off the coast of mexico. so much they think it has to do with the warmer waters, maybe global warming and others say they outfished the predators, which is sharks. >> we are out of time. fascinating. much more on the newsroom coming up. "gps" right now. this is gps, the global public square. welcome to all of you in the united states and around the world. i'm fareed zakaria. today on the show, a remarkable man who has saved a country on its way to collapse. a conversation with the president of rwanda, paul kagame. let me start by reminding you what happened in rwanda 15 years ago. over a period of just 100 days, 800,000 men, women and children were killed. most of them slaughtered with knives, machetes and axes by their neighbors. it is perhaps the most brutal genocide in modern history.

many of you probably remember its portrayal in the movie, "hotel rwanda." by the time it ended, one-tenth of the country's population was dead. most people assumed that rwanda was broken, and like somalia, another country wrecked by violence, it would become a poster child for africa's failed states. 15 years later, rwanda is a poster child after all, but for entirely different reasons. it is now one of the most stable countries in africa, tourism and trade are all improving dramatically. the government is widely seen as one of the most efficient and honest ones in africa. "fortune" magazine published an article recently titled "why ceos love rwanda."

the heads of starbucks and other companies are fans. he said his goal was to have his country stop receiving foreign aid all together. but before he could receive financial success, rwanda had to achieve social stability. as a writer points out, rwanda is unique in the post-conflict countries. in germany, the jews left for israel, and the groups split up geographically. in cambodia, the class that promoted the violence was easily identifiable and those people could be separated. in rwanda, however, the killers and the victims live now side by side in every village and every community. imagine nazis and jews living next door to one another throughout the country. the only way to make peace in rwanda was to reintegrate these communities, and kagame came up with a specially crafted

solution using courts called chachachas. part court, part community council, part group therapy. they had to stand up in front of their neighbors and admit their crimes. it made for a fascinating experiment which seems to be working. we'll talk with him about how he did this and about some of the controversy that surrounds his presidency. latary debate over afghanistan. a fundamental question, should the united states even be there? >> the assumption in washington seems to be that afghanistan constitutes a vital security interest of the united states, and, therefore, we should be investing tens of thousands of soldiers and many billions of dollars to try to remake it. i question that assumption. frankly, i think afghanistan is of marginal interest to the united states. >> let's get started.

and now i welcome rwandan president, paul kagame. mr. president, thanks so much for joining us. >> thank you. >> many look at what's happening in rwanda as a miracle. 15 years ago, you had this extraordinary, horrific genocide, and now rwanda is one of the most stable countries in africa. but what i'm most struck by is that you have done this with a very strange kind of process. why was it important not to punish the killers? >> we -- first of all, there are many killers. as you said, there are hundreds of thousands because of the genocide that took place in our country yielded a huge percentage, both in terms of

those that were killed as well as those who were killed. and if you went to try each one of them, then you would have trouble bringing people back together. that's why we had to say, let's categorize their responsibilities, let's look at the master minds of this responsibility, the people behind t i think it is about the biggest responsibility in this. so we had to take them to the fundamental courts of law. but there was this big number of people in rural areas who killed, people thought justice had to be done and had to be done in the sense of saying, if you go to contributing to a loss

of life, you needed to be tried, you need to be sent to jail. and that's how it started. we had about 130,000 people in the jail, and there were many more outside that you couldn't find jail for who were responsible. >> so then you started thinking -- >> so then you started thinking, but no, you must solve this problem. we have this problem that we have to move on. we have to build our future. we can't just get stuck with the problems created by our past and our history and our responsibilities. we had to find a formula to get out of this. at the same time, they looked for people to give a new life to give them a chance to understand their role and the future for them as a country. >> now, you are a leader who happens to be tootsie.

the tutsis were the victim of the genocide. did you not have important segments of your community saying to you, how can you do this? how can you let these people pay no price? >> absolutely. that's the point. that's good point. i mean, you can't. people who have been victims and others who are traitors, and you want, in the process of justice, to bring them back together, to accept one another and value one another. there was a conflict here. and the only way we could get out of that is by the chacha process. some of the people would come out, some of the traitors would come out and confess and apologize. and they wanted information that

the people didn't have. people wanted to forgive in hearing their testimonies. on that basis, people will forgive, people sitting there in the court after hearing that, after hearing the testimonies given by people. >> but is this process still very fragile? because, you know, these people, the killers, are now back in these villages living amongst the people they killed. and there's, you know, the very favorable biography of yours. even there, in his book, he says, you get the feeling these people are mouthing platitudes of reconciliation. but they don't really believe it. there is another writer that writes about asking this guy who killed six people, i think you said, did you enjoy it? he said, yes, i enjoyed killing those people and he is back, living with those people. is this -- is this being held

together by very fragile bonds? >> i think there are many more cases of people who regret what they did. they must also be heard and they contribue a lot to this future i'm talking about. there are many more cases of people who come forward and repent and show remorse, and it's like even they have been affected. they are really at a loss as to how to live their lives. those that are trying to manage that, that kind of situation and more people in that cat gear than even in those who find nothing wrong in what they did. so, it is a lot of -- you know, it is a balancing act here, but we are bet iroff with this

situation than either doing nothing or passing other alternatives. >> when you look at other countries, iraq, for example, one community came to power, felt like it had been persecuted by the other. a lot of vengeance. you look at the balkans, much retribution. debathfication. do you feel that is not the path that would work? >> i think maybe the facts on the ground would speak for themselves, but if you do things like that, you don't end up with a good result. i don't know whether it works for other situations, but it can speak for my own situation. it does work and has worked better than anything they could

have thought of. or even today, we don't see people giving us the alternative. a lot of people could say what we are doing made sense for us and gave more results, but they have hidden alternatives. >> we'll be back. why is africa so screwed up? >> it is screwed up.

in speaking with paul kagame, the president of rwanda,

the one thing that struck me was his continued reliance on the idea of self-reliance, on the idea that his people, his community, needed to stand by itself. this comes perhaps from the fact that his people felt let down by the international community, by the united states, by the western general when they most needed intervention. he has a fairly skeptical view of outside intervention or outside offers to help, wehther it involves foreign aid, the u.n. in its involvement, and the court. he is skeptical of the international criminal court to indict the president of sudan over the genocide in darfur. you will listen to his interesting, surprising, sometimes controversial views to on all of this right now. you don't like the international criminal court indictment of bashir and sudan. many look at that and say this is the height of hypocrisy.

here is a man who desperately sought international assistance against a genocide. and when the government in sudan seems to be perpetrating something that can be, in some ways seen as similar, you're standing on the sidelines and saying -- criticizing. >> i criticize the process because i understand better, probably more than these people, how international justice is a fraud. first of all, rwanda has 3,200 troops in darfur. so, we were the first country in the world to respond to the call to try to do something in darfur. so we are going to be accused of doing anything and so on and so forth. in kenya, almost every country wanted to come. when we are there, we are not being supported or used properly

to help the people of darfur because of the politics being played between the u.n., different countries. i have been arguing for fair international justice, not selective justice. that is my point. when the country is being turned down, where the international institutions, they must be related. my point is we cannot cut out selective justice. >> this was the argument a lot of people made who didn't want to get involved in rwanda. they said there's problems all over the world. we can't selectively get involved in one place. the fact that you cannot have universal justice still does not argue that you cannot render occasions of real guilt as in

basheer and sudan, you cannot focus on them. and by not doing that, you are eroding the moral party. >> but it is selective justice. you are doing more damage than the good you are doing. and i draw the distinction. i said with the case of darfur, i have told you what rwanda did. so, we cannot be accused of even being effective at all. >> not effective without real pressure on the government, but at the end of the day, there is only so much these peacekeepers can do. >> not effect ittive to be support. >> now, as you rebuild your nation, you are trying to embark on a path that turns rwanda into an economic role model self-reliant, based on entrepreneurship. you have cited a book of a guest

on this program which talks about cutting off aid to africa. you said you would be able to get to zero aid in your presidency which has another seven years, a eight years? >> i think this is where the point lies. the emphasis is not on using a time limit as such. i think we're sitting here talking about the principles, the process that must be carried out. i wish i could realize it in my time of office. it might come after. but i have to make sure that in my time of office, the process is on and is effective, so whoever comes after me may finish the job. that's it. aid is about supporting social and economic transformation of people. and in supporting them, aid must

do those things that will eventually see people get foreign aid. >> so you think the purpose of foreign aid is to get people off foreign aid? >> exactly. >> but a lot of people listening to this will say, why is africa different? why is africa so screwed up in the minds of many people? >> so screwed up. >> so much poverty, so many wars, so much corruption, so many leaders that loot their countries rather than building them up. there are not so many like you. many people point to you like as exception. >> i think there has been an upset in africa for so many reasons. some of them historical. people talk about globalism and so on and so forth. and they watch what president obama has been saying and what he said, like, in uganda. people should just talk about

that and his own explanation for the failures on our continent, but that one has to be factored in on part of that we should shift to our own selves and what we need to be doing, in order to get africa out of this situation. so the process is on. and i think in many parts of africa today, you will realize that progress is being made. if you look in the past couple of years, before the current world economic crisis, africa has been growing about 5 or 6%, per annum. >> some of that was the high prices of commodities, which africa has an abundance. >> absolutely. there is also more work to be done. >> we will be back with the president of rwanda.

>> in other case, we don't want anybody to control us, nobody to own us, but we should be free to transact business. mr. evans? this is janice from onstar. i have received an automatic signal you've been in a front-end crash. do you need help? yeah. i'll contact emergency services and stay with you. you okay? yeah. onstar. standard for one year on 14 chevy models. and you know what, it works. nutrisystem for men: flexible new programs personalized to meet your goals. what's great about nutrisystem is you eat the foods you love and you lose weight. i'm dan marino. i lost 22 pounds on nutrisystem and i've kept it off for three years. for a limited time, get an extra three weeks of meals free! that's right, you can get

an extra 21 breakfasts, lunches, dinners, desserts, and snacks. that's 105 meals free! i had awesome results. i mean, i lost 22 pounds, my goal was 20, it came off fast, and the food was great. it's what every guy's been waiting for: it's healthy weight loss and it's flexible. with prices as low as $12 a day, you'll save hundreds over other weight-loss programs. order now and get an extra three weeks of fantastic meals. that's right, 105 meals absolutely free. call or click now. guys, you can do this. just pick up the phone and call. you will lose weight.

we're back with the

conversation with the president of rwanda. you are somebody hot americans now love and you have great relationships with ceos. the american government wants to give you a a lot of aid. but then i read that you have a new building complex for your foreign ministry, which was entirely built and paid for by the government of china as a government. is china's influence growing rapidly in africa, and should we worry about this in the united states and the west? >> no, i think china's influence is growing globally. that's why america itself is rushing there for business. that's why the whole of europe is rushing there for business. the whole world is embracing china for business. >> when the chinese build you a foreign ministry, it is very

symb symbolic. it seems to suggest they wanted some control of your foreign policy. >> that would be another problem. if they have control of our foreign policy, it will not be their problem, it would be our problem. you just said a while ago friends are americans. fine. america is controlling our foreign policy. maybe it has been in other cases, but in our case, we do not want anybody to control us. nobody owns us. but we should be free to transact business in the interest of rwanda and who they want to do business with. it doesn't matter where they come from. so when china offers something like that, we will take it. it has nothing to do with controlling us. >> let me ask you, you have a

lot of faith in people -- in your people. you talk about self-reliance, building them up as entrepreneurs. you don't give them much political space. let me read to you what the economy magazine says. kagame allows less freedom at home than zimbabwe. he may be trying to bring them out of poverty but trying to maintain tutsi power. anyone who poses the slightest political threat to the regime is dealt with ruthlessly. >> people today talk about rwanda as if it has won 15 years of war. nothing has happened there that is -- it is the people doing it. >> it talks about prosperity. is it just restricted political rights? >> yes, but the political rights are also there to speak for themselves.

we have built institutions from nothing. we have additional alternatives which comes from learning, if it's lawyers. we have long-trained lawyers and even in the whole set up, the work it is doing, it will speak for itself. i don't have to wait for an economist to say to me, come and rub shoulders with me, nothing is working. the freedom of press they are talking about is not about freedom. because that's why cnn, nbc or others would come and work there and do whatever until they want and leave. how can we say there is no freedom of that? the problem is, we've made rwanda itself an institution. we started from a very low on

everything, including in the press in rwanda, the actual practitioners. we don't have -- the press is not vibrant itself, it has not developed. they call it oppression. that's not true. we see more leverage with the press. >> do you guarantee tend of your second term, i assume here you are going to win re-election, you won your first election by 95% it is likely -- a strange statistic again to people in the west, but assume you win your second election next year, do you guarantee that you will leave after two terms? >> yes, but again, strange, but this is again hypocrisy. >> the only people that tend to get 95% tend to be arab dictators in the polls. >> i saw in france not so long ago, the president won by 88%.

88% was very high. >> it was on the second round. the first round, did he not get that and then up against a very weak competitor. >> so weak against competitor? means weak competitors with you. >> are you going to tell me that you won't be in office for longer than your two constitutional terms? >> no, i think the constitution is not there by accident. it was there for a purpose, and i will serve that purpose, so i respect our constitution. and in fact, wish to give -- a gift to my people and that's -- i want to breach the things happening today and that is to leave a legacy behind where power can leave -- can leave power and pass it on for others

to run and to lead the country. in a still environment, it becomes a culture and a norm that won't let up. i want to leave that as one of the things i should contribute to. >> president kagame, a pleasure to have you on. >> thank you. sn't going to break the bank. you're in the right place. only progressive gives you the option to name your price. here. a price gun? mm-hmm. so, i tell you what i want to pay. and we build a policy to fit your budget. that's cool. uh... [ gun beeps ] [ laughs ] i feel so empowered. power to the people! ha ha! yeah! the option to name your price -- new and only from progressive. call or click today.

now or for our "what in the world" segment. what caught my attention this week was silence. silence from the muslim world over the plight of their brethren, the uighurs. they are, you recall, the ethnic my nor knit northwestern china who claim they have been discriminated against for years and the pa past few weeks, caught up in ethnic fighting with the majority han population. the clash has left more than 180 dead. the second in command released a video calling on muslims to back

the militants in pakistan. where was this call to support the uyghurs? religious authorities in pakistan issued fatwa this week against people who steal electricity, but where was their outrage on behalf of the uighurs? they printed a cartoon about mohammad in 2005, a war erupted. embassies and consulates were burned to the ground. people were killed in rioting. they formally protested to the danish government. why aren't they protesting to beijing? where are they now in the strongest muslim condemnation, but a lone exception, but from turkey. the wreergs a turkish people so it makes sense. the kind of genocide, the chinese reacted very angrily. they deemed them groundless and irresponsible.

now, i am not actually suggesting other countries should get involved in this, but look at the hipocracy of the self-appointed leaders around the world who scream at the smallest slights who scream against muslims when americans are involved, but the silence is deafening. from the genocide in darfur to terrorist attacks against muslims in pakistan. and we will be right back. we're making afghanistan something that we're not capable of doing, that we can't afford to attempt to do, and frankly, it's unnecessary.

imagine... one scooter or power chair that could improve your mobility and your life. one medicare benefit that, with private insurance, may entitle you to pay little to nothing to own it. one company that can make it all happen... your power chair will be paid in full. the scooter store. hi i'm dan weston. we're experts at getting you the scooter or power chair you need. in fact, if we pre-qualify you for medicare reimbursement and medicare denies your claim, we'll give you your new power chair or scooter free. i didn't pay a penny out of pocket for my power chair. with help from the scooter store,

medicare and my insurance covered it all. call the scooter store for free information today. call the number on your screen for free information. don lemon live at the cnn headquarters. "gps" continues in a moment. but first headlines. newly released taliban video shows as you soldier who disappeared afghanistan three weeks ago. on the video, private first class bo class on the video, saying he is being treated well. and a plane crashed taking

off from kandahar airport. it was on a russia-owned chopper. 16 people died, all civilians. the cause sun known but officials say there was no enemy fire. i'm don lemon, see you right back here at the top of the hour, 6 p.m. eastern. i want to get you back now to fareed zakaria and "gps."

the gold delta skymiles credit card... from american express... it's the official card... largest airline. of the world's and it's the only credit card... that earns miles on delta. miles that take you... to more places than ever before. over 350 destinations worldwide. so switch today. get up to 25,000 bonus miles-- good for a free flight. call now to apply. there's no annual fee for the first year... and you can redeem... with no blackout dates or seat restrictions. these are just a few of the benefits... of carrying the official card of delta air lines. switch now and you can earn miles... on delta with your purchases: groceries, gas, entertainment, and more. get up to 25,000 bonus miles...

with the gold delta skymiles credit card. call 1-800-skymiles to apply. this is the official card... of the world's largest airline. good choice. only meineke lets you choose the brake service that's right for you. and save 50% on pads and shoes. meineke.

>> here are some facts. july will be the deadliest month of the nato forces of the entire war. the pentagon is admitting that the u.s. has lost troops "at an alarming rate this month." eight british soldiers were killed in a single 24-hour period last week. when their caskets returned home, the united kingdom held a day of national mourning. britain is the united states's most important allies in this fight. many believe in the casualty rate remains high, the public could abandon their support for their effort. joining me to talk about all this, david kilcullen. david is a former army officer who helped the u.s. plan the troops in both iraq and afghanistan. andrew besovich is a professor of boston university.

they are in opposition on this. is this uptick in violence good news, by which i mean when the surge began in iraq, general petraeus warned that the initial effect of the surge would be to actually raise troop casualties because the united states forces would be actively engaging the enemy in ways they had not done so far. is that what's happening in afghanistan? >> i think we're inevitably going to see some increase in casualties in the next few months, but i do think casualties aren't necessarily a particularly good indicator of whether you're winning or losing. casualties, both to the civilian population and to coalition forces, tend to be very low in two kinds of places, places that are completely controlled by the government and places that are completely controlled by the enemy. so, the absence of casualties doesn't necessarily mean you're doing well or doing badly. and the presence of casualties

that we're finding in some areas just tells you that fighting is going on. it doesn't really indicate whether we're seeing progress on the ground. just to pick up something that you said in the introduction though, i think, in fact, the most important partner for the united states in afghanistan is actually not the british people but the afghan people. and i think that has to be the focus of what we're doing here in the next fighting season. if we don't really rebuild that partnership with afghans that we once had, then i don't think any amount of troop surge or any amount of actual fighting is going to get us there. >> andy, what do you make of these casualty numbers, because, again, it's worth pointing out in iraq they spiked quite substantially and then dropped down as we started winning those engagements and, more importantly, providing security for the population so that it felt more secure. why is that -- is that a wise strategy in afghanistan? >> the big question, it seems to

me, is not whether casualties are up or down or why they're up or down. the big question has to do with what are u.s. interests in afghanistan? the assumption seems to be afghanistan constitutes a vital security interest of the united states, and therefore, we should be investing tens of thousands of soldiers and many billions of dollars to try to remake it. i question that assumption. frankly, i think afghanistan is of marginal interest to the united states. >> well, let me press you on that, andy. if the united states withdraws, britain withdraws, by every account, the afghan government is pretty weak. there is a very good chance that it will either fall or large parts of the country will be taken over by the taliban, which has in the past and is now closely allied with elements of al qaeda and al qaeda-like groups. so, you will have a country that has -- allows al qaeda and its

ilk to operate, to train, to have bases and potentially do terrorist activities everywhere from london to mumbai to madrid, and, of course, the biggest target they often talk about, which is the united states. why is that not a threat? >> well, it is a threat, but it's a modest threat. with regard to what becomes of afghanistan and whether afghanistan does become some hotbed of islamist activity that gets exported to the region, it seems to me that we should at least examine the possibility that are ways to prevent that from happening that doesn't require us maintaining tens of thousands of troops there in perpetuity. there i think the limited success achieved by the surge in iraq is instructive. to the extent the surge did

succeed, it did so in large part because the united states paid off the heart of the insurgency. it seems to me by analogy, we can explore the possibility of paying afghan warlords to rule their little patch of afghanistan in ways that prevent al qaeda from taking up positions there. >> david, why is that not a good idea? i know that you were in favor of it in iraq. i know you've talked about it in afghanistan. it does seem to me that that key element of the surge doesn't seem to be happening. we don't seem to be reaching out and trying to find members of the taliban, members associated, maybe they don't call themselves the taliban, and affecting some kind of switching of sides. >> well, i think there were two very distinct specific circumstances about the situation in 2007 in iraq, which are not necessarily present in afghanistan.

the first one was the sunni awakening was happening within the sunni community with the sunni community with a number of different tribal groups turning away from iraq and trying to push them out of their communities. when we were there in 2007, that was the fifth attempt by the tribes to throw al qaeda off their backs. and we participated by helping an existing movement that was already starting to reject al qaeda. i don't see a similar large-scale turn by tribes or warlords or anybody else to try and push the taliban out of their communities in afghanistan. so, that's one issue. the other issue is, you know, we should never have invited iraq. we got ourselves into an incredibly difficult position in 2007. we got ourselves into an environment where the iraqis were suffering 3,000 to 3,500 civilian casualties every week, week after week after week. that's a 9/11 every week on a

population ten times smaller than the united states, and a population, by the way, that had nothing to do with 9/11. so, there was a moral imperative to save iraqi lives. and we did what we had to do in 2007 to rescue ourselves from a situation that we really never should have been in. now, the situation in afghanistan is, again, somewhat different. i think that, in fact, getting back to your earlier point, the real center of gravity here is not afghanistan, it's pakistan. and what's happening in pakistan actually concerns me a lot more. and i think it's actually a lot more strategically important to the united states. but there still is this inconvenient issue of, you know, the moral obligations that we as an international community assumed in getting involved in afghanistan. and a lot of people are getting killed here, and we need to think about what our moral obligations are. >> but does that mean you accept andrew bacevich's strategic

point, that actually afghanistan is of marginal security interest of the united states? we can protect ourselves with a combination of a kind of vigilance on the homeland security front, perhaps a littl off of locals? doing things that treat afghanistan with the attention it deserves, which is moderate but not have 100,000 or 50,000 troops there? >> well, i think that i wouldn't necessarily use the term "marginal" but i would certainly agree that pakistan is a much more important problem than afghanistan in terms of regional implications. >> but does that mean we should get troops out of afghanistan, david? >> i don't think that's quite the issue this year. i mean, i think everybody wants to get as many troops out of afghanistan as we possibly can as soon as possible. consistent with not having state collapse and not having a major blood bath. when you actually look at how

quickly we can get troops out of afghanistan, i think it turns out that we have to stabilize the environment. we have to work with the afghan people to restore the situation that once existed where they are actually in a position to handle the threat themselves and then we can start pulling out. just as the surge in iraq, we had to go up so we could start coming down. in afghanistan, something similar is true. >> andy, do you buy that? >> i think dr. kilcullen made a very important point. that from a strategic perspective, pakistan is far more important to our security and to international security than is afghanistan. and it seems to me that a key question is whether or not this u.s. and allied military presence in afghanistan is alleviating the threat to pakistan, or is exacerbating the

threat to pakistan? and it seems to me that it's pretty clear that, indeed, it's exacerbating and contributing to the destablization of pakistan. >> i'm not quite sure i entirely understand that because the international presence in afghanistan is trying to create a reasonably stable government there that controls the territory. if we had a more powerful -- listen to me. if you had a more powerful taliban in afghanistan won't that destabilize pakistan more because they will engage in more cross-border violence and they will destabilize the parts of the pakistan even more? >> pushing the taliban into pakistan, we are increasing the islamist threat to pakistan as a result of our presence in afghanistan. >> david, the argue na? >> the argument that if we pull

out everything will be quiet. i don't think that's true now. if we were to move out of afghanistan i think that would probably just increase the resources available to them to take on islamabad. >> final question to each of you. a quick bottom line. andrew besovich, you think the best thing to do, cut our losses, withdraw and we'll be surprised at how little the instability, if there is any, in afghanistan affects us, our core national security? correct? >> by and large. i mean, the last week "time" magazine, fareed, had a story about the new u.s. command her kabul and the headline on the cover was -- it described him as the general who's remaking afghanistan. i simply believe that remaking afghanistan is something that we're not capable of doing. that we can't afford to attempt to do, and, frankly, is

unnecessary. so we need to examine strategic alternatives rather than simply continuing down this path that we've been on for almost eight years. >> and david, your view would be, you've got to give this a little bit more time to stabilize the environment? am i correct? >> i think we need to be there and make it stable and step up to our moral responsibilities to the afghan people. but i would agree with professor besovich that we need to do it in the cheapest way possible. and we need to make sure we don't overcommit and set ourselves up in an unsustainable effort. but the international community has signed now, three international agreements with the afghan government and there's a lot of expectations out there. i think we have some obligations we need to consider. i think we should figure out how to meet those obligations in the most sustainable way possible. >> david kilcullen, andrew besovich, thank you very much. >> thanks. we'll be right back.

mr. eva janice from onstar. i have received an automatic signal you've been in a front-end crash. do you need help? yeah. i'll contact emergency services and stay with you. you okay? yeah. onstar. standard for one year on 14 chevy models. you hungry? yeah. me too. (door crashes in) (broadview alarm) (gasp and scream) go! go! go! go! go! go! (phone rings) hello? this is mark with broadview security. is everything okay? no. someone just tried to break in. i'm sending help right now. thank you. (announcer) brink's home security is now broadview security. call now to install the standard system for just $99.

the proven technology of a broadview security system delivers rapid response from highly trained professionals, 24 hours a day. call now to get the $99 installation, plus a second keypad installed free. and, you could save up to 20% on your homeowner's insurance. call now - and get the system installed for just $99. broadview security for yop- home or business - the next generation of brink's home security. call now.

i want to share some great news with you. gps has been nominated for an emmy award from my interview with the chinese premiere. if you missed it you can watch it on cnn.com/gps. our question of the week. last week i asked you if you thought the united states needed a second stimulus. listen to some of the responses. >> no, no, no, a thousand times no. a second stimulus would fit the clinical definition of insanity. that's dave whenning of chandler, arizona. now, i happen to disagree with both of you. i think another stimulus might turn out to be needed because american consumers are just not spending. they are maxed out and so somebody has to. the government is the only option. but i love hearing all your input and insights even when you disagree with me. for this week's question, here's what i want to ask. do you think that some countries

actually need a strongman? as you saw earlier in the program, rwanda's has an amazing success story but some of what has happened might be called autocratic. might it take a tough, autocratic leader to turn a country around as he did with rwanda? and as always, i'll recommend a book. and it has an unusual title. "we wish to inform you that tomorrow we will be killed with our families." and award-winning book about the genocide in rwanda. it's not a new book. it came out ten years ago but it is unforgettable. and one final note before we go, i continue to hope for the release of mahara, a dished journalist with news week and a filmmaker. he's been held in iran without any formal charges, without access to due process. without access to a lawyer. we hope for