on the ground with respect to russian arsonists. and ronald reagan said trust but verify. we can't verify right now. in part because of the consequence between the reset between the united states and russia, we have received enormous help from the russians in instituting sanctions on iran that are tougher than anything we've seen before. we have transit agreements with russia that allows us to supply our troops. there are a whole range of security interests in which we are cooperating with russia. it would be a profound mistake for us to slip back into mistrust as a consequence of our failure to ratify. and the third reason is that with the cold war over, it is in everybody's interest to work on reducing our nuclear arsenals, which are hugely expensive and

contain the possibilities of great damage, if not in terms of direct nuclear war, then in terms of issues of nuclear proliferation. so we've got our european allies saying this is important. we've got the u.s. military saying this is important. we've got the national security advisers and the secretaries of defense and generals from the reagan administration, the bush administration, bush one and bush two as well as from the clinton administration and my administration saying this is important to our national security. we've got the republican chairman of the foreign relations committee saying this is in our national interest to get done now. this is an issue that traditionally has received strong bipartisan support.

we've gone through 18 hearings. we've answered 1,000 questions. we have met the concerns about modernizing our nuclear stockpile. we have concrete budget numbers. it's time for us to go ahead and get it done. my hope is that we will do so. there's no other reason not to do it than the fact that, you know, washington has become a very partisan place. this is a classic area where we have to rise above partisanship. nobody is going to score points in the 2012 election around this issue, but it's something that we should be doing because it helps keep america safe. my expectation is that my republican friends in the senate will ultimately conclude that it makes sense for us to do this. all right.

karen. there's a mike coming, karen. >> thank you, mr. president. i wonder if you could talk to us a bit about your conversation with president karzai. he has made some complaints recently, part of a long line of complaints. did he raise those with you and did you address them directly? has he stepped back from his call to reduce the military footprint there? thank you. >> karen, i want to put your question in the context of what's taking place this weekend here in lisbon. president karzai is the head of a government of a sovereign nation that has gone through 30 years of war and understandably he is eager to reassert full

sovereignty including control of security operations within his company. at the same time the united states and all of our allies want to turn over responsibility to afghan forces as soon as is practical. so in that sense, our interests align. the 2014 date that was stated in the document coming out of this summit and was widely agreed to didn't simply come from us. it wasn't an arbitrary date. this was a date president karzai identified as an appropriate target for when afghans can take over full responsibility. now, between now and 2014 our constant effort is going to be

to train up afghan security forces so they can take more and more responsibility. that's what transition is all about. and during that time, president karzai in his eagerness to accelerate that transition is going to be interested in reducing our footprint, finding ways that afghans can take more responsibility. those are things that we welcome. we want him to be as assertive as possible in moving towards afghan responsibility. but in that transition, there are also going to be a whole series of judgment calls and adjustments that are necessary to make that effective. so, for example, president karzai raised concerns about private security contractors. and what he perceived as

heavy-handedness on the part of these contractors in afghanistan. i think that concern is perfectly appropriate. on the other hand, what i've told him in the past, and i repeated in our meeting today, is i can't send u.s. aid workers or civilians into areas where i can't guarantee their safety. so theoretically it would be nice if i could send them in and they could help build a road or construct a school or engage in an irrigation project without a full battalion around them, but i have to think practically. so we're going to have to balance the issues of being sensitive to our footprint with the need to get certain objectives done. now, i've instituted ongoing conversations with president karzai. i've talked to him by video conference at least once every

six weeks or so. secretary clinton and secretary gates are in constant communications with him. general petraeus, karl eikenberry are in constant communications with him. what i've communicated to president karzai is two things. number one, we have to make sure we understand our objectives are aligned. the endpoint we want to reach is the same. and number two, we have to be in good enough communications with each other that when issues come up that raise sensitivities about afghan sovereignty that may alienate afghan populations, we should be sensitive to them and we will be listening to them. at the same time he's got to be sensitive to our concerns about the security of our personnel, about making sure that taxpayer dollars from the united states or other countries, other partners aren't being wasted as

a consequence of corruption. that sacrifices made by our military to clear out areas are reinforced by good governance practices on the part of the afghans so we're not just clearing and area but unable to hold it because people have no confidence in, for example, the administration of justice in that area through afghan government structures. so that's going to be a constant conversation. i don't think it's going to go away immediately. what we're trying to do is make sure our goals are aligned and then work through these problems in a systematic way. i will say that for all the noise that has existed in the press, the fact of the matter is over the last year we've made progress. and i expect that we're going to make more progress next year and will not be without occasional controversies and occasional

differences. adam, "wall street journal." adam is back there. >> to follow up on the last question, mr. karzai is the president of the country. if he makes a request, why isn't that good enough and why wouldn't there be a change of course? and just to -- on -- we're getting close to december. do you think the strategy, the search strategy is working? and do you think at this point you'll be able to make a substantial troop reduction in july? >> let me take the second question first. when i went through a rigorous and sometimes painful review process as you remember last december, our goal was to make sure that we had blunted the taliban. the whole point of ramping up

our troop presence was not because we wanted to maintain a long-term large presence in afghanistan but to immediately blunt the momentum that we were seeing from the taliban and to create the space for the training of effective afghan security forces. and on both those front, i think the objective assessment is that we have made progress. you have fewer areas of afghanistan under taliban control. you have the taliban on the defensive in a number of areas that were their strongholds. we have met or exceeded our targets in terms of recruitment of afghan security forces. our assessments are the performance of afghan security forces has improved significantly. so thanks to the hard work of people like dave petraeus and

mark sidwell and others, and obviously the incredible sacrifices of the troops on the ground from the icef forces, we're in a better place now than we were a year ago. as a consequence we'll be able to execute our transition starting in july of next year. general petraeus is, in fact, in the process now of planning where we can thin out our troops, where areas need reinforcements as certain areas get thinned out so we can continue to consolidate the security gains and backfill it with the effective civilian improvements that are going to be needed. so we have made progress.

the key is to make sure we don't standstill but keep accelerating that and building on it. the contributions of our coalition forces around trainers is particularly important. i've already said this, when countries like canada, which had originally said they were going to pull out at the end of next year say we are willing to supplement the training forces, a very difficult political position, when countries like italy are willing to come in and step up on the trainers, that's a testament to the confidence they have in general petraeus's plans and the fact we are much more unified and clear about how we're going to achieve our ultimate end state in afghanistan. now, to go to the point about president karzai. we are there at their invitation. you are absolutely correct.

afghanistan is a sovereign nation. president karzai believes that it is very important for us to help him with security and development issues over not just the next couple of years but over the long-term. that partnership is obviously a two-way street. so my message to president karzai is, we have to be sensitive to his concerns and the concerns of the afghan people. we can simply tell them what's good for them. we have to listen and learn and be mindful of the fact that afghans ultimately make decisions about how they want to structure their governance, how they want to structure their justice system, how they want to approach economic development. on the other hand if we're putting in big resources, if we're ponying up billions of

dollars, if the expectation is our troops are going to be there to help secure the countryside and ensure that president karzai can continue to build and develop his country, then he's got to also pay attention to our concerns as well. i don't think that's unreasonable and i don't think he thinks that's unreasonable. but there's going to have to be a constant conversation to make sure we're moving in the right direction. sometimes that conversation is very blunt. there are going to be some strong disagreements. sometimes the real tensions. for example, the issue of civilian casualties, that's an entirely legitimate issue on the part of president karzai. he's the president of a country. you've got foreign forces who in the heat of battle, despite everything we do to avoid it, may occasionally cause civilian casualties. that is understandably

upsetting. i don't fault president karzai for raising those issues. on the other hand, he's got to understand that i've got a bunch of young men and women from small towns and big cities all across america who are in a foreign country being shot at and having to traverse ter rain filled with ieds and they need to protect themselves. if we're setting things up where they are sitting ducks for the taliban, that's not an acceptable answer either. we've got to go back and forth on all these issues. chuck todd. >> thank you, mr. president. i want to follow up on margaret's question. it sounds like you believe senator kyl's opposition on s.t.a.r.t. is purely political or mostly political. is that what you're telling your fellow world leaders on this

stage? do you think failure to ratify by the end of the year, is that going to undermine yourability on the world stage. second, do you care to comment on the dust-up over tsa patdowns? >> i have spoken to senator kyl directly. i believe senator kyl wants a safe and secure america, just like i do, and is well motivated. so what i said in terms of partisanship is that the climate in washington is one where it's hard to get parties to cooperate, especially after after a big election. that's understandable. folks are reorganizing. you have a lame duck session. there is a limited amount of time. it's been a long year. we've done a lot of stuff.

people are i thinking about thanksgiving and getting off to christmas. i'm sure the republican caucus and the senate is really focused on next year. we're going to have a republican house. what are the things we want to get done and what are our priorities. so senator kyl has never said to me he does not want to see s.t.a.r.t. ratified. he hasn't publicly said he's opposed to the treaty. what he said is he didn't feel like there was enough time to get it done in the lame duck. and i take him at his word. what i'm trying to communicate is this an issue of critical national security interest that has been fully vetted. it has been extensively debated. it has received strong by

partisan support coming out of the foreign relations committee. it has received strong backing from our u.s. military. it has received strong backing from republican predecessors in the national security office, the secretary of defense's office, secretary of state. so in that context, i want to emphasize to everybody this is important and there is a time element to this. we don't have any mechanism to verify that's going on right now on the ground in russia. six months from now, that's a six-month gap in which we don't have good information. so even if you -- let me take this -- let me say it this way, especially if you mistrust russian intentions, you should

want to get this done right away. now, i happen to think president medvedev has made every effort to move russia in the right direction. so if you agree with me on that front, then it's also important that we don't leave a partner hanging after having negotiated an agreement like this that's good for both countries. and there's another element to this. we've instituted iran sanctions. thanks to the work of the e.u., thanks to the work of russia, thanks to the work of some of our other partners, these are the strongest sanctions we've ever implemented. we have to maintain sustained pressure as iran makes a calculation about whether it should return to negotiations on its nuclear program. this is the wrong time for us to be sending a message there are divisions between the p5 plus 1, that there's uncertainty.

so my point, chuck, here is there are going to be a lot of issues to debate between democrats and republicans over the next two years. this shouldn't be one of them. with respect to the tsa, let me physical of all make a confession, i don't go through security checks to get on planes these days, so i haven't personally experienced some of the procedures that have been put in place by tsa. i will also say in the aftermath of tsa bombing, our tsa personnel are properly under enormous pressure to make sure you don't have somebody slipping on a plane with some sort of explosive device on their persons. and since the explosive device

that was on mr. abdulmutallab was not detected by ordinary metal detectors, it has meant that tsa has tried to adapt to make sure passengers on planes are safe. now, that's a tough situation. one of the most frustrating aspects of this fight against terrorism is that it has created a whole security apparatus around us that causes huge inconvenience for all of us. i understand people's frustrations. what i've said to the tsa is that you have to constantly refine and measure whether what we're doing is the only way to assure the american people's safety. you also have to think through are there ways of doing it that are less intrusive.

but at this point, tsa, in consultation with our counter-terrorism experts, have indicated to me that the procedures that they have been putting in place are the only ones right now that they consider to be effective against the kind of threat that we saw in the christmas day bombing. but i'm going to -- every week i meet with counter-terrorism team and i'm constantly asking them whether is what we're doing absolutely necessary, have we thought it through, there are other ways of accomplishing it that meet the same objectives. bi bill. >> thank you, mr. president. nato's commitment to afghanistan extends through 2014. what about the u.s.?

it's possible, given the circumstances, that there may be a need for troops and combat action after 2014. is the u.s. committed? if it's your decision, will you keep u.s. troops committed in the combat role if necessary? >> your last point was if necessary. so let me start there. my first and most important job as president of the united states is to keep the american people safe. so i'll always do what's necessary to keep the american people safe. that's true today. that will be true for as long as i'm president of the united states. and maybe that will be the case in 2014. what nato committed to, we're undergoing a transition between 2011 and 2014. the united states is part of

nato, so we are completely aligned in what we're going to be doing. our goal is that the afghans have taken the lead in 2014 and in the same way that we have transitioned in iraq, we will have successfully transitioned so that we are still providing a training and support function. there may still be extensive cooperation with the afghan armed services to consolidate the security environment in that area. but our every intention is that afghans are in the lead. we're partnering with them the way we partner with countries all around the world to make sure that both our country and their country is safe. the other thing i'm pretty confident we will still be doing after 2014 is maintaining a

counter-terrorism capability until we have confidence that al qaeda is no longer operative and no longer a threat to the american homeland and to american allies and personnel around the world. and so it's going to be important for us to continue to have platforms to be able to execute those counter-terrorism operations. that's true in iraq as well. obviously that's even more true when it comes to core al qaeda. we don't want, after having made these extraordinary efforts by so many countries, we do not have to -- we don't want to have to suddenly find ourselves in a situation where they waited this out and they reconsolidated that. but my goal is to make sure by 2014 we have transitioned afghans are in the lead, and it is a goal to make sure that we

are not still engaged in combat operations of the sort that we're involved with now. certainly our footprint will have been significantly reduced. but beyond that, it's hard to anticipate exactly what is going to be necessary to keep the american people safe as of 2014. i'll make that determination when i get there. last question is from the reporter from portugal. >> good afternoon, mr. president. thank you very much for answering my question. first i'd like to ask you in what ways the recovery of the american economy can boost european economies. this is of great concern in europe. this your first trip to portugal. what are you taking from lisbon. thank you very much? >> one of the things we learned over the last several years as

we've dealt with this worldwide economic crisis is that every economy is inner linked. we can't separate what happens in the united states from what happens in portugal from what happens in korea from what happens in thailand, what happens in south africa or brazil. we are all inner connected now in a global economy. obviously as the world's largest economy what happens in the united states is going to have a profound impact on europe. the same is true, by the way, in the reverse direction. our general assessment is that the trajectory of u.s. growth was moving at a stronger pace right before the issues of sovereign debt in greece came up

in the spring of this year. and when that happened, not only did that cause a significant dip in our stock market, but a lot of companies contracted in terms of their investment plans because they were uncertain. they understood that what happens in europe could end up affecting what happens in the united states. the most important thing that i can do for europe is the same thing that i need to do for the united states and that is to promote growth and increased employment in the united states. we have now grown for five consecutive quarters. we have seen private sector job growth for 10 consecutive months, but the pace is too slow. and my main task when i get back to the states and over the coming year is to work with republicans and democrats to

move that growth process forward and to make sure we're growing faster and putting people back to work. it is a difficult task. historically what happened is when have you a financial crisis, the recession that follows is more severe and long lasting than a normal business cycle crisis would be. and we are, i think, digging out of a hole of debt and deleveraging. the severe fall in our housing market and all those things create a strong head winds when it comes to growth. but we've taken some important steps already. that's why the economy is now growing instead of contracting. i want to take more steps to encourage business investment, to help small businesses hire.

infrastructure in the united states has the potential of boosting our growth rates at a significant level. we're going to have to do all this, though, at the same time as we're mindful of a significant public debt that has to be dealt with. it would be nice if we didn't have the inheritance of big deficits and big debt that we could simply pump up the economy. what we have to do now is to make sure that we're speeding up recovery but still focusing on reducing our debts in the medium and long-term. but i think every european should have a great interest in making sure the united states is growing faster. one thing we talked about at the g-20 was the fact that for all of us to grow faster, we need to

rebalance the world economy. before this crisis the world economic was consumers taking out huge debt, using credit cards, using home equity loans to finance a lot of imports from other countries. and other countries developing huge surpluses, a lot of money washing around the world financial system looking for investments with high returns all of which contributed to the instability of the system. what we said at the g-20 and what we will continue to push for, countries with big surpluses have to figure out how they can expand demand. countries with significant deficits, we've got to save more and focus not just on consumption but also production and exports. the currency issue plays into this. there's going to be an ongoing

debate about making sure surplus countries are not artificially devaluing their currencies in a way that inhibits not only our growth but world economic growth. in terms of portugal, everybody has been magnificent. i admit the weather is better today than it was yesterday. everybody assures me lisbon is supposed to be beautiful this time of year. yesterday was a little sad, but i was indoors all day anyway, so it didn't matter. the people of portugal have been unbelievably kind and generous to us. i want to thank again prime minister socrates and the entire government for the excellent work that they have done. i hope that we're going to be able to return the favor next year. thank you very much. >> all right. president barack obama there wrapping up his comments there

in lisbon, portugal and wrapping up this nato summit he describes as being extremely productive. he's received, quote, overwhelming support on many issues and came to agreements on a few. they have nailed down afghan security transition and also modernizing defense capability and the development of a missile defense system. you also heard the president commenting on air travel in this country as we're embarking on one of the busiest air travel seasons of the year. there's a lot to be said about the tsa security measures now in place. the president defending it while in lisbon saying our tsa personnel is under intense pressure to keep the planes flying safe. we'll have more on the latter in the newsroom tsa security myths versus reality after this.

it's true. you never forget your first subaru.

hello, again, everyone.

i'm fredricka whitfield. there's so much talk about the full body patdowns. in fact, the president spoke about it in lisbon moments ago saying the tsa is under pressure to keep you safe. there is a lot of confusion about what is fal, what is rumor. to help answer these questions kate bolduan joins us from reagan national airport. what's taking place there and what are the grumblings. what are people saying? >> hey there, fredricka. you set up the debate really well. there's a big question of what's thorough and too thorough. you have everyone from privacy rights, civil rights activist to pilots themselves criticizing security procedures that they are too intrusive and excessive. at the same time tsa has come out to defend the security policies saying they are both necessary and safe. there's been a lot of talk about it.

a lot of stories, a lot of headlines. we want to clear up a few questions for viewers as they get ready to head to the airport for this very busy holiday season. one of the things people should know, they ask if everybody is going to encounter these full body scanners. the answer is no. some places don't have them yet. there are 400 machines in about 69 airports, commercial airports throughout the airports. that's 69 airports of the more than 560 commercial airports there are in the country. only about 12% of commercial airports have these scanners in them. if you encounter one of these full body scanners, many are asking, are they safe. this coming from complaints and concerns of a health risk, exposure to low level radiation that could be coming from machines, both pilots unions and professors in california asked to suspend the program until further tests can be done and health risks.

the tsa says these machines are safe. there's less radiation in one scan than one encounters in two mince of a flight at attitudes. they are trying to dispel that saying they are absolutely safe from their testing. if you opt out from the scanners, there's the other thing raising eyebrows and getting a lot of attention, these enhanced patdown techniques that have been put in place since november 1st. does everyone get a patdown? no, they will not. you will encounter and be subject to patdowns if you opt out from one of these full body scans, going through the technology, go through the full body scan and metal detector and the alarm goes off and there's a need for secondary additional screening. there's also, fredricka, a chance for random selection in terms of randomly selected for patdowns. that being said, a small percentage of people are subjected to enhanced patdowns. but the people complaining about it, that sure doesn't make them

feel any better. >> kate, i'm looking at the line behind you as folks get ready to go through security. is the line long, impacted at all by the changes here, the options people have? >> we've been talking to a few people. right now it seems like a normal security line, 100%. saturdays i don't think are the busiest travel days in general in terms of the weekly travel schedule at an airport. but the line has seemed knowing to really complain about in terms of we know what a security line can look like. we've heard every side of the debate, fredricka, people saying it's completely intrusive, excessive, they don't need to be groped, in their words, to be safe on a plane. others says as long as it gets them to their destination safely they are fine with full body patdowns and body scans. it's something people are talking about. >> even those flying for a living are talking about it. kate, thanks so much there at

reagan national airport in d.c. speaking of pilots that refused the body scans and intrusive patdowns are suing over a violation of their international rights. our legal guys are standing by. attorneys avery and richard. they will be sounding off on these topics and others right after this. ♪ [ male announcer ] one hundred years ago, chevrolet sprang bolt by bolt, car by car, out of the very best america had to offer. ingenuity. integrity. optimism. and a belief that the finest things are the most thoughtfully made -- not the most expensive. today, the american character is no less strong.

and chevrolet continues as an expression of the best of it. bringing more technology to more people than ever in our history. inventing new ways to get around our planet while helping to preserve it at the same time. exploring new horizons of design and power. and making our vehicles amongst the safest on earth. this isn't just any car company. this is chevrolet. and the strength of our character can be found in every car and truck we make. it's why, today, tomorrow, and on into a bright future, we can proudly say... ...chevy runs deep. ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ look at that car, well, it goes fast ♪ ♪ givin' my dad a heart attack ♪ [ friend ] that is so awesome. ♪ i love my car [ engine revving ] [ male announcer ] that first chevy, yea, it gets under your skin. ♪

all right. the first guantanamo detainee to be tried in civilian court is acquitted on all but one of 285 terror-related counts. let's get right to our legal guy, civil rights attorney avery friedman and civil rights attorney richard herman. both professors i might add. gentlemen, good to see you. what happened here? this has to be an incredible defeat for the obama administration that wanted to try these detainees in civilian court. first up acquitted on almost everything except one. richard, how did this happen? was it a matter of evidence that's admissible in a military tribunal that isn't in a civilian court? what happened? >> why don't we celebrate our system in the united states? why don't we celebrate the fact we're a civilized nation unlike the majority of nations in the

world. this guy got a fair trial in the united states. anywhere else it would have been a kangaroo court. he would have been convicted before the trial began. what's opponents of the president were seeking here. they wanted a conviction without any evidence, with nothing. the judge ruled that the evidence obtained to present in this case was obtained illegally, which meant it would not be allowed to be used. ie, it was obtained through torture. that's bedrock in united states criminal law, civil and federal. if you obtain evidence illegally you can't use it. that's what happened here. the government got their hands tied. they could not use evidence that they obtained through torture methods, therefore this courthouse, which has about a 93% conviction rate, got acquitted on almost all the charges. >> avery, you're in agreement with some of this but not all of it based on your nods and your level of exasperation. >> well, listen.

i actually 100% agree with richard. the fact is that this is getting spun the wrong direction. we got ahmed ghailani. we got him convicted. he's going to spend the rest of his life in the penitentiary. if it went to a military tribunal they couldn't do any more than that. it's nonsensical -- >> that one conviction, that is guilty on the conspiracy charge, being involved with the planning of the bombings of the u.s. embassies in bosnia and tanzania. >> the fact is, it will be the most extreme penalty. he will spend the rest of his life in jail. congratulations to the department of justice. the commentary from the left and right this is not the way to go, they are both wrong. it's exactly where this case belongs. now let's talk about something impacting whole lots of people in this country as they get ready to travel for the holiday season. you've got two pilots that say, wait a minute, this tsa, increased security measures,

they are a violation of my rights, my privacy rights. so richard, where does this go, especially since now we hear pilots won't be subjected to the same security measures as regular flyers. but where does this case go, if anywhere? does it take off? >> it's a case and going on appeal. these pilots said there was no suspicion of wrongdoing, they should not have been requested to do these types of patdowns. fred, because the tsa says low level radiation won't affect you, come on. we're not going to be that naive to believe it just because they say it. there are scientific reports to say that that level of radiation is not healthy. are you going to put your children through that scanner? i don't think so. i'm not. >> the pilots' argument, they travel, go through these screens a lot more often than the regular traveler. that's at the crux of their argument. beyond the fact they are saying this system is forcing travelers

to decide between the lesser of two evils as it is for these pilots or any other personnel? >> i studied their lawsuit fredricka, it's basically a fourth amendment on search and seizure. i'm the first guy to say it. it doesn't violate the fourth amendment. the fact is this lawsuit will be dismissed by judge henry kennedy in the district of columbia. the fact is now pilots are exempt so they don't even have a claim here. most importantly, most importantly the issue is whether or not a violation of fourth amendment. you're going to find federal courts throughout the country will rule that this enhanced patdown and full body scanners does not violate the fourth amendment. >> all right. >> look at the progression. fred, look at the progression. first the show bomber, we take our shoes off. now the underwear bomber so we get full patdowns. what happens on a full body cavity search, is that what's next? >> we'll see what's next. hopefully we won't.

we don't want to see what's next. let's just stop right here. avery, richard, good to see you all. have a good weekend. am i going to see you next weekend? >> happy thanksgiving, fred. >> happy thanksgiving, gentlemen. appreciate that. >> absolutely. >> hangs for being with us, the truncated version of our legal section. russell simmons credited with bringing hip-hop into the mainstream. i asked him face-to-face, what he thinks of today's performers. >> are there ever moments in today's hip-hop where you think certain risks are taken in the lyrics that weren't taken in the early '80s. >> no, we took risks. we took fs to the police when they abuse the community. >> he doesn't talk that loud, it was just an audio problem. face-to-face with russell simmons next. because of one word,

imagination and reality have merged. because of one word, a new generation-- a fifth generation-- of fighter aircraft has been born. because of one word, america's air dominance for the next forty years is assured. that one word... is how.

all right. man's best friend is going bionic. a british veterinarian is giving pets prosthetic limbs with technology that rivals what's used on humans. rob marciano explains in today's edge of discovery. >> reporter: mitzi davis is walking again after being trampled by a horse in june her owner was left with a tough decision. >> options were euthanasia or give her a chance to walk. we had to give her a chance to walk. >> reporter: mitzi is one of the few dogs in the world that can be labeled bionic. on this day, the doctor is taking off the bulky leg brace and replace it it with a sleep prosthetic foot. he did this using a revolutionary device called

itap, device in the leg. >> it's part of the dog's body. the dog gets on with life. before there was no way to give an animal a prosthesis. >> reporter: it's also been tested on humans. traditional prosthetic devices for hijackers can sometimes be painful and difficult to use. itap could be remarkable for people and pets. >> if what i do helping patients in their needs, help other patients that are animals or human, excellent. i think it is the future, yes. >> rob marciano, cnn. russell simmons, a business mogul who does it all, conquering not one but several industries. right now he's out with a new fashion line, a new book, and a new reality tv show, "running russell simmons. his roots are in hip-hop. he co-founded def jam recordings and credited with bringing hip-hop into the mainstream. i asked him face-to-face what he

thinks of the music today. in music, there are messages. i know you're not as involved in hip-hop in particular as you once were. >> i still love hip-hop and artists. >> i wonder do you like how hip-hop evolved, the product today versus -- >> it's the same. >> is it the same? >> voices people. here we are 20 some-odd years later, they have still got a voice. ♪ it's like this like that it was poetry now they cal it rap. >> hustlers -- >> still people shut down and shut out are talking. now we're talking to kids in the suburbs or white house, you've got to hear it. that's great. >> the hip-hop of the '70s. >> '79 was my first record. >> you think there are strong parallel between those late '70s

and 2010 hip-hop? >> yeah, the same thing. >> so you like it? >> i don't listen to as much hip-hop as i used to. >> that would be because. >> i listen to different kinds of music than you use to. i don't have the time. i'm not in the music business, not invested. i miss that joy, initial joy i had. >> are there ever moments in today's hip-hop where you think certain risks are taken in the lyrics that perhaps weren't taken in the early '80s. >> no, we took risks. we said f to police when abusive to the community. >> i don't mean social issues, just language. >> n word. >> n word used a lot more now. >> always said the n word in rap. that's just language. >> doesn't matter. >> it doesn't matter to me. i recommend -- it's what they

want. they are poets. they are more inciteful than we are in most cases. i don't judge the poet for what they say. i'm more concerned in the way they vote. the poets in what century you look up in, they will never like the -- >> who are they? >> the gatekeepers of culture are never going to like poets and they never have in history. >> we are inherent carriers of the words of the earth. for what it's worth, y'all call us poets. >> poets, progressive thinkers, concerned with the animals, the abuse of the environment. they are concerned with the lack of compassion. they are concerned with the lack of love we give each other. they are concerned with subjects we go cold on, that we get numb on. it's interesting rap stayed in the hands of people who wouldn't have had a voice. ♪

>> i'm sometimes more inspired and i kind of don't want to grow old. i like to say when people say what's your favorite record, i like to say the one on the radio. >> more with russell simmons at 3:00 today. he tells me about his latest fashion venture and why he coaxed a retired supermodel, look familiar, to get back front of the camera. next, saman rushdie back after being in hiding for writing the "satanic verses." he's penned a children books, a dangerous at times scary world of magic. >> interesting approach you have in this children's book, 12, 13, the ideal age group you're

thinking of. it does need to be a sophisticated young leader. the language, hithe characters. they are framing them, the jaguar man. >> it's good. there's no kids out there dressing up as luke skywalker. they are all dressing up as darth vader. it's a fun fairy tale. you know what i mean? people are so used to fantasy writing these days, there's so much of it around, this falls into that kind of category. the thing that i liked about the first book in the sea of stories which i hoped would happen is that grownups came and got a lot of pleasure from it from one direction. >> face-to-face with salmon di