the question was, is he there?

i was confident in expressing my views that this is the right way to do the operation. this could succeed. we had magnificent troops, a magnificent commander doing it. i was quite confident and that was the advice i gave to the secretary and there were others who gave that advice as well. he listened very carefully and accepted our advice. charlie: i was told you said to the president, this is what we do. we go there and we either capture or kill people and we come back. that is what we do. >> and they had done that many times in afghanistan and iraq. there were other missions that night that were also challenging so the key question was, was the intelligence right? when you are 200 miles into another country, you hope that everything goes right but

there was meticulous planning for this. a lot of contingencies planned. admiral craven was just a fabulous commander and is a dear friend. charlie: you were a green beret. >> i was. charlie: did you take a nuclear weapon strapped to your back? >> no. charlie: that seem so extraordinary. to shop a nuclear weapon to your back is not extraordinary? >> in the cold war, it was a very, very different. . from the 1950's to the 1980's, we had nuclear weapons of all sorts. so besides the ones that everybody knows, artillery shares, and a range of other things. some smaller ones could be used by special forces behind enemy

lines in the event that you needed to do something that required a little more than regular and explosives bob of course it would have been a big decision to make. so you have to train with them to know how to operate them safely. you still have two-man rules. part of it is how to get it in. so some of us had to learn how to parachute with it so i got to do that a few times. charlie: it you and charlie wilson and others drove the forces in afghanistan. how proud of you are that in the long career you have had with national security? michael: i am an extraordinary

proud in that it was a job of a lifetime. i was a fairly young man at the time. i had come out of the special forces into the scent -- central intelligence agency. it was a remarkable time. i had great losses. i was given the opportunity to develop a strategy that worked. the war was in its fifth year at that time. like a lot of the insurgencies. insurgents were getting weary. also, because of charlie wilson and others there was a buildup of resources. it caused a review of strategy at about was this the right amount and should we continue to see this at some that would impose costs on the soviets? but there was really no chance of winning. the soviets, up to that point when they had occupied an area they did it successfully.

that was the general belief. there was no chance of winning. policy turned in early 1985. president reagan announced a security decision. they had a role of drafting it in the cia's point of view. was to drive the soviets out of afghanistan by all means possible. we added a more resources and changed the weapons we provided. we provided training. did a lot of things differently or new. and within 12 months the soviets started looking for the exits. both sides and essentially escalated. charlie: they could shoot telik tashard helicopters out of the sky. michael: the culminating weapon was really the stinger. surface to air missiles but there were a bunch of other things too. gorbachev had come to the leadership of the soviet union.

he escalated at the same time we did. and we prevailed. charlie: what is the greatest threat to our national security? michael: it depends really on the timeframe you are looking at. since i began my career in this business in 1973, i have never seen as many challenges to our national security at the same time that are likely to be enduring and are difficult problems. jim clapper, the director of national intelligence said the same thing, so it is not novel to me. fundamentally, there are three challenges to the world order. this is a time of unprecedented instability from one part of the world to another. in europe, as you mention, you have a resurgent russia conducting aggression in ukraine.

but, its ultimate aim is to refashion the european order. to gain control more of the areas around the periphery. charlie: is it your judgment that they had a plan to do this after seeing the leader in ukraine after protests was forced to free to moscow. did they say, wait a minute what is going on here? michael: it is partly that. reacting to yana coverages auster. -- reacting to yanukovich's ouster.

-- yanukovych's ouster. it was a very sudden ouster, which was unexpected from their point of view. it is also part of a broader -- he was clearly on the ropes but he would give up that day. that is always a hard problem in intelligence. that was honestly a surprise. charlie: russia's leader things america had a hand in it. michael: that's what he thinks that it is not accurate. the second challenge is first and foremost in the middle east by sunni extremists who want to remake the whole place create a it is also sectarian conflict, proxy wars, regional rivalries across a number of state to state systems. it is under a lot of pressure. also being reordered in some way. libya being an example. more ungoverned areas. syria as well big parts of syria. yemen as well, it parts of it as well. and then in east asia and you have the rise of china. may be the most significant event for the 20th century as we look back great for the , chinese people.

lifting many of them out of poverty. great for the local economy. but history teaches us when you have rising powers in an international system you have to manage it carefully. so, those three challenges happening simultaneously are the big strategic problems. and other factors bring instability to the middle east and competition, but sunni extremism in terms of reorganizing the world. if you look at near and present dangers, it is a terrorist attack on the united states or a cyber attack on the united states. those are clear and present dangers. but not necessarily the longer term, geopolitical. so that's why i was saying it depends on your time frame. which one will be more significant? we have all three to deal with. their associated delivery systems and particularly states

that may use them is another factor as well complicated things in those regions, particularly in the middle east but also in the korean peninsula. it is not just limited to nuclear weapons. it is in the long run thanks to evolution and biotechnology. mostly good but also some dark sides to it and something you to pay attention to. cyber weapons are a tremendous shoe. charlie: the thing robert gates said to me is the thing they fear is nuclear weapons falling in the hands of terrorists. michael: you have a nihilist with a very dangerous weapon. you inside job -- it would generally be an inside job where the state had access to

that capability and then made that available to a terrorist group through infiltration. they would steal it. then once it is out of the barn can you recover quickly enough?

♪ charlie: the thing robert gates said to me is the thing they fear is nuclear weapons falling in the hands of terrorists. michael: sure, that is the nightmare situation because you

have a nihilist with a very dangerous weapon. charlie: give me an example. michael: it would generally be an inside job where the state had access to that capability and then made that available to a terrorist group through infiltration. they would steal it. then the question is, once it is out of the barn can you recover quickly enough? it becomes a challenging problem. like any terrorist operation it would be the smuggling effort so can you get it where you stole it from. and to you where you want to employ it, and that depends upon their age. charlie: if that happens and someone steals a nuclear weapon from pakistan or north korea how would they get it to the united states? would they come through the

ports in some way? what is the most vulnerable place that we are? michael: we spent the past couple decades trying to shore up our availability. i can't go into that great of detail. a challenge would be how do i get it where i acquired it. from the united states to iran. charlie: in terms of putting a ceiling on their centrifuges -- michael: the iranians, for some time, have developed a series of capabilities so that they could get close to a threshold. if they ever made a decision to have a nuclear capability, that they could, in short order have the requisite components enriched uranium would be further enriched from low enriched to weapons grade delivery systems, the technology to make the weapon and delivery system, etc., in fairly short order.

and some of those timelines can be as short as a few months to go from the low enriched uranium to the highly enriched. they have made strides as they build their capacity. they could have done this in a couple of months, go from the low end component. what this agreement does is extend that timeline. one of our great diplomats retired a year ago. this would not be the perfect deal but it does extend their timeline. i agree with bill's conclusions. as you said, there are also big benefits in having an intrusive

inspection regime to ensure they are complying with it. that has always been a benefit of arms control. that will work in our favor to. suffering from the nuclear deal, we certainly hope that is the case. they rejoin the international community. right now they are sponsoring proxy wars and a number of areas, in syria and yemen. supporting the iraqi government, others as well. we will see. i certainly hope that is the case. there is no evidence that they are backing off from other strategic goals right now.

charlie: what is the connection of the nuclear agreement and the reduction of their support? do we hope they will change their behavior and this may be a first step with a constructive relationship in iran? michael: that would be a strategic goal in the long run. they had a 30 year relationship with hezbollah. they are likely to abandon that completely. it really is a two-sided issue. if the state has nuclear weapons, generally it feels more commune from attack and therefore can do other things, support these proxy wars. more of the freedom of action

that he'll otherwise might have created they have benefits from the system. if they are going to jeopardize or get sanctions back on them. the reduction of sanctions would also give them more resources that they can deploy. it really depends on their strategic outlook and their behavior and what they have at stake. if you look at the deal that has been done, you get interpretations by secretary kerry and a different -- and a different interpretation about the deal. is that to be expected because they are speaking to different audiences? michael: you have domestic policy considerations in iran's case.

some of this is bargaining. once you get the framework of agreement and a new 90 day clock, what counts is what happens when you get close to the end of the clock. the negotiators are going to say all kinds of things to strengthen their position early on. i believe the supreme leader of iran is certainly interested in getting sanctions. charlie: is there a way they could negotiate their way in possession of a nuclear weapon? michael: it has been their objective to have the capability to develop one, but they haven't chosen to do that at this point. presumably because of the fear of the consequences. charlie: we had this conversation about this interview that would give enriched uranium up to 75%, but not up to 90. it is three months away to get it up to 90. would you say they have the capability?

michael: you have to have a delivery system, the material, you have to take the material and put it in a good design that will actually work. and you will have confidence that it will work. you have to have confidence it will survive when you put it on a missile. of course you have to develop the missile as well. all of those parks have to work together. what the iranians have been doing over time developed each of these components to varying degrees, to be closer if they ever made a decision to have a deliverable weapon that they

can keep the time as short as possible but not actually do it. what you have is a number of incomplete parts, some further along than others, all of them inching forward. what the nuclear agreement would do is push one of those back further and extend the timeline. charlie: do we believe they have missiles that could deliver nuclear weapons? michael: the challenge is having a weapon that fits in the missile. >> we mentioned ukraine. so what do they want to? michael: they don't want a

ukraine that goes to the west, that joins nato. that is fully economically integrated into the west. also i believe it might provide an example for what russia ought to do, which is have a democratic government, have better integration with the west. a fundamental concern of a lot of leaders like putin and kim jong on is their personal survival. the survival of power and the machine they half. to some extent ukraine presents a strength to that. they have historical interests as well. their goal is to keep it in their orbit. charlie: could we stop putin if he decides to go beyond ukraine? michael: anything beyond his periphery, he enjoys proximity advantages. anytime you have geographical advantages, exactly. anytime you get into any conflict, whether it is proxy

or conventional war, the relative degree of interest also matters. the vietnam war, the vital interest to the north vietnamese. not something we would just sacrifice indefinitely. you have to look at it through that lens. as you mentioned, a democratic and economically prosperous ukraine or any other country in the world is core american values that's what people determine that they want. and they have the right to do that. ♪

♪ charlie: henry kissinger and others have sad to in and said that we have to recognize russia has a historic interest in ukraine. there has to be an understanding that has to come that ukrainians need democracy and ukrainians need to make their own future and not be dictated by somebody else. but at the same time, there are

historic spheres of influence. michael: right. so, if you combined the traditional realist thinking with spheres of influence -- certainly 21st century will -- 20th century i would argue as well. though you -- liberal democratic values about self-determination of peoples, then you have to reconcile those ideas. that is why those questions about security policy versus political structure and economic integration may differ. liberal democratic values about self-determination of peoples, then you have to reconcile those ideas. that is why those questions about security policy versus its political structure and economic integration may differ. they are largely in the west but they had a foreign policy that to essentially did not

irritate their neighbor. charlie: isn't a in entirely rational person in terms of how he feels about mother russia. putin. michael: i will offer my own views. yes i think he is a calculating strategist. in that sense, quite rational. he also has rather ambitious goals in terms of restoring russian strengths, restoring its influence. re-creating much of space.

that fact presents a challenge to the eurasian order in a sense that those countries are independent and free to choose their own destinies. that makes him a revolutionary leader or state, even if it is rationed. it is still dangerous. he does have popular support at home, although that could change. charlie: what would change that, sanctions? michael: certainly the russian economy has suffered from sanctions. the long-term prospects are pretty grim if they do not modernize and are not integrated with the rest of the world. they are not dependent on one thing. charlie: what is the threat of isil? michael: isil grew out of al qaeda and iraq. it was an al qaeda franchise. it had been knocked down

through the iraq war, about 90%. so it's strength decreased eye the end. general mcchrystal had gotten its leader. multiple leaders have been taken off as well. between the. of 2006 but then there were others as well through 2010 before the current leader. but what saved them it is , essentially it is always hard , to drive these groups down to zero. or to take them a lot of the down. a lot of the leadership and some of the alliances they made were already in syria. and then the syrian civil war opened up a lot of space for them. and then the combination of disenchantment with the sunni population and a rock allowed them --

charlie: they were disenchanted with the shiite government in iraq. michael: from the period of the uprising through 2014, when they really did their tax. they were able to attract recruits in syria. syria came into it than ever went into iraq for the u.s. forces and the iraqi government. charlie: it includes isil. michael: the rate of flow was to do three times. of it is from 90 countries all over the world.

fighters come from everywhere europeansfighters come from everywhere and they will join , whatever group is there. they tend to be more of the but extremist group. isil, again they were in an , area where the regime didn't have a lot of control historically and they were able to build up their forces with a lot of these recruits. and then peel off other opposition groups to them and the combination has gotten them quite big. to have increased in size between syria and iraq from where they were. charlie: partly because social media. michael: social media is a way to attract a lot. charlie: did they have great health from former saddam hussein generals and colonels who never made their peace with

what happened? michael: they did. but also, you know the first , thing they did when they went back to iraq was western iraq. the area of the upper a saying in an bar -- uprising,. that took some time. that took some cities we fought very hard for. but then they really had a blitzkrieg in the north. the security forces collapsed in the wake of them. part of that was sunni disenchantment. you ask yourself the question how do 2000, 3000 fighters take over a large swath of territory against a much bigger army? it is because the population is pretty alienated. that is how you get the big force multiplier. they went essentially -- where their line of advance stopped was the sectarian boundaries. it started shifting from sunni to shiite.

then they became less capable. and, you know, a get in if you -- look at al qaeda and iraq history with their brutal tactics and governments, which isil does in spades, the population is and tired already. it took some years for the uprising to a current he last time. charlie: what will happen to make that as soon as possible? michael: the air campaign we are doing -- there is a fair amount. charlie: that has limited potential though, does it not? michael: in the end it is not going to be decided on its own. and then the buildup of ground forces to retake these areas.

but then to make it stick you , have to have good governance. otherwise you are back where you were. charlie: do we have that now? michael: well we are working. charlie: the prime minister was just here and he was probably at the pentagon. i talked to him right before he left. michael: and every u.s. leader is giving the same message about the importance of inclusiveness and sharing and needing support. charlie: where are ground troops going to come? michael: part of it is the iraqi army, the main element. you also have the militias that have then with the defense of baghdad. mostly shiite militias. iran has been supporting those militias and they did not

succeed against tikrit. and then the coalition was successful. charlie: explain that to me. they had an offensive that did not succeed? i thought they were part of the effort to drive isil out of tikrit, that militias had helped drive out isil into crete, that it was a success for them and later american airstrikes came in to buttress their effort. michael: more or less. they have supported these militia. they were originally doing it on their own. there is this perception we cooperate with the iranians. as i said we have a pretty capable intelligence community

that that a lot of our collects things a lot of ways that a lot of our commanders , have at their disposal. so the offensive, the iranian led defensive did not succeed. it could not take tikrit. so the prime minister of iraq went to the coalition and said can you help us do this? the coalition did supported and it was successful. of where their members of the militia forces with the iraq he army? yes, but under the control of the government of iraq. charlie: they said there is a difference between american advisers and iranian advisors. the and rainy and advisers -- the iranian advisors are on the front line, and the american advisers are not.

what are iranian advisors doing in the front lines? there a troops supporting shiite militias. the iranian advisors are on the front lines advising the shiite militias. michael: they weren't successful. we were. is what i would say. and the prime minister knows that. charlie: that turned the tide? it enabled the iraqi security michael: it yes. it enabled the iraqi security forces under the control of the prime minister to achieve that. charlie: also in the last three months -- talking to him. of he very much wants to say to america what needs to work together on this. because, we can stop isil. i have the syrian army and i hope you changed in being with me so we can focus on isil. what do you say to that? michael: i would say that he has, again, it is a policy

matter. i will just give you the perspective of various regional actors and my own. that he lost his legitimacy to govern by the brutal way he has done that. and, you know, he has benefited as his father did from minority roll over a broady -- broader population. sunnis, as you know, but others. you know, there needs to be a political transition. it is hard to see how you put syria back together in any form or get after the terrorism problem ultimately, or bring it to a conclusion without a government that's really has legitimacy and the support of its population. charlie: so, you cannot bring it to a conclusion without a government that has support of

its population. michael: even if you focused on the multifaceted terrorist problem, isil and al qaeda, and other extremist groups potentially forming coalitions. at the end of the day as you had mentioned you need to have ground forces to control the territory. you have to have a ground force in syria that shares those aims and also then is not -- is able to control territory at some point and the syrian regime can't do that. charlie: who is winning the war right now? it's a stalemate right now. it is a very destructive war in terms of a humanitarian crisis. even more displaced people internally and neighboring countries. conditions are hard. it is horrendous, it is hard to get aid to people.

you know, and so the regime periodically has gains, the opposition has gains. it is basically a stalemate. but, charlie: one of the great questions coming out is whether we should have made any deals with weapons. michael: there are other things that historians will look at and make a judgment on. i think there had been benefits in getting the chemical weapons out. i also think it is part of a much broader context. i don't -- had there been a you know limited strike over , the conventional weapons syria would not be fundamentally different. the strategic choices about whether we have the a coalition partners carrying greatly about

, whether we had an opposition that was capable of bringing a transition. syria is the more fundamental question. i still think it is possible. charlie: we can build a moderate force? michael: again, if you look, there are a lot of terrorists there that we have to deal with, and we are. but, to get to a stable successful outcome, you are going to have to have a strong moderate opposition that then becomes a transition government that you can work with. if you look at the afghan program in the 80's, it took us seven years before -- six to seven years before we turned the tide. so that i think is the

fundamental question, can we build that opposition without fueling terrorists? charlie: how ironic is it that some of the people you know and supported in afghanistan, some turned out to be bitter enemies of the united states? michael: fortunately i have friends in the afghan government that were former commanders as well. but, it is certainly an irony and one of the interesting things, having participated in not time, to come back in a different role and we are trying to kill each other. charlie: and then you drive the russians out together. and out of that, osama bin laden. michael: yes.

now, one of the -- a series of things had to happen them -- a series of things had to happen afghanistan after the russians had left. to bring about al qaeda, using it as a big sanctuary. taliban had to invite him in. etc.. i think is former secretary gates has said, one of the big mistakes we made after the cold war was not staying engaged in that region. trolley bank that was the last message of charlie wilson, wasn't it? michael: it is indeed. charlie: -- where are you on intelligence we have learned from guantanamo leading to bin laden in combination with other intelligence? michael: i think through some of the analysis made clear by the cia, we did get intelligence from those programs that helped us understand al qaeda, that led to a number of disruptions including a role in the path to osama bin laden. it helped us identify -- really

focus in on certain aspects of the courier that would lead us to him. what are you could have gotten that through some other means, whether the strategic downsides of that program outweighed the intelligence benefits, it is for others to judge. i think there was very valuable intelligence that came out of it. charlie: thank you for coming. thank you for joining us. see you next time. ♪

>> the following is a paid advertisement four-time life's music collection. >> ♪ welcome to my world ♪ >> that these are songs we will always remember. songs we grew up with. songs we grew up to. >> ♪ and when we get behind closed doors ♪