thank you for watching "state of the union." i'm candy crowley. watch us each week at this time or set your dvr so you won't miss a moment. "fare "fareed zakaria: gps" starts right now. this is "gsp" the global public square. welcome to all of you in the united states and around the world. i'm fareed zakaria. on this day 25 years ago, the berlin wall began to fall as the world watched in shock. today two men who were among those surprised but were at the highest levels of power, then u.s. national security adviser brent sko skro brent scowcroft and his british

counterpart. then how well do you know your world? i'll share some scary numbers on just how ignorant many americans and others around the world are. also, president obama has been called many things this week, but is he a republican? that is what one prominent conservative says. we will have a spirited debate. and the white house has no real solution for syria. the gop doesn't have one either. i will introduce you to a man who says he does, and it does seem to make a lot of sense. but first, here is my take. despite this week's elections, president obama has the opportunity to do big things over the next two years, but they will have to be in the world beyond washington. next week's trip to asia would be a good place to start. in fact, it's odd that obama has not already devoted more time,

energy, and attention to foreign policy. it's been clear for a while now that there is no prospect of working with the republican party on any major domestic policy, but if obama seeks some kind of foreign policy legacy, he will first have to maintain the discipline with which he began his presidency. if he ends up with incremental, escalating interventionism in syria it will absorb fully the white house's mind share, the public's interests and the country's resources. it will also not succeed if by success we mean the triumph of pr pr pro-democratic forces in the syrian war. the biggest initial sha esgestm a band of assassins in syria but from the rise of china and the manner in which that will reshape the geopolitics of asia and the world. if washington can provide

balance and reassurance in asia, it will help ensure the continent does not become the flash point of a new cold war but the asia pivot remains for rhetoric than reality. having promised a larger u.s. military presence in the philippines, singapore, and australia, there is little evidence of any of this on the ground. the most ambitious element of the asian pivot is the transpacific partnership. the idea is simple. to lower trade barriers and other impediments to commerce among 12 large pacific economies comprising 40% of the global gdp. this will provide a boost to global growth but, more importantly, shore up the principles and practice of open markets and encourage open economies at a time when state capitalism like the chinese model and new nationalist barriers are creeping up everywhere. the good news is the republican victory this week actually might make this more likely. trade is one of the few issues on which the gop agrees with the

president. obama has one other major foreign policy initiative, nuclear negotiations with iran. again, here the basic strategy has been smart, sanctions plus talk, but it has not received presidential attention and focus. it remains unclear whether iran is ready to make peace with america and the west, but if it is, obama should present washington and the world with the deal even though it will surely be denounced as treason by the republicans and attacked by benjamin netanyahu. >> i know the world looks messy and the administration is on the defense sif but recall what the world looked like when nixon and kissinger were conducting foreign policy. america was losing a war in asia in which it had deployed half a million troops. the soviet union was on the march. domestic opposition and troubles were mounting. nixon and kissinger had to initiate a major retreat, but as was pointed out, they combined

this with the seize of bold, positive, assertive moves, arm control deal was the soviet union, the opening in china, shuttle diplomacy in the middle east. the result was that by 1973 people were dazzled by the energy and ingenuity of american foreign policy. john gaddies described it as one of the most successful reversals of fortune for american foreign policy in modern history. to achieve a similar kind of legacy, it's now time for a foreign policy presidency. for more, go to cnn.com/fareed and read my "washington post" column this week. and let's get started. on november 9th, 1989, the east german minister of propaganda gave a press conference that was rather

unremarkable until almost an hour in he shocked the world by saying that east germans could, quote, leave the country through east german border crossing points, unquote, effective immediately. that night the berlin wall began to fall. my next two guests were in the cockpits of power in the white house and 10 downing street and had to manage great power diplomacy through a period of unprecedented change. brent scowcroft was the national security adviser to then president george herbert walker bush and charles powell was his counterpart in britain, foreign policy adviser to then prime minister margaret thatcher. charles, when you were watching this happen, did you realize that the wall meant the end of the soviet empire? >> i didn't think i realized immediately, but i did think they were at a crisis point. i think this was the last of the great cold war crises. you can trace it through the berlin air lift, the soviet invasions of hungary and prague,

the deployment of soviet intermedian change nuclear weapons in europe. this started out as a characteristic cold war crisis with uncertainty about exactly what would happen, risks because europe was awash with nuclear weapons. we really didn't know from one minute to the next quite how it would play out, what the soviet reaction would be. we received messages from mr. gorbachev around midnight in london time. that was never a good sign in the cold war, a message from a soviet head of state at midnight, usually it meant trouble of some sort. the immediate thought was not so much about what would follow but how do you contain and regulate and stabilize what is happening at that moment? >> brent, what did it look like from the white house because the stakes there must have been even higher. any miscalculation by the white house could have had catastrophic consequences. >> that's absolutely correct. when we came into office in

1989, there was a lot of ferment in eastern europe, and we decided we wanted to try to make it different from earlier cases where berlin in '53, hungary, and so on, to try to keep the violence down and to keep it at underneath the level at which the soviet union would feel compelled to respond. >> charles, mrs. thatcher had very famously said that she thought gorbachev was a man you could do business with. but i assume that didn't mean she thought he was trying to dismantle communism in any sense or let alone the soviet empire. >> i think she realized he was trying to reform communism, make it a somewhat more humane doctrine. as she constantly advised him that was a useless task because

communism was unreformable and should be gotten rid of. i think she also believed in his basic humanity, that he was a decent man, a man who was far less likelier than earlier soviet leaders to crush dissent and repreparation in eastern europe. one of the miracles was the fact that the soviet union stood back, did nothing to defend the east german leaders. that was the real change. in any earlier time they would have surely gone in and propped them up. this was an amazing admission of the failure of the system. >> brent, when you look at it, what is striking to me, i was a researcher at harvard at the time and we were studying the collapse of multinational empires and lesson number one seemed to be they always have violence, bloodshed, and war associated with them. except this one didn't, and if you look at the way the middle east is collapsing now, you can

see how easy it is for these things to spiral into violence. why didn't the collapse of the soviet union result in bloodshed and war? >> well, first of all, we didn't want it to because what had happened before every time there was any kind of an outburst in eastern europe, the soviet union would crack down, kill the leaders, and even be more repressive than before. so what we wanted to do was to keep indications of violence and dissent underneath the soviet radar, and we tried very hard to do that, and when the announcement about the wall came, president bush senior was told by his press secretary, you're going to have to talk to the press. everybody is wondering about this. so i said, we don't really know what the facts are, but anyway

the press came into the president's office, and he described what was happening and how uncertain it all was. after he finished that explanation, one of the members of the press said, well, mr. president, you don't seem very elated. i would think you would want to go over and dance on the wall, and he said, well, i'm just not that kind of a person. what we were worried about was that this event would force gorbachev to violence and all of the hopeful signs would be destroyed. >> and bush got a lot of criticism for that statement that you describe, brent. charles, do you think it was the right thing to be -- you know, a lot of people felt bush should have gone to berlin and made a major speech celebrating the victory of freedom over

communism. >> he was absolutely right not to do that. what he needed to do was to defuse the situation. speeches at the berlin wall were for a different era, for the time of president reagan and president kennedy when you could deliver that kind of speech. once it came to the fall of the wall, you needed extreme caution, you needed to avoid provocation for soviet forces in east germany. coming back to a point brent was making, it wasn't just us who didn't know what was happening. chancellor kohl of west germany didn't have any idea what was happening. every day running up to the fall of the wall, the west germans briefed us on events. by the same evening every single day, by the same evening everything they said had been overtaken by the time of the evening news. the swaying was quite extraordinarily fluid and fast moving. >> when we come back, more with these two great statesmen on foreign policy today, russia,

china, iran, much more.

big day? ah, the usual. moved some new cars. hauled a bunch of steel. kept the supermarket shelves stocked. made sure everyone got their latest gadgets. what's up for the next shift? ah, nothing much. just keeping the lights on. (laugh) nice. doing the big things that move an economy. see you tomorrow, mac. see you tomorrow, sam. just another day at norfolk southern.

for over 19 million people. [ mom ] with life insurance, we're not just insuring our lives... we're helping protect his. [ female announcer ] everyone has a moment when tomorrow becomes real. transamerica. transform tomorrow.

and we are back with former national security adviser brent scowcroft and charles powell who was scowcroft's counterpart as foreign policy adviser to british prime minister margaret thatcher. he's now the baron powell. bret, when you look at the world today, does it look for dangerous than the world you confronted as national security advise per. >> it's certainly more messy. wint say mo i wouldn't say more dangerous. in those days if we made a mistake, we easily could have brought down a nuclear war.

that is not the case now. but there's no unifying sense to the crises around the world today, not one solution fits them all, whereas in the cold war we had one goal, and that was to hold the line until the soviet union changed, and that was the strategy, and we argued about how -- about the tactics, but the strategy was quite clear and there was no difference of opinion about that fundamental thing. >> charles, when you look at the middle east, for example, today and you see this crisis and isis and all the instability and violence, do you think there is a clear foreign policy or strategy that the united states or the west could have that would be successful? >> what i would really like to

see was a much closer unity preserved between the united states and europe. i think they're being false on both sides but there's no doubt nato is not quite the organization it once was. there is no doubt that defense spending in europe has slipped to scandalously low levels where it can't really play a very useful role in standing alongside the united states in dealing with these international crises. at the time of the fall of the berlin wall, we were still at the height of alliance unity and president bush played a great part in that. it's what enabled us to get through the berlin situation peacefully. everybody worked together. everybody was on the same side. that is sadly no longer quite the case. >> brent, what about russia? how would you deal with vladimir putin. you have dealt with russian leaders for 30 or 40 years in various ways. >> well, he feels apparently very deeply about the end of the

cold war, and he says the collapse of the soviet union was the fundamental event of the 20th century. so he has his feelings on his sleeve, and he reacts very sharply, but i don't think we should try to cast him into outer darkness and refuse to talk to him. >> charles, what would you do with the russia/ukraine situation? >> well, right to punish russia and president putin particularly for the invasion of crimea, for destabilizing the eastern parts of the ukraine but we all know at the end of the day we're going to have to negotiate with him. it's not a question of whether we like him or in the. he is the russian president and he is one with popularity levels that any western leaders would give his eye teeth for. so he's a factor, and we have to deal with him and deal with him in a sensible way. >> charles, when you look at the world, we don't have the single

threat from nuclear war and the soviet union that you had during the cold war. what is the thing that worries you the most? >> i would say rising nationalism accompanied by increasing military power. not just the middle east or russia, i worry these days about the asia-pacific. we've become very used to stability in the asia-pacific since the end of the vietnam war but some of the recent developments there do worry me. the more forward chinese line on these disputed islands and waters. the fact that japan is reacting sharply. the rising defense expenditures of china and japan. the tensions there worry me a lot, and i would like to see in particular the united states engage more with china. >> brent, what kind of grade would you give barack obama on foreign policy? >> i think not very high grades,

but i do think that he is presiding over a world which is dramatically changing. the whole kind of communication that we have now makes everything easier, makes it easier to have violence, easier to get people together on extreme positions, and it has politicized parts of national entities that never before were involved in political matters, and that makes it a very, very complex and confusing world, and we need to be careful but thoughtful and work together in trying to cope with it. >> brent scowcroft, lord powell, thank you very much both. fascinating conversation. when we come back, the american

electorate issued a mandate for change on tuesday. but did it know what america and the world really looks like? i'll take you inside a stunning study about just how ignorant americans and others are about the world around them. ♪ music

...the getaway vehicle!

for all the confidence you need. td ameritrade. you got this.

now for a what in the world segment. americans voted on tuesday for big change, but did they understand the facts that they wanted to change? not according to a groundbreaking new survey. americans think the unemployment rate is much higher than it is, that there are many more immigrants and pregnant teens than there actually are, that the population is much older than it actually is. now, maybe this gap between perception and reality is because of american ignorance or hyperpartisanship except we're not alone. in the first international study of its kind, the uk research firm highlights the political ignorance of participants across 14 countries. here are son-in-law of tme of t from the quiz. when asked what percentage of people are unemployed or looking

for work, americans guessed 32%. the u.s. unemployment rate is closer to 6%. we could only find one country on the planet, macedonia, which has had 30% unemployment in recent years. every country overestimated its unemployment level. what about immigration level? there, too, the participants of every country imagined that they are being overwhelmed by foreigners. italians think 30% of their population is comprised of foreigners when it's really closer to 7%. americans think it's 32%. the actual number in america is more like 13%. now, how many people did respondents think identified as muslim in their countries? here the french embellished the most reporting that 31% of the population was probably muslim instead of actual 8%. americans think it's 15%. it is really just 1%.

overall, the swedes fared the best in this study and the most ignorant, most oblivious nation in the world, nope, it's not america. phew. it's actually italy. don't celebrate yet, the united states ranked second in the index of ignorance. why does it matter? if there's a chasm between perception and reality, it has huge implications for elections and policymaking. politicians are left to deal with false assumptions or overmeteorologiove overimagined issues. if citizens think the government is spending a disproportionate amount of money on foreign aid, for example, they will advocate sharp cuts in what is actually a small aid budget. sadly, pervasive ignorance is hardly a new a phenomenon.

only 38% of americans knew that the soviet union was not a member of nato in 1964 at the height of the cold war. in 1986, a majority of americans were unable to identify soviet leader mikael gorbachev by name. it is conceded it's rational for people to not gain more knowledge for voting. it's scary when more than half of the americans don't know if the senate or house are controlled by republicans or democrats which is the case according to a recent poll. we all worry about the quality of politicians in today's democracies. but what about the quality of voters? how can we make decisions about war and peace, expenditures and values if citizens are totally

wrong about the basic facts involved? james madison perhaps put it best, quote, popular government without popular information or the means of acquiring it is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy or perhaps both, unquote. we've linked to the perils of perception quiz on our website. take it at your own risk and then do go and read a newspaper and dvr the show. next on "gps" a conservative who believe that is obama has governed as a republican. really? we'll talk to that conservative and to another one who disagrees. (rob kolar); so we've had a tempur-pedic for awhile, but now that we have the adjustable base, it's even better. (alex konstantine): when i put my feet up on this bed, my stress just goes away. (evie abat); i go up... heeeeyyyy. (donna bryce): our tempur-pedic is the best thing in our house...'cept for my husband. (lauren brown): wait, wait, where are you going ? (vo): discover how tempur-pedic can move you. and now through december 1st, save up to $500 on a tempur-pedic mattress and adjustable base.

i found a better deal on prescriptions. we found lower co-pays... ...and a free wellness visit. new plan...same doctor. i'm happy. it's medicare open enrollment. have you compared plans yet? it's easy at medicare.gov. or you can call 1-800-medicare. medicare open enrollment. you'll never know unless you go. i did it. you can too. ♪

it's about getting to the finish line. in life, it's how you get there that matters most. like when i found out i had a blood clot in my leg. my doctor said that it could travel to my lungs and become an even bigger problem. so he talked to me about xarelto®. >>xarelto® is the first oral prescription blood thinner proven to treat and help prevent dvt and pe that doesn't require regular blood monitoring or changes to your diet. for a prior dvt i took warfarin, which required routine blood testing and dietary restrictions. not this time. while i was taking xarelto®, i still had to stop racing, but i didn't have to deal with that blood monitoring routine. >>don't stop taking xarelto®, rivaroxaban, unless your doctor tells you to. while taking xarelto®, you may bruise more easily and it may take longer for bleeding to stop. xarelto® may increase your risk of bleeding if you take certain medicines. xarelto® can cause serious bleeding, and in rare cases, may be fatal. get help right away if you develop unexpected bleeding, unusual bruising, or tingling.

if you have had spinal anesthesia while on xarelto®, watch for back pain or any nerve or muscle related signs or symptoms. do not take xarelto® if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. tell your doctor before all planned medical or dental procedures. before starting xarelto®, tell your doctor about any conditions such as kidney, liver, or bleeding problems. xarelto® is proven to reduce the risk of dvt and pe, with no regular blood monitoring and no known dietary restrictions. treatment with xarelto® was the right move for me. ask your doctor about xarelto® today. ever since tuesday night's gop victory, giving republicans control of both houses of the u.s. congress, you have heard a lot from the right side of the aisle. some grandstanding, some crowing, some gloating, you get the picture. i read an article by a tough fiscal conservative, bruce bartlett, who argued that barack

obama has governed this country like a republican. he made an interesting case, he got me thinking. then what explains voters' move to the right last week? and what do other conservatives think of bartlett's thesis? so joining me now are bruce bartlett, who is now an economics columnist and author and historian and ray hahn sa lan who is the executive editor of the national review and also a cnn contributor. so, bruce, start us out by explaining why obama has governed as a republican. >> well, i think if you just step back and ignore the partisan attacks and look at the actual substance of his policies, he's kept foreign policy basically on the same track that it was on from the bush administration, even kept on gates as the secretary of defense and appointed hillary clinton as secretary of state even though he ran well to his right.

i think an honest assessment of the health care reform would show it's essentially based on republican ideas that came out of the heritage foundation that were implemented by mitt romney himself up in massachusetts. i think he has shown a very great willingness to go along with republicans on cutting the deficit. i could go on and on, but i really think if you just step back and are honest about it, he's been what i would call essentially a liberal republican as far as his governing policy is concerned. >> what's wrong with this picture of obama? >> well, i guess my understanding of these categories is very different. for example, when i think about obamacare, it is true that obamacare used markets as a mechanism in its state level exchanges but it uses them in a prokr proscriptive way. it was intended as a measure of redistribution.

it largely redistributes to democratic leaning groups. >> what about cutting the deficit? it is true the deficit is cut down by more than a third. >> it is absolutely true that that's the case, but, of course, the thing is that started out as an unusually high level because we had a fiscal calamity and after that it partly reflects the imperatives of governing in divided government. you had sequestration, you didn't have the new stimulus measures, so this was to some extent a function of things that were beyond his control. >> so if obama did govern as a republican, what to you explains the public's clear rejection of him in some sense in this last week's elections. >> well, i think the real story of the election was not a republican wave, but rather the disappearance of the democratic base. the democrats stayed home to a

very large extent, and i think they stayed home precisely because those in the democratic party, those on the left, recognized the basic truth of what my article was about, that obama has given them very, very little over the last six years, and i think they came to the conclusion that what difference does it make who controls congress? nothing is gong ing to change. it really makes no difference. i think republicans have deluded themselves that control in congress will allow them to advance their agenda rather than simply continue to block obama's which they've already done. i'm not really sure anything changed substantively. >> what you're saying is fascinating. you're proscribing for obama what elizabeth warren and in an earlier incarnation howard dean was saying, which is he should have moved more to the left, governed more with a passion that would excite his base and that would have brought out the vote. >> i think there's a lot more he could have done from a left point of view.

i think he was very -- has been very weak on job creation. about infrastructure investments. historically that's an area where republicans and democrats have been able to work together, and i just think he's -- and he's also not given any red meat to his base. i mean, ronald reagan i would argue governed not a whole lot further to the right than obama has, but people think he was a lot more conservative because he gave these, you know, thunderous speeches about conservative values and conservative policies and he tried to do some things but he kind of half-heartedly that gave the republicans' base reason to cheer but at the end of the day, he was perfectly willing to work with the democrats on things he cared about. >> by historical standards, the first two year of the obama presidency were a period of legislative hyperactivity. you had a dramatic overhaul of the financial sector.

you had progressives achieve a goal of universal coverage they have been seeking to achieve for almost a century. you had also a dramatic transformation of student loans, a variety of other things. so i think this notion that president obama hasn't accomplished much from the progressive side of the street seems very, very odd to me and i think it actually doesn't give him enough credit. >> what do the next two years look like as far as you can tell? >> i think we're looking at two years not dissimilar from gerald ford's two years as president. i think we're going to see lots and lots of vetoes. i think democrats in the senate would be well advised not to do a lot of filibustering. just let the republicans get stuff out of their system so they can tell themselves, well, at least we voted. the house and the senate. we sent a bill to the president to repeal obamacare. he vetoed it and get those things out of their system and then maybe you've got three or four issues, tax reform,

immigration reform, patent reform, perhaps a few others where there's maybe enough mutual interest that after that is over with they can sit down at the table and actually negotiate. >> what do you think? >> i think that conservatives should be articulating an agenda and i hope they unite around compelling domestic proposals. my concern is there will be theatrics for people thinking about how can we use the leverage we have to accomplish things immediately rather than thinking about the long term. so my hope is that they're going to do the latter. they might do the former. we'll see. >> thank you both. fascinating conversation. and a great article which we will link to. next on "gps," syria. most people throw up their hands when asked what the solution is but my next guest is the country's leading syria scholar and he has a way out. when we come back. big day? ah, the usual. moved some new cars. hauled a bunch of steel.

kept the supermarket shelves stocked. made sure everyone got their latest gadgets. what's up for the next shift? ah, nothing much. just keeping the lights on. (laugh) nice. doing the big things that move an economy. see you tomorrow, mac. see you tomorrow, sam. just another day at norfolk southern. this is kathleen. setting up the perfect wedding day starts with her minor arthritis pain, and two pills. afternoon arrives and feeling good, but her knee pain returns. that's two more pills. the evening's event brings laughter, joy, and more pain. what's that, like six pills today? yeah. .i could take two aleve for all day relief. really? for my arthritis pain, i now choose aleve. 2 pills. all day strong. all day long. and now introducing, aleve pm for a better am. please choose one oh...based on the cover.that. here we go... whoa! no test rides allowed.

i can't show you the inside. but...trust me. are you kidding me? at university of phoenix, we think you should be able to try before you buy. that's why we offer students new to college, a risk-free period. sign me up. so you can commit to your education with confidence. get started at phoenixtrial.com. for over 19 million people. [ susan ] my promotion allowed me to start investing for my retirement. transamerica made it easy. [ female announcer ] everyone has a moment when tomorrow becomes real. transamerica. transform tomorrow. i'm spending too much time hiring and not enough time in my kitchen. [ female announcer ] need to hire fast? go to ziprecruiter.com and post your job to over 30 of the web's leading job boards with a single click; then simply select the best candidates from one easy to review list. you put up one post and the next day you have all these candidates. makes my job a lot easier. [ female announcer ] over 100,000 businesses have already used zip recruiter and now you can use zip recruiter for free

at a special site for tv viewers; go to ziprecruiter.com/offer5.

to most american officials, pundits, scholars, syria is a problem with no good answers. i have never heard a sensible solution until now. my next guest is in my opinion the top syria scholar in the united states and he is a man with a plan. joshua landis is the director of the university of oklahoma center for middle east studies. josh, let's go through this because everybody has heard so much about syria. let's start with the map of what syria looks like right now, and explain to us what those colors mean. >> the colors are that the government led by bashar al assad in damascus in the south rules over this purplish color in the south. the isis, this new big state that has formed, dominates the east and the north -- >> a lot of that is just desert, radio snit. >> much of that is desert, it's not the big populated areas. you have the blue which also has

rebel activity. there are over 1,000 militias in syria according to the cia. >> so let's understand why you think that the solution that so many people keep pushing, which is that the united states supports those rebels in the blue areas and that they will, therefore, win, they will establish control, create perhaps a democratic syria, why is that not going to work? >> it's not going to work because most of the blue area are dominated by the big rebel groups which are al qaeda and the islamic front which are jihadist, very anti-american groups. the pro-american militias just got wiped out in the northern blue spot. they just got pushed aside by al qaeda, and so they're very small. they may own perhaps 1% or 2% of syria today, the rebels that are being backed by the united states. so to turn those 2% into winners that would not only wipe out isis but take on assad would be

a gargantuan undertaking. >> they have to beat al nusra and al qaeda and cora san and then isis. >> it's not going to happen. president obama has given them half a billion dollars. at the university of oklahoma we have an endowment of much more than $1 billion and we can't pay the students to go for free. they're not going to build an army for that kind of money. it's church change. >> let's go to what you think the -- the reality is emerging toward and what could be a stable outcome. >> what could be an outcome is leaving assad in southern syria. assad, although he owns less than 50% of the territory, he owns over -- about 65% of the population because damascus, the big cities and all the cities on the coast are still under his

control largely. so if you just left him there, these battle lines have been more or less static for the last two years. the north is the problem. that's where we're bombing. that's what's dominated boo i e -- by isis and al qaeda. what would one have to do if they want to solve this problem would be to try to draw the turks into syria with saudi, american backing, and nato backing to try to disarm the militias and set up a government that was a good government that everybody could get behind and pour money into for development and try to fix this problem so it wouldn't be a festering, radical -- >> but recognize that the forces who support syria are simply not going to live under that sunni north and the sunni north is not going to live under assad. so create a clean break. >> what people are talking about now and are emerging is autonomous regions with a

political solution with they sit down with rebels who are very islamist and come up with some agreement. that's just never going to happen. these different groups have radically different visions of where syria should be. >> and then we look at the map that shows us what would happen to the kurds over there. so you keep them an autonomous region which is much like the one they have in iraq and finally where the aloe whites are already clustered. this is what syria would look like. it would be stable. the kurds would have their area -- >> the president is an alawite. you couldn't build an al awite enclave. it's indefensible. that's why he's kept these cities. >> the map of 1919 that the

british and french drew was wrong. this is a map that reflects the realities of sectarianism and is possibly more stable. >> yes, it is. what we see today if you were to pan back and look at a map of what the islamic state has built from baghdad, which stretches from the edges of baghdad all the way to aleppo today, is a sunni state, and it's already emerged, and what america is doing by bombing it is trying to destroy this state that is there, and it's going to be a very hard thing to do from the air. >> so you say accept reality, don't -- >> accept reality, accept that state but try to get better rulers for it, not isis. >> joshua landis, as i say, the single best solution to the syria problem i have heard. next on "gps," when the berlin wall feel, the hope was freedom would ring across eastern europe and the former soviet union. how did that work out? not so well in many places. i will explain when we come back.

nted program that partners businesses with universities across the state. for better access to talent, cutting edge research, and state of the art facilities. and you pay no taxes for ten years. from biotech in brooklyn, to next gen energy in binghamton, to manufacturing in buffalo... startup-ny has new businesses popping up across the state. see how startup-ny can help your business grow at startup.ny.gov

i am glad to be finished with the midterm elections in the united states so we don't have to see ads like these anymore.

>> too extreme for maine. unethical, irresponsible, unfit for kansas. >> gary peters' lone sharknado. >> charming. the oxford dictionary bloc points out american english has a unique vocabulary of insults reserved for political party associations. think wing nut. but as reported, oxford university press recently analyzed 1,200 insults to see if run of the mill putdowns vary when used with partisan adjectives like left wing or right wing. it brings me to my question, which two insults are most commonly associated with conservatives and liberals? is it nut job and radical, b zealot and fool, ci idiot and idiot, or "d" extremist anz

hack. the book of the beak is "collapse." this is easily the best book on the fall of the berlin ball. it reads like a thriller, it's deeply researched and smoothly written. it will remind you how unlikely it was that the soviet empire would collapse until one day it did. and now for the last look. many of us remember when the berlin wall fell, the seb bratory atmosphere, the cheers, the hammering, the fireworks, and most of all the promise of freedom. on this 25th anniversary we thought we'd look at fre dom house's rankings of eastern yurp and the former soviet republics to see how these liberated countries have fared. eastern european countries like poland, hungary, and the czech republic have all done very well although countries like albania and bosnia herzegovina need

improvement. of the 15 former soviet republics only three countries, the baltic states, received an overall score of free. five were partly free, but seven received a score of not free. 12 of the 15 countries do not have an entirely free press. in fact, only north korea has less press freedom than turk man stan and uzbekistan. most received poor scores on civil liberties and civil rights. only 6 of the 15 countries can be kerred electoral democracies. 25 years from now, let's hope we see an improved picture, one worthy of the feeling we all had on that day. the correct answer to the gps challenge question is "d," extremist was the most widely used insult for conservatives while hack was the top insult for a liberal. i'm not sure which i would rather be called, an extremist

or a hack, and i wonder if there are any examples of that worst ever all possible words, an extremist hack. thanks to all of you for being part of my problem this week. i will see you next week. good morning. i'm brian stelter. it's sunday, november 9th, and it's time for "reliable sources." ahead this hour, a congressman threatened to break this reporter in half. now he's back for round two. well, re-elected i mean. we'll hear from the guy who covers the grim beat. then is blue news a loser? as mabs struggsnbc struggles, i crowd? later, we are jrn stewart's favorite target. he loves to hate on cnn. >> i can confidently state that i will not have my own room of situations. that's just a name i came up. we were shocked when he came here into the enemy camp. you've just got to hear what happened next.