♪ announcer: from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." we begin this evening assad regimehe resumed bombing rebel targets a day after the u.s. launched missile strikes at a syrian air base on friday. it was the first time the u.s. directly intervene in the syrian the war. meanwhile, secretary of state tillerson criticized russia ahead of his first diplomatic trip to moscow tuesday. he suggested the kremlin may be complicit in the chemical weapons assault that killed dozens last week. questions are raised about president trump's syrian policy and the willingness to escalate.

secretary tillerson sathat isis remains a priority, but the u.s. ambassador nikki haley focused on president assad. joining me from washington is derek chollet. here in new york is robert ford, a former ambassador to syria. i'm pleased to have both of them. let me begin with the obvious. tell me your assessment of this straight. -- strike. was a: i think the strike good idea. i saw a statement from secretary of defense metta's that it destroyed -- matches that it destroyed 20% of their airplanes. but he played a price -- paid a price. -- it is determined to a limited, defined, discrete objectives and i think it needed to be done.

now it is up to secretary tillerson to get the russians to understand we are serious, and for the russians to turn to their syrian allies and say to not keep doing this. charlie: do you think that will happen? robert: i don't think the russians are happy that ass ad used chemical weapons. i think the russians are trying to get them to get rid of it. charlie: do you think they are complicit in that they knew they had access to chemical weapons? robert: i think they knew that very well. a question that if they had them. issued ad nations report saying that on at least instances, asd well as others, the government had been dropping chlorine gas idlibis area of syria, province, and 2014 and 2015.

charlie: what were the primary gases the syrian government gave up at the time of the negotiation? robert: they gave up materials related to the production of sarin and other nerve agents, but they kept all the time chlorine, not prescribed under the chemical weapons convention, as using it as chlorine gas a weapon is against the geneva conventions and the un security council resolutions that the russians and americans worked out in 2015. charlie: docharlie: you assume this is a change in tactics and strategies by the trump government? the president said he was so moved he had the right to change his mind. robert: for sure it is a change. i was very surprised they struck the way they did. theon't know if assad has the americanests administration, are they going

to defend the redline and insist on making assad pay a price until he is finally deterred? we don't know yet. charlie: what about the russians saying they and the arrangements will meet force with force? robert: that is where tillerson has to say, are you going to threaten us with force when we are trying to stop chemical weapons, which you yourself agreed in 2013 was beyond the pale? charlie: it is an international norm that it is beyond the pale. robert: exactly. question, how do you put this in the context of the future? derek: i agree with robert that this was a discreet use of force, it was justifiable, seemed to be well planned and well executed the question to my mind. , and your opening when you talk about the different comments from secretary tillerson and ambassador haley, is this a

chess move or a checkers move?it seems to be a tter, what, -- la president clinton did against saddam hussein. right now it is a one-off. the question is whether the administration has the appetite to try to gain leverage out of this. to stick to the narrow issue of use of chemical weapons and the message to assad is essentially, you are continuing to prosecute this war, if you use chemical weapons, we will take a whack at you, if you don't we will conduct the policy we had, or this could be to game changer. i had my doubts on whether the president has a complete reversal of the policy articulated a week ago, but we'll see. charlie: the secretary of state said it was up to the syrian people to choose their leader. that's true.

but ambassador haley said something more akin to regime change.actually, president trump , in his statement to the american people, said sort of both in his statement. he hasn't been pressed on this. this is open for debate. charlie: do you get the sense this is driven by general mattis and h.r. mcmaster? robert: i don't. i think it is driven by the president who was touched by the images. we can speculate all day about why he actually ended up doing it, but i don't think the u.s. military or the secretary of , or national security adviser mcmaster went to the president and said, hey, here's part of we can hit bashar al-assad's air force. the much more likely that president turned to them and said, "what options do we have in responding?"

charlie: and they suggested something that was executed well? robert: i think the plans were on the shelf from all the way back in 2013. charlie: you would know something about that, wouldn't you, derek? derek: robert is right. the president said as much. the pictures horrified him. they horrified all of us. he turned to his team for options. the u.s. military planned for many options in syria. the u.s. military has been cegaged in the syrian airspa every day since september 2014. we had a lot of capability in the theater. the president could execute quickly. charlie: you and i talked this morning. when you look at a strategy you seem to emphasize,, for the most part, get the russians to lean on assad and get some kind of transition government coming in. robert: i want to distinguish

that i do not think the russians are ever going to deliver assad in a political transition. they won't. i think it is perhaps possible to get the russians to lead on assad to stop using chemical weapons. the russians have sunk a lot of resources and a lot of political effort into keeping bashar al-assad in damascus. the idea that they are not going to turn around and jettison him as a favor to the americans, i find that very hard to imagine. charlie: but is he a risk for them in any way? yes, they saved him, yes, he is obligated to them. robert: there leverage is undermined by the heavy iranian presence. in fact, iran is even more important for assad than the russians are. charlie: because they had boots on the ground? robert: tens of thousands. iranian soldiers, national

iraq, and militiamen from from pakistan, from lebanon. this is on the ground where assad has little by little grind it out a victory. but in that kind of hard war of attrition, the boots on the ground are vital. it is not russia preventing goes, it is iran. charlie: and russia provides air power. robert: that helps. that is why the iranians begged the russians to come in and help in summer 2015. the russians had to come in and restore the islands in assad's favor. putin have a lot at stake? precisely. they invested a lot in assad.

whatever price they would ask to change assad would be enormous, and not less than removing all the sanctions after ukraine and crimea, and probably more than that. charlie: robert ford talks about leverage on the ground and negotiation. diplomats talking about that fact during the admin -- obama administration. what is leverage on the ground, and what is reasonable leverage produce aund to willingness for people to come to the negotiating table? derek: we have to deliver real pain on assad. there's also the russian calculation. there's no question russia, which is more engaged in syria today than it was four or five years ago in terms of personnel, had this assad

stockpile. the question is whether they were surprised by this use of chemical weapons, and whether they are angry he has done it, because it has put them in a terrible position. if you think back to the redline episode, robert and i were both in the government advocating for force, it was the threat of force that brought the russians around to bring assad to come forth with a diplomatic agreement to give up over 1000 tons of chemical weapons. the question is whether the russians feel that pressure enough and whether what happened on thursday night is enough to change their minds that they want to do more to bring assad to heel. i agree with robert, they don't want to throw assad over right away. they have invested in this. the question is whether he has misbehaved enough to put

pressure. that is what you will have to test in moscow. charlie: do you think you will see president clinton -- the ,ussians are -- president putin the russians are sending a message this is between the secretaries. derek: sometimes be things happen where they don't announce it and i have a surprise meeting, but i think that will be the easy indicator whether he gets in a room with president putin. charlie: was it a mistake for president obama to believe the russians would do what they had promised to do in that agreement? do what they promised, and make sure all the chemical weapons were gotten out of syria? derek: i think president obama ended up achieving something none of us imagined was possible, a peaceful removal of 1300 tons of chemical weapons, materials, and weaponize to stuff from syria. that is a huge accomplishment that made us all safer.

in many ways, the fact that that material is not in syria today, and the concern is not how that would proliferate in response to any u.s. strike, freed president trump up to take the strike heated. we are not worried about setting off a proliferation nightmare inside of syria. noted, it is whether the use of homemade chemical weapons like chlorine, or what happens in this case, the use of sarin gas, which was covered under the 2013 agreement -- it's not clear if it was manufactured since or it was left behind -- but the bottom line is it was on russia to ensure that assad is holding up his end of the bargain. he clearly is not. he did not last week, which is why the strike was justified. charlie: this is often debated in politicians circles, it hasn't obama made a mistake by agreeing to this?

robert: i strongly supported that there be some kind of limited strikes. just for the purpose of deterring further use of chemical weapons. i think had we done it, the geneva talks, the second round of which we were trying to prepare at the time, might have gone forward a little quicker and maybe would have had a better result. they collapsed immediately in early 2014, but that his old history. as i look at this -- charlie: to learn from. robert: yes. as i look at this going forward, i learned two things from russian behavior. number one, we had a deal that if assad used chemical weapons again, the security council would agree to some kind of chapter seven united nations measure. could be economic sanctions on syria, could be military actions, could be some other

punishment that the security council would agree to, if syria was confirmed to use any chemical weapons again. the russians and the chinese agreed to that in october 2013. fast-forward to the end of 2016. the report that i mentioned, november 2016, confirms at least three uses of chlorine gas. that puts a big question in my mind about russian credibility young promises. another one, i was talking about the geneva talks after the obama redline incident -- the russians agreed with us on the agenda.the agenda for that round, political transition was at the top. a couple months later, the russians walk back and say they can't discuss political transitions. again, i think the lesson all of us should take out of this is treat russian promises with great caution. charlie: was it section seven that allowed the united states

europe to do what they did in libya? robert: exactly. the russians went ahead thinking it would be military action only to prevent the assault on benghazi. they were then upset that the united states and european countries used that same un security council resolution to help libyan rebels overthrow moammar qaddafi. they said that was not the intent of the resolution. charlie: and the russians haven't done very much in the fight against isis either. robert: their huge emphasis and strong intervention, their huge emphasis, has been on the rebels fighting assad, not the islamic state. they have left that to us and allies. i bet the french and belgians have hit the islamic state by air more often than the syrians and russians. i completely agree.

this idea that we are going to partner with russia to fight isis is a fool's errand.we have not heard the trump administration talk about that much recently. it was discussed in the campaign, but i don't think russia has any real interest in working with us against isis. iny want to keep the assad power. charlie: what is the strategy? derek: the u.s. needs to find a way to create more leverage. it has to be a negotiated outcome. the other options are really not available to us unless we are contemplating, which i don't think anyone seriously is, a massive u.s. intervention. the challenge for us all along has been, how do we develop that leverage without us getting on the slippery slope of "owning syria"? moment has that this created a new context that this administration could take advantage of.

it's going to take an incredible amount of diplomatic skill to pull this off.i'm not sure we have seen that kind of scalia out of this team. it is -- i'm not sure we have seen this kind of skill out of this team. it's one thing to hike into syria, it's another thing to turn that into leverage to get a diplomatic outcome. i think the next few weeks will be a real test, whether it is a checkers move towards has moved. charlie: everyone talks about leverage but i don't quite get what kind of leverage we have. youk: leverage is, can raise the level of pain enough on assad, or the fear by russia that assad is going to go in their interests will be in jeopardy in syria, that they either force assad to come to a deal or assad himself will come to a deal. it is difficult to create leverage is much actually.

-- is difficult to create leverage. it is easy to talk about. 2013,: in the spring of were falling back rapidly. he lost control of the border areas and loss control of provinces. charlie: is that when the russians came incharlie:? robert: no, that's when the iranians came in. rebel forces, including those at were backing, again had assad forces falling back in the bedrock of his political base. the mediterranean coast was coming under artillery fire. that is when the iranians and the revolutionary guard general went to moscow to beg them to help. that is when putin sent in fighter-bombers. charlie: secretary of state tillerson said yesterday that he thought the strategy should be to finish off isis and then get

engaged with the civil war. robert: i think that will be hard to do in a conclusive manner, because as long as the civil war is reaching in parts willria, extremists benefit from recruitment. it may not be as big a recruitment as it was in 2014 ul,n they took most of -- mos but it will be big enough to maintain an insurgency. there are indications they are getting ready to move to insurgency mode. think of fallujah surf air -- circa 2005. with: and there's tension what robert has outlined between the short and medium-term challenges. the u.s. military priority remains today the fight against isis. i agree with robert. isis will be delivered a military defeats in. -- soon. raqqa will be taken.

the question is what will come next. there is a near-term problem with assad testing us and putting us in the position of having to respond to him again militarily for the civil war and the use of chemical weapons. i don't think that the fight the u.s. military wants to have right now. i think they want to finish the fight with isis. that's what they see as a priority. but these are intentions because they will be playing out at the same time. charlie: are we about to see a new cold war with russia? derek: i don't know that i would go so far as the cold war, because russia today is not the soviet union of the 1970's and 1980's, but there's no question that if you are looking at what russia is doing in europe, the middle east, in libya, the

united states of america and terms of trying to undermine confidence in our own democracy, that russia is seeking to be a disruptor of the international system in every way that it can. robert: derek has it exactly right. for an the united states long time we sort of forgot about russia, after the wall came down and the soviet union collapsed. russia had its own internal problems. we sort of moved on to other things, the way americans are always looking ahead. ithink russia thinks competes with us. we fell out of the habit that thinking we compete with them. we may not feel we need to compete with them, but they are looking to compete with us. one of the reasons the iranians and russians agree on something like syria is they both view it as a way to dent american credibility and reduce the american influence in the middle east. charlie: how are they competing

with us other than in syria? in egypt.r example, i used to work at the american embassy in egypt. we had excellent military relations with the egyptian military, but at that time we never had soviet egyptian training exercises that had been long past. . charlie: it was the genius of kissinger diplomacy. robert: this is what i'm talking about, the competition. it is not that all of a sudden the americans will have no influence in the middle east. it is that the russians and iranians are working together, each in their own way, to reduce american influence in the middle east. i think that is a strategy they have. charlie: but he is well connected to the american military and the west. he has strong ties here. robert: absolutely. but we did not see someone like him go to moscow five years ago.

partners,y of our particularly in the middle east, for right or for ron kind have seen a reduction of the american will and are hedging. i don't believe any of these partners seek to make their number one allied. i think they want a close relationship, but there's no question russia is playing in those spheres. asymmetric means playing on our weaknesses, using means like cyber and whatnot to try to undermine some of these long-standing relationships we have had. i don't think russia has a great long-term strategy in terms of the economy, or the demographics, but it is still trying to compete with us in any way it can. no question. charlie: one last question. clearly what influenced president obama was the fear of being drawn into a middle east

conflict and the quagmire he had seen. is that still a real threat? a real fear? i think it is. the danger in the moment that we are in is that the trump administration has not thought this through, and that it will be tested in ways that robert and i have discussed. assad will seek to test the outer limits of what he can and cannot do. there will be tremendous tossure on president trump respond in some way. we are already seeing that pressure growth in the aftermath of the strikes last thursday continued toad bomb the areas used chemical weapons in last week. people are asking, why isn't the administration responding? seems to me president trump is predisposed to trying to look tough and act tough and lash out, and we could unwittingly

get ourselves onto a slippery slope if we are not careful and deliberate in how we use our power going forward. robert: derek is right to signal caution. my own sense is that the war in syria that involves bashar al-assad is already finished and assad won. we will not get into a new iraq kind of war or afghanistan kind of war. charlie: the civil war is essentially over. robert: there may be fighting for a year or two the opposition will not give up. . but they will not win. assad will win. we are not going to send a large ground force into western syria where there are thousands, tens of thousands of iranians and pro-iranians, and russian personnel. it is not like iraq or afghanistan. it is totally different. we are not going to go bombing in these places, because in iraq

we didn't face that. we only had to face saddam hussein's forces, are iraqi, sunni, and shia militia fighters. same in afghanistan. now there are big states like iran and russia with big forces in syria. we will not get into a big conventional war with them in syria. that's not going to happen. assad's won. when the administration was saying 10 days ago that assad's a reality to deal with, they were right. charlie: tillerson was right. robert: he was. it is unhappy. many of us who wanted to see syrians have a chance to create a new kind of system that was more accountable, providing greater respect for human rights, we are provided -- we are disappointed, but it happened. the idea that the u.s. can still go in and try to change assad government or impose, i think we

are long past that. charlie: if the civil war is over and assad has when kospi, i don't understand what our goal is. robert: in the short term, stop the use of chemical weapons. medium-term, figure out how to govern the places taken by the islamic state and keep the insurgency coming there under wraps. very long-term, try to figure out a way to get a cease-fire in patchand maybe someday that sat country back together. that is a long-term thing. derek: just to add onto roberts find a way to alleviate the humanitarian suffering on the ground, which is obviously tremendous. robert: absolutely right. they could do that now. charlie: as it has been said before, history is not likely to judge well.

on the forces who participated in syria. derek: that's right. charlie: thank you. ♪

♪ continue with peter baker, chief white house correspondent for the new york times. he writes that these events

revealed to the extent that a trump doctrine is emerging, it seems to be this come don't get roped in by doctrine. welcome, peter. tell me how you came to this conclusion that the doctrine is doctrinet roped in by "? it's not that hard to find statements from the campaign trail where he said syria is not america's problem. we should be working closely with russia and stop alienating them. china is our enemy. in the last week alone, he has involved us in the syrian civil war with an airstrike against the bashar al-assad government, the primerussia,

minister saying the relationship is completely ruined, and invited the chinese leader to dinner to work out trade in north korea. i think he is very improvisational. .e said he is very flexible so the idea of trying to define his foreign-policy is tricky. competitor, adversary, whatever you want to call it, if they can't predict how you will because thead relationships between nationstates depends on predictability to a degree. it is good because they can't make assumptions about how you will act and what you will do and that keeps them alert. that is right. we have a perfect example of this in terms of north korea. north korea has tested a couple of missiles since president trump took office to test him as

well, and he now sent a carrier group towards north korea, so what does this mean? lastshould we take from week syria strike in terms of his approach to north korea? it is hard to figure out. we looked at the willingness to use force in syria as a precursor to something else, or does he want to use that unpredictability as leverage to convince pyongyang they don't want to test him. charlie: this is not nixon madman theory, but something in between? peter: next was conscious of what he was doing. tellld henry kissinger, them you work for a crazy president and they should operate with you. whether that is the case here, president trump deliberately trying to keep people off balance or simply responding to things as they

come. he wrote in his first memoir that he does not like to think ahead. so ites to go day by day, is keeping with that approach he took in business. charlie: some have said and you have written that, speaking of president trump, what ever is against or the opposite of what president obama did. peter: i think there is something to that. he had the president of egypt to the white house last week. the military a few years back and president obama refused to let him come to the white house. trump invites him to the white house and lavishes praise on him. decided to strike syria in response, even though he said to president obama that you should not do it. he said i am fulfilling the red line.

influenced byo be desire not to the president obama. a lot of presidents want to be different than their prejudice predecessor. charlie: back to the doctrine. is there a sense anywhere of what president trump strategy is as the next step in what he wants to do in syria? peter: we have been getting nothing but mixed messages. secretary tillerson on sunday other than asking bashar al-assad not to use chemical weapons, our policy has not change. then nikki haley says bashar al-assad does not have legitimacy anymore. you heard secretary tillerson in italy today say we commit to

hold to account any and all those who commit crimes against innocents around the world. that is a pretty expensive theory of american leadership in the world him up but sean spicer was asked what our policies are, and he said we have not changed and will not be the world's n, so we have nothave seen a clear indication of what the policy will be going forward. person you want to hear from is president trump. charlie: that is all we have who -- tweman eting early morning. peter: that's right. he hasn't felt the need to

clarify, so that may be a conscious strategy on his part to leave ambiguity and confusion out there, and maybe that is a good thing. maybe he does not understand yet where he wants to go in terms of setting lines. sean spicer today said if you use chemical weapons, if you drop barrel bombs, q can expect a response from this president. barrel bombs are different from chemical weapons, but they are used all the time, 490 five times last month alone. that is a different level of intervention in the white house. the white house quickly that back. charlie: how much unity is there in the white house? this plays into that internal struggle we have been talking about, stephen bannon, jared kushner, reince priebus --

stephen bannon things we should not get our sales involved and that it is not in america's national interest to decide who will run syria, and he lost basically. president trump decided to launch that cruise missile strike, he argued against it, whereas jared kushner was in favor of a robust response to send a message, so there are differences in the administration playing out. they have a supreme court justice now confirmed. where did they go next? peter: president trump seem to be eager to get credit for it. he is right. it is a big deal. it is key to his political support and conservative base. he promised he would put a conservative in that seat that justice scalia vacated when he

passed away. important to consolidate conservatives behind him, and he accomplished that. where we go next, justice anthony kennedy. olds a swing vote, 80 years , and feeling his health lately. encourage desire to him if he wants to think about retiring. did neil gorsuch clerk for kennedy? peter: he did. and for byron white. charlie: thank you for joining us. pleasure. peter: great talking to you. ♪

sergio garcia is here, two thousand 17 masters champion. last night he won the green jacket in dramatic fashion. here is a look at the winning putt. years, andr so many for all four sergio. sergio: it was a hard week, but very enjoyable. i will never forget.

i get to call myself masters champion. it is amazing. title was garcia's first and what many consider a major tournament, one of four. it would have been the 60th birthday of the first spaniard to win at augustine national. i am pleased to have him here at this table for the first time. welcome. congratulations. you said to me that your voice arse. little ho what is the a motion? what are you feeling? sergio: i was saying yes in spanish, come on, but it was ifinitely the hardest ice cre m screamed. they were amazing.

love everywhere i augustine, they have always cheered me on and class, very respectful , but i felt like this year from the practice rounds on, everybody was really behind me, and it definitely helped me to extran and get a little energy you need to be a would achieve something like that. in 1998 at the pga, you almost one, but people looked at you and said, oh, my god, these guys are going to be doing for a long long time. golf,ayed a lot of good one tournaments, but not a major. how would you explain it? sergio: it is difficult to

explain. are probably a couple of ways to explain it. one of them, tiger was really good. that is the easy one because what he did throughout all those years was just amazing, the way he managed to be there every single time. charlie: is he better than any golfer you have seen? sergio: yeah. i did not get to see jack in his prime or anything like that. when i came out, he was on his are some ofarnie those guys. he was extremely good in his was in suchiger .ontrol when he was out there

it was difficult to do something extraordinary. he was never going to give anything away. i had some opportunities here and there that i did not take advantage of. it was just a matter of keep trying and keep putting myself in that situation. charlie: what does the expression i got bitten mean? sergio: somebody played better than me. some deals played a little better, and -- charlie: is your game today as good as it has been? sergio: i have been saying that since the beginning of the year. i played extremely well in dubai earlier this year. control my ball probablyd swing is

around 2008, which was my best year on tour. charlie: nine years ago. sergio: yeah, so it feels very solid. mentally i am heading in a better way now too. i feel calmer. i feel like i'm starting to accept things much better than i used to. charlie: reading what you said since the victory yesterday, you kept saying, i was calm. you had some bad things happen to you, and some really good things. sergio: yes. charlie: you said even at the worst i was calm and it did not make me crazy. sergio: yes, that's probably the difference between standing here with you in the green jacket today and finishing second or third. the frontve played on nine, i played great yesterday and that probably should have

been at least four under par, and i was two under par. i miss 3-4 really good opportunities, but i knew i was playing well. i was not panicking. i was just like, do what you are doing. they won't drop. don't worry. 11.geyed 10 and that was a moment to get a little worried. i was like, you are still doing fine. you are still close to the lead. you are still playing well. i felt very comfortable, so the park on 13 was massive. not only because it felt like a birdie, but because it got me back in a positive way. i made a good putt that i needed to make. i made birdie on 14. i played 15 amazing. that second shot was probably the straightest eight iron.

charlie: how many yards? 90,io: it was downhill, downwind. further it is a bit than 90. this is the approach of 15 we talked about. take a look at it. hardally high, accelerating followthrough up in the air. out.t holes it that sergio knows how close they came to going in. sergio: the great thing about left me a right-left uphill putt. it was about 12 feet.

not hit the fly, it would have been closer, 6-7 feet, downhill, so a tougher part. utt. yeah, it kind of worked in my favor because it left knee and easier putt. charlie: and then you were back in it? yeah, we were both nine under and hit great shots on 16. unfortunately, he made a great birdie and i did not make a good putt there. not freak out.id i was like, you are still playing great. you have two holes to go. you need to make one birdie. he bogeyed 17.

i made a good, solid part. on 19, we hit great shots in both the chances making birdies. i think we both hit great p utts and they did not break the way we thought they would. no. he hung it out. as i said, it's flat there. charlie: were you out driving justin most of the day? , yeah, most of the day. i think it was a combination of i was swinging really nicely and going after it with my driver. i hit some really nice drives. justin was time, hitting the ball well, but the he heroblems he has had,

didn't hit them as long as he can hit them because he can hit it as far as me pretty much. charlie: 20, 30? of the yeah, because situation. it depends on the roll. charlie: here's another picture i want to show you. this one. did she make a difference for you? this is your fiancé. yes, sheeah, yeah, definitely has helped. there is no doubt about that. team,k her and my whole they've been working hard to make me a better golfer, a .etter person

andave all put in effort, put her in it. charlie: your father was a caddy? your mother ran the pro shop. with a both there? sergio: yes. charlie: timmy the first thing your father said to you. sergio: he could barely say anything. everybody was crying, my dad, my mom, angela, her parents were there, so everybody was very emotional. remembery dad, if i correctly, he gave me a big hug and said, you have done it, so happy, so proud of you. you won the masters. this is just unbelievable. sergio: you charlie: you said the triumph was a demonstration of my

mentality and my character. what did you mean? sergio: throughout the week, i said sometimes at the masters and other tournaments, like my frame of mind has not been where weshould have been, like were talking before, not accepting things, letting things ,appen, trying to force things so that week, last week, i was much that are at committing to what i wanted to do. i was calming myself down and accepting what was happening. good and bad. so come at ahead of myself when i was making a birdie, eagle, or whatever. charlie: you have an instructor, or is it a team that travels with you? sergio: yeah, when i talk about

team, angela, i mean, obviously my dad. there is also my coach. charlie: really? sergio: yeah, my whole life. he also played on the seniors to ur, my mom, my manager, my caddy, everybody who helps, my family come angela's family, everyone who bring something positive to the team and to me, so it helps me to play better. charlie: i hope you win the grand slam. sergio: thank you. ♪

♪ >> futures point to a mixed day in the pacific. the yen reaches 110 as investors prepare. united, one of the losers on wall street, struggling to contain the damage from a passenger's forcible removal. -- its very survival is uncertain because of the westinghouse lawsuit. >> increasing confidence china will not be branded a manipulator. we will hear from blackst