who trusted george w. bush. most countries surveyed have much higher approval ratings of america in 2012 than they did in 2008 when bush was president. and by the way, consider why obama's ratings are low in one area in particular, the arab world. the two strongest justifications given by people in every arab country that was surveyed were first that obama has not been fair in dealing with the israeli/palestinian issue, and second, that he has used drone attacks in afghanistan and pakistan to go after terrorists. in other words, the reason obama has lost some of his global popularity is that he's perceived as too pro-israeli and too hawkish. think about that, mitt romney. romney has tried to use the standard issue cold war republican attack on democrats. the world is dangerous. our enemies are growing strong. obama is weak. the problem is, most americans recognize that none of this is really true. the world is actually quite peaceful right now.

our adversaries like iran are weak and isolated. china is growing strong, but it has not used its power to contest america in major national security terms. the one enemy americans recognize and worry about remains al qaeda and its affiliated islamic terror groups. and obama has been relentless in attacking them. now, mitt romney is a smart man who has had considerable professional success in his life. but even republican insiders have admitted to me that he has been strangly amateurish on foreign policy. his campaign, they note, is not staffed by the obvious republican foreign policy heavyweights, people like robert bzdelik, paufl wolfowitz, richard armitage, stephen hadley. as a result, he has blustered. actually, it's a second-rate power. he seems willing to start a trade war with china. he's vague yet belligerent about syria and iran. he's gone back and forth on a

timetable for withdrawal of afghanistan. romney faces a tough problem. president obama is the first democrat in nearly 50 years to enter in an election with a dramatic advantage in foreign policy. the last time was lyndon johnson versus barry goldwater in 1964. but unless romney can craft a smart strategic alternative, that gap will only get wider. for more on this, you can read my column in this week's "time" magazine and on time.com. let's get started. foreign policy is the flavor of the week finally. so let's get to it. i have a great panel. paul wolfowitz is former deputy secretary of defense under george w. bush and then president of the world bank. two former state department policy planning directors, richard haass, now the president of the council on foreign relations, and ann marie slaughter back at princeton university. joining me from washington, "the

new york times" foreign affairs columnist, tom friedman. welcome. tom, let me start with you. you talk to a lot of people in the region. what is your sense about whether assad can hold on? so far he has defied many expectations and has held on. >> well, fareed, you know, i think it's the nature of these kind of regimes that they're strong, they're strong, they're strong until they around and then they go quickly. we just don't know when that moment will be. but the reason he has held on up till now is because he clearly has support. support of the minority that he represents. first of all, his own sect, an offshoot of shias, about 12% of the syrian population, and then christians who basically fear a sunni/muslim majority taking power in syria. and then some sunni muslims who have been allied with the regime for business and other purposes. so this isn't a one-man show. there is support there.

it's basically tribe and sect based. they're deeply afraid. they're cornered and they're fighting that way. >> do you feel like he can hold on? >> well, i think actually, if you look at it, he's losing ground steadily. i mean, it was back in february when the chin knees and the russians vetoed the first u.n. resolution. they essentially gave him a couple of months to roll up the opposition. he did actually make some real gains, but then he's been steadily pushed back. and even a month ago, if you had said they would be fighting in aleppo and damascus and you'd have an assassination of top people right in damascus, people would have said no. he's holding on but he's getting steadily weakened. i think we're moving toward the end game rapidly, although it could be long and bloody, and u.s. policy actually has something to say about that. >> you think we should be doing more? >> i think we should have been doing more a long time ago. and the arguments i heard at the time for hanging back were that the country would be broken.

it would descend in chaos. the regime would collapse. all of that stuff is happening now with our not having done anything. and i think one thing that is certainly happening as this goes on is his position may be weakening with the people fighting for him are now more desperate. they have blood all over their hands. it's going to be much harder to achieve any kind of reconciliation. i think the country's going to suffer, and our interests are going to suffer as a result. >> my concern is that more people could ultimately die than the, say, 17,000 or 18,000 that could die afterwards. a tremendous amount of arms, all sorts of fear and vengeance in the air. and i actually think as much of our time as possible now ought to be devoted to preparing for the aftermath, thinking who's going to help essentially prevent syria from going the way of iraq and lebanon and becoming a prolonged sect-base, revenge-filled country. >> tom, you've been skeptical about u.s. involvement for that

reason. i think you once wrote that syria won't implode, it will explode. >> yeah, i mean, my concern is, fareed, and i wrote this the other day, that, you know, syria is really a lot like iraq. in many ways, a minority-led regime, multisectarian, a state with deep fear and mistrust among different communities. and that, you know, when it does break, you're going to need some kind of midwife, some kind of armed and trusted mediator to referee its transition from dictatorship to some kind of new consensual politics without getting stuck in a hobesian war of all against all. and i think the american people have limited patience and desire for any high-profile iraqlike, you know, mandate of the united states to take this on. so, you know, i'm certainly ready to listen to any alternative. arab league force, u.n. force. i don't know. but i think it's -- i think it's

a bit of a stretch to believe that the opposition will cohere, reach out to the alouite and christian minorities and find a way without a midwife. when you have no midwife and no mandela, you have a prescription for, i think, a long war. >> what do you think? >> i think all of these are exactly the reasons we actually do have to do much more now. i think richard actually outlined the scenario if the conflict keeps going, it becomes increasingly sectarian, the chances of it spilling over to other countries are much greater. we can't plan for a transition if we're not willing to help bring it about. if we try to bring it about now, it's much more likely to happen on our terms. and what we do is support the commanders on the ground who are now declaring safe zones. they now control territory particularly on the borders. what they need are antitank weapons and anti-aircraft weapons to prevent assad from pushing this back again. i think assad actually probably would be will be to use chemical weapons on his own people.

i'm certainly he will bomb them, he will do whatever it takes. >> and it's a military matter. i think american leadership would make a real difference in terms of helping the opposition both to cohere and cohere around a plan that would give syria a better chance afterwards. we shunned underestimate our ability to do that. i think it's important. >> paul, what do you think the lesson that you drew from iraq is to prevent the kind of post-war problems that iraq had? >> i think iraq and syria are almost completely different situations. we're not talking about a major american ground force or an american force at all. if anything, might have some parallel, it's bosnia where for three years we sat back while the country was shattered. and then ultimately we had to provide half of a 60-000-person peacekeeping force. syria is going to be governed by syrians. i don't see why people are so comfortable saying we shouldn't be arming them, but it's okay for islamist governments in the

persian gulf that don't share our objectives, it's okay for them to be arming them. i think trying to shape the political agenda of that future syrian government is very important. >> a lot of americans listen to all this and say yeah, but how are american interests directly involved? so syria is a mess. >> we have two sets of interests here. humanitarian interest. i don't think the united states is a matter of principle or to turn a blind eye when innocent people get killed the way they are in syria. we have strategic interests. the fact that iran is as involved as it is. it gives us, i think, a strategic stake here. do i think either of these interests right up to the level of vital? no. that's why the president, i believe, is right not to make an unlimited or unconditional american commitment here. >> quickly. >> we do have vital interests if you put al qaeda on the one hand who are infiltrating and chemical weapons on the other. that's the one place everybody agrees. you've got chemical weapons stocks, and you've got terrorists on the ground. i actually think we have more vital interests here certainly than we did in libya. and just on the face of it, this is one of the most strategic countries in the most strategic

region in the world. >> and it's an ally of iran which makes it maybe not a vital interest but certainly a very important strategic interest. >> we are going to take a break. when we come back, we're going to talk about iran and also about mitt romney with two people who might be advising him or might not. when we come back. [ male announcer ] citi turns 200 this year. in that time there've been some good days. and some difficult ones. but, through it all, we've persevered, supporting some of the biggest ideas in modern history. so why should our anniversary matter to you? because for 200 years, we've been helping ideas move from ambition to achievement. and the next great idea could be yours.

♪

i tell mike what i can spend. i do my best to make that work. we're driving safely. and sue saved money on brakes. now that's personal pricing. and we are back with paul wolfowitz, richard haass, anne-marie slaughter and tom friedman. tom, let's talk about iran for a second outside of the syrian context. what do you think is going to happen? obama was able to diffuse the issue of a possible war with iran by saying, i really take this threat seriously. i'm going to press and press them as hard as possible, containment is not an option. we will not live with an iranian nuclear program that could become a weapons program. and so at this point, either the iranians have to surrender

completely, i think, or president obama faces a problem. in other words, he's kicked the can down the road, but it's going to come back soon. >> i think the iranians are very good at reading power on the global power scene. i think they've taken the measure of the world right now. and they don't think that anyone's going to force them to give up their nuclear program. i think they realize that israel would be very, very wary of undertaking a military action before the american election or at a time that it could tip the global economy into a downward spiral right now. i think they realize president obama doesn't want to take military action. they certainly know the europeans aren't going to do anything. so i think the only thing that could get them to move, fareed, would be the president put on the table, the kind of minimum iranian demand that they want, which is for some kind of peaceful internationally monitored civilian nuclear reprocessing program for peaceful purposes.

to actually go right to the bottom line. say we're ready to offer you this. if you're not ready to take it, then we're ready to act militarily. i think other than facing them with that choice, they've read the scene quite well. i don't think they're going to do anything. >> ann-marie, the problem is if obama does look for that kind of win-win where he gives the iranians something but they have to make concessions, does he have the political room to make that kind of concession? in other words, we will roll back some of the sanctions we put in place, et cetera, et cetera, he goes to congress, to a republican house, and says would you please roll back sanctions on iran, they're going to call him an appeaser. >> he's not going to do anything before the election. i think it's on hold. he's not going to attack until after the election if an attack becomes necessary. >> i would keep lots of sanctions in place given their support for terrorism, given what they're doing in the neighborhood, given what they're doing for their own people. at the end of the day, i'll be

honest, fareed, i not only want to deal with the nuclear program, ultimately i would love to see iran run by a different kind of government. and the united states should consider over the long run we want to have a different iran that's part of the region rather than a threat to the region. >> which, by the way, which is why i think what's happening in syria is so important. we sit here comfortably saying assad can't survive. that's not so clear. i can't think of anything that would be more discouraging for political change. i agree, that's where the real solution will come. >> tom, the egyptian elections, what do you make of the election of the muslim brotherhood's candidate, actually the second candidate, to be president of egypt? >> well, you know, it shows you egypt's divided, fareed. in fact, the sort of secular more liberal progressive traditional whatever you want to call them voters in egypt were a majority, but they weren't able to, you know, coalesce to actually win. so we have a muslim brotherhood president. we'll have to work through this. my view is very simple. iran today is a story of

political islam in power with oil. saudi arabia is the story of political islam with oil in power. each has a story without oil. how that will ultimately shake out, i have no idea. i'm just taking notes. but i find this desire to predict that, you know, it's all going to fall apart. it's all going to be wonderful. i don't know. i'm not smart enough. watching the egyptian muslim brotherhood running egypt, that's like watching elephants flying. something you never expected before. first rule of journalism, whenever you see elephants flying, shut up and take notes. >> all right. we're going to close by asking the two of you a tough or awkward question. you may choose. romney does not seem to have developed a very -- a large coherent foreign policy, a set of positions. i mean, he's sort of flip-flopped on the afghan withdrawal. he was against it, now he seems to be for it. he has slogans about iran about

being tougher without specifying how. he called russia the greatest geopolitical foe the united states has. what's going on? >> is this a trick question? i think what he's got to do is tie his principal theme, which is the economy, to foreign policy. and this would basically make the case that restoring the foundations of american and economic power needs to be front and central. much more of an emphasis on trade, which has been one of the weaknesses of the obama foreign policy. >> but he's talking about a trade war with china. >> his most recent speech he put that to the side. talked about china potentially being a partner. it can be a partner in economic order. he's also recently said something about immigration, that people with high skills and high education stapling that to -- >> you're calling all the parts that you like, richard. >> no, but what it says is that this is what makes the most sense for romney foreign policy is to take the economics that's central obviously to his campaign. you know that. everyone watching it knows that. that's really what this

campaign's going to be about. and basically showing where the connection is between foreign policy and that. and to the extent he does that, i think it actually -- i'll leave it to others to say whether it's good politics, but i think it's good policy. and i would hope that the administration would do the same thing. >> i'm neither an adviser or spokesman, so i'm speaking for myself. president obama is lucky. there around, unless syria collapses, which it might, we don't have immediate criesses. and you use the words kick the can down the road. most of our problems -- afghanistan is a problem, but they've sort of kicked that can down the road. but i think it's legitimate to question, first of all, the degree to which on syria in particular but more generally, we are ceding to the united nations. we are allowing the russians and chinese to veto actions which are really quite important to american interests. and secondly and quite importantly, to use a phrase the president likes to use about false choices, posing a false choice between nation building abroad and nation building at

home. the united states can't afford to lead unless we fix our problems at home. but we can't afford not to lead. the world is too dangerous. and our role is, as a democratic secretary of state madeline albright said, our role is indispensable. so we have to fix our problems both for the sake of this country and for the sake of our leadership in the world. that's what i would be saying. >> paul wolfowitz, richard haass, anne-marie slaughter, tom friedman, thank you very much. up next, "what in the world?" how the u.s. compares with other countries on gun crimes and gun control. the data will surprise you. [ mom ] dear chex cereal,

i've never written a fan letter before,

but you've done the impossible. you made gluten free cereals in a whole bunch of yummy flavors. cinnamon chex and honey nut chex are two of our favorites. when my husband found the chocolate one, we were in cereal heaven. the only problem is, with so many great flavors, you're making it very hard to choose. your fans, the mcgregor family. 'cause we love chex. ♪ [ male announcer ] and now try new gluten free apple cinnamon chex.

now for our "what in the world" segment. >> 315 entry. >> it's now been ten days since a lone gunman opened fire on moviegoers in aurora, colorado. the airwaves have been dominated by soul searching. most of the pundits have concluded that the main cause of this calamity is the dark, strange behavior of the gunman. talking about anything else, they say, is silly. "the new york times" usually extremely wise columnist david brooks explains that this is a problem of psychology, not sociology. at one level, this makes sense, of course, as the proximate cause, but really, it's

questionable analysis. think about this. are there more lonely people in america compared with other countries? are there, say, fewer depressed people in asia and europe? so why do they all have so much less gun violence than we do? >> command post. >> the united states stands out from the rest of the world not because it has more nut cases. i think we can assume that those people are sprinkled throughout every society equally. but because it has more guns. look at this map. it shows the average number of firearms per 100 people. most of the world is shaded light green. those are the countries where there are between zero and ten guns per 100 citizens. in dark brown, you have countries with more than 70 guns per 100 people. the u.s. is the only country in that category, in fact, the last global survey showed there are 88 guns per every 100 americans. yemen is second at 54. serbia and iraq are among the other top countries in the top ten.

we have 5% of the world's population and 50% of the guns. the sheer number of guns isn't an isolated statistic. the data shows we compare badly on fatalities, too. the u.s. has three gun homicides per 100,000 people. that's four times as many as switzerland. ten times as many as india. 20 times as many as australia and england. whatever you think of gun rights and gun control, the numbers don't flatter america. i saw an interesting graph in "the atlantic" magazine. on a spectrum from yellow to red, red being the worst, it shows the number of gun-related deaths by state. now, if you add one more piece of data, gun control restrictions, you see that the states with at least one firearm law such as the assault weapons ban or trigger locks, tend to be the states shaded in lighter colors, meaning fewer gun-related deaths. conclusion? well, there are the los of

factors involved, but there is at least a correlation between tighter laws and fewer gun-related deaths. i've shown you data comparing countries and comparing states. now look at the u.s. over time. americans tend to think that the u.s. is getting more violent. in a recent gallup survey, 68% said there is more crime in the u.s. than there was a year ago. well, here's what i found surprising. the u.s. is actually getting safer. in the decade since the year 2000, violent crime rates fell by 20%. aggravated, 22%, motor vehicle theft by 42%, murder by all weapons by 13%. but guns are the exception. gun homicide rates haven't improved at all. they were at roughly the same levels in 2009 as they were in 2000. meanwhile, serious but nonfatal gun injuries caused during assault have actually increased in the last decade by 20%. as gun laws have gotten looser and getting weapons has become easier.

we are the world's most heavily armed civilian population. one out of every three americans knows someone who has been shot. look, everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion. but not to his or her own facts. saying that this is all a matter of psychology is a recipe for doing nothing. we cannot change the tortured psychology of mad men like james holmes. what we can do is change our gun laws. and we'll be back. up next, a debate on the economy, paul krugman and ken economy, paul krugman and ken rogoff join me.ut we try this d of fiber one cereal? joo auto h had rookie. okay. ♪ nutty clusters and almonds, ♪ ♪ almonds. ♪ fiber one is gonna make you smile. ♪ [ male announcer ] introducing new fiber one nutty clusters and almonds. with 43% daily value of fiber for you. crunchy nutty clusters and real almond slices for your taste buds.

but what about your wrinkles? neutrogena® rapid wrinkle repair. its retinol formula visibly reduces wrinkles in one week. why wait if you don't have to. neutrogena®.

starts with arthritis pain and a choice. take tylenol or take aleve, the #1 recommended pain reliever by orthopedic doctors. just two aleve can keep pain away all day. back to the news.

as the american economy continues to disappoint, an old debate has resurfaced. is there anything the government can do to get things moving again? or is it all in the hands of the private sector? to talk about this, i have two economists, paul krugman, columnist for "new york times," professor at princeton and has a new book out, "end this depression now." and ken rogoff is a professor at harvard university and a former chief economist at the international monetary fund. welcome. paul, let me begin with you by asking you just how bad is it? because at some level, you know, compared with europe, we're

doing okay. we're growing at about 2%. and we still have no housing recovery, which presumably there will be at some point in a demographically vibrant country. so is the situation as dire as, you know you write about? >> well, there's not as bad as is one of the issues that comes up. they say not as bad as the great depression, not as bad as europe, but it's pretty terrible. the thing i like to focus on is long-term unemployment. we've got around 4 million people out of work for more than a year. that's devastating. that's an ongoing process of enormous devastation to families. it also means probably damage to our long-run future because people who have been out of the work force that long find it hard ever to re-enter. young people coming out into a high unemployment environment may never get properly started on their careers. so we're doing a lot of ongoing damage to say, well, you know, we're not spain, we're not greece. and we're not falling off the

cliff. this is good, but it doesn't stop the fact that this is, in fact, an ongoing crisis. >> ken, would you agree with that? >> i certainly see an urgency to it. that doesn't mean that there are easy answers. and there's certainly a role for the government. we have the government doing essentially nothing in terms of fundamentals. they didn't fix the tax system. health care, so something needs to be done. i do think there's room for infrastructure investment. there are many things the government doesn't have to just sit on its hands. and i might say, we have an energy bonanza in the united states. there's new sources of energy. the price of gas is one-fifth what it is in europe. we could be having manufacturing come back here. but the whole landscape is just so dormant from nervousness over where things are going. that nothing's happening. >> what would provide certainty that would get businesses investing again? >> well, a decisive change in the election.

not necessarily a change in the presidency. it could be in congress. so that you could get stuff done. i frankly think having somebody able to govern the country and move things along would be better than being paralyzed for a number of years. that doesn't mean i agree with all the ideas floating out there. you're right, our country has become more divided. the voters are more divided. it's states can swing from a very left-ring senator to a right-wing senator, and that makes it hard to have long-term planning if you're a business. >> i just don't buy any of this. that's not quite true. i buy 5 cents on the dollar of it. i buy there is some uncertainty out there. but the main thing is something which is not uncertain but known, which is that everybody in the private sector pretty much is trying to deleverage. everybody's trying to pay down debt. and the one thing we know is that if everyone tries to do that at the same time, the result is a depressed economy. if everybody is trying to spend less than their income, the result is going to be that we failed. that in the end, we just have a

depressed economy, which means that this is a time when somebody has to be -- has to be moving in the opposite direction. i would very much disagree with ken. i think there are easy solutions. right now the private sector investors are begging the government to issue more debt. they're willing to buy long-term u.s. government bonds which are protected against inflation at an interest rate of minus 0.6%. >> what about the role of the federal reserve? you want the fed to do more, you say? it can't lower rates because rates are basically zero. so it should do this sort of creative stuff it's been doing in quantitative easing one, two, three. >> well, that, which, you know, is a very uncertain in its effect, but it should be doing more of that. and i'm still, you know, when we hashed over these issues a dozen years ago with regard to japan, we kept on -- it kept on coming it would really help in situations like the one we're in now if the fed would make it clear that it is willing to tolerate a higher rate of inflation over the medium term. it can't make that happen right

away, but a signal that it's willing to tolerate a higher rate of inflation would be really helpful. >> you worry about inflation, though. >> no, i actually -- >> you agree? >> i actually -- sorry -- agree on this one, i think we should be willing to have a higher inflation rate for a while. this is a once-in-75-years problem. the problem is how do you credibly do it? how do you make a signal? paul's written about this. what would you think of the idea of appointing you federal reserve chairman as a credible signal? >> people have been saying bernanke should go around wearing a hawaiian shirt. he actually does have a taste for hawaiian shirts, but it would be better to appoint me. that would help drive up the dollar. >> should i create an argument? >> the one thing is as long as somebody else does the actual work of running the place because you don't want me doing that. >> all right. when we come back, we're going to talk about mitt romney, bain and the explosion -- the possible explosion of the euro when we come back.

energy is being produced to power our lives. while energy development comes with some risk, north america's natural gas producers are committed to safely and responsibly providing generations of cleaner-burning energy for our country, drilling thousands of feet below fresh water sources within self-contained well systems. and, using state-of-the-art monitoring technologies, rigorous practices help ensure our operations are safe and clean for our communities and the environment. we're america's natural gas. so what i'm saying is, people like options. when you take geico, you can call them anytime you feel like saving money. it don't matter, day or night. use your computer, your smartphone, your tablet, whatever. the point is, you have options. oh, how convenient. hey. crab cakes, what are you looking at?

geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance. trick question. i love everything about this country! including prilosec otc. you know one pill each morning treats your frequent heartburn so you can enjoy all this great land of ours has to offer like demolition derbies. and drive thru weddings. so if you're one of those people who gets heartburn and then treats day after day, block the acid with prilosec otc and don't get heartburn in the first place. [ male announcer ] one pill each morning. 24 hours. zero heartburn.

and we are back with paul krugman and ken rogoff. ken, everyone says it's going to, but what i'm struck by is the europeans seem to somehow always just do enough to get by. the germans write enough checks to get by, and they allow the european central bank to ease up in a variety of ways just enough to get by. can they just keep muddling through? >> i'm not sure. i mean, it might be a slow-motion train wreck. i think a better description than just, you know, they're

doing enough is the crisis keeps getting worse. and the response keeps getting bigger. but it doesn't get ahead of the crisis. and that still looks like where we are today. spain probably will next need a program. even bigger than anything we've seen because it's a much bigger economy. i believe there's no end game to this besides a political union among the countries that are in the eurozone. and you could say, you've got to be kidding, having france and germany in a political union, but i just don't think the single currency is going to work. they say, well, we don't need a political union. we just need to share fiscal revenues, the banking system. how do you do this without political legitimacy? and that is not even on the table at the moment. >> so then presumably the other breaks up. >> no, i feel like a lot of things wouldn't happen, the fall of the berlin wall and such. >> france and germany uniting their governments? i mean, what do you think? >> italy is an even harder story.

although the europeans do have the ability to, you know, push back the disaster, the half-life of those things keeps on shrinking. it used to be that a new set of measures would buy you six months of peace in the markets. now you're lucky if it's six days. so i think we are heading towards a moment of truth. probably, you know, it's hard to know exactly what it is. probably involving greece because they are very close to the edge right now. and then domino -- >> describe the moment of truth. what happens? >> one way or another, the greeks run out of money. the greek government can no longer pay its bills, which means that there's a run on the greek banks which means that, you know, the banks are closed. and when they reopen -- >> they either have to transfer huge amounts of money to the greek banks or the greeks get out of debt. >> that's right. >> maybe the economy gets cauterized. they put in controls. you can't get your money out. so it's in the euro but not really in the euro. >> then you have domino effects. then you'll have at least fast jogs, if not bank runs, bank

jogs and i think actual bank runs in spain and italy, and then is the real moment of choice. because most people think greece is really a lost cause, but are they willing to lend the very large amounts? talking probably a trillion plus of euros to contain a run on spain and italy. and we don't know that. and if there's any hesitation on that, then you can tell the story and the whole thing fall as part. i can't believe we're actually at this point, but i think we are. they might string it into next year. >> one of the things you've been writing about is romney. you feel that the obama campaign's attacks on bain capital, about his tax returns, you think this is all legitimate? >> of course. i mean, particularly since romney -- romney does not have a coherent comprehensible economic program. it's very difficult to figure out what, if anything, he's proposing aside from tax cuts for the rich -- for people like himself. a lot of it has been trust me, i'm a successful businessman.

i know how to make things work. and then the question is, well, exactly how did you achieve your business success, and exactly how did you get so rich? those are legitimate questions. look, we've always expected presidential candidates to be very forthcoming about their personal history, their personal financial history, their business career if they had one. romney is trying to keep everything that he did in his life before 2010 under, you know, a shroud. >> do you feel like it's a legitimate relevant? >> i think the fact he was paying, what was it 14% tax rate, is a real issue. it's incredibly unfair. now, he didn't break the law. he didn't make the law. but he ought to say, my policies are going to change the law. that this is wrong. and so i think it's quite reasonable to talk about it. that said, i think a lot of voters may say, well, i don't like this, but i'm going to look at the economy anyway. and i want to take a chance. i mean, mean that, unfortunatel

still a big issue. >> finally, fiscal cliff. i assume you think it would and bad thing, a drag on the gdp. do you think it is likely to happen? >> no, but i'm not sure, because it is so divisive and one side or the other may see a gain. i have no idea what's going to come out of it. i think the clear thing is we don't know which direction they're going to turn if they don't go off the cliff. are they going to higher taxes, lower government spending, some combination? i have no idea and that uncertainty weighs very levelhe on businesses right now. >> i mean, it is a game of chicken and i actually think if obama is re-elected, i think there is a quite good chance that for a month or two we actually will go off the cliff which doesn't do that much harm if it is brief. because i think if obama is re-elected he has to say government by blackmail is not an acceptable way to run this country so i'm going to call

your guy's bluff and let the people who are paying for your campaigns come running and demanding that you make a compromise with me. so i actually would put pretty substantial odds that we will in fact at least temporarily see those rates go up, and then it is a different game. >> we are going to have to leave it at that. the economy is going to be front and center for a while so we will have both of you back. thank you. up next, who is this man and why the fuss over a new 3-d mottle of his face? i'll explain. [ mom ] dear chex cereal,

i've never written a fan letter before, but you've done the impossible. you made gluten free cereals in a whole bunch of yummy flavors. cinnamon chex and honey nut chex are two of our favorites. when my husband found the chocolate one, we were in cereal heaven. the only problem is, with so many great flavors, you're making it very hard to choose. your fans, the mcgregor family. 'cause we love chex. ♪ [ male announcer ] and now try new gluten free apple cinnamon chex.

new gluten free agents, say hello to the biggest hailstone in u.s. history.

oh, that will leave a dent. which is exactly why we educate people... about comprehensive coverage. yep. the right choice now can pay off later. looks like a bowling ball. yeah. oh! agents, say hello to the second-biggest hailstone in u.s. history. [ announcer ] we are insurance. ♪ we are farmers bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪

how many countries are there in the world? you get different answers depending on whom you ask. the united nations recognizes 193, including the world's

newest country, south sudan. the u.s. recognizes 195 nations, so that brings me to my question of the week -- how many countries are taking part in this year's olympics? is it, a, 190, b, 193, c, 195, or, d, 205? stay tuned and we'll tell you the correct answer. go to cnn.com/fareed for more of the gps challenge and lots of insight and analysis. you can also follow us on twitter and facebook. also remember, if you miss a show, go to itunes. you can get the audio podcast for free and you can now buy the video version. go directly there by typing itunes.com/fareed into your browser. this week's "book of the week" is called "the righteous mind -- why good people are divided by politics and religion." this is an important book by john than haidt, a professor at nyu. it is analysis that combines politics and technology and

current affairs. he shows us what values people on the left and right cherish and he explains why conservatives understand liberals better than liberals understand conservatives. it's a deep and very intelligent book. now for "the last look." you rarely hear somebody on tv ask you to do this, but i want you to close your eyes for a second. okay? now conjure up an image of this man's face. then picture his fellow revolutionary. nothing comes to mind, there are very few images of him. but don't worry, venezuela's hugo chavez unveiled a 3-d impression of his face and this is what it looks like. the likeness was created by artists who studied the remains. just like many politicians love to run in the shadow of cha in

latin america, chavez always tried to latch on to boliva's popularity. the correct answer to our gps challenge question was actually, d, 205. how, you ask? well, the international olympic committee recognizes a number of countries the u.n. doesn't. american samoa, aruba, bermuda, the cayman islands, hong kong, even palestine. thanks to all of you for being part of my program this week. i will see you next week. hello, i'm rob marciano with a check of our top stories. first, to syria. the country's foreign minister is warning rebels that they will not be a ibl to come to syria's largest city. government and rebel forces have been battling over aleppo for a week now. now to israel and mitt

romney. the republican presidential candidate is meeting with israeli leaders. he visited the western wall where he just delivered a speech that gives an indication of how he would handle foreign policy in general, and in iran in particular. >> we should employ any and all measures to dissuade the iranian regime from its nuclear course and it is our fervent hope that diplomatic and economic measures will do so. in the final analysis, of course, no option should be excluded. we recognize israel's right to defend itself and that it is right for america to stand with you. >> romney arrived in israel yesterday after spending a few days in london for the olympics. in london, it's day two of the olympics and the u.s. tea is making progress. abby johnston and kelsey bryant took the silver medal in women's synchronized diving. kim rhode woman a gold in women's skeet shooting.

just a day before their wedding, a mississippi couple is told that they had to have their wedding elsewhere because they're black. i'll have that story and more coming up at 2:30. "the next list" with sanjay gupta starts right now. interactive artist scott snitty designed his first app back in the 1990s. almost 20 years before the first smartphone even existed. today he's blazing the trail in interact you have full body experiences. working with some of the biggest names in entertainment, he transports his audiences into wholly immersive worlds of interact interactivity, one that commands all of your senses. get ready, over the next half-hour we'll explore the future of his creation, a future filled with magic. this "the next list." i'm dr. sanjay gupta.

>> i wish there was a word that was something like an interactivist. you know, writers can sell books and scripts and things like that. musicians can sell songs and albums. filmmakers can sell films and movie tickets. but people who make interactive stuff, the only place that we've talked about that is either in game development or in art. >> hi, i'm scott snibbe, i'm an interactive artist. i'm the founder of scott snibbe studio. so i have two businesses here. snibbe interactive creates interactive installations and experiences that use your whole body as the input and output. you don't need a pen, a stylus or even your fer