announcer: from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." president obama announced on monday the final version of sweeping legislation to cut carbon emission from the electricity sector. the clean power lance imposes the first nationwide limits on carbon dioxide from power plants. it is part of the president's domestic policy. president obama: you know, for the past six and a half years, we have taken on some of the toughest challenges of our time, from rebuilding our economy after a devastating recession, ending our wars in iraq and

afghanistan, in bringing almost all of our troops home, to strengthening our security through tough and principled diplomacy. but i consider no challenge poses a greater threat to our future, to future generations, than a changing climate. joining he is gina mccarthy, the head of the environmental protection agency, which proposed this regulation. i am very pleased to have you at the table. ms. mccarthy: good to be here. charlie: tell me what this means to this president, because you what he hoped to achieve becoming president, and as it winds down in the last quarter, there were certain things that he wanted to make sure he got done. this is not complete yet. ms. mccarthy: we did finalize it.

not completeit is in terms of the opposition. ms. mccarthy: that is for sure. charlie: talk about how he feels, because he talks about unimaginability. ms. mccarthy: we have had conversations about it, and, in fact, the day he asked the if i would become the next administration of the da, i asked if he would do something on climate, because that was the next unfinished business, and he has been eloquent in talking about climate. own it twoout his daughters. he talks about the climate he is seeing, and he puts this in a different way than anyone i have heard. he talks about it as a moral responsibility, and he means that. he is constantly looking at the science and worried about where the world is heading, and to

him, it is just in constable that we would not recognize -- that we would not recognize this and take action, because he recognizes what we are doing to the world and what the future might look like if we do not act now. one of the most interesting things he said this week, i think, is that we are the first generation to feel the effects of climate and the last generation to do something about it. charlie: so difficult. why are there so many people opposed? well, charlie, i have been asking that question a lot. and i am looking at public health. that is what i do. and i was looking at the data. 20 years ago, more than that, 30 years ago, you started to get a sense of what was going on and the friends that you were seeing, -- the friends -- trends

you were seeing, with literally no solution that we could talk and that is not going to work. if you give them a problem that there is no solution, they pretend it does not happen, as they are too afraid of it, and we have been doing that for 25 or 30 years. we can stand up and say in 2012, we spent $120 billion that nobody budgeted for because of the impact of climate. the president announced an entire climate action plan, and that was a cross-administration

effort, and it started with the work he did on cars. wet was another area where had some real solutions to put on the table. we had highly efficient cars. we have electric cars that are wanted touced, and we reduce carbon emissions from vehicles, and the automobile industry, they were selling cars that people wanted to buy, and that was a bingo. that was a good one. we did it with heavy-duty vehicles, and we are doing a second round of heavy-duty vehicles, and we are replacing the ozone-depleting substances, and we are looking at how we phase out those that are highly others, and we moved to because as time moves on, the united states innovates. other products come up. we have solutions. that is the difference today than before. people did not know there were solutions.

and the reason why we can move forward in the power sector is because the power sector, the electricity industry is transforming already. we are not looking at renewables today. it is happening because the market is demanding it. there is a transition from carbon-producing fossil to natural gas, which is much cleaner, and now, we are seeing a growth in renewables. between last year when we proposed this and when we finalize it, it is beginning to take off. charlie: the president, if i understand what he has said, he once to say to the world, this is our model. say, this iso ours. to do it urge anyone without doing it ourselves, and here is our program. absolutely.:

there are three parts. the first is mitigation, which we are talking about. the second is adaptation, and the third was a global solution, so basically what he said was the one thing we know for sure is we will not have a global solution unless the united states takes action domestically , and the largest world economy and the rest up, of the world noticed. we had china stepping up and doing a joint announcement, where china for the first time got away from the carbon intensity goals and said we are going to cab and also look at renewables -- we are going to also look at renewables,

and then we had brazil, in. charlie: and then you see people like mitch mcconnell from the senate saying, over my dead body. it will kill the jobs of the people who elected me. i do feel for the coal industry and the jobs that they have and the people who rely on those jobs, but the truth is since the 1980's, a lot of those industries have been losing jobs significantly. we are not in the 1980's anymore. later.any years we actually have to work with those communities to find out how in a changing world they transition themselves, and that is why the president put together a proposal called the power plus proposal to really start investing in those communities, rather than letting the fear of those communities drive the entire energy and environmental world, but there is no question they will need

help. but that has been happening already. it has been happening for years. charlie: a friend of the president, taught him in law school, raised the constitutional questions about this, the violation of the state ts.ht -- states' righ not acarthy: well, i am lawyer, and certainly, even if i were, i would not argue with the man. we are setting a standard that everyone in the world has been telling pa -- epa to do. that is exactly what this is. charlie: 2032? 2032.carthy:

we are actually going to reduce carbon pollution from the power 2005r by 30%, 32% from the level. charlie: that is doable. ms. mccarthy: yes, it is. it was not a goal when we started. it was the finish line when we did the rule. is how weor us at epa capture the best, and they all have to achieve it, and then we count of those reductions. we do it bottom-up, and this is what we came up with, and i think it is a significant reduction, but i think it is an indication the energy world is changing, and so we are riding that wave and pushing it along to make sure it happens. thatie: what about states say no to clean power? they willhy: i think be few. i think they want to do their own thing and customize their own plan.

we are telling them you can do this in a way that is suitable to you. you can look at energy efficiency. you can look at switches to natural gas. you can look at renewables. do what makes sense for your own economies and your own regions, and if they choose not to, epa will do a plan for them, and we also proposed what that will look like yesterday, so they will know. it is not that we will punish them when they come in. it will still be viable and reasonable and affordable for them to do it, but why not do your own question might you have been asking for it, and states really do want to lead, and we have great relationships with the state during the outreach, and i think they will step up. running marco rubio, for president, said if you're a single mom in teva, florida, and your bill goes up $30 a month, that is -- a single mom in tampa, florida, your bill will go up $30, and that is

catastrophic. will your bill go up? ms. mccarthy: no. this is one of the arguments i am seeing, because it is the most vulnerable and low income communities that we are asking for. damaged the ones most by a changing climate. we see it over and over again. we are not going to hurt the very people we are trying to coupleo this plan does a of things. it provides clean air for our kids, and it provides carbon-pollution reductions. in 2030, every year, about $45 billion in savings, because the energy world always costs money. the energy world in 2030 with this plan will cost less, and it will save lives. charlie: some say this is simply not true. net benefits, and the cost to consumers by 2030 will actually be an $85 per year

savings, because the world we are looking at is cheaper. it is easier. it is. the first year of compliance, it will be about one gallon of milk, about three dollars. by 2025, that will go down to one dollar, and then the savings accrue, so there is no way we are actually imposing an unaffordable plan on the very people we are trying to a. charlie: what about a carbon tax? there are some who believe in it. i do, too, and the theydent has always said are free to do it. the president had to use the authority that his administration has, and the clean air act is not a tax policy. ae clean air act is pollution-reduction policy, and that is what we are going to have.

the price very high? no. charlie: there are forces against you. their stakes are high, as well. what do you think their interest is? well, i can: understand the folks who are worried about the coal industry, but i think there are solutions to that. i think we can work with those when the economy shifts and changes, because that is really what this is all about. part,think, for the most we have just failed to engage the broader stakeholder community, the people who really need to speak for themselves, and we have been doing that. not come from people in a room sinking thoughts. we have spent two years of engagement on this. to comment is going to be 15,000 pages. so we have heard it all, charlie, but we are doing this in the community. you know, when people realize

this, this is about their own kids, whether they can breaethe, -- breathe, this is about asthma, and this is what will get us over the finish line. charlie: some believe you are not going far enough. there was an argument that the previous model for climate change -- they are too conservative, and the sealevel rise might swallow of our coast in this century. is that all alarmist? or is that saying we had better get real? ms. mccarthy: it frustrates me just as much when they say you have not solved the problem when you put something out. the president did not say he was going to solve it. what he said with ms. going to get moving and do something to mess to clean and do it in a way that is achievable so people see that action does not hurt. that first step is most important.

we will say it has been successful, but only if we have already achieved a global solution, because i think we cannot wait until 2030. charlie: what about in paris? ms. mccarthy: i think it bodes well, the conversations we have already had, and i think the nobal community -- i have idea. i will leave it up to my international folks and secretary kerry, my good friend, but i do think this will change the dynamic, but you can only do what you can do, and i think this is it. charlie: thank you. my pleasure. gina mccarthy is the administrator of the epa, the environmental protection agency. act in a moment, and we will hear more voices on this very important issue -- back in a moment. ♪

charlie: we continue our look at climate change with coral davenport from "the new york times" and steven mufson from "the washington post." we see organizations coming together and have probably already in together, but tell me

what you see the president doing. is that what he had done, or is it more than that? he once a deal -- wants a deal. meeting the target of cutting emissions by 26%, 28%. that is a goal that we are trying to get other countries to commit to in various different ways, and that is one reason why when they moved from the initial rules last year to this year, they did not want to weaken the targets. coral, do you think these are attainable? they say these targets are reachable, and the overall target is a cut in emissions from existing power plants, 32% from 2005 levels by 2030, and electric utilities

have said pretty consistently they probably can meet these regulations, and they do anticipate there could be a struggle on the path to get there. there may be some struggles with reliability and keeping the lights on along the way, but ultimately, that goal is reachable, is within the realm of capability for electric utilities. you haveand both of written, i think, and mentioning harris and what is happening in paris, part of this is an effort with developing nations on leadership and creating a plan to reach goals. every nation. the objective of the paris accord, which was forged in december, is that every single country in the world will put forth a plan to cut its own carbon emission.

didl now, the united states not have any kind of policy in place, and with the announcement of this final regulation, the announcement that the united states is proposing, not just putting out a draft or an idea, but actually moving or word with pretty aggressive regulations, the hope of the president is to set an example and try to get, again, all major economies to do something similar. is there enough them to dosuade something similar? mr. mufson: in a pretty methodical way, he was in china last year and got china for the first time to commit by doing something by 2030. they are saying this is something china was thinking anyway, he moved on to india, getting a huge commitment on renewable power,

and a percentage cut, and they actually follow through with vasttments to build these new amounts, they will be in the and most recently in committed to they increasing protections for rain s that absorb carbon dioxide, so he is slowly working his way or not so slowly working his way through some of the leaders, some of the countries that have been the most difficult to bring to the table, and he is going to keep doing this for the next six months, i think. charlie: in both of your more effort in how he sees the last two years, to make sure he finishes work on things that he considers to be a legacy? he seems to be aware of what .ost people would look to

in the roomt: yesterday in the east room, he used the worm a, and there was very sweeping rhetoric. these moments to be recorded in the history books. he came in in the second term aying to set this up as legacy issue. he mentioned it. it was a major part of his second inaugural address. and he is following through on ,he initial campaign commitment and he does see this as a cornerstone of the legacy that will play out over the coming decades, and the big question is will he stand up to legal challenges? charlie: votes democrat and

republican? -- both democrat and republican? is mufson: mitch mcconnell encouraging this rebellion, and there are several ironies about this. senator mcconnell talked about president obama trying to suck the life blood, the lifeblood is the word he used, out of the kentucky economy, and less than 1% work in the mining and logging industries, and in addition, the way this plan works is that the epa had certain targets, and he gives states flexibilities to try to reach those targets to see most suitable, and if they refuse to come up with their own plan, the federalsult in

government coming in with its own plan, and in a strange way, by resisting the federal government on the whole western of authority, these states may lose the opportunity to fashion on the-- the government authority,ion of these states may lose the opportunity to fashion a plan. charlie: jeb bush, for example, who opposes this, they say it will throw countless people out of work, and it increases everyone's energy prices. there is the argument. mr. mufson: well, that is the argument, but one of the interesting things about all of may, charlie, technology allow this a lot easier. to some extent, solar, the cost of solar energy, plummeting asked because the storage is going down, -- plummeting fast because the storage is going down, and one of the things that they havene is delayed it by two years to allow people to get on a better it might notth, so

be quite as hard as it looks, because a lot of the big utilities, because on the one hand, there are some republican efforts to stop it might not be quite as hard as it the plany are busy trying to figure out targets, andhese some say it is doable. i have even in a couple of them say the plan is actually more modest than what they are already planning to do. that is the dynamic, i think, going forward. charlie: there have been yourrials, i think in paper, that say it should have gone further, but this will clearly be a battleground in the 2016 presidential contest, cor al? ms. davenport: similar as when we saw the health care law become a major issue in the 2010 midterms, and as soon as that law was passed, it sort of set

policy platform that candidates had to acknowledge. they had to say, if elected, i would support the health care law, and i would work to undo it. thoses the same thing climate change regulations set up, and i talked to political strategist that say this is their first serious climate that isolicy in history now actually in place, and the candidates will have to immediately project it into the 2016 campaign in a way that we probably have never seen climate change in a campaign before, because it is not a fight over whether it is real or broad proposals about what to do about it. it is if you're going to enact these regulations and see them through, or are you going to work to undo them, one or the other, and that makes it more of

a policy issue rather than a broad, sweeping ideological issue. mr. mufson: charlie, another thing. what are some of the keys? think about last time. we had wildfires in colorado before the election. we had a huge storm in new jersey, and lord it is always being busted by different climate issues, -- and florida is always being busted by different climate issues. charlie: thank you very much, steven, coarl. -- coral. we continue with robert jordan, with the epa under george w. bush. about policy decisions. how do you rank of this as a president? mr. jordan: it is the most important environmental decision

he will make during his years, and one of the top three climate change decisions on the whole planet. charlie: that is saying a lot. let's leave the legacy adding a side. there.eading mr. martella: it is the message have.trying to and this is a symbolic one.

he wants to show leadership to the world. charlie: will it have an impact in terms of what they decide to do in anticipation of going to paris. mr. martella: they will be .ooking at some precedent the challenge is going to come from the developing world. the driver of the increase of greenhouse gas emissions is coming from the developing world, china, indonesia, brazil, and they are going to say this is not fair to us. you had a chance to grow your own economy without having to worry about greenhouse gas emissions, and you want to put a pause on us. i think that is where that will come in. charlie: you mentioned legal challenges. what will they be, and what will determine the legal success? there is the

substantive issue of climate change, and the other is the legal precedent, and i want to begin at the outset in recognizing the courts have given us some direction from 2008 from the supreme court. and the court has been pretty consistent with saying climate change is very important. they are there to serve as a check on the assertion of authority, and that is where i think the president's plan goes too far. hasoes beyond anything epa done in the past 45 years under with the epa act, relying on a very specific provision that has only been used a few times, and what we

have talked about already is the most important energy policy, and so from the presidential perspective, ultimately, i think the courts, despite wanting to support the president on climate change, i think we will find that the precedent goes too far. charlie: but they have used it five times? mr. martella: it is like with landfills. i would like to share an example. i brought a couple of props. coal-fired power plant, for the past 45 years -- the clean air act has been around its 1970 -- everyone has agreed, and the epa has agreed, limit, you have to look at the technology applied to this power plant, and that has been noncontroversial, and the challenge gene of accardi has, with this coal-fired plant, they say they -- andy get a 2% to 4%

the challenge gina mccarthy has, with this coal-fired power plant, they say they can only change, and we are going to force them to insteadhe reduction and build new wind facilities and other facilities to compensate for that. now, you can debate whether that is good policy or not, but that is totally consistent. and that will be the core legal issue that the courts are going is a precedent of unfettered regulation in the future of how epa can apply this approach to other industrial sectors. charlie ok, so assume that the as you say, what can

be done? it has already been to the supreme court two times, and it is more modest. wasclean power plan that announced is a fundamental reregulation of the energy sector. health- effectively a care law. we really want to have comprehensive climate change control, there is a policy that s to promotet want about these controls, it it will be congress. has not developed any tools specifically to address greenhouse gases. that is where the burden is. charlie: knowing all of the arguments, in essence, what divides those opposed and those in aber -- in favor? i think those in favor understand it is a concern

about arresting greenhouse gases for future generations and that action needs to be taken now to address greenhouse gases at the moment. those opposed, we hear a lot about those opposed and trolls,e gas but i think that is an oversimplification. most of the companies i know and work with, they take what they call their greenhouse gas footprint very seriously, and they are using a lot of technologies to be conscious of, and they are constantly making improvements. this goes to the notion of not addressing climate change, not addressing greenhouse gases, but doing so in a way that is unfettered either law and also puts the united states at an economic disadvantage compared that willlike china have no controls, where at the end of the day, we will not have any meaningful improvement of greenhouse gases, any meaningful improvement of this until we

have action across the world. charlie: but do you believe that those that oppose the president believe that the threat of global warming is real and that something has to be done, whether their methods and means are similar to the president or not, because i of talked to a lot of people who do share that with me. they understand the consequences of global warming, and they realize it is a real issue. they may debate man-made or not, in terms of the extent of man-made and emissions and all of that, but they do think that they -- they recognize the argument as seeing legitimate, that we have to do something. and i think if you were to look at it, and i do not know the statistics, but if you were to look at the fortune 500 companies or the large, industrial companies, and you look at their policies and survey them, i think what we will find is the majority of companies, perhaps the high

majority, all take accountability for greenhouse gas emissions. they monitor it. they put in place programs and policies all around the world to address and improved the scope of greenhouse gases, and that is, to me, what i look at, the telltale sign of how corporations are looking at it. most of the companies i work with all due support taking accountability for it to the extent we currently can with the available technology and the bailable regimes and so forth. la, thankroger martel you for being with us. mr. martella: thank you. charlie: stay with us. ♪

robert jordan is here, serving under george w. bush from 2001 until 2003, and a time difficult u.s.-saudi relations, and i am pleased to have him back. he has a new book, "desert diplomat." let me go back to the relationship with the saudi's at that time, and take us back to those involved in those hijackings and 9/11 and the terrible tragedy that day. commissions a

report. 23 pages we have never seen, right? mr. jordan: after the 9/11 attacks, many of the hijackers were saudi, and we had to determine whether the saudis were friend or foe, and we did not know how deep the resentments against the u.s. went, how big al qaeda was within the kingdom, and it became my job to find that out. when i arrived, a number of the senior saudi royals were in denial that these 15 hijackers were saudi, and there was an initial courtesy call, and then a governor, a prince, now king, he said this could not have been saudis who did this. it had to be israel he's -- israelis. and then we went to another prince, and he had another story, and so they were in denial, and i think they had

never been impressed on the world stage to explain themselves, and this was the only narrative they could come up with at the time, and i've been spent a good deal of time with the foreign minister, and he totally understood. they had a serious extremism problem in their midst, and they had to do something about it, and they had an education system that was broken and very dangerous, so that led to a lot .f efforts turning to the 9/11 commission report, and the 22 pages that dacted,ad acted, -- re essentially, the 22 pages concerned the saudi support of 9/11, and when i learned of this report, i said, i need to see i was toldges, and did not have the

need to know, and i could not see it -- i was told by the cia that i did not have the need to know, and i could not see them. and a guy that me down at a table and then laid out the 22 pages for me to read, and he took them back, and off he went. when i was writing the book, i had a description in their of my judgments about the 22 pages, which still have not declassified, and i made some points, of the book, which the ted,also read acted -- redac and i said they should be declassified. he and i -- let's say we have different interpretations of what is in those 22, but he and i both agreed that they should be declassified. he was the chairman of the

senate intelligence committee at the time. charlie: and he believes what now? mr. jordan: that the saudis were some responsible for funding 9/11, and i completely disagree with that. efforts inout some the u.s. to provide funding to the saudieratives in embassy within the u.s., and his version of it is that this proves something about the attacks of 9/11, and it is certainly well-established that the saudis for many years were funding us some of bin laden -- funding osama bin laden. and then fighting the soviets in afghanistan. exactly. and he was contracted for some of that. charlie: having read the 22 change your mind

about anything? mr. jordan: no. i was already convinced through my other sources and the investigations we had done in the preceding 18 months that there was no saudi government official and no senior saudi royal who was involved in planning 9/11 or al qaeda that we knew of. we knew there were charities that were financing al qaeda meeting, and we knew there were all sorts of issues. foundations giving things -- charlie: foundations giving things to al qaeda. mr. jordan: the inspector general dealing with american negligence or culpability in allowing the attacks to occur on 9/11, and that report says, incidentally, that they found no royalce of senior saudi support for the attacks of 9/11. charlie: at the same times, they also talk about jihadism.

be jordan: that continues to a problem around the world, the religious extremism that they sponsor. it is still a very serious concern, and frankly a matter of national purity for the united state. charlie: are you surprised that has said they are in favor of the nuclear deal? theyordan: they have said are in favor of a deal. you have to parse your words very carefully. an agreement that affects iran's ability to develop a nuclear weapon. they have not said they are in aber of a 24-a delay in allowing inspectors in or a failure of a mechanism system or a breakout capacity. charlie: at the end of the day, you have to say you are in favor of the deal that is on the table.

mr. jordan: i think they have the same reservations that most of us do. havenclusion is that they come to the conclusion that there is no better deal out there. they are resigned to do it. they want to be able to say i told you so. at the same time, they have a norm is concerned, i think, not so much about the nuclear threat with iran -- they have an enormous concern, i think, about the nuclear threat with iran. they have developed a non-oil economy. they will be able to compete circles around many of the monarchies in the middle east once their economy is freed of these sanctions, so i think this is something they are concerned about. charlie: the shiite and the iranian government and influence in the region. we also know about the influence the government has with hezbollah in lebanon, hamas in

the gaza strip, and in yemen, as well, and in syria, as well. we know they have influence. it is a fight for influence. mr. jordan: a big part of it. no question about it. influence, religious prestige, but i think there is also an economic part we have to add into the equation. i think it presents enormous economic challenges for the saudis. they are lined up to come into iran, not saudi arabia, and the companiesnvestors, are chomping at the bit to come in, and i think there are probably a lot of american companies looking at it he same way. charlie: to interrupt you, one of the reasons the president has said if we cannot put these sanctions back together, because those people that have joined the sanctions, they had some sacrifice for themselves because

they believe some pressure was needed. mr. jordan: and i think he was right about that. i do not think our coalition, the p5 plus one, was going to hold together much longer in endorsing these sanctions, and i do not think we can do these sanctions back. charlie: so where do you come down at the end of the day? thank -- hate the deal, but it is the best that we have, and we have to move on. we have to keep peoples feet to feet to thepeople's fire, iran's feet to the fire, iaea, and ifn the there is a serious violation, some sort of sanction that can be reimposed, but i am not optimistic. charlie: if the iranians do after 10 or 12 years have the research that has been

uninhibited, they will be able to move towards a nuclear weapon. thepresident has resolved objections as to why he does not necessarily think that is true, the conventional wisdom is that they will move to their own nuclear weapon, and they will be financed. i think thered are some problems with that particular point of view. i know a prince, who is a good friend, who says the saudis want whatever deal the iranians get, but i think that was more rhetoric than reality. have begun plans for 16 nuclear reactors for a civilian nuclear program, and they have consulted with the south koreans. they have consulted with the french and russians, and i think this is something that will move forward, and i think if they will weaponize is another issue. they do not have the ability to

do that. they do not have the engineers or the background. werlie: what role should have in this? mr. jordan: i think we need to have a lighter footprint. security of gulf monarchies. they need to take more responsibility for their own neighborhood, and i think to some degree, they are doing that in fits and starts, and at the same time, we have to realize we have a national interest of what goes on in the least, even if we become energy independent. 200 dollars a barrel, and europeans have to pay that, they cannot buy our apple products and procter & gamble products. their economies will be crippled, even if in america we have all of the oil we need. charlie: defending in syria. the argument in this piece goes on to say, it may very well mean moving not only against isis but also against assad.

i think there is a chance of that. it is very dangerous, and the enthusiasm for going after assad has abated a bit, and it is a much more dangerous adversary -- charlie: it seems to some that in the beginning, it was all talk about assad. to go, hego, he has has to go, and neighbors were saying it, turkey and everyone else, but then as isis rose, there began to be less said about it. turkey'sn: there is role in all of this, and their recent animation has been welcomed, but it may also be subterfuge for them to go after the kurds on their borders. charlie: motivation. mr. jordan: they clearly would be like to be rid of assad, and part of this three-dimensional chess game will involve what we

can do to motivate turkey to play a constructive role, even if our ultimate aims are somewhat divergent. likewise, i think it has to deal with how we treat russia. is there a way we can try to work together? if they truly are tired of assad, maybe there is a way. charlie: what about this? we just found out that mullah omar has been dead for two years. they were skeptical at the beginning. we now know that the head of another group who is living in north waziristan has been dead for a year. aboutoes this say american intelligence? mr. jordan: i think it is pretty disturbing, actually. we have had a number of intelligence failures. we do not have many assets on the ground. we have had a very difficult time in really all of these middle east countries,

understanding what is going on. i can go back to the time we were getting ready to invade iraq, and we needed to bring in our infantry division through turkey into northern iraq. turkey' is parliament had a vote and by about three votes turned us down. we did not see that coming. for years, we have had intelligence failures, and in many ways, i think it asks -- but ituccesses we have, may be a reflection of how imperfect a science it is and how difficult it is to have the resources you have to have. you look at saudi arabia today, back to saudi kinga, if we look at the -- what is he, 87 or something he ishat? mr. jordan: somewhere between 80 and 87. charlie: and he has health issues, as well. he had a new crown prince who is his son, and so is the defense

minister. is this good because we will see new leadership there at some point soon? mr. jordan: i think it is good that they are driving down to a younger generation of future leaders. one i know very well. i think he absolutely deserves to be crown prince and i think will be a successful king some day. the sun that was probably 19 when i was ambassador. he is reputed to be very decisive, very strong on organization, and maybe he can skills, butf these i think there is some consternation that you have got to keep an eye on the potential nepotism that can go on and royal family. my guess is this was not a unanimous selection of this crown prince, and if the war in yemen does not go well, he may be blamed for it, so i think we

have to stay tuned on how he performs. charlie: the book is called "desert diplomat." thank you. mr. jordan: thank you. charlie: thank you for joining us. see you next time. ♪

♪ angie: the mystery of mh 370. french test says the reunion debris as part of the missing plane. elon musk says china is showing encouraging signs. and, rolling the dice. offering a glimpse of macau's future for -- future. we are live at studio city. good morning and welcome to "first up."