newsroom on this sunday night. up next, the first interview with the new israeli ambassador to the united states, michael oren. hope you are having a wonderful day and we will keep you posted on the tropical storm and tornado that could be threatening residents of florida. this is gps, the global public square. welcome to all of you in the united states and around the world. i'm fareed zakaria. on today's show we start with the first television interview to israel's u.n. ambassador to the united states, michael oren. a previous historian previously in the military, now in washington. then we will show you part of an unusual event, a town hall meeting in nairobi, kenya, starring hillary clinton, with yours truly in the moderator role. finally in nairobi, the prime minister of kenya. when barack obama came into office, many in america and around the world hoped he would breathe life into the prospects

for a peace deal between israel and the palestinians. obama fed that hope by quickly appointed a man on the issue, appointed a man on the issue, a man of integrity, former senator george mitchell, who had negotiated the peace accords in ireland. it is considered by some to be the most right wing in memory, as is the new government. the prime minister netanyahu had been fiercely critical of any kind of palestinian state. his foreign minister had previously called for what some had characterized as leaders from israel. obama and netanyahu have clashed to expand settlements over the west bank. there has been some forward movement. prime minister netanyahu did accept the idea of a palestinian

state about a month ago. there were some caveats. on the palestinian side, some positive news. the palestinian authority is becoming somewhat less corrupt and more competent. hamas seems to be losing some support, even in gaza, where living conditions continue to be hellish. will the steps make a difference, piece talks possible? isn't the real story not the peace talks with the palestinians but military action against iran? the former u.n. ambassador john bolton predicted last week that by the end of this year, in other words in a few months, israel would attack iran, to setback its nuclear program. the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, michael mullin, cautioned that an israeli attack on iran could endanger the civility of the entire region, yet many reports suggest that israel does intend to strike. we will ask our guest, israel's ambassador to the united states, about all of this. let's get started.

and now i welcome michael oren, israel's ambassador to the united states. >> fareed, good to be back here. >> let's talk about iran. john bolton has recently said that he believes that israel is likely to attack iran by the end of this year. is that true? >> i don't think it's true. i think that we are far from even contemplating such things right now. the government of israel has supported president obama in his approach to iran, initially the engagement, the outreach to iran. >> you're just saying this, michael. you don't really -- it is well known that the government of israel is uncomfortable about the engagement with the president. >> it is, but the prime minister

told him in may, assured him there would be a serious reassessment of the re-engagement policy before the end of the year. we are reassured that that deadline has been moved up to september. we actually have a date when it's going to occur. we are comforted by the fact that the administration in the aftermath of recent events in iran have considered great willingness to consider formulating a package of serious sanctions against iran, even now in advance of the reassessment. . isn't it true that we now know something about iran that we weren't quite had sure of, which is there are many moderates in iran, both on the streets of tehran and in the rest of the country? >> unquestionably. we know that the iranian people, even the iranian leadership, is not as monochromatic as we thought. there are dissenters not necessarily moderates in the sense of the relationship with israel but certainly moderates in the term of an iranian context. but what concerns us at the end of the day is not so much a

change in personalities, but a change in policy. we would like to see an iranian willingness to desist from supporting terrorist groups, hezbollah, hamas. on the contrary, business as usual. we'd like to see iranians willing to suspend the enrichment of uranium. we'd like to see them stop the production of the centrifuges which enrich the uranium. we see none of that across the board. >> do you accept iran has a right to a civil nuclear program? >> we believe all countries have a right to nuclear energy. but there is a difference in that and the ability to enrich uranium on iranian soil. >> that is allowed around the nbt.

but it's not in countries that have systemically lied about their nuclear programs through the century. >> there is no -- it doesn't say, by the way, if you've lied, you no longer have -- who decides that process? >> i think the international community has to decide that process and they already have decided because of a tremendous credibility problem with iran. even if iran agreed tomorrow and said, okay, we'll have this type of supervision over our nuclear program, certainly from israel's perspective, we would not be very much at ease with that. we've seen how iran has worked to subvert to side-step any type of international supervision of the nuclear program. >> you're a military man, michael. the soviet unions were deterred, stalin was deterred, mao was deterred. mao was as crazy as leaders get, the willing tons talk about the destruction of the world, inflicting enormous casualties.

if these guys were deterred by the fact they would suffer retaliation, why would iran not be deterred? . because the mao toist regime, the stalinist regime, were secular regimes. they have secular ideologies. >> m a ao talked about how he was happy to destroy half the world to cause communist revolutions to flourish. >> but the iranian regime is not a secular regime. they are carrying out what they believe to be a divinely ordained task on the planet and that is the conduct of a holy war and they have gone on record, including some iranian moderates have gone on record saying they don't care how many people they lose in order to destroy the state of israel. iran is actively supporting terrorist organizations to seek to kill israelis civilians that have fired well over 10,000 missiles in our centers, that have connected suicide bombings

in our civilian neighborhoods, schools and bus stops. it's not like this is something abstract going on over the airwaves. this is literally happening in our homes and our neighborhood. >> so tell me this then, if you don't believe you can deter a country, why did you build 250 nuclear weapons yourself? >> israel position is israel will not be the first country to introduce nuclear weaponry in the mideast. i stand by that recognition. >> are you saying israel does not have nuclear weapons. >> i'm saying israel will not be the first country to introduce nuclear weaponry in the united states. >> introduce? to actually have them? >> to introduce. >> but the common sense understanding of that word would be that israel does not have nuclear weapons. >> the idea is that israel will not be the first to introduce, deploy nuclear weaponry in the mideast. if you want me to take more

on the word, i'd be happy to. >> there are books on the subject, i suggest otherwise. >> this has been israel's policy since the 1950s, by the way. it goes back to 1958, and israel maintains that policy to this day. this is not a case of wondering whether there is wmd in iraq. this is not a situation like that. the iranian regime is proud of its nuclear program. the iranian regime boasts -- >> i thought you were referring to the israelis. >> no the iriranian program. they will invite television cameras in to see their centrifuges. >> those centrifuges are currently under the nonproliferation treaty permittable. the question is weaponization. am i right in saying you are making an assumption not about iranian capabilities but about iranian intentions? and that's where i want to know what gives you such surety? >> what gives us surety is the context.

the context of the regime's rhetoric. its theology, not its ideology. its practice in supporting terrorist groups. its willingness to deceive, to lie, to dissemble about the nature of its nuclear program over the course of the last century. all of this creates an image, a picture, of a regime that would want, if not to actually acquire nuclear when pops tomorrow, to be within what we would call a sneak-out or break-out capacity, where once that government makes a deis sticks to make a bomb it can make a bomb very, very quickly. >> so that is unaccept aable to you? in other words, if the iranians were to abide by the law, have a nuclear program but not weaponize, but have the potential, in your view, to weaponize, that's already crossing a red line, as far as israel is concerned? >> under this regime, yes. iran under a different form of government, under a western-oriented, peaceful,

passive government that's not seeking israel's destruction would be a different story. and we will be back with michael oren, israel ambassador to the united states. >> we took what was offered to us and we built the state, we built the institutions around that state and created a national homeland. >> but you kept a large army. >> because we had to keep large army a difference. >> wouldn't the palestinians say the same thing? >> no, i don't think so i don't think we are threatening the palestinian state.

÷q÷y concierge claim centers. so i can just drop off my car and you'll take care of everything? yep, even the rental. what if i'm stuck at the office? if you can't come to us, we'll come to you in one of our immediate response vehicles! what if mother won't let me drive? then you probably wouldn't have had an accident in the first place. and we're walkin'! and we're walkin'... making it all a bit easier -- now that's progressive! call or click today.

i think i'll go with the preferred package. good choice. only meineke lets you choose the brake service that's right for you. and save 50% on pads and shoes. meineke.

and we will be back with michael oren, israel ambassador to the united states. the prime minister wrote a speech in which you finally, some might say, accepted the institution, and he did it when he was in his final months as prime minister. in that speech, he said he accepted the prospect of a palestinian state as long as it was disarmed, there was no prospect of jerusalem as its capital and there was no air space. would you accept a state with those conditions? in other words, can you expect the palestinians to accept a state which would be unacceptable to israelis? >> no israel in -- the zionist movement in 1947 accepted a two-state solution that had many

solutions with it. it had an economic reunion with a proposed palestinian state. >> but it had no control over its borders, no capital -- >> israel is not saying control of its borders. saying demille tar rizzsization, be accurate about the two major demands the prime minister gives. i think a national movement that wants to create a state, accepts a state when it's offered to them and then moves on from there. it begins to build that state. that has been the lesson of zionism and the movement in the state of israel. we took what was offered to us and we built the state. we built the institutions around that state and created a national homeland. >> but you kept a very large army. >> we had to keep a large army. >> wouldn't the palestinians say the same? >> i don't think we are threatening the palestinian states. listen, this is not the fall of 2000. this is not even 1993 when the oslo accords were assigned. much has happened since then. there have been hundreds and hundreds of terrorist attacks in israel.

we've lost over thousands of people, including close family members of mine. and i think israelis are justifiably wary. i live in southern jerusalem, israeli jerusalem, west bank begins down the street 50 yards from me, not very far away and within -- >> but certainly palestinians would be as worried about the israelis, because the israeli army has killed many more palestinians than palestinians have killed israelis. >> but in the fall of 2000, for example it wasn't israel who attacked the palestinians, it was the palestinians who attacked the israelis. the west bank was used, not once, but twice, to launch major wars against the state of israel. and has since then been the site of numerous terrorist attacks against israel. >> so, again this is hard, as far as you're concerned, nonnegotiable, the demand -- >> i think it's a demand that is

supported by an overwhelming majority of israelis. about 77% of israelis supported the prime minister's speech. and there's a reason for it. we are not telling the palestinians they won't have a means to defend themselves. they will have a police force, whatever they need to maintain law and order and fight terror within their borders. we jus don't want them to have the means to shoot at airliners landing at our major airport, which is a couple meters from the west bank. it's not that far away. we don't want them to have the ability to make military pacts with iran or any other terrorist groups. these are the type of limitations we're looking for and it's not without its president and international affairs, similar to germany and japan after world war ii. but there is another important item in the prime minister's speech was the demand for mutual recognition of homelands. the prime minister stated that the palestinian state would have to recognize israel as the nation's state of the jewish people.

>> you phrased it slightly differently than i've sometimes heard it. the way i had heard it earlier was that it should be recognized as the jewish state. are you making that distinction because you want to create space for arabs who live in israel? >> yes, but not only. there was -- it was -- the locution is deliberate, the distinction, and the prime minister made it in his speech as well. there was a sense that when we used the term israel as a jewish state, some people immediately thought theocracy. israel is not a theocracy. israel doesn't even have an official religion. unlike other countries in the world, doesn't have an official religion and it was important that we got across that it is the nation state of the jewish people. didn't mean that all the jews in world moved there. it didn't mean that arabs would have any distinction of rights. >> but they would have as many of its internal investigation

commissions, supreme court that would suggest there is a very sharp inequality between the rights afforded jews and israelis and arabs. >> israel guarantees equal rights in its declaration of independence. the israelis are human beings and there is prejudice and there may be discrimination. those issues are fought out in the courts very, very often. >> the land, for example? a non-jew in israel? >> those issues have been fought out in the courts very, very often. the palestinians -- >> and the court has said -- you know where i'm going -- supreme court commissions have said there is a persistent inequality, whether in educational funding, earn the ability to acquire land. >> and in every case, the supreme court has ruled that in equality has been remedied. same process that goes on in this country. it's not a perfect environment.

it's a work in progress, just like the united states is a work in progress to guarantee the equality of all of its people, not just on paper but in reality as well. going back to the question if recognition of israel is the nation's state of the jewish people. we are called upon to recognize the palestinians' fate as the nation states of the palestinians. not all the palestinians are going to live in that state, and we firmly believe, i firmly believe, that the only way that this treaty, this peace is going to work in the long run is if both sides recognize the permanence and legitimacy of the other, that we are both indigenous people, native people, that they're invited to share this house, and the only way we're going to co-exist in the long run is on the basis of recognition. >> at the heart of israel, there is a very large number of arabs

who are living in israel who are israeli citizens and they are not jewish. how should they feel about this demand, and how do they feel about, for example, singing the israeli national anthem? >> i would like them to be able to sing the national anthem. there are jews in great britain, for example, who will salute and serve a flag that has not just one cross but three crosses on it. i would hope israeli arabs would also feel a sense of loyalty to a flag that has a symbol on it that is a star, not just jewish symbol, but an islamic symbol. i want them to have equal rights. if they want to feel it's a national homeland, they can have a palestinian state for that. if they have to move there, they can. >> but your foreign minister, on the other hand, various points, thinks that they should be -- some large number of them should

in some cases seem to suggest that he favored the ethnic cleansing of parts of israel to move certain palestinians into -- certain israeli arabs into the palestinian territories. >>'s never spoken of ethnic cleansing torque the best of my knowledge. moving against their will. he has talked about border adjustments. we understand if there is ever to be a treaty ending this conflict, there's going to have to be an exchange of territories that some territories are going to find themselves under palestinian sovereign test, some under israeli sovereignty it is. realities created on the ground, certainly in the years since the 1967 war. >> what you're saying is you can envision some circumstance where israeli citizens who are now living in israel, who are of arab ethnic background, would be disenfranchised because the border would be shifted and they would now find themselves no longer israeli citizens?

>> first of all, understand that the foreign minister's position on this is not the position of the entire government. this is one party within this coalition. such a movement would have to achieve the approval of the kenesset. it would have to go through the supreme court. my feeling is israel would never take such a step to force people to move. no one's talking about kicking somebody out of their houses. no we are just trying to decide where the boarder is going to go. >> we will be back with michael oren, israel's ambassador to the united states, right after this. >> the prime minister, benjamin netanyahu, during his first visit to this country in his prime minister in his term met with the president, president obama in the white house, and they agreed to differ about jerusalem.

introducing a breakthrough from tums that can control your heartburn for hours all day or all night. it's called tums dual action, and it's the longest lasting tums ever. tums dual action works two ways to relieve heartburn: like all tums, it goes to work in seconds. plus, tums dual action has an effective acid reducer that works for hours, all day or all night, to keep heartburn from coming back. rely on tums dual action for fast, long-lasting relief of heartburn. brand power. helping you buy better.

we are back with michael oren, israel's ambassador to the united states. you have been ambassador for a few weeks, and i think you've set a record. you have set a record. you have been summoned to the state department twice already to be told the obama administration vigorously disagrees with the expansion of settlements into the west bank what did they tell you? >> well, first of all, let me correct a misperception. i was never summoned to state

department. it was falsely reported in the press. and at one time, aid discussion with an undersecretary of state, a courtesy meeting, a notion came up, an issue came up about jerusalem. perfectly respectable and appropriate approach by the state department about an issue in israeli internal policy. the second time, there was a phone call. i wasn't summoned at all. again, very, very soft-spoken. but there was an issue. israel and the united states have agreed to differ about the issue of jerusalem and the prime minister, benjamin netanyahu, during his first visit to this country as prime minister in this term met with president obama in the white house, and they agreed to differ about jerusalem. israel's position is that jerusalem should remain an undivided city under israeli sovereignty and that israeli law holds in that city and that jews have a right to live anywhere in

that city, just as arabs have a right. >> during negotiations with bill clinton, there was the prospect that east jerusalem would become the property of the united states. >> it was reportedly a proposal to that effect, but the actual position of the government remained unaltered. there were disagreements over aspects of our policy? he jer ree-- policy in jerusale. and all these issues are being worked out in a very constructive, very friendly atmosphere. >> so, when the "jerusalem post" says the winds are clearly changing in israeli-u.s. relations, it talks about how boston has been summoned back, is this wrong? >> i think i take issue with the

"jerusalem post." i think that's inaccurate. you may find this strange, there are certain things in the press that are occasionally inaccurate. i don't think there is a different wind. i think there is a different administration with a different approach to certain issues in our relationship and only certain issues in that relationship, the administration never misses an opportunity -- and i stress this -- never misses an opportunity to talk about its commitment to israels's security, israel's survival, israel's survival as a jewish state, and overwhelmingly, the relationships are warm and positive. >> michael oren, best wishes, welcome as israel ambassador to the u.s. i'm sure you're taking notes, because you are also a great historian and one day you'll tell us your thoughts in writing. >> thank you very much. secretary of state? >> yes. >> hold on. hold on. >> secretary of state?

>> yes. >> i want to make a very, very strong statement. america or anybody will not help kenya change.

"what do you mean homeowners insurance doesn't cover floods?" "a few inches of water caused all this?" "but i don't even live near the water." what you don't know about flood insurance may shock you. including the fact that a preferred risk policy starts as low as $119 a year. for an agent, call the number on your screen.

last week, we brought you my one-on-one interview with hillary clinton in nairobi, kenya. while i was there, i moderated a debate hosted by the university of nairobi. it was filled with 100 people. they were free to ask this top official anything on their mind. also present in the room, the first african woman and the first environmentalist to win the nobel peace prize. i asked her if she had a question for hillary clinton. >> thank you very, very much. secretary of state, what can a strong, powerful country like the united states of america do to persuade other strong countries like china to do business in africa with a

consciousness that we must also demand from our leaders' good governance? >> that's great question. great question. >> so that we do not allow ourselves to be exploited yet again by these upcoming economic giants but who come and want to do business with our leaders without wondering and being concerned about human rights issues, authority issues and government issues? >> thank you. thank you. look, i think that's one of the most important questions for africa. africa, historically, has been exploited, during colonialism and post-colonialism, by corporations and by your own leaders so that the fruits of

this richness that exists in the earth, in the waters of africa have not gone to the people. and i often use an example that i think is a good model, botswana. at the end of the colonial period in botswana, the people of botswana will tell you it was very fortunate, because the colonialists -- in that case it was britain -- left right before diamonds were discovered. right? and there was enlightened leadership in botswana who said, we have diamonds. what shall we do with them? and what they did was to create a mechanism so that funding and revenues from the exploitation of the diamonds went to build the infrastructure of the country. so those of you who have been to

botswana know they have a very good network of roads, they have i mean, they invested in their people. and it is a question, as wangari so rightly says, of who is in charge and whether they have the best interests of not their own families in mind. everybody will take care of their own families, but of the people they are supposed to govern and lead. and i am just absolutely convinced that africa's best days can be ahead if we get ahold of this whole question of the use of natural resources and who benefits and where the revenues go. >> thank you very much, madam secretary. my name is grace, i would like to now direct your attention from politics and ask you about climate change. the united states of america is the biggest culprit of emissions that causes climate change. and in this country today, i've never had before that 10 million

kenyans are facing famine, and they are facing famine because the greenhouse has no boundaries. our rivers are drying up. what can we do if climate change is not addressed? for example, from a well-endowed country like yours, endowed financially, technologically to combat climate change. we are going to suffer and continue to suffer. is america ready to assist africa to do that? thank you. >> well, the short answer to that question is yes, we are, and it is one of president obama's highest priorities. as you know, we passed a bill through our house, and, of course, this was after eight years of our prior administration denying that it was a problem, but you've now had four years of drought. you do have 10 million people facing hunger. africa will be one of the hardest hit places in the world because of climate change.

the united states is now under president obama's leadership, accepting our responsibility for having been historically the world's largest green gas emitter. >> secretary of state? >> yes. yes. >> now, hold on. hold on. secretary of state? >> yes. >> i want to make a very, very strong statement. america or anybody will not help kenya to change. that help will come from us. >> yes. >> what you can do is one thing. help us change our attitude. change our attitude. and i'm coming to that. the selfishness that we suffer -- i mean, the impunity that we suffer, the corruption that we suffer, the bad governors that we suffer, the poverty we suffer is all because of one thing, that our leaders think of nothing other than themselves. what i would like to ask you is this. we need to change our attitude because we support bad

governance because the people we elect we are hoping will help us. what i am asking is this. the aid that you give, could you direct the civic and education so that kenyans will change their attitudes? >> well, we send a lot of aid for all kinds of civil societies, civic education, but we will see what we can do more to help that situation. >> we thank nairobi, the government of kenya and our affiliate. thank you so much. the nobel peace prize winner is well known for saying, save the world, plant a tree. after the town hall meeting at the university of nairobi meeting ended, secretary of state hillary clinton went outside and planted a tree. we will be right back. %%%%%

i'm don lemon live at the cnn world headquarters in atlanta. fareed zakaria "gps" returns in

a few moments but here are your headlines. we are watching tropical storms now. tropical storm claude set gaining strength as it gets closer to florida's gulf coast it could bring heavy rain and possible flooding beginning tonight. meantime, tropical storm bill is in the atlantic and could become a hurricane by tomorrow. our jacqui jeras watching it all for you. hints to today from president barack obama's health and human services secretary that the white house may be willing to give up the fight for a public health insurance option. on cnn's state of the union, kathleen sebelius said there will be competition with private insurance companies as part of health care reform, but she said, a public plan is "not the essential element in providing that competition." some senators are calling for nonprofit health care co-ops. i'm don lemon. i will see you right back here in the top of the hour in a few minutes where we are covering all the weather news for you. now back to fareed zakaria and "gps" after this. (pouring rain)

i had a great time. me too. you know, i just got out of a bad relatio...

it's okay. thanks. goodnight. goodnight. (door crashes in, alarm sounds) get out! (phone rings) hello? this is rick with broadview security. is everything all right? no, my ex-boyfriend just kicked in the front door. 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 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 your home or business - the next generation of brink's home security. call now.

when i was in nairobi last week i, i heard a quote that speaks volumes about the democracy all over the country. listen, "in africa, elections are never won they rigged. the loser does not accept the results and then we move on." that comes from the prime minister of kenya. prime minister owe ding go ga is a well-known dissident whose struggles for democrat? i his country lead lead to yearsism prisonment n 2007, odinga ran for president of kenya, taking on the incumbent, kibaki, it was a close election but the official tally indicated that odinga had lost. those rules were widely disputed and almost everyone agrees that some kind of fraud went on. rioting erupted across the country. an estimated 1,200 people were killed. ultimately, odinga did a kind of aboutface, he made a power-sharing agreement with the incumbent kibaki.

many believe he sold out and is now part of the problem. naturally, he feels otherwise. last week, while i was in kenya, i interviewed prime minister odinga and i asked him about americans lecturing him about democracy about corruption and about much more. prime minister owe dipping ga, thank you so much for joining us. >> i'm happy to join. >> recently, you had secretary of state hillary clinton visiting you as a guest. and after she made some remarks, you publicly said we do not need lectures on governance from outsiders. now, i was struck by that because, of course, you were a political dissident, a political prisoner and urgently screamed for external assistance when you wanted to bring democracy to kenya. >> i am saying the united states needs to talk more about trade and wealth-creation to africa. we know ourselves.

we are not doing what we are doing to testimony m democritiz. we know ourselves we are not doing what we are doing for africa because we want to please somebody, we are doing it because it's right for us. and africans have paid a bigger price for democracy. i'm saying that this partnership, we want to accept, that not patronage. we don't want to be lectured on what's right, what's wrong. the americandy democracy is not perfect. the example is the -- the -- that, the event the bush and al gore. >> this is a call to adhere to certain international standard and rights, and as you say, you point out there are obstacles in this process. why not have the american secretary of state mention it? >> i don't mind her saying it, but i don't want to be lectured to.

like students. i mean if she went to riyadh in saudi there in saudi arabia? how about jordan? how about in egypt? you come here, if it's truly a democracy and good government, speak the same language wherever you go. >> would you say the same to barack obama if he were to make these points? because in his video message to the conference, he said some very similar things. >> why not? see, kenya is not a clan state of any government. we also recognize we have weaknesses we are working on that we must improve. i speak very candidly to

president kibaki and i agree with him on this issue. i'm known to be speaking my mind all the time. i spoke very strongly to mugabe until they declared me persona non-grata in zimbabwe. i was speaking on the issues of violations of human rights on the african continent. i say we as africans do not wish to be told by foreigners what we should do in africa. i believe in the ability of the african people to deliver the african continent. >> let me ask you, finally, prime minister, we alluded to it earlier, but you are a political dissident. you spent 18 years in jail. do you ever look around the prime minister's office and

picture this is very different from what you had expected when you were in jail? >> you know that when you're in jail, deprived of everything that endears us to life and surrounded by every condition that could provide dissent. you think about very many things. when you come out and you continue to struggle like we did and you arrive here, you say that this is a stage, this is a stop going forward. i do not consider this my destination. i see this as just one stage. >> what is your destination? >> my destination is the complete demockization of the kenyan society completely of our people.

i believe in the kenyan dream, which, is found in our national anthem, to make this country free, liberated, independent, democratic and prosperous. i think that we're far away from that. i want to make continuous movement toward that destination. >> prime minister odinga, pleasure to have you. >> thank you.

now, for our what in the world segment. here's what got my attention this week. a roll of toilet paper, certainly not the normal at 2x ps, but this is special toilet paper, cuban toilet paper. turns out cuba may be running out of the stuff. the government has warned its

citizens in recent days they are facing a toilet paper shortage and we are adding this could last until the end of the year, when they expect a shipment to come in. how did this happen? the cubans blame it on the financial crisis and hurricanes they were hit with last year. now, the financial cries is hurting everyone but i have yet to hear of shortfalls in toilet paper in other places. what i think is really at the bottom of this toilet paper crisis is cuba's continuing commitment to its bizarre world of social economics. two weeks ago, raul castro vowed to keep communism alive in cuba and make sure capitalism doesn't return. in a world of flux, i guess it is comforting to know some things stay the same. cuba's disastrous economy would be a joke were it not for the poverty perpetuated among cubans, 50% of the arabic fields are going unfarmed.

first year and second year college students now work one month out of the year in agriculture. its insane foreign policies lead to shortages of food and basic food needs, even more serious than toilet paper and all those successes they held up for years for the successes of the communist revolution, free school for all and college and health care, they announced they will have to make cuts in all of these and the average cuban earns the equivalent of $20 per month. capitalism has its problems as we have all seen but at least we are not running out of toilet paper. our question of the week. last week, you recall i interviewed secretary of state clinton, i wanted to know what you thought about her performance in that job. you guys were bullish. many of our viewers gave her an a and even a plus. several pointed out they had been skeptical when obama chose her for the job but have been

won over by her diplomatic skills. she did get a few fs where two viewers compared her to a rebellious teenager seeking attention and one called her amateur hour, but these were the minority. i'm not going to ask you a question this week because we will take a few days off. we do have some terrific shows for you so keep tuning in. as always i'd like to recommend a book by my guest, michael orin, called "six days of war, june 1967 and the making of the modern middle east." an intricate telling of the '67 war and the changes it brought to the middle east. some arabs may disagree but about as good a book you can expect for the concept he looked at a lot of documents and did much research and talks about the shortcomings. it's one of the critical turning