♪ announcer: from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." charlie: tonight, a conversation with president obama. he traveled to saudi arabia, united kingdom, and germany. our relationships with those allies, the role of russia and iran will be key items on his agenda, we will also talk to him about he sees america's role and lessons he has learned. the interview took place monday afternoon in the blue room at the white house. here is that conversation. thank you for letting us be here. it is a great pleasure to see

you. you went to -- you are going to saudi arabia. these are friends of the united states, and they have expressed concerned about your relationship with america. a lot of it is bold ideas about the nuclear deal. anything came out in a jeff you have anycle -- reservations about anything you said, would you like to change anything or modify anything in that article? president obama: i think it is important to look at my quote, besides what is surrounding those quote for you what i is set in the past, i continue to believe. saudi arabia has been a strong ally of the united states. a friend of the united states since i have been president. our interaction with them has been vital. i think they have been cooperative and trying to stabilize the region going through tumultuous times. we did have a significant difference on the iran nuclear

deal. ultimately they supported it after we explained exactly why path to makebest sure iran did not obtain a nuclear weapon. i think all of the evidence subsequent to the deal has borne out my argument that in fact iran would i buy -- would abide. i think there is also a continuing belief on my part that saudi arabia and the gulf states generally have to be guarded against iran, they have to be in a position where they can defend themselves against iranian mischief in the region. in the end, iran is a large country in the region. a proxy war between saudi arabia interestis in no one's . it is not in saudi arabia interest, iraq, jordan, or the

united states interest. when i had to saudi arabia and the other gulf countries up to camp david, the goal was to a, hacking we give you the confidence that you are protected against any state that might attack you? to prevent organized arms flowing into your country that get into the hands of provocateurs are terrorists? but also, how can we work together on the diplomatic front to try to resolve conflicts like syria that threatened to burn down an entire region. there will be differences in terms of tactics and how we view -- both u.s. policy as well as saudi policy. that is true among all allies and friends. charlie: the article was entitled, "the obama doctrine."

president obama: i did not title that. i have always shied away from labeling my foreign policy under a single banner. because the hallmark, i hope, of my foreign policy has been to be very practical in thinking about interest,ance u.s.'s and how we make sure the united states is safe and secure. how do we promote international rules and norms that have been oftical in the development not just for the u.s., but peace and prosperity after world war ii, but the entire world. how do we promote our values in a way that recognizes there will be times when we will deal with a country that does not follow democracy the way we would hope for human rights. so what i think emerges from that article, but more importantly from the actions that we have taken since i have

been president, is somebody who is committed to keeping americans safe, will go after anyone who has gone after us, whether it is al qaeda, bin laden, or anyone else, but also is using diplomacy, multilateral institutions, economic development strategies, human rights as tools to continue to bestte what i think is the tradition of american foreign-policy. charlie: on top of your policy with china is some sense that you think the u.s. would -- should not get bogged down with the middle east. president obama: what is true is number one i think our invasion of iraq was a mistake. that is well-known. that was part of what the debate in 2008 was about. what i believe is that the united states as the world's

singular superpower has an obligation in all areas of the world where there is mayhem and war and conflict for us to be a positive force. we that is not mean that should be deploying troops everywhere where a crisis is taking place. we have to be judicious about how we use military power. we should not view ourselves as the muscle for any particular side of a dispute if and when it is not directly relate to u.s. court interest -- core interest. we should use diplomacy and coalitions to try to resolve these issues. probably the area where i have gotten the most criticism from some in the foreign-policy establishment in washington is around syria. there, what you have those people who i think instinctively feel that where something is

going wrong -- where we have a problem, the solution is for the united states to send military in and impose order. truly what we have learned, not just from iraq, that even the great challenges we have had in places like an where we have been 13 years. we devoted enormous resources, lives lost. i can tell you from visiting afghanistan and talking to our troops, they are the best of the best. they know what they're doing. they are outstanding. it is a challenging environment. the notion that while we are still busy in afghanistan, still trying to keep iraq together, that we would now then potentially involve ourselves in another military excursion in syria -- that is the kind of unwise decision making that i think leads us to make big

mistakes, and ultimately miss out on opportunities elsewhere in the world. charlie: when you say i would like to be judged by what i did facto -- some say that in that you are putting too much sis on what empha we do not do. and not on the choices that we have to do. president obama: when we sat down together in 2009 we were in the midst of two active force -- wars. we had 180,000 troops deployed. we were seeing hundreds of various men and women killed and -- of our men and women killed and injured. time, those countries are by no means in great shape, but they are not insignificant a

worse shape than had we left 20,000 or 40,000 troops there. diplomatically we have been able to make sure iran does not have nuclear weapons. we have been able to at least begin the process of political conversations in syria and a cessation of hostilities. in the meantime we are taking out terrorist constantly. it is not as though we are just standing by. al qaeda has been dismantled. bin laden is dead. isil is losing territory. hesve shown no hesitant -- itance to use our military to protect american lives and interests. i and insisting that we think through why we are using our military, how expects -- we

expect to shape results as a consequence of the use. what other tools are available. otherwise we will have a constant repetition of the kind of experience we had in iraq in 2005 and 2006. the redline decision you made, many look at that and say, because u.s. over the opposition of some advisors, which is what president is expected to do -- make the hard choices. what we have today, in part because of that decision, we i want to be clear, i think

there are those who make the argument that somehow we can change a civil war inside of

syria. if they are being honest, they have to argue that we would in fact deploy a large army to overthrow us. the notion that by sending a few missile trikes into it -- missile strikes into syria that we would resolve the conflict is not born out of the facts. if you announce a redline and somebody crosses that, that raises questions about your will, your dependent ability yeah -- dependability. president obama: syria caved. with the help of the russians, they, for the first time, a knowledge chemical weapons, signed up for the international treaty saying they did not have chemical weapons and systematically removed them. the notion that, even if they are willing to do what we have asked, we should still send

bombs to kill people, so they know we are serious. that is precisely the kind of conventional with -- wisdom that i think it is important for me or anyone who occupies this office to test. if the notion is that i have been hesitant to use military force, and the people doubt my willingness to do so, i think, as i have said before, they should go on. charlie: could we have done more in syria early on to support the free syrian army and rebel forces. if we had done that, and if a sawed -- assad had been thrown out of power. president obama: this is why i think it is important for us to learn the right lessons. somehow, had we provided some cash -- caches of

loose and, not particularly well organized opposition, they would have been in position to overthrow the borne out byis not anything that has happened subsequently. right now there is no shortage of arms among the opposition. what we saw was, when they made progress, because of the support of iran and the support of regime of the syrian there was a limit to the progress they could make. there was not going to be a military solution, so we tend to have these fantasies about how the and of states can go about bringing change in countries. one of the questions i asked, when we were making early decisions about syria -- i asked my team i said, please provide me with some example, somewhere of us providing some sort of

insurgency opposition, arms, and then -- then successfully creating a peaceful, but functional society and overthrowing a dictatorial regime supported by outside powers. not surprisingly, there were no such examples. charlie: are you saying no leader in a middle east has raised questions about -- because of principles and things, about drawing a redline and not doing -- president obama: that is different. i think there is no doubt that there are many in the middle east who would prefer me taking a shot at assad. the reason is not because of abstract notions of redlined. the reason is because they view assad as a client state of iran.

their view continues to be to some extent, what we should be doing is being a very clear, military arm of an anti-iran or anti- assad middle east strategy. iran is an adversary. assets go after any u.s. , if they are threatening us in any way, that we will go after them -- we will go after them, they know that. is a horrible dictator who has shattered his country. it continues to be our position that we need to get him out. charlie: is that a different dynamic because russia supported him? he is stronger now. president obama: he is not stronger now. there has been an ad and flow. flow. and

those arab states seeking his overthrow, who are more than comfortable with having him in the arab league, he was a member in good standing. the key for the united states is to make sure that we disentangle the regional interests and jockeying that is taking place from our core interest as a country. be efforts, which have to international, not just us, but everybody, to try to relieve the human suffering taking place in the region, and reduce these -- the degree to which this comes -- becomes a safe haven for terrorism. the only way for us to do that is, not to come in guns blazing and say that we are going to impose militarily order in this massive region where our engagement is often viewed with suspicion.

but rather, to say, we are going to insist that the various parties come up with a political --ution that we will help that in iraq, we will help to train and provide assistance so they can fight against those who would encroach on their territory and sovereignty. the same is true in syria, but we are not going to duplicate the same kinds of mistakes that we have been making in the past, that did not result in more piece in the region, but in fact helped to precipitate some of the problems we are dealing with today. charlie: are you convinced it would not have made a difference if you had done more? yourself, if i did more would we not be looking at the catastrophe? president obama: every day i make decisions. you are working with probabilities.

take out ae did dictator who was threatening his him people -- own people. as i have said before, i actually believe that was the right decision. i think if we had not gone in, we would've seen another syria. libya is still a big problem and a mess. i think we did not do as good of a job as we should have. i did not do as good of a job as i should have in thinking through the aftermath and how much work would be required putting the pieces of that country back together again. that is a much simpler -- simplerthan syria proposition then syria. last severalthe years leads me to believe that had i authorized additional arms to the free syrian army -- charlie: incremental? president obama: what is?

charlie: authorizing additional arms? obama: you cannot have it both ways. either you are making an argument that we should have invaded syria and taken assad out. keep in mind, there was no basis was not ad assad threat to the united states. we would have been saying to ourselves as a matter of policy, where we see there is a big problem in a country where things are getting torn apart, we should impose military order. that is a coherent argument. if that is what we are going to do we have to figure out why syria is different from the congo. why syria is different from sudan. charlie: rwanda? president obama: even in respect to rwanda, it would be hard to argue that in rwanda there were

a whole bunch of folks shooting jihadist and armed we had not just invaded and still trying to hold together a country right next-door. my point is though, that at least has coherence. you can make an argument that is what we should do. i think that would be a bad decision for the united states to get into the business of unilaterally imposing militarily our will around the world. beenie,, it would have unilateral because no one else would sign up for that. i know that because i could not ien get the europeans or could not even get the u.s. congress to authorize. let me finish this spot. -- thought. you could not even get those folks to support a very modest action, much less the notion of an invasion. the american people certainly should not have supported that

-- would not have. there is coherence. if what you are arguing that a couple of 10 creek strikes and providing arms to some opposition members would have led to a complete transformation of syria -- i cannot say for certain, because i am not omnipotent. confidenceith great that that would not have fundamentally changed the dynamic. charlie: what circumstances would compel you in a sense to say history will charge -- judge harshly because of who we are, to do something about a situation creating problems. causing huge problems -- men, women, and children being killed. all of that. president obama: those are two separate questions.

we are always prepared to be -- to use force, unilaterally, if need be, to protect the american people. you are asking a narrow question which is where should we be willing to intervene militarily because we have a duty to protect other people. because things are getting chaotic and we need to impose order, and so forth. my approach is not to say we have some perfect test to apply. each situation is different. the cost and the benefits of our intervention will be different. we can say wherever possible we should first and foremost try to get other countries to work with us to see if we can solve the problem. where the cost of our military manageable, and the benefits are potentially high, then i think it makes sense. we saw this in the balkans.

-- e you have a situation charlie: using economic power. president obama: where you have a situation where you have deeper structural problems and east.cs, as in the middle you see the changes you only see every 50, 100 years. we have already extended ourselves greatly because we have already made massive commitments in iraq. and afghanistan. and where there is suspicion of u.s. motives and other players involved. i think you make a different vision than. -- decision than. -- then. this goes back to why i do not label these things as doctrines. if you have some set, rigid, theory by which you are approaching these problems he will make mistakes because the world is messy and cockaded --

complicated. to the 28et me change pages of the 9/11 commission report. have you read it? president obama: i have a sense of what is in their -- there. -- thes through intelligence community and our director of national intelligence has been going through to make sure that whatever it is that is released is not going to compromise some major national security interest to the united states. my understanding is he is about to complete the process. we will get advice from him about what is appropriate. i try not to make a decision personally -- get engaged in each and every decision made about classification.

charlie: they said they will be ripped -- releasing the 28 pages in the future. president obama: i will wait for the recommendation because that is the only way that in a orderly fashion we can make sure we are being as open as possible while at the same point being -- same time, maintaining national security. there is a lingering notion there were people on the ground, and the united states, that helps those people, and could not have done it without. it seems to me, that is very important. president obama: i have met with 9/11 families repeatedly during my presidency. the heartache they are going through and the insistence on understanding the truth and getting justice is critical. something i am very some

pathetic to. -- sympathetic to. what is also true is there are reams of intelligence coming through constantly. some of them are raw and not tested. charlie: that might be in the 28 pages. know,ent obama: i don't but the point is it is important for there to be an orderly process were reevaluated this -- we evaluate this because if you just don't stuff out there that nobody knows exactly how credible it is, was a verified or not, it could create problems. charlie: it has been a long time. obama: that i willing knowledge. -- i will acknowledge. about families suing the saudi government? obama: i oppose because of the second clause in

the senate -- sentence. this is a matter of how generally the united states approaches our interactions with other countries. if we open up possibility that individuals in the united states can routinely start suing other governments, then we are also opening the united states up to be continually sued by individuals in other countries. that would be a bad president -- precedent. we are the largest superpower in the world. we are in people's business all of the time. if we are in a situation where we are being hauled into various court has of the -- various courts because of the claim that an individual has been harmed, that will tie us up and it could harm diplomats, servicemen come all whole bunch of stuff.

-- a whole bunch of stuff. ♪

. .

talking to you: and others a year ago and looking at what is happened over the course of this year, there was a question as to whether we'd not only get an iran nuclear deal or would they start to get rid of their nuclear materials. a year later, even the head of the israeli defense forces have indicated that iran has abided

by that deal and iran's nuclear program has been greatly constrain and the deal is working. we also said that we were going to go after isil on every front. and that is in fact we have done. this is a long, hard fight, as i just said last week, but what we've seen is they have lost territory and, as we get closer , the two iran iraq -in iraq primary strongholds, what i have said to our secretary defense and our generals is let's continue to resource what works, and as we see the iraqs willing to fight and gaining ground, let's make sure we are providing a more support. we are not doing the fighting ourselves but when we provide training and special forces backing them up, when we are gaining intelligence, working with the coalitions we have, what we have seen is that we can continue to tighten the no

ose. by expectation is by the end of the year we will have created the conditions whereby mosul will eventually fall. charlie: created the conditions? president obama: i don't know y et. we don't know what is going to be the actual situation on the ground as to whether something will have been launched. i think it is important -- and this is based on constant consultations with iraqi military, and iraqi with our own military, with our coalition members, what we have tried to do is let's make sure we are being very methodical let's make sure across the board if we say we going to get something done -- because what we do not want to do is to start something and then get isil some sort of p.r. victory because they have been able to beat back an iraqi force that was not adequately equipped. charlie: when you arrived in office, you said i want to get

osama bin laden. i feel -- i assume you feel the same way about that dottie -- baghdatti. charlie: i feel the same way president obama: i feel the same way about the entire structure. which is as wicked and as destructive as any group of individuals. charlie: you got osama bin laden. do you think you will be able to get baghdatti by the end of your term? i would assume that would become comforting to you. charlie: -- president obama: you take bin an a sample. i would have liked to have gotten him his first year but you do not have luxury us the present. pieces,ll the intelligence, military and diplomatic and you keep on grinding it out. one of the -- people always ask me, what have you learned?

what advice would you give? the guy with no gray hair -- charlie: can i tell you how many people i talked with before i did this interview the question is what has he learned and what is his advice for his successor came up all the time. president obama: one of the things i have learned is that the big breakthroughs are typically the result of just a lot of grunt work. there is a lot of just blocking and tackling. we have incredible members of our military and our intelligence. and they are just dogged. but they are putting together the pieces of all these things, whether it is the iran nuclear deal, whether it is the breakthrough to cuba, whether it is advances on something like ebola or whether it is dealing with al qaeda and with terrorist organizations, what is important

is making sure you have got an organization that has integrity, that is clear about its mission, that is doing things the right way and not taking shortcuts. that you raare not thinking in terms of short-term politics but you are in for the long haul. and when you do that, then ultimately you're going to get a good outcome. but sometimes it is not on your timetable. and that can be a frustrating. i guarantee you it is frustrating to josh earnest, my press secretary, and the folks have to think about our politics, because sometimes things do not happen on schedule. i'll give you a great example. our ebola response was one of most effective international public health responses in history. the american people, through our doctors, our scientists, the cdc, we save hundreds of thousands of lives. weeks longerbout 8 than the new cycle.

as a consequence, americans may not fully appreciate what an historic, effective response that was because when we were seeing ebola scares on television every single night, you know, things do not happen in two weeks. they happen over the course of months. charlie: telephone conversation today with president putin. what did you agree on? is there a coming together in terms of ideas about peace and a cease-fire and who can do what to make syria a beeter place -- a better place? president obama: the cessation of hostilities has now held roughly for seven weeks. there have been a lot of breaches. it is a messy environment but there is no doubt that violence has been reduced, and that has helped the people who have been caught in the crossfire. my call today to him was to indicate that we're starting to see it fray more more rapidly.

and if the united states and russia are not in sync about d getting a it an political track and transition moving, then we could be back in a situation we were three, four weeks ago. and that would serve neither of our interests. in theory,he agrees. e'llher in practice, w actually see results, is, remains to be seen. ia recognizesruss it is not one another afghanistan, where they are continually spending money and potentially losing lives, trying to prop up -- charlie: and lost the war. president obama: an assad regime. but i think they are also very much committed to maintaining the structure of the syrian sta te which we don't object to, either. we have continually butted head

s -- and this is been true six years -- is his insistence he ck unilaterally the that that issad, a decision aside and the syrians have to make. charlie: he said that to me, too. my impression is is that he is not committed to assad. he's just committed to a reasonable government in syria a s he defines it. president obama: and that's where there's a potential overlap in interests. now, the challenges is that he's not the only person making the decisions. assad himself has something to say and the iranians have some thing to say about it. charlie: dothe iranians interest in syria and the russians

differ? president obama: they do not perfectly overlap. concernedans are about maintaining their connection to hezbollah in syria . they see it as a vital mechanism whereby hezbollah maintains its influence in lebanon. the russians share, as much of a concern about isil and other organizations because they have got a whole lot of muslims in russia who get radicalized and maybe traveling back and four through syria. so, there is the potential for a convergence of interests. but it has not yet been realized. the other thing we talked about is ukraine. that are the two areas have put enormous strain on u.s.-russia relations. what i sent it putin before and i will continue to say to him, is that we cannot ratify russian

aggression in eastern ukraine. an opportunityis processthe minsk to resolve this peacefully. and if we can resolve that piece of business, then that clears o ut a lot of the underbrush and suspicion and tensions thavt have existed between the united states and russia. that would allow us to concentrate our efforts more on what's happening in syria. and what is happening around the world. charlie: do you consider ukraine part of the russian spirit of influence? -- sphere of influence? president obama: i do not believe that any sovereign country should be subject in 18th century or 19th-century terms to being a vassal state of somebody else's.. do i think there is a deep historical link between russia and ukraine? absolutely. do i think that russia is going to have some influence on what happens in ukraine?

wecourse for the same anway have influence over canada or mexico but there is a difference between that and then financing heavy weaponry that off bigand carves chunks of another country. what i said to him is if we can get that resolved, then there is the opportunity for the united states and russia to concentrate on those areas where we have common interests. there are going to be some fundamental differences between the united states and russia between me and putin. we have different values and different interests. we do have the opportunity, i think, to solve some big pieces of business. n ongoing source of significant tension, not just between us and the russians but between the europeans on the russians. charlie: i hear optimism in your voice. president obama: i think there is a chance of it getting done. i, when mr. putin and

we have conversations, they tend to be businesslike and courteous and rational, but the actions do not always match up with the words. a, my hope is that here's situation where they will. charlie: has russia emerged as a global player? president obama: russia never stopped being a global player. but what i think what is true is that mr. putin has made the use a russian military and willingness to extend themselves to protect their equities more of a priority than they had inor to him getting back office as the president. one thing i always try to remind people, though, is that the fact to intervenead militarily in ukraine, the fact the russia has had to spend billions of dollars sending

military support to syria. that is not a sign of russian strength. it is a sign of russian weakness. these were states that up until recently, they had control over without having to send weapons. charlie: but he -- president obama: look, our influence is not based on us killing and muzzling folks in order to cooperate with us. they cooperate us because they seek their interests are best served by working with us. that is why we have all these alliances around the world. that is why we are a superpower. the fact that we are very strong and have an extra ordinarily effective military is obviously underpins a lot of what we do, just as the fact we have the world's largest economy and the fact that we have this incredible diplomatic apparatus. all those things make a

difference, but ultimately, the best kind of power is the power that people conse nnt to. they say, we care about the united states and want to work with them because we actually think that when we work with united states they help meet our interests. ♪

charlie: two last questions. one, what good has come out of the iranian nuclear deal, other

than they have lived up to the provisions of the specific deal about eliminating nuclear facilities. is there a change in behavior? is there a relationship that has improved because you got past this nuclear deal and the drawing down of sanctions? president obama: well, i'll answer your question but i do want to just point out that if has, whatme what good by, uh,e you done protecting your family and mak ing sure that your kids can go to college, other than they can go to college and they are safe, you sort of say, i do not understand the question. charlie: i was trying to be

generous. beyond that, there is something else. president obama: i'll get back to my point for the whole point of the deal was the deal and making sure, hold on a second. just making sure that iran did not have a nuclear weapon, which is important -- charlie: is important. president obama: it wasn't just important. according to many of my opponents when i ran for the presidency, according to prime yahoo --ne net netanyahu. this was the most important thing. now that has been accomplished, now it is what have you done for related?-- done for me lately? charlie: we've given you that. that,ent obama: beyond what we have done is we have created a conversation inside of iran. how that conversation plays out, i don't know. and i always said that we would

not do this deal premised on the notion that this transforms iran . there is -- charlie: but you hope it does. president obama: there is no doubt that there is a conversation inside of iran between hard-liners who want to preserve the old ways and those who want to open up to the world . a proof point potentially for those who want to open up to the world, which is why it has been resisted by the hardliners in iran. and we're going to have to see who wins that argument. i think it is important for us to abide by our end of the deal to make sure iran see some benefit from the deal. in the meantime, we are going to continue to be very vigilant in monitoring those activities in terms of sponsoring terrorism or provocative activity outside of the region. we are continually concerned about the ballistic missile tests and other military actions they may take.

thathe fact that there's argument, and that there is a channel between united states and iran for the first time since 1979, i think that is significant. it provides a possibility of additional changes and behaviors. in that sense, it is not perfectly analogous, but similar to my trip to cuba. is goingink cuba to change overnight? no. but do i think there is now a conversation in cuba about how their society and are economy is organized and what the relationship should be with the outside world, and have we taken away in argument for not changing inside of cuba? absolutely. backhis is part of going to the question about an obama doctrine. again, i don't subscribe to a single doctrine. thet i do believe in is that

most powerful tools we have oftentimes in many of these ourations are the power of example, our economy, our culture, our values, and the driven,at this internet- innovation driven, technologically driven world that we live in is really our brainchild. it is our creation. can continue to create more space for people to see the benefits of that, thatp is not going to guarante peace and prosperity but he can make a big difference. charlie: it is a fascinating model p you have said more than one time, we are the start of litary, we have the best economy, you mentioned culture. you look at the technological

advantage we have. and all of that. america should only 21st century . what could stop us? president obama: a couple of things. number one is if our political system continues to be dysfunctional. it's fascinating the degree to which the single most important question i'm asked these days from other world leaders is what is going on with your elections? charlie: i was just in china. same thing. president obama: in some ways, the current presidential aection just is the tip of broader iceberg of the session we have seen. congress threatening the full faith and credit of the united states because they want to overturn obamacare make basicility to investments in infrastructure, which are part of what's made us such this, such an incredible economic engine.

there are basic things that we know if we do put us in a stronger position. if we're not doing them, then of some because technological issues, because of our politics. charlie: why can't we fix our politics? president obama: that is probably for part two of the interview. that is going to take us a long time to the other thing that could threaten our position internationally is, uh, i think a un willingness to engage in the world. part of what we are seeing right now in some of the presidential debates is the notion of we engage only to blow somebody up to build off key people out. but beyond that, worrying about foreign aid, trying to create a fair trading system with other lift other trying to continents out of poverty or

electrify them, that's all a waste of time, and we should just be focused on us. that get some traction both in democratic and republican circles. part of what i think we have to realize is that the choice is not between us going around invading everybody and being the world's policeman or just pulling back and withdrawing from the world. the key is for us to recognize that we built this international order with the help of our allies. it has to be nurtured, it has to be tended. there are times where military interventions are required to support it, but more often, it is us being willing to organize trade deals like the transpacific partnership that prevent china from imposing its rules throughout the fastest growing region in the world.

more often it is helping on ebola so that the cut -- the continent of africa sees the benefits of working with the united states and those diseases do not end up spreading here. now zika coming out of south america. more often it has to do with us framework the paris for climate change because it turns out the atmosphere does not have any borders. if the oceans rise anywhere, eventually miami and new york and the west coast and my home state of hawaii are all affected. that's the kind of engagement that we need. and i think it we will be doing ourselves a great disservice if we divine -- define our leadership as just leadership -- as just military or if we advocate that leadership and discount -- charlie: of iwer if we don't rio the challenge. president obama: thank you,

charlie. charlie: thank you, mr. president. president obama: pleasure. ♪ tw.

mark: i'm mark halperin. john: and i'm john heilemann. "with all due respect" to andrew jackson, sayonara. ♪ john: happy glorious amazing fantastic 4/20 all you fans of the demon weed and those that love them. we will try not to make any reefer ref-- you know what i mean, reefer references. the new york voters with new york values have spoken. the outcomes were even better for donald trump and hillary