♪ announcer: from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." charlie: robert gates is here. he was secretary of defense from 2006 until 2011 under president bush and obama. his memoir "duty" has just been released in paperback. some call it the most candid account of washington ever written. it comes at a time as we battle forces in the middle east. the defeat marks a major setback the defeat this weekend -- the defeat this weekend marks a major setback for the iraqi army and government.

meanwhile, in syria, special operations forces killed a senior isis leader, identified as the group's chief of finances. all of that as we are pleased to have robert gates back at our table. let's talk about what i talked about in that introduction. what are our options, and what is necessary to stop isis and turn the tide against them? secretary gates: i think you need to step back a little bit charlie, and realize that there are actually four conflicts going on at this day and time, -- in the middle east at the same time and syria is really , the epicenter. there is the sunni in saudi arabia versus shia led by iran authoritarians versus reformers, secularists versus islamists and that the fundamental -- then the fundamental question, whether these artificially created countries like syria, libya, and iraq, comprised of historically adversarial ethnic groups, can

hold together or whether they go the way of yugoslavia, and as i say, they all kind of come together in syria, which is one of the reasons it is such an intractable problem. the problem with the isis phenomenon, in my view, is fundamentally the result of the civil war, a spillover of the civil war in syria, and the anti-sunni policies followed by iraqi prime minister maliki, and i think our withdrawal of all of our troops had a role, but i think these other two things were the major cause, to the point where the sunnis saw isis originally as liberators because they were so antagonistic towards the government in baghdad, so it is a very tough problem, and i think that we are seeing the

difficulty of getting the iraqi forces trained, the security forces trained. the anbar tribes, we are not seeing the kind of organized resistance that we saw in 2006 that led to the uprising there against al qaeda and the extremists. the kurds seem to be holding their own and doing a pretty good job, but it is a very tough problem. charlie: so what do we do? secretary gates: we have to keep doing what we're doing with the iraqi forces, and the truth is it is going to take some time. charlie: but it's been a long time. secretary gates actually, when : we left in 2011, the iraqi army was in pretty good shape. we had been overseeing their logistics. we had a role in choosing their leaders, and they were competent, and they were capable. the trouble was that maliki replaced them with a bunch of political hacks who had no military experience, did not

have the respect of the troops and that is why the troops turned and ran. because their leadership were worthless. so now, we have basically had to almost start over, because in the 3, 3.5 years since then, the quality of everything in the iraqi security services has deteriorated so badly, so we have got to accelerate that in some way. i believe that we need to change the rules of engagement for the limited number of forces that we have there, so we can be more effective. i think the president was right to ask for political change, get rid of maliki, and he is right that the boots on the ground the ground armies have to be arab, kurd, and so on. not american. so if we can empower our special

forces and have some on the ground spotters and air controllers and spotters, and we can have some trainers, embed some trainers down with the iraqis at the battalion level i , think we could move this process along a little faster. charlie: i was told recently that the iranian advisors are on the front lines. advising the shia militia. the american advisers are not on the front lines, they are back. should they be on the frontline? secretary gates: i do not know if they need to be on the front lines, but they need to be forward from where they are now, which is back in big training camps, where the basic training and so on is carried out for the iraqi security forces, but they are not close enough to be helpful in advising when it comes to the fights themselves. charlie: my understanding is we have been training iraqi soldiers in saudi arabia jordan, everywhere else.

secretary those trained outside -- secretary gates: i do not think those trained outside of iraq are going to have a significant role. charlie: they are on the march in a rock. -- iraq. ramadi is not that far from baghdad. i realize if there was an attack on baghdad, other things would come into play. robert gates: thanks mostly to iranian-led shia militias, and then, ultimately, u.s. air power, they were able to take back the sunni city of tikrit but the city is in ruins and the city was largely destroyed by

the fight, and so what you see happening is that isis is beginning, is continuing its spread to basically areas that are coincident with where the sunni population lives, and i think what stops them, the natural barrier for stopping them, is when they get moved closer to the shia areas, where there are a lot of people who will fight and who see them as bitter enemies, partly because isis is sunni, and so i do not think you are going to see large chunks of iraq outside the sunni areas fall. but you are looking at a good part of western iraq in the hands of isis, and i think getting them out of there is going to be a real chore, and especially getting them out of ramadi and falluja and mosul. charlie: places where americans have spent a lot of lives, as you know.

is it a bad idea, then to try to , put together american airstrikes, american advisers, iranian advisors and shia militia to try to bring together as much firepower as you possibly can, because it is that serious, that threat of isis? robert gates: well, i have a difficult time accepting a significant iranian presence and military rule in iraq, given our sacrifices and everything else. charlie: but you just said they were, in part, responsible for what happened in the previous victories. robert gates: so the government is clearly using the shia militias, but the idea of having general soleimani, the iranian general, on the ground and on the front lines, i just have a

hard time dealing with that, frankly. charlie: because he was an enemy. what about my enemy is my friend? robert gates, i remember -- robert gates: i remember netanyahu once told me that the enemy of my enemy is my frenemy. we have to work with the situation that we find, but we also must do what we can to limit the extent of iranian influence in iraq. it is already significant, and so i think figuring out the way forward with the iraqi government in a way that limits or at least prevents further iranian influence i think is important. whether we can accomplish that or not, i honestly do not know. charlie: that is huge. -- a huge if.

robert gates: it is a huge if. charlie: when does it become an emergency? robert gates: the problem we have is that andy barr and -- anbar and some areas are in the hands of isis. as i say, i think it is going to be tough for them to expand beyond the sunni areas of iraq. the danger is that they nest there long term, and becomes a base for further action in lebanon and syria and else where -- elsewhere, and a place where they can plot terrorist acts against us. it also validates this idea of the caliphate, to have this caliphate, which has such appeal in their propaganda, including in this country, that this islamic state has to occupy territory and government, and if you take that away from them --

you do serious damage to their narrative. but how you do that is a tough problem, and i'm not sure we have the solution. charlie: how awful is it when you see these raids in syria where you get whatever, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, eight, a leader in charge of finances, which is important for them, because they have to sell the oil and they need to have resources to carry on and to recruit and all of that. robert gates: we used to semi joke in the situation room that the worst job to have in al-qaeda is the number three position, because the number one we could not find, and the number two, we could not five, -- we could not find, but number three, it was a short term position. it is important to send a

message that our father -- that our forces do have enough intelligence, that they at times can go after these leaders, that they can strike behind the lines, and this is the kind of thing i had in terms of the empowerment of the special forces. charlie: it was written that the bush dissolution of the iraqi army in 2003 -- you were not there in that time -- was catastrophic, in that he helped create the iraqi insurgency. robert gates: i agree with that entirely, and i would add that the second worst decision was the debaathification. as i wrote, it is like no one read about the denazification. if you ran the local power plant you had to be a member of the , party, and the same thing was

true in iraq. you had to be a baathist. so you basically put 4000 people trained in arms out on the street with no way to support their families, and you basically took every civilian who knew how to make anything run and made them -- put them out of a job, so the two were, i think, terrible decisions. charlie: tell me who made that decision. robert gates: i am told that our coalition provisional government made that decision. jerry bremmer. charlie: he made it and not donald rumsfeld or george bush? robert gates: i wasn't there, but my understanding is that it was made in the field. charlie: nobody challenged it? so there was nobody with a reading of history to say, you cannot do this. this is -- robert gates: one of the many

what ifs, what might have been. charlie yes. talk about what is going on with a lot of's saudi and arab leaders coming here to talk to the president, and they had a very good session. whatever comes out of it, we do not know yet. it was said this morning, you wish they did it a lot earlier. robert gates: the sad thing is they said they wished they had done it earlier, and it is the seventh year of the administration, and i think we have not done a good job of reaching out to our friends and allies in the region. i think that the saudi disenchantment with the u.s. really did not begin with isis or with the iranian nuclear negotiations but rather with the way we handled mubarak.

the red line in syria was huge as well. charlie: they were also opposed to the invasion of iraq. the foreign minister of saudi arabia did a show with the about -- with me about the same time in washington and said, "don't do this. you do not know what you are getting into." robert gates: the question a lot of the republican candidates seem to be wrestling with is what would you have done, and i think that is the wrong question. i think the right question that has value is what are the lessons? and how would that shape your view on how would -- how you would conduct policy? for sure one of the lessons is we overestimate our ability to shape events in the middle east, and the second is the law of unintended consequences is always in effect, and as the military says, sergeant murphy is on every mission.

if something can go wrong, it will. charlie: suppose you had been advising the president, and the cia came in and said, "oops, guys, before we launch this mission, we just found out there are no weapons of mass destruction. we can go in and topple saddam but there are no weapons of mass destruction." what would you have advised? robert gates: i think that under those circumstances, first of all i think the president , probably would not have invaded. charlie rose: but he has not said that, though. robert gates: i know he hasn't. but i think that the intelligence was wrong. i always believed that the charge that he lied us into the war and misled us is all wrong. he believed the intelligence he was given, and as i mentioned to you, maybe the one thing i would have done differently was maybe ask carter questions. because i have been in the

business so long. charlie rose: but the secretary of state went out for two days. robert gates i think that to be : able to get down beneath in terms of the currency of the sources, how recent their information was, how reliable they were, maybe those questions were asked. i don't know. charlie: they got the wrong answer. robert gates: they got the wrong answer. the cia got that wrong. charlie: do you think it is great jim and? -- great damage? robert gates: i think it did do damage, but i think there is an important lesson to be taken from it, and that is we ought to be very, very cautious ever again to launch a war purely based on intelligence analysis and reporting as opposed to the actions of another country.

charlie: what lessons do you think they learned at the cia? who do you trust? robert gates: one of the things i always try to do when i was at the agency, particularly when i ran the analytical side, was to try to do each analytical piece like a lawyer's brief. here is what we know. here are the facts that we have accumulated. here is what we hear from our sources, and here is what we think, and i actually separate it out, sort out the evidence from the analysis, from what we think, so that people could evaluate -- you know, could evaluate what the actual intelligence was before the analysts got to work on it. now, the other side of that coin is that the entire case on osama

bin laden, where he was, was totally circumstantial. there was not a single piece of hard evidence. it was a bunch of analysts at the cia, connecting the dots, so that is the opposite side of the coin. ♪

♪ charlie: you seem to be in favor

of negotiations with the iranians. as you think they are rational actors. robert gates: in their own context. i think this specific -- first of all, getting them to the table was an achievement for american foreign-policy. they did not show up out of goodwill. they showed up as their economy -- because their economy was being strangled, and they were in fear of being overthrown by their own people. and i think there are some good things in the agreement. what happens to the stuff -- charlie: the iranians were in fear of being overthrown by their own people? robert gates: i think first of all, the green revolution. but it took a lot of force, and it is a scary thing. and i think that there are aspects of the agreement that have to be approved for it, i think, to be a good, solid agreement. one is the pacing of the lifting of sanctions.

another is on the verification. a third is -- charlie: ok, here is a question. based on what you think has been done -- on the one hand, iranians are saying sanctions have to be lifted immediately, and the u.s. says it has to be phased, and on the inspections they seem to be rather intrusive inspections, based on what john kerry said. and what others have said, in terms ofhat to do. bethhey will not be able to go on military facilities, so that is a nonstarter, and the other question is, will there be no-notice inspections? can we go anywhere, anytime? we are at the front gate. knock, knock. [laughter] charlie: so if, in fact, those two things are not done -- and what is three? robert gates: the third is whether you can actually

reimpose sanctions. i so of have thithe iranian border with billions of dollars to invest, and the notion you are going to get them back out to reimpose sanctions once they are lifted is a hard case. charlie: and that is part of the fear people have with this deal. they worry that if the sanctions will be lifted immediately, not only will we not be able to put them back. but the iranians will take all of this money and do nefarious things. robert gates: that gets to the larger point, and that is that the premise of the agreement based on the administration's own words, is that the hope over the 10-year period of the agreement, the 10-year or 15-year period of the agreement, the iranian government will focus on growing its economy and will over time become a constructive stakeholder in the international community, and they will abandon their

theological positions and abandon their interest in having a nuclear capability and abandon their meddling, and i think that is a very big leap. i think that is an unrealistic expectation. based on everything we had seen. charlie: but is it a risk worth taking? robert gates: the risk is worth taking if the deal is worth taking, and so the question is what is the quality of the deal at the end? the deal has to stand on its own, regardless of iranian -- charlie: you and jim baker and henry kissinger all say the same things. if he does not back away, what happens then? robert gates: i do not believe that the only alternative at that point is war. as i said, the iranians did not come to the table out of goodwill.

they came because they were in trouble. that may be where they were headed in the first place, despite all their protestations, that they had no interest in a nuclear weapon and that it is contrary to their theology. charlie: the place between one nuclear weapon today is about 2.5 months. and this deal makes it one year. robert gates: maybe. charlie: you have a lot of questions here. this is a lot. you have to assume a lot. robert gates: charlie, i have done a lot of arms control with the soviet union, and as an intelligence officer and an intelligence adviser to the negotiating team, i had some responsibilities when it came to the verification regime and how we could monitor compliance. those agreements were very simple and mainly relied on our own satellites.

we still found anomalies, and we still found evidence that we thought the soviets were in violation of that agreement. this agreement is much more complex, requires access, direct access to many places to assure they are not cheating, so this verification regime is really important, and the devil is in the details, and my concern is we will find evidence of an ambiguous compliance, and we will have a big interagency debate about it here in the united states about whether the information is valid or not, and the intelligence community will be saying, here is the evidence we have, and we will be wrapped around the axle, and we will not know for sure, and that is why the details of this their -- verification are so important. charlie: most of the debates between cia and state and

defense, or is that just one one example used? robert gates: that is just one example. particularly in arms control. those who have negotiated arms control agreements do not want to have intelligence say the other side may not be compliant. charlie: do you believe, a, the president has shown he is prepared to use force in many ways -- that the president is of a mind that that this is so important that it is worth taking the risk, a, or do you believe that the president simply once this -- wants this too much, and it is a real danger to us? because -- robert gates: i think anyone engaged in negotiation, to be -- knows that to be successful you have to be able to walk away from the table, and i worry that the agreement has taken on such important that even if these

ambiguities and questions are unanswered, there will be a great reluctance to walk away. even if your intent is simply to come back to the negotiations and try to get a better deal. charlie: so you think the president may want it too much. robert gates: i hope not. charlie: but you are worried. robert gates: i am worried. charlie: the president is saying the behavior may change. do they have an incentive to change their behavior, with respect to supporting hezbollah, with respect to the role they are playing in yemen, supporting the rebels? robert gates: i don't think so. i think the iranians think that

in terms of the way things are going in the region, they are clearly concerned. they have significant influence in iran, -- a rock -- i rock -- a rock -- iraq they are playing a role in yemen. and so i think that they -- i think that they think things are going pretty well from their standpoint in the region, other than isis, and that is no small issue. charlie: and that is why the arab countries are worried. robert gates: that is why the arab countries are worried, and it is never going to be all or nothing. if the iranians get a whole bunch of new money, sure, some of it will go into their economy. maybe most of it will go into trying to revive their economy but i think it is naive to think that some significant part of those additional resources won't

go to further iranian interests in the region. charlie: are the actions of president obama today, since you have left government, different than your understanding of how he viewed the world? robert gates: i think there have been some changes from what i wrote about in "duty," but i think those were beginning to happen in the last six months that i was there. the decision to basically tell mubarak he had to leave immediately. that decision, as i write in the book, was opposed by every senior security official in the government, beginning with the vice president. including the secretary of state. charlie: all opposed to telling mubarak he has to leave.

robert gates: that he had to leave right now. charlie then who influenced the : president to say that? robert gates: there were younger people on the back benches that said you have to be on the right side of history, and i am sitting on my side of the table, saying it yeah, if we could figure that out. and the decision to intervene in libya divided the administration, and the president was very clear to me that it was a very close call on his part. charlie: you were on one side. robert gates: i was opposed to the intervention. and secretary of state clinton happened to be on the side of intervening. charlie: along with susan rice. robert gates: but on the other side were the national security adviser, me, the chairman of the joint chiefs. charlie: that is what makes the presidency a tough job.

robert gates: absolutely. the president he had this huge array of huge problems, and every now and then we would be alone in the oval office. he would be talking about these things, and i would just kind of smile at him and say, "tell me again why you wanted this job?" it makes me wonder why this gaggle of people who want to run for president think this is a good idea. charlie rose: what do you think of the republicans running for president? robert gates we will wait and : see. each of them has an interesting background. some governors, some senators. as i told bob schaffer, most of them have not had jobs that require them to have any foreign-policy background, and so my guess is their attitudes and their views on foreign policy will be fleshed out and get deeper as time goes on. charlie: you, at the same time are the guy who writes and said barack obama, facing the toughest test of his presidency,

the osama bin laden mission, which you had some reservations about, and it was the best example of leadership you had seen in a while. robert gates: i wrote that it was the most courageous act i had seen in the situation room one of the most courageous acts , i had ever seen. charlie: what is it that enable someone to do that? what qualities enable someone to be there and to be right more often than they are wrong? robert gates: i think what is really important, out of all of the presidents that i worked for, certainly, what they had is a lot of self-confidence. president obama, one of the things that surprised me and pleased me was very early in the administration was it became clear to me that here is this guy who had never really run anything, he was a decision-maker. he did not hesitate in making decisions. he did not worry about it.

he did not fret about it. and if you have the time to spend a lot of time analyzing a problem, he would do it. he would tell me, "i can't defend it if i do not understand it," but if he had to make a life-and-death decision, he could do that, too, and that was what was impressive, and then he never looked back once having made that decision. charlie: so from the time you left government to today, you have not really changed your opinion about him as an effective leader? robert gates: i have not changed my opinion about him about him being a decision-maker and his willingness to make a decision. i have disagreed with some of the things that have happened. as i said, i disagree with the way he dealt with mubarak. i disagree with the decision to go into libya. i think that the crossing of the red line was a terrible,

terrible development. the united states has to be -- the president of the united states have to be very careful about drawing a line in the sand, but when he does so, for the sake of the credibility of the united states, it must be fatal to cross that line because once you, as i used to tell presidents, if you cock that pistol, you had better be willing to fire it, and to back away from that red line has consequences, not just in that specific country. charlie: even though the russians came up with an idea that he found appealing. the red line is more significant , the symbolism is more significant than getting chemical weapons out of syria. robert gates: at that point 1400 people had been killed in a terrible chemical weapons attack, but by that time

150,000 people had been killed by conventional weapons. charlie: how will that war end? robert gates: i wish i knew. i don't see -- you know, it has kind of seesawed back and forth. some suffering, some losses, but the tragedy is before it ends, a lot more innocent people are going to die, and nobody seems to have a good idea of how to bring it to an end. charlie: will it be a political solution, or will it be a military solution? robert gates: my hope that then -- my hope has been that the situation would get bad enough that his own military would get rid of him and then settle for some kind of a deal. charlie: he has to take himself out. robert gates: it is pretty clear

-- as long as he is there, problem. -- as long as he is there, it's going to be a problem. charlie: let's turn to russia. where do you think russia is today? we just saw some evidence in news reports that they captured two russian soldiers. robert gates: my own view is that putin is not going to be able to rest until he has a land bridge to crimea. charlie: will that be enough? robert gates: well, it depends. i think it probably is. the question is whether there is some kind of a negotiation that can take place that keeps eastern ukraine part of ukraine, even if it has considerable autonomy. charlie: you mean autonomy just to eastern ukraine? robert gates: yes, but i think putin has played hard, he has

been very tough in his resistance to the sanctions and everything else, and right now it appears that that situation is going in his direction, and the ruble has regained some of its strength. oil prices are up a bit. my guess is that he is feeling pretty good. charlie: the sanctions are not working then? robert gates: well, they are having an impact but i think the , drop in oil prices had more of an impact. i worry about him stirring things up in the baltic countries. i am not particular concerned about a direct military action, but his ability to use many russians who live in all of those countries, particularly estonia and latvia, to stir

things up and create instability, i think we should not underestimate that. he has already launched a cyber attack against estonia in 2008 so i think -- i do not think we should relax when it comes to the baltic states, but i think the pressures are more likely to be more subtle and covert than they have been in eastern ukraine. charlie: do you think about a return to government? robert gates: no. i think having written this book pretty much takes care of that . charlie: will you write another book? robert gates: i have already written another book, about leadership, specifically about how you change and reform big organizations to make them work better. i did it at texas a&m. i did it at the cia.

i did it at the defense department. it can be done, even in a time of political paralysis, and this new book basically talks about how to do it. charlie: his book is called "duty: the memoirs of a secretary at war." robert gates: thank you. charlie: back in a moment. stay with us. ♪

♪ ifical council in 2012. in his position, he has traveled around the world, advocating the gospel of the family. he is in new york to deliver an address at the united nations as part of the 2015 international day of family. i am pleased you have the archbishop here at this table. welcome. it is a pleasure to meet you. what is your mission with respect to the family? archbishop paglia: my mission is to help all churches all over the world to understand better and to proclaim better the gospel of the family.

family is a good news for a contemporary world when a lot of people are alone. a lot of people are depressed. a lot of people suffer. in a sense, family is to be a good news for all people of the world. charlie: the church has a cent on -- synod on the family, does it not? archbishop paglia: around 400 bishops from around the world gathered together in order to discuss about family, about the gospel, about the problematic situation of today. charlie: you have said in your remarks that the facts speak for themselves. the number of weddings has drastically reduced. the numbers of people living together or divorced has increased. procreation is more and more

separated, not even from marriage but even from intercourse the combined technical aspects with other things producing for the first time in western history a situation where the intergenerational and heterosexual family discovers it is seen no longer necessary in the organization of society. archbishop paglia: you know, in the first page of the bible, in it says god says it is not good for man to be alone. in the sense that we need to rediscover and to re-announce the beauty to stay together, so in this sense, the family is the source of society. a strong family means a strong society.

a feeble family means a feeble society. charlie: and here is where i am a bit interested in asking. my understanding is that the pope, when he assumed the papacy, you know, said that all of these issues you were talking about were very controversial, divorce, homosexuality, the state of marriage. i just read that. the pope, i thought, was trying to say let's focus more on the pastoral role of the church and not get so engaged by these things that create so much controversy. our mission is pastoral. our mission is to expand the church. archbishop paglia: the church is to stretch its arms in order to welcome everyone.

above all who suffer. pope francis, he exalts bishops, priests. faithful. do not judge the others, but to help the other, to improve their situation, to comfort who need some good news, good words, good people in a sense that the pope wants a church with near all people. no one has to be alone. charlie: let me ask you about this pope. tell me. how is he doing? archbishop paglia: so i remember when i met him for the first time. two days ago, i was visiting my apartment.

not so rich, not so large, a lot of rooms, and i said, oh, i don't want to be alone. i will remain where i am. what does that mean? the pope is really, a normal man. he is friendly. he makes all people feel comfortable with him. there are barriers in the sense i remember when in the first celebration in st. peter's square he went in the middle of the people, and on the one side, there were the vip people, and

we meet a little child. he stopped. so this is the style of pope francis. in my opinion, it has to be the style of the church. at the beginning of this millennium, we have to show to the others the message of god. charlie: how is he changing the church? archbishop paglia: so more family. less organization. more humanity. less structure. our real treasure is humanity. our real mission is to touch the other with our hands, with our love, with our passion.

with our desire to change in a better way a world really sad without joy. often, i meet people not so happy. we have to rediscover the happiness and friendship and helping each other. our common dreams. charlie: i understand he is also trying to change rome, the vatican, the curia. archbishop anglia: -- paglia: once, i said to the pope, holy father, [speaking italian] --

you changed the career. you change our lifestyle. because he injected in the curia his passion for meeting with the others, and this is, in my opinion the reason and the effect of his first trip in the united states. in september, pope francis will, -- well, -- will come to the united states. he will visit washington and then new york and then philadelphia, and the pope knows that this is a historical trip and he will exalt the american people to be more human, to be

more open, to rediscover the mission of the people of the united states, of the church of the united states to play a big role in the world. the role of, in order to humanize our contemporary world. charlie: as you know, he has been involved in trying to bring cuba and the united states together. archbishop paglia: exactly. the way he stopped finally the cold war. with this encounter between the united states and cuba, pope francis showed that the encounter has to be the main actor of history.

charlie: he also wants to recognize and see the world recognize the palestinian state. archbishop paglia: in order to reach the peace in order to create a new kind of encounter so pope francis gives to us new dreams. he wants to push all of us to a new world, a new encounter among people. a new encounter among persons. charlie: how is the church handling, and i think he has been more out front than some the terrible incidents in the church of pedophilia? archbishop paglia: the pope is really hard in this perspective. four in the gospel, it is really clear, not only for the respect

-- not only to respect but to , defend childhood and the youth and the young people. charlie: and not to cover it up. archbishop paglia: absolutely. because jesus said we take really clear words, that the angels of the child are in the direct contact with god. we have to remember this. in a sense, all crime are crimes, but the child against a crime - charlie: are you optimistic for the church? archbishop paglia: if we follow pope francis. i have lived in rome since my childhood. every wednesday, every sunday, st. peter's square full of

people, not only believers, but people from everywhere, in a sense rediscovering a new father in a world where the father disappeared. we saw the disaster of this. we rediscover and pope francis -- in pope francis papa. charlie: archbishop paglia thank you for coming. archbishop paglia: i hope you continue to see and to hear. charlie: thank you. we will see you in rome. thank you for joining us. see you next time. ♪

rishaad: it is wednesday, the 20th of may and this is trending business. this is a look at what we are watching. adouble the airbag checks. it is going to a remarkable 34 million. reviving japan as the economy goes down for the second straight quarter. it could mean light at the end of the tunnel. some harsh words from joseph.

he says greece could leave the eurozone. do let us know what you think about the top stories. follow was on twitter -- bus on twitter -- us on twitter. we head over to jakarta later this hour. let's look at the markets. >> clearly the best performance so far in asia -- similar gains of what we saw yesterday but still in the morning session. 30 minutes before. a lot of this is down. we will talk about this later on. it is very impressive growth figures. you have the quarter to quarter figure beating expectations. 2.4%. dollar yen pushing to 1.21 we are