ended up saying my waffley wedded wife. >> maybe she was nervous, too. she gets the giggles, and it's all over. >> you can see it on youtube. >> we're all over, too. thanks a lot, jacqui, and fredricka whitfield. this is "gps," welcome to all of you in the united states and around the world. i'm fareed zakaria. this week, an encore of 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, of course, presiding over the largest armed forces in the world by far. almost larger in dollar terms than the rest of the world's militaries put together. the reach of the american armed forces is really unprecedented. 5,000 locations around the world.

in addition, he also presides over the largest organization on the planet, a huge quasi socialist system that offers its 5 million participants activity duty and reserve retired services from a single payer and administrator, the federal government. as you can imagine, any system like this is riddled with politi 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 being the two most obvious examples. by most people's 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 our website right now and

find out. anyway, 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 afghanistan. ordered a change in command to try to fix the problems there. 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 you 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 the changs he faces. in fact, 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 seems like he changed his mind since this interview. also on today's show, eliot spitz

spitzer's unique perspective on the financial crisis. having vis rously and cotro verbally pursued aig when he was the attorney general of new york stat 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 jong-il's unique recreational facility. it's a great show with some of "gps's" best stuff. so 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 terms of being willing to 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 110,000, 120,000 troops. they didn't care about civilian casualties, and they couldn't win. if there's ever 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 are trying 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 they know -- so that these villages 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, 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 focus 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 that we can accelerate the growth of those forces. it's that combination of a certain level of international support for the afghan military effort and the growing of the afghan security forces 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. do you worry 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, we are a unique one in history in that we are 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 exercises 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. bicycle, i've missed you. gathering dust, as pollen floats through the air. but with the strength of zyrtec ® , the fastest, 24-hour allergy relief, i promise not to wait as long to go for our ride. with zyrtec ® i can love the air ™ .

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. or sit on her bed and talk about her day. but she's ready. thanks to walmart's unbeatable prices, i was able to get her everything she needed. as well as what she wanted. letting go?himom! (mom) that's the hard part.

set them up for success, for less. save money. live better. walmart. 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 bonuses, 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 wall 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 is not 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 contracts, it's a very technical issue. but they are 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 as though they had a stronger balance sheet than they had? >> precisely. that's exactly right. 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 federal 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 trying to get at? >> 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

is a discussion, did this begin before or after the tenure of hank greenburg, it's unambiguous. unambiguous that the structures 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 taxpayers gave aig has ended up being paid to

goldman sachs? >> precisely. s sfl. >> and other companies? >> the sew-called counterparties to these very sophisticated financial 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 chairman 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 would have 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 dynamic between aig and the tount

parties. >> 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 this 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 depleted by the recklessness of wall street. for goldman and the other counterparties not to be able to so we can make do with only 50 cents on the dollar, 30 cents on the dollar, after we've already given goldman a $25 billion cash

infusion, they are sitting on vast amounts of cash on the sidelines, which is their right, but they're going to invest it in due course based upon their judgment. for them on top of all that to get another $12.9 billion in the dark without question after a meeting of this 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 the chairman of the right committee will do so. he's brilliant, spectacular legislator and lawyer. i have absolute confidence if he 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 cover-up. of their neglect and failure over the last decade. they sat there and watched and did nothing as they clearly should have known that we were building a system that was a house of cards. and they enjoyed it and prospered from it. there was a symbiotic

relationship between them and wall street. barney frank is not one of those. he will ask the right questions and i hope he does. >> 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? over the last few years? >> here's my answer to that. the regulatory system was structurally flawed, but that's not why this happened. after the last round of scandals and we said, aha, we've solved the problem. now we have another set of scandals. there are enough laws, yuf yenough regulations on the books for smart legislators and prosecutors to make all the 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 under regulation. 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 was 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 stupendously. i'm a huge fan of his. i think we all have to be and should be, if only because he has been thrust into a dynamic that is 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. but 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 anger. populism, if we go to the other extreme, we had libertarianism masker raiding as capitalism for the past years. it didn't work. i'm worried we'll go to the other extreme and end up with rank populism. that could be very 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, who knew this was going on. so i look at them and say, come on guys, you're supposed to be more mature. express the anger. then say, how do we solve it? don't just throw more oil on th fire. i'm worried about that, that it will be destructive to our capitalist system. i've said since the very beginning that my energy was directed at preserving and protecting capitalism. the libertarians didn't understand it, pop ewe lists don't understand it, but 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 bonus 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 might not. but as a practical matter, as the president of the united states, i think i would call the ceos 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. carol, when you replaced casual friday with nordic tuesday, 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 some people like to pretend... a flood could never happen to them... and that their homeowners insurance... protects them. it doesn't. stop pretending. it can happen to you.

protect your home with flood insurance. call the number on your screen... for your free brochure.

we are back with eliot spitzer. eliot, 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 enamored of the products themselves. and what resulted was 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 in the sense that we needed more words in the books. we needed more aggressive voices at the s.e.c., ftc, 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 regulators who said it. 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 who spectacular 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. he also invested in some of these vehicles that have the leverage. but 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 they knew were bad, securetize 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 sec say, we didn't have the power 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 haven't been on the

government side to have a sightly more aggressive 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-regulation, sold it to washington with all of its tremendous capacity to fund raise intellectual capital. washington was happy enough to succumb to the temptation. self-regulation was a mirage. it was an abject failure. some of us saying it always will be a failure. wall street is to be blamed for creating the notion. washington is to be blamed for buying into 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, eliot spitzer doesn't have credibility to talk about these issue because of what happened over the last year with your own behavior. 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 was also legal issues involved. those were not pursued by those who decided to pursue them. i've made no excuses. i have not shirked. 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. we will be back. towels, sheets and then there was the stuff he wanted... like a new microwave.

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. need a lift? hey buddy, i appreciate the ride, you know. no problem. ♪ mind if i take a shortcut? yeah, sure. ♪

i knew the subaru legacy was the smart choice... what i didn't expect... was the fun. the all-new subaru legacy. feel the love.

i'm richard lui. live at cnn world headquarters in atlanta. we'll return to fareed zakaria in just a moment. first a look at the top stories. bowing to a barrage of criticism from conservatives, white house vooimtal adviser van jones has resigned. he says he's the victim of a vicious smear campaign, but he doesn't want to become a distraction to the administration. conservatives say jones is an extremist. they point to a petition he signed in 2004 suggesting that bush administration officials may have aloud the september 11th attacks to take place. about 500 people paraded through south lake tahoe, california, this afternoon, celebrating jaycee dugard. she was kidnapped from south lake tahoe 18 years ago and found recently living with a convicted child molester. the town also hopes to raise money for dugard and the two daughters she reportedly had with her captor. i'm richard lui. "fareed zakaria gps" continues right after this for you.

thank you for joining us. what do you think is tibet's -- could be tibet's contribution to the world? you have sometimes spoken about how tibetan culture could be an example for the world of how to

be less violent, less conflictual. do you really believe there's a 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 laden, i don't think when he was a child, or his daily lifestyle, he want 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 sky. or violence not come from gun alone. ultimately this is 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, other beings also part of humanity. so in 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 beings part of we. and then whenever conflict, different of interest come, firstly we must eliminate 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 right from beginning, if we sit together with bin laden and listen, i think he thinks very different. as a matter of fact, september 11th, after it happen, 12th, i wrote a letter to president bush because i know bush. very nice person. a good person. regardless of what his policy, as a person, very nice. so i wrote letter my condolence, my sort of sadness. meantime, i also expressed now this problem, i wish handled this problem more non-violently. >> 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 sort of responsibility, vir spiritual, i hope not fail, complete fail. but as far as our dialogue with china's government is concerned, there are some aspect, one aspect we have made clear to chinese people we are not seeking separation. we are very much willing, committed, remain people's

republic of china. that's our only interest. economy is our sort of interest. more powerful nation economically. but why did we also have some unique difficulties. including our unique language. it's something useful on this planet. 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 cultural heritage. so that, we must preserve that. and long run to china's government also -- i mean choi china's people also tibetan culture can sefrk them, bring some meaning of life. now here. now one aspect, my approach is bring better situation out of closer understanding with chinese government. inside tibet. now, that aspect completely failed. so i admitted it is failure. so i admitted, it is my moral responsibility. failure. >> you call what is going on inside tibet today a cultural genocide. >> yes. some kind of cultural genocide. 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 threat of separation from china. >> you have been in negotiations off and on with the chinese government. are those negotiations still going on? >> no. >> why have they ended? >> now only thing is the chinese government insisted there's no problem. the tibetan people are very, very happy. now if that is case, then our sort of -- 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 lama's authority to local government. >> through a democratic process. >> their government, i don't know. the totalitarian region, one part the democratics practice, i think, different. but hopefully even why na china whole, i always believe, future of china, future of human beings well being i think very much leads to an open society, rule of law. that's everybody's interest. the chinese people don't fall from one -- 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 huh 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.

>> yes. >> i asked him about -- i said that you, the dalai lama, has said he would accept china's rule in tibet. he accepts the socialist system. what he asks for is cultural autonomy and a certain degree of political autonomy. asked for i autonomy and political autonomy. he says, many people in the united states have no idea how big is the so-called greaterty betan region that the dalai lama wants. altogether five provinces in the area by the so-called greater tibetan region is a quarter of china easter terror. is that your definition of tibet? >> my definition of tibet are those people that speak tibetan, who practice tibetan culture. that's tibetan. so, in order to carry the meaningful preservation of

tibetan customs, all these tibetan, including my area of tibetan all have to work together. >> does this comprise all five areas? >> so there i think of china's leadership also leads to confusion. >>

hi, may i help you? we're shopping for car insurance, and our friends said we should start here. good friends -- we compare our progressive direct rates, apples to apples, against other top companies, to help you get the best price. how do you do that? with a touch of this button. can i try that? [ chuckles ] wow! good luck getting your remote back. it's all right -- i love this channel. shopping less and saving more. now, that's progressive. call or click today.

now for our what in the world segment. can you make this out? it is a satellite image of a water slide, but not just any water slide. this is north korea in a come pound where the country's dear leader kim jong-il and his edge man just outside the capital of pyongyang. they pour over google maps of north korea looking for places to aid the nation. they have found what they say

are the countless i toll idalatrous statues and stadiums rarely used all for the use of his profit spending. the ridiculous amount of money wasted in a country where millions of citizens died of starvation because of kim jong-il's policies which brings us to this. experts confirm that what you are looking at is a mass burial site. hundreds upon hundreds of individual graves that many belief are filled with victims of the mass starvation. these separate graves are much different from the mass graves that you find in other countries. one more cork of north korea, i suppose. even if the living have blood on their hands, they will always bury the dead with honor. um bill--

why is dick butkus here? i hired him to speak. a lot of fortune 500 companies use him. but-- i'm your only employee. we're gonna start using fedex to ship globally-- that means billions of potential customers. we're gonna be huge. good morning! you know business is a lot like football... i just don't understand... i'm sorry dick butkus. (announcer) we understand. you want to grow internationally. fedex express towels, sheets and then there was the stuff he wanted... like a new microwave. 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.

this week i'm not asking you a question because gps is taking

a brief skra kigs, but to exercise your brain, take our weekly affairs quiz, the fareed challenge. in the dog days of summer, we taught that instead of recommending a book this week, we would recommend a couple movies. these recommendations come from my staff. i haven't had time to see them yet, but i hope to in the next few weeks. "the hertz lockup." don't go expecting a blockbuster filled with explosions and special effect, there is some of that to be sure, but this movie is more of a character study about how the men in the elite unit handle the immense strain of their jobs. a serious subject. on the other side of the spectrum is a funny film about a serious subject. "in the loot" is about the united states and britain rushing to war and the people who are trying to stop them. one of the show stoppers is the soprano's james