have a great sunday and great weekend. this is "gps," welcome to all of you in the united states and around the world. i'm fareed zakaria. this week, the interview from may with the secretary of defense robert gates. the job that gates holds is unique, unlike that of any other cabinet secretary. he sits on the national security council presiding over the largest armed forces in the world by far, almost larger in dollar terms than the rest of the militaries put together. the 5,000 locations around the world. in addition, he also provides over the largest organization on the planet, a huge ques sigh socialist system that offers its 5 million participants grade elle to grave services from single payoror and administra r

administrator, the federal government. this is riddled with politics. the four services have their liaisons with washington. you need to be a strategist, an administrator, ceo and politician. it's a tough job to succeed at. in fact, few have. the most famous secretaries of defense are famous because they failed. robert mcnamara and donald rumsfeld the most obvious examples. by most judgment, gates has been extraordinarily successful, perhaps the most successful ever. i will throw in another name, robert lubbock. if you don't know who that is, go to the website and find out. think about gates' successes. he helped set course for the surge in iraq, of course, that was george w. bush's policy decision. he organized a strategic review of our of afghanistan. he has proposed reoriented

defense spending to shift the priorities away from high-tech, high-cost weapons toward battlefield equipment, manpower and intelligence. in other words, the stuff our soldiers need to fight the wars we're actually engaged in. as we watch gates, you'll get a sense of why he does well. he exudes a quiet confidence but he has his ego firmly in check. he's smart, thoughtful, focused, disciplined. but as you'll see in the interview he's remarkably frank about challenges. i heard things i hadn't heard before. listen carefully to what he said four months ago about sending more troops to afghanistan. if you have heard what he said in recent weeks, it seemts like he's changed his mind. also, elle yont spitzer's unique perspective on the financial crisis. he was the attorney general of new york state and his response to critics who say he has no right to judge others ever again. the dalai lama's unique world

view on all things and kim john il's unique recreational facility. it's a great show. let's get started. >> secretary gates, thank you for doing this. >> my pleasure. >> president obama, you've heard a lot of republican criticism that he's going around the world apologizing about america. do you accept that? >> well, i like to remind people that when president george w. bush came into office he talked about a more humble america, and you know you go back to theodore roosevelt and his line about speaking softly but carrying a big stick. i think that acknowledging that we have made mistakes is not

only factually accurate, i think that it is unusual because so few other governments in the world are willing to admit that. although they make them all the time and some of them make catastrophic mistakes. in speeches myself, i have said that at times we have acted too arrogantly, and i didn't feel that i was being apologetic for america. i just was saying -- i was just saying that that's the way we are in em terms of being willio recognize our own limitations and when we make a mistake to correct it. because i think the next line i always use is, no other country in the world is so self-critical and is so willing to change course when we feel that we've strayed from our values or when we feel like we've been too arrogant. so i think -- i have not seen it as an apology tour at all but rather a change of tone, a more

humble america. but everybody knows we still have the big stick. >> you once said that the chief lesson you learned from these years in government are the limits of power. so apply that lesson to afghanistan today. what do you think -- what are the limits to what america can do in afghanistan? >> well, i have been quoted as accurately as saying i have real reservations about significant further commitments of american military -- of the american military to afghanistan beyond what the president has already approved. the soviets were in there with 1 110,000, 120,000 troops. they didn't care about civilian casualties and they couldn't win. if there ever was an example that military power alone cannot be successful in afghanistan, i

think it was the soviet experience. and i think there's a lot we can learn from that, and so i worry -- it is absolutely critical that the afghans believe that this is their war. it is their war against people who aring to overthrow their government that they democratically elected. for all of its flaws and shortcomings, it is theirs. an they -- we must be their partner and their ally. if we get to the point where the afghan people see us as occupiers, then we will have lost. so the way we treat the afghans, the importance of keeping the afghans in the lead in many of these activities, the military as well as the civilian, i think is absolutely critical so that these villagers know that it's

their people who are leading this fight. this isn't some foreign army coming in there, like all the previous foreign armies, to just occupy. >> but that means that a year from now, six months from now, you are unlikely to approve a request for additional troops in afghanistan. >> i would be a hard sell. there's no question about it. and i have not made a secret of that either publicly or in government meetings. i think we will have between the american military commitment and our coalition partners being the isaf partners, we will have about 100,000 troops in afghanistan. that's only about 10,000 shy of what the russians had. and i think we need to think about that. my view is it would be a far better investment to folcus on building the strength of the

afghan army and the afghan police, making sure that of the numbers of people we have there there are adequate trainers so we can accelerate those forces. it it's that combination of a certain level of international support for the afghan military effort and the growing of the afghan security fors themselves. it's that partnership that i think eventually will be successful in afghanistan. as long as -- if we try to do it all ourselves, i think it won't work. >> final question, mr. secretary. do you worry -- you're a student of history -- that we are falling into a kind of imperial track? we have the largest defense budget in the world. we spend basically more than the rest of the world put together. meanwhile, the chinese are building this great industrial machine. we're in iraq and afghanistan. we have to deal with somali pirates. it does begin to have this image of the british empire putting out the fires all over the world in somewhat peripheral areas

while the great industrial, economic challenges are coming up and we're sort of -- you're caught by the reach of our own power. >> well, if we are an imperial power being we are a unique one in history in that we're the only one in history that is always looking for an exit strategy. the reality is the united states has global interests. our defense budget is about the same as the defense budgets or military budgets of every other country in the world put together. but, as i say, we have global interests, and that defense budget is still less than 4% of our gross domestic product. during the korean war it was as high as 9%. much higher obviously during world war ii. it was 7% or 8% during vietnam. so i think first of all that the size of military we have is not a burden on our economy compared

historically to where we've been. i think that -- i think a former secretary of state put it in a different way than an imperial power. she said we are an indispensable power because the reality is, if you look around the world and the variety of problems that exist, nothing ever gets done without american leadership at the end of the day. and i think that's going to continue. we're going through our economic troubles today. i think it ties back to the first question you asked me about, you know, is the president on an apology tour? and absolutely not. this is about how the united states exerciseses global leadership and being willing to listen as well as to talk is important in that regard. >> and we thank you for having talked to us, robert gates, secretary of defense. >> thank you.

smoo i don't think you can live the american lifestyle without energy. . we have lots of oil. i think natural gas is part of the energy mix of the future. i think we have the can-do. we have the capability. we have the technology. the solutions are here. we just need to find them here.

was it really for fun, or to save money on heat? why? don't you think nordic tuesday is fun? oh no, it's fun... you know, if you are trying to cut costs, fedex can help. we've got express options, fast ground and freight service-- you can save money and keep the heat on. great idea. that is a great idea. well, if nordic tuesday wasn't so much fun. (announcer) we understand. you need to save money. fedex

now to my guests today, former governor of new york, former attorney general of new york, eliot spitzer. welcome. >> thank you. pleasure to be here. >> when you saw the news about these aig bone yous, what did you think? this is the company you prosecuted way back when. >> on the one hand i was not surprised. bonuses are part and parcel of washington street compensation and i think if you looked at any company you would see bonuses of an equivalent size. so i think to a certain extent what we are now doing is looking

at what is a typical part of wall street compensation, voicing a visceral outrage that is legitimate but not is particular to aig. >> but when you took on aig, what troubled you about it? what made you look at aig and say, something's wrong here? >> their fundamental accounting structure was wrong. and when we prosecuted them, we brought a case alleging that they had manufactured false, fictitious reinsurance contrac s s, false reinsurance contracts designed to create the appearance of capital on the books which was not there. and this was a structure that had been designed and orchestrated at the very top of the company. as we dug into -- >> so they were basically fudging the numbers to make it seem they had a stronger balance sheet than they had. >> precisely. and the underlying effort was to create an illusion of financial strength that was not there. as we dug more deeply into the underlying structure and organization and accounting that

was ongoing at the company, we knew there was a problem. and just parenthetically, four people have been convicted of this. the former ceo was called an unindicted co-conspirator in the federal courtroom by the prosecutor. this was a fundamental effort to alter the actuality and to lie to the public. >> so do you think that the problems that aig got into later on stemmed from some of the same practices that you were with trying to get out? >> they stemmed from an effort from the very top to gin up returns whenever, wherever possible, and to push the boundaries in a way that would garner returns almost regardless of risk. and so to the extent that there a discussion, did this begin before or after the 10 u of hank greenberg, it's unambiguous, unambiguous that the structures and the flaws and the policies began while he was there. that is why the board that he

had controlled with an iron fist asked him to leave. it was their decision, not my decision, their decision to ask him to step down. something that was then and is now very unusual. he has invoked the fifth amendment, which of course is his right to do. but he was asked to leave by his own board because they saw the flaws and the problems that have since multiplied and created this monster that can bring down the financial system. back then, i said to people, aig is at the center of the web, the financial tentacles of this company stretched to every major investment bank. the web between aig and goldman sachs is something that should be pursued. as i have written -- >> meaning what? meaning that a lot of the money that we the taxpays gave aig has ended up being paid to goldman sachs? >> precisely. the so-called counterparties to these very sophisticated transactions. when aig initially received $80

billion, a decision the consequence of a very brief meeting of the president of the new york fed, the secretary of the treasury, perhaps chairman bernanke and arguably some reports say the chair man of goldman sachs, $80 billion, virtually all but flowed out to counterparties, $12.9 billion to goldman sachs. why did that happen? what questions were asked? why did we need to pay 100 cents on the dollar on those transactions if we had to anything? what had happened to the financial system had it not been paid? these are the questions that should be pursued. bonuses, real issue. it touches us viscerally. the real money and the real structural issue is the dough it dynamic between aig and the counterparties. >> because those are the tens of billions of dollars. the bonuses are a few hundred million. >> we think $164 million, give or take. huge money. nobody should diminish that. these counterparty payments, tens and tens of billions of dollars. >> and to your mind it seems as though the taxpayer money may

have been recklessly and unwisely paid off? >> well, it may be the case to be made that it should have been paid, but at a moment in our nation's history when everybody is being asked to bear a piece of the burden, everybody, people are being told, work four days a week, not five. sales taxes are going to go up. contracts are being broken and renegotiated for workers across america. our 401(k)s and savings have been deplete by the recklessness of wall street. for goldman and the other counterparties not to be able to say, we can make do with 30 cents on the dollar after we've given goldman a $25 billion cash infug, they'sio infusion, they're sitting on vast amounts of cash, which is their right but they'll invest it in due course based upon their judgment, for them to get on top of that 12.9 billion in the dark without questions after a meeting of the sort is

fundamentally wrong, and that is the nature of the inquiry that should be raised. >> is there, as far as you know, a congressional inquiry into these monies? >> i don't know if there is or isn't. i certainly hope barney frank being the chairman of the committee, will so. he's brilliant, spectacular legislator and lawyer. i have absolute confidence if he spoke pokes at this he'll get to the bottom of it. there are many on capitol hill who are beating their chests so loudly you know it's just a coverup. neglect and failure they sat and did nothing as they clearly should have known we were building a system that was house of cards. they enjoyed it, prospered from it. there was a relationship between them and wall street. barney frank is not one of those. he will ask the right questions and i hope he does. the. >> was the regulatory regime in place strong enough? i'm thinking particularly of the new york fed, which was headed by tim geithner of the s.e.c.

where do you see the floor having been? >> the regulatory system was structurally flawed, but that's not why this happened. after the last roun of scandals and we said, aha, we've solved the problem. now we have another set of scandals. there are enough laws, regulations on the books for smart, aggressive regulators and prosecutors to all t s to make cases. what was missing was judgment. you can't legislate judgment, regulate judgment. either the people who are the regulators will walk into a bank and say, your leverage is too great. we're going to take actions to pull it back. or this type of investment is flawed. or they won't. you can't pass a law that says you must use sound judgment. bubbles have been there through history, through overregulation and underregulation. this is a question of judgment and a failure of judgment. when i was attorney general, people said, oh, you're using this crazy little statute, the

martin act of new york, to bring all these cases. the martin act had a simple anti-fraud provision. that's all we used. the federal government has exponentially more regulatory power than we did. what was lacking as the judgment, the tenacity, the desire to rein in a financial system that was spiraling out of control. >> how do you think president obama is handling this crisis? >> well, i think he is doing stew pend usually. i'm a huge fan of his. i think we all need to be and should be. he's been thrust into a dynamic that's almost impossible. he's trying to put out not 500 small fires, 500 forest fires simultaneously. he's addressing them sequentially, trying to keep a political coalition together. it's very hard. i think one of the largest, most difficult tasks he has is to control the outrage that is brewing in the public, sympathize with it and garner it, but use it to get good policy, not policy based upon

ang he. populism, if we go to the other extreme, we had libertarianism massacre aiding as capitalism. it didn't work. i'm worry we'll go to the other extreme and end up with rank populism that could be just as dangerous. it's very hard to craft the reasoned policies that make the market work without losing the support of the public. that's what he's trying to do. it's a very difficult task. he is a brilliant communicator and a brilliant leader, and i think we all have to hope that he succeeds. >> do you worry about this kind of populous anger when you watch the outrage over the bonuses? >> yes. the outrage is legitimate, but it is being fomented by sort of a faux populism by many on capitol hill who saw this coming, knew this was going on. so i look at them and say, come on guys, you're supposed to be more ma thu tur. express the anger and say, how do we solve it?

don't just throw more oil on the f fire. i'm worried about that, that it will be destructive to our capitalist system. i've said from the beginning my energy was directed toward preserving and protecting capitalism. the libertarians didn't understand it, capitalism is what we want to preserve. >> the simple legal question, you were in a position where you could do something about it. what would you do about the bonuses legally what strategy would you employ? >> i think i might go back to a very old tort theory of unjust enrichment and say, you know what? there's a theory in the law that says, couple of theories, one, impossibility saying aig just doesn't have the money to pay you and absent the federal infusion it wouldn't have it so we can't pay. second, i would say, unjust enrichment. you simply don't deserve it. it's equitable. some courts may go for it, some not. but as a practical matter, as the president of the united states, i think i would call the ceoss into the oval office and

say, guys, this isn't tenable. we're all going to have to suck it up a little bit and show the american people that we know what it means to be part of a community. and share the sacrifice. let's see if we can't solve this without the legal wrangle. i bet he could. i have no doubt that president obama could do that. >> we will be back with eliot spitzer right after this. you know there are a number of people who are watching who are going to say, eliot spitzer doesn't have credibility to talk about these issues because of what happened over the last year, your own behavior. smoo ay to hide it. sir, have you been drinking tonight? . and you will get arrested.

we are back with eliot spitzer. el yot, you've spent a lot of time looking at wall street, battling with them often. what do you think is the fundamental thing that got us into this mess? >> recklessness, greed, and misunderstanding of what capitalism is all about. and a belief that financial services alone could generate wealth. financial services doesn't really generate wealth. the capital markets are designed to raise money and then apportion it to industries that are creative, whether it's biotech or automotive or anything else. financial services should be a conduit. instead we became en a.m.orred

of the products themselfed. and what resulted is this enormous bubble in assets ginned up and supported by financial services sector that because of a series of improper incentives got us to where we are right now. >> and what should have been done? should there just have been a lot more attorneys general like you kind of battling this? should there have been a different kind of regulation? how should this have been prevented? >> there should have been a very different regulatory framework, not that we needed more words in the books. we needed more aggressive voices at the s.e.c., fec, the occ. this welter of federal agencies, people who came to wall street and said, wait a minute. that leverage is crazy. and it's kind of odd because everybody derided leverage in public but in private participated to the hilt. you look back at these deals and say, this is crazy. we needed wiser voices on wall street. this was sort of a disease that

got into the bloodstream and the dna of wall street leadership. now, there were some who disagreed with it, who said, wait a minute, guys. we can't afford this. the more traditional old-fashioned investment banker said, wait a minute. this doesn't wok. >> warren buffett or -- >> yes. i love warren buffett. we all do. i think he always was a voice of modulation. we needed more of that and frankly less of the sort of hot dog, cowboy mentality that leveraged everything up, sent it out so that people would structure deals without retaining any of the ownership. if you want a technical answer, all of the securitization that was done, where you had the rating agencies, originators who would originate loans who knew were bad, securitize them, get aaa ratings, they didn't maintain any ownership. so a simple rule could be if you securitize a stream of debt, you've got to retain 10%, 15%,

20% so you're at risk. you evaluate deals very differently. if you are actually at risk, rather than nearly selling -- >> and that could have been part of the regulation. >> absolutely. the power of the federal agencies to do this stuff was unlimited and any time i hear the s.e.c. say, we didn't have the pow to do this or that forget it. they had more people, more power, more money than was necessary. what they lacked was the creativity and the will. >> in a sense, this is almost a greater failure of washington than wall street. >> well, there have been debates. washington, wall street. it's one of those debates where of course both were at fault. now, i happen to have been on the government side to have a slightly more afwresive view of what government should do perhaps. i believe that wall street was at fault for fostering an ideology and imposing an ideology or buying its way into an ideology in washington that said, let us alone. we will self-regulate.

so wall street created this notion of self hifl regulation, sold it to washington with all of its tremendous capacity to fundraise intellectual capital. washington was happy enough to succumb to the temptation. it was a mirage, an abject failure. some of us saying it always will be. wall street is blamed for creating the notion, washington plamed for buying in it. who is more at fault is sort of a debate. i think both parties. >> you know there are a number of people watching who are going to say, elliot the spiioiot spi have credibility to talk about these issue because of what happened with your own behavior over the last year. what would you say to them? >> i would say to them that i never held myself out as being anything other than human. i have flaws as we all do, arguably. i failed in a very important way in my personal life, and i have paid a price for that. i've spent a year with my family, with my wonderful and amazing and forgiving wife and

three daughters, and have rebuilt those relationships and hope to do that as time goes on. i also feel that to the extent if i'm asked and i can contribute to a very important conversation, i will do that as well. that is our right, arguably our obligation as citizens. i will do what i can with full awareness and heaviness of heart about what i did. >> but it wasn't just a personal failure. there are also legal issues. >> those were not pursued, but i've made no excuses. i have not shiked. and i will not do so. i failed. i resigned my position because i said, this is the appropriate step for me to take. >> do you feel like you wish watching all of this you were back in office doing something about it? >> well, obviously i first and foremost hope we can solve the problems because the future of our economy and without overstating it our nation is at

stake here. if i can contribute, i will do so in whatever way i can. obviously i care deeply about these issues. they were central to what i did as attorney general and so i read the papers and say, sure, these are issues that i feel deeply about, but i am where i am because of my own conduct. as i said, i make no excuses. >> do you imagine you could ever be back in government? >> i don't think about it. i don't worry about it. i focus on my family, on the issues. i write an occasional column and speak occasionally. that is all i'm doing. >> eliot spitzer, thank you for coming on. >> thank you. weigh we wi >> we'll be back. a new microwa. and because of walmart's unbeatable prices, we were able to get it all. ...and then some. set them up for success-- for less.

save money. live better. walmart. but now that i'm breathing better with advair... i can enjoy the zoo with my grandkids. (announcer) for people with copd including chronic bronchitis, emphysema, or both, great news. advair helps significantly improve lung function. while nothing can reverse copd, advair is different from most other medications because it contains both an anti-inflammatory and a long-acting bronchodilator working together to help you breathe better. advair won't replace fast-acting inhalers for sudden symptoms and should not be use more than twice a day. people with copd taking advair may have a higher chance of pneumonia. advair may increase your risk of osteoporosis and some eye problems. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking advair. we had a great day, grandpa! we sure did. ask your doctor how advair helps improve lung function for better breathing. (announcer) find out how to get your first full prescription free

at advaircopd.com. (announcer) find out how to get your first full prescription free okay. you were right. these healthy choice fresh mixer thingys, they taste fresh... say it again! say it like, "mmmm, these healthy choice fresh mixers taste freshh!!" they taste fresh... wait. what are you doing? got it. you're secretly taping me? you know, it wasn't a secret to us, we knew. yes, but it was a secret to me. of course, otherwise i would be sitting like this and completely block his shot. so that's why i was like... didn't you notice this was weird? no. made fresh from your desk, cook it fresh, strain it fresh, mix it fresh. healthy choice fresh mixers, look for it in the soup or pasta aisle. welcome home, man.

hello. i'm frederica whitfield. here are the headlines right now. the white house environmental advisor van jones is resigning. he's been under fire for signing a 2004 petition that suggested high-level bush era officials deliberately allowed the 9/11

attacks to take place. jones denies agreeing with the petition. he says he's a victim of a smear campaign mounted by opponents of reform. good news from the front lines of the fight against the california wildfires. the massive station fire near los angeles is more than 50% contained. officials are offering a $100 thou $100,000 reward for information leading to the arrest of whoever caused that blaze. those are the headlines. fareed zacara gps continues in a meemt. tonight? sm smoo. . a. . a . a. y/y/y/y/y/y/y/y/y/y/y/y/y/y/y/

thank you for joining us. what do you think is tibet's -- could be tibet's contribution to t world the world? you have sometimes spoken about how tibetan culture could be an example to the world of how being less violent, less conflictual. do you really believe there's way to reduce the levels of violence and suffering in the world through a kind of inner search? >> i don't think anybody, still i want one. i don't think these people will say that. and then these people like bin

lad laden, i don't think when he was a child, he wants now today more -- i wish more violence. i don't think. out of desperate, out of hate, out of anger, out of frustration, wants to please. so, therefore, violence not come from gun alone. ultimately it it's motivation, emotion. so unless we tackle emotion, destructive emotion, we cannot stop violence. >> how do you tackle that? >> ah, not here. the central concern of other beings, other human beings, our beings also part of humanity. so there's reality, see, we are

all just one. so the very concept i think i see because of the day no longer live it. we must consider human being part of we. and then whenever conflict, we must realize them also part of humanity. they also have every right to work on suffering. so we must appreciate their right. then with that dialogue, talk. i think if we from the beginning sit together with bin laden, i think he thinks maybe different. as a matter of fact, 9/11

happen. next day i wrote letter to president bush because i know bush, very nice person. as a person. regardless of what his policy, as a person, very nice. so i wrote letter my condolence, sadness. meantime, i also expressed now this problem, i wish handled this problem more non-vie lebtly. >> you said last november that you told your model of leadership had failed. that you felt that you had failed as a leader of the tibetan people. you've spoken of china having turned tibet into a hell on earth. why do you think you have failed? what leads you to see that you have failed? >> i think i should say all my

responsibility spiritual, i hope not pafail, complete fail. but as far as our dialogue with china's government is concerned, there are some aspect, one aspect is it made clear to chinese people we are not seeking separation. we are very much willing, com t committed to be with china. that is our only interest, economy is our sort of interest. more powerful nation economically. but why did we also have some -- including our unique language. so every tibetan has these things. also i think of tibetan culture

heritage is different heritage. it's something useful on this planet where sort of violent and too much competitions, too much sort of hatred, these things. the tibetan hated this. i think, of course, our heritage mainly come from india. so that i really feel not only myself but also many friend also appreciate tibetan peaceful culture heritage. so that must preserve that. and long run to china's government also -- i mean chinese people also tibetan culture can serve them, bring some meaning of life.

now here. now one aspect, my approach is bring better situation out of closer understanding with chinese government. mao, that aspect completely failed. so i admitted it is failure. >> you call what is going on inside tibet today a cultural genocide. >> yes. some kind of kell turl genercul. whether intentionally or unintentionally. our problem is some of those chinese communist hard-liners, the unique tibetan cultural heritage and tibetan spirit they see as a source of separation from china. >> you have been in negotiations off and on with the chinese government. are those negotiationses still

going on? >> no. >> why have they evened? >> now only two years. chinese government insisted there was a problem. the tibetan people are very, very happy. now if that is case, then our view is wrong. i made clear when time come i'll return with certain deal of freedom that wins autonomy. then we will return all dalai la lama's authority to local government. >> through a democratic process. >> their government i don't know. the totalitarian, one part the democratic practice i think difficult. but i hopefully even china as a

whole i always believe future of china, future of human beings well-being i think very p much leads to an open society, rule of law. that's everybody's interest. the chinese people don't fall for one debt. so the slogan, harmonious society, very good. harmony very much with trust, trust and fear cannot go together. so long tibetan people that according our information modern 90% tibetan very unhappy. and actually jintao i describe

almost like a tibetan nation, now possible through something like death sentence. so tibetan people i think generally quite proud. so the chinese say, oh, they can help us. then sometimes we feel we have no need help. we manage ourself. >> let me read to you something that was said to me in a conversation we had. i asked him about -- i said the dalai lama has said he would accept china's rule in tibet. he acceptses the socialist system. what he asks for is cultural autonomy and a certain degree of political autonomy. he says, many people in the united states have no idea how big is the so-called greater tibetan region that the dalai lama wants. the greater tibet then region

covers tibet, and four other provinces. and the area by the so-called greater tibetan region is a quarter of china's territory. is that your definition of that tibet? >> my definition of tibet are those people who speaki tibetan who practice buddhist culture, that's tibetan. so in order to carry the meaningful preservation of tibetan culture, all these tibetan in one birthplace area, we must work together. >> does it comprise these five areas?

>> [ inaudible ]. so there i think some amount of chinese leadership, i think also some confusion.

now for our "what in the

world" segment. can you make out what this image is? it's a satellite image of a water slide, but not just any water slide. this is north korea, in a compound where the country's dear leader, kim jung-il and his henchmen live, this mini water park was found by a band of cyber sleuths. they poured over google maps of north korea looking for landmarks that might aid our understanding of this bizarre nation. they have found what they say are the countless idyllic statues of his father, the buildings never finished and stadiums never used, all further evidence of his meg mania and spending. the ridiculous amounts of money wasted is egregious when millions of citizens have died of starvation because of kim

jung-il's ruinous policy. experts confirm what you're looking at here is a mass burial site that many believe are filled with the victims of the mass starvation. these separate graves are much different from the mass graves you find in other countries. one more quirk of north korea, i suppose, even if the living have blood on their hand, they will always bury the dead with honor. this country definitely needs to focus on other ways to get energy. we should be looking closer to home. there are places off the continental shelf. natural gas can be a part of the solution. i think we need to work on wind resources. they ought to be carefully mapping every conceivable alternative. there is an endless opportunity right here.

there's no way to hide it. sir, have you been drinking tonight? if you ride drunk, you will get caught... and you will get arrested.

this week i'm not asking you a question because gps is taking a brief vacation, but to exercise your brains, please take our weekly world affairs quiz, fareed challenge, go to cnn.com/gps. in the dog days of summer we thought instead of recommending a book this week, we'd recommend a couple of movies. these recommendations come from my staff. i haven't had time to see them next, but hope to in the fekt few weeks. "the hurt locker" about a bomb squad working the streets of bagdad. don't expect a summer blockbuster filled with constant explosions and special effects. this is more of a character study about how the men of this elite unit handle the immense strain of their jobs. on the other side of the spectrum is a very funny film about a very serious supp jeblth "in the loop" is a farce about the united states and britain rushing to war and the people who e