this is "gps," the global public square. welcome to all of you in the united states and around the world. i'm fareed zakaria. on today's show, first up is al qaeda back? or were the embassy closures and

the terror alert misguided? we'll take a look at those questions and examine al qaeda's new stronghold. and we'll ask the last man to try to achieve peace in the middle east whether the current attempt is worth it. ehud barak, the former prime minister of israel, weighs in. also president obama cancels a summit with russia's president putin. what is up with the russians? finally, before and after. a stark reminder of the ravages of war. but first, here's my take. the obama administration's warning about a possible al qaeda plot against american interests in the middle east has triggered a volley of attacks back home. for those who always suspected president obama was somehow soft in fighting the war on terror, this was vindication. the weekly standard, fox news, the wall street journal editorialists all piled on saying that the president had claimed al qaeda had been decimated -- >> al qaeda is on the run and we

got bin laden. >> but this terror warning proved him wrong. now, in part the administration has only itself to blame. the state department issued a global travel alert for the entire month of august and explained that the attack could come anywhere. congressmen who were briefed by administration officials explained while al qaeda targets were in the arab world and in africa, there could also be attacks in europe or north america. now, if it is a global travel alert, then it isn't really a travel, but rather an existence alert. the public announcement had all the hallmarks of the old color-coded alerts of the bush era. threatening enough to make people anxious and vague enough to give them little to do about it. but what about al qaeda? well, al qaeda central, the organization centered in afghanistan and pakistan, is in fact battered and broke. but the idea of al qaeda remains vibrant in some other places. not, as it turns out, in the

great hot beds of islamic radicalism such as saudi arabia, but rather in places where the government is so weak it simply cannot control its own territory. yemen, somalia, mali, northern nigeria. so what kind of strategy should the united states pursue against these very small groups in very weak states? there are three possible paths. the first would be a more full bore counterinsurgency strategy, the kind that general david petraeus executed in iraq and to a lesser degree in afghanistan to bring stability to those areas. but does anyone think that sending tens of thousands of american troops into these countries is a smart idea? and does anyone think keeping more troops in afghanistan would make terrorists in mali tremble? as michael hayden, cia director under george w. bush pointed out, many of these groups are really gangs of local thugs using the al qaeda name to build their brand. for washington to announce a grand campaign against them

might exaggerate their importance, americanize local grievances and create a global threat that didn't really exist. the terror alerts have probably delighted these small groups for just that reason. the second strategy would be counterterrorism using drones, missiles, special forces and other kinetic tools to disrupt al qaeda-affiliated groups. by anyone's measure, the obama administration has been aggressive on this front. president obama has used more drones each year of his presidency than president bush did in his entire presidency. data gathering, as mr. snow den reminded us. the third possible approach to the threat of terrorism is to try to get local governments to fight the terrorists, but the places that these al qaeda affiliates have sprung up like somalia and yemen are ungovernable. only the u.s. has the technology, missiles and

soldiers to disrupt terror plots being hatched in these countries. so you throw the posturing and the politics aside, and you can see that the u.s. is following a reasonable path among the options. if anything, the best policy in the long run would be to shift the struggle over to locals, who can most effectively win a long war against militants on territory that they know much better than outsiders. it would also shift the ideological struggle over to muslims, who can most effectively battle al qaeda in the realm of ideas. the u.s. can help by building up the legitimacy and capacity of these governments in various ways by encouraging reform, providing aid, technical know-how. of course this would be the softest of the three strategies and would probably draw the most fire from obama's critics before they actually pursue it more fully. go to cnn.com/fareed for a link to my "time" column this week, and let's get started.

you've heard my take. let's dig deeper now. i have two great scholars on al qaeda and terrorism. peter bergen is of course cnn's national security analyst, the author of many books on al qaeda. he produced the first tv interview of osama bin laden back in 1997. gregory johnsen is the author of the last refuge, yemen, al qaeda and america's war in arabia. welcome. peter, what triggered all of this as far as we understand it is the head of al qaeda sent a message to al qaeda in the arabian peninsula, in yemen, asking them, you know, do some terrorism, please. >> yeah, do something. >> now, is that a sign of weakness or strength? >> it's a sign of just sending a message. i mean it's do something is pretty -- it's not like, you know, the end of the world is coming. and so far whatever that something is hasn't transpired.

and i think that al qaeda central is aware of its own problems and even al qaeda in the arabian peninsula is not doing particularly well, despite all of the flurry of things we've seen over the past week. about 30 of their leaders and south operatives have been killed in cia drone strikes, so their bench is thinning. >> why has yemen become the next place, after afghanistan, pakistan? >> right. well, i think in yemen you have a very weak central government so this is a government that doesn't have a lot of control over a lot of the territories. which means when this group, al qaeda in the arabian peninsula, really have their genesis moment in a prison break in february of 2006. at that point the u.s. was really focused on iraq and the yemeni government was really focused on an insurgency it was fighting up in the north, which meant when the group tunneled out of the prison, they had about two and a half years in which to build up an infrastructure and really establish deep roots.

and that head start that they have had is one that the u.s. and yemeni governments really haven't been able to catch them. >> are they ideologically motivated global jihadists? are they really after something, do they want to rule yemen? how would you describe these people? >> i think the problem that we in the west often have is we think about al qaeda in the arabian peninsula only as a terrorist group and they're certainly that. bu they see themselves as something more. they see themselves as a group that can be a governing force, a group that can take over territory, a group that can staff schools, build water wells, string electrical lines. this is something that they did in 2011 and in 2012 in the wake of the arab spring. but doing that opened them up to air strikes from the u.s. and they were eventually forced out. i think what the group is doing now is having a debate over how do we get to where we want to be, ruling a country without being so vulnerable to strikes above. >> how should we think about droughns? i know you've been very critical

about the drone program and the excessive use of droughns nes i pakistan? >> if the price of a successful price in pakistan is angering 200 million pakistanis, the fifth largest country in the world with nuclear weapons, that's a large price to pay. there are certainly moments to use drones and the president in the speech in may gestured at the idea that they're going to be more careful about the use of drones. in pakistan we've seen some of that but in yemen we've seen a lot of strikes. so as a practical matter, the administration is still using the drone program. but -- you know, in pakistan it's unbelievably unpopular. in yemen, as greg knows better than i, you know, there have been protests. but it's not -- i don't think the whole country is up in arms in yemen as it is in pakistan on this issue. >> when i look at these groups, the thing that i think sometimes we forget in the united states is these are very small groups often and with very little public support. there's a reason these guys don't field candidates for elections, they're not going to

win anywhere. there's a reason they don't try to get a million people out on the streets as in egypt because they can't. so how do you think about the strength of something like this? of all of them, the one in yemen probably has the most intrinsic strength. how strong is it really? >> that's a great point because this group is deeply unpopular in yemen. the problem is, is that the u.s. is even more unpopular. so this is a group that has really internalized a very important lesson and that is that the side that kills the most civilians in a war like this loses. and that's something that al qaeda in the arabian peninsula is very, very careful about. they justify their attacks, they make mistakes, but they really attempt to limit their attacks to military forces or to western interests. >> peter, i have to ask you before we go about syria. is it your sense that there is not jihadis but actual al qaeda presence growing in syria? >> without a doubt. the most effective fighting force fighting the assad regime

is the victory front, basically an al qaeda front organization. it's zawahiri is the boss. it's next door to israel. you've got thousands of foreign fighter coming in, including people from the west. just do the math. it could get pretty ugly. iraq didn't turn out to be a net exporter of terrorism in the end. many of the foreign fighters who came actually ended up as suicide attackers who died on the battlefield. but certainly syria is something where al qaeda could establish a safe haven. >> peter bergen, greg johnsen, thanks for joining us. wonderful book, by the way. lots more ahead. two big conflicts. the first is india and pakistan. i'll explain why we might actually be optimistic that these two sworn enemies might become friends. but up neckxt, the chances r middle east peace. i have a great guest, a former prime minister of israel, ehud barak, who tried this the last

time around. in atlantis blue is mine! i was here first. it's mine. i called about that one. it's mine. customers: [ echoing ] it's mine, mine, mine. it's mine! no, it's not! it's mine! better get going. it's chevy model year end event. [ male announcer ] the chevy model year end event. the 13s are going fast. time to get yours. right now, get this great lease on a 2013 chevy malibu ls for around $169 a month. with so much competition, finding the right job is never easy. but with the nation's largest alumni network, including those in key hiring positions, university of phoenix can help connect you to a world of opportunity.

saving time by booking an appointment online, even smarter. online scheduling. available now at meineke.com. if all goes as planned, in the coming days the next round of the middle east peace talks will take place in israel. this comes on the heels of the negotiators meetings with president obama and secretary of state kerry in washington last

week. so we have actually made it past the first round. but what are the real prospects for middle east peace? joining me now is ehud barak, the former israeli prime minister whose 2000 summit with yasser arafat remains the most ambitious attempt to achieve peace between the israelis and the palestinians. so when you look at the situation, a lot of people say this is a waste of time, it's a sideshow. secretary of state kerry should not have invested political capital in this. what is your sense? >> i'm basically an optimist. i have been all along my life and i believe it's a real need for both sides. both sides, the leadership on one hand, the mainstream understand that the alternatives are much worse. and i think that secretary kerry deserves a lot of compliment for his tenacity in bringing both sides to the table. >> but is there -- has something changed now that makes it likely to happen?

>> i think that there are more chanc chances. the reason is that both sides understand it. i personally believe that the palestinians are much more responsible for where we stuck the israeli government, but it doesn't matter because without tough decisions from both sides, nothing will move. >> you were in these talks. what is your sense, what is the single issue that is likely to be the deadlock? is it jerusalem? how would you describe it? >> i say it's all -- the four or five core issues. security of israel is extremely important. some formula with the refugees and ultimately the need to recognize israel as what it is, a jewish state, and putting an

end to all mutual claims. end of conflict and end of mutual claims is the essence of a permanent peace. i personally believe that even if it will end up that a full permanent peace cannot be achieved, it was the effort to strike even an interim agreement where voters and security is made and once and for all a line will be delineated on the ground within which there will be a solid jewish majority for generations. we include the major settlement blocs and israeli presence and jewish presence belong the old line of jerusalem and on the other hand a place for a viable palestinian state. that's the least extra teestrat. if this can be achieved, it will provide a better launching pad. >> let me ask you about israel's

security. ariel sharon when he was prime minister said we were rapidly approaching the moment when iran's nuclear program reaches a point of no return. shaul mofaz when he was defense minister said something similar. you talked about iran entering a zone of immunity at which point there was no turning back. hasn't israel cried wolf too often on iran? it seems as though you have set up these red lines and iran seems to move past them, but nothing happens. >> we all use the same rhetoric. we all say there are options on the table. with the new president, everyone mentions that he was the one responsible for slowing the -- moving toward the nuclear military weapons in 2003-2005. we have to remember why he did it. he did it the only time he did it and that was the essential

condition where he felt with the americans already hit afghanistan, they already hit iraq and their center might be the next target. that's the only thing that convinced them. when we say that we are determined to prevent iran, we literally mean it. and we expect others who say to mean it. the real way to act, according to my judgment, is to -- if you decide to give some time for negotiation, do it. but put it within a tight timeline. the iranians should know, not the public but the iranians should know that they are expected to put an end to their nuclear military program or else. behind closed doors they have to know it. but there is no need to humiliate them, there is no need to embarrass them, but they should know what will follow if

they will not take decision quite urgently to stop it. >> does that mean that if things continue as they are and the iranians are careful not to enrich beyond a certain level, but if they continue at they are, at some point israel will strike in your opinion? >> i don't want to announce in front of cameras what they'll do but i'll repeat many times what i've said when i was in power and repeat it now. when we say that we are determined to prevent iran from turning nuclear, we mean what we say. >> but a lot of people look at what israel has been saying, from ariel sharon to shaul mofaz to you and not acting and come to the election that maybe israel has decided it can live with the situation as it is. >> no, no, we didn't. we didn't decide. and i don't believe that we can decide that we can live with it. we cannot control whole events. i don't want to go into speculation what might happen if

pakistan is politically there's a meltdown, what will happen to nuclear proliferation, but we feel a heavy responsibility to do what should be done if the future of israel is going to change in front of our eyes, we cannot afford to sit idle. >> ehud barak, always a pleasure to have you on. thank you. >> next, what in the world. this time both sides are armed with nuclear weapons, but despite that there are reasons to be optimistic about india and pakistan. i will explain when we come back. my asthma's under control.

i get out a lot... except when it's too cold. like the last three weekends. asthma doesn't affect my job... you missed the meeting again last week! it doesn't affect my family. your coughing woke me up again. i wish you'd take me to the park. i don't use my rescue inhaler a lot... depends on what you mean by a lot. coping with asthma isn't controlling it. test your level of control at asthma.com, then talk to your doctor. there may be more you could do for your asthma.

welcome back to cnn. i'm christi paul in atlanta. fareed zakaria will be back in just a couple of minutes. to watch the "what in the world" segment go to cnn.com/fareed. we do have an update on a developing story. breaking overnight, this week-long kidnapping ordeal is over. the suspect is dead. his captive, hannah anderson, safe, i'm happy to tell you, and soon to be reunited with her father. but a drama that began near san

diego ended a thousand miles away in the rugged wilderness near morehead lake, idaho. we'll going to take you to cnn's miguel marquez with more. >> reporter: exclusive cnn video of fbi hostage rescue team members and other federal agents heading out on a dramatic rescue mission. amazingly the teams in full fact cal gear were delivered to waiting helicopters in a u-haul van. a modest start to an enormously successful mission. >> suspect james lee dimaggio was shot and killed. hannah anderson was located with dimaggio. she appears well. >> reporter: the fbi team moved in on foot to confront james dimaggio. >> the area where these two individuals were seen is about 30 miles from cascade, the only way to access it is my helicopter. >> reporter: the pair was spotted first from the air near their campsite. teams on foot then moved in. >> special agents with the fbi's hostage rescue team, along with

salt lake city division of the fbi observed hannah and the suspect near morehead lake at a campsite. agents moved in to rescue hannah. the suspect is deceased. >> reporter: fbi releasing few details, saying the entire operation will now be reviewed by a team heading here from washington, with dimaggio considered armed and dangerous and hannah a potential hostage. the stakes, enormous. >> this was a homicide suspect that was in a very rugged area and we had a 16-year-old girl. we have to look at the tactical issues. it is certainly a complex search. >> reporter: a complex and successful operation ending a week of fear and grief. miguel marquez, cnn, cascade, idaho. >> so let's get you to san diego now where, of course, this whole thing began. hannah anderson's family is overwhelmed after hearing news of her rescue. just trying to process at this point everything that's happened since last weekend.

>> our baby girl. oh, my god. i'm so glad she's safe. oh, my god, she's safe. and she's okay. she's such a strong girl. we knew she was strong and we knew she'd make it. we knew she could do this. and she did it. >> she's definitely going to need our support through all of this. i know it's going to be really hard. we're just going to be here for her through every step of the way. >> i can't even cry anymore i'm so happy. i don't even have any tears left. it's been such a hard week. >> the way it ended up for both hannah and jim, no one wants to go through years of jury trials and putting hannah through any of that. so, you know, i wouldn't want to see anyone dead, but it happened and we're excited to have our

granddaughter home. >> cnn's casey wian outside the sheriff's department right now. casey, do we have any word as to when hannah will be reunited with her dad? he's on his way there now, yes? >> reporter: that's what we understand, christi, that brett anderson is on his way to idaho and will be there at some point today in the company of law enforcement. hannah has been in the hospital overnight for observation physically. she's said to be in good shape, but just as a precaution they did hospitalize her. so we don't know exactly when that reunion will take place. we do expect it will happen sometime today. as to when she will return to the san diego area, if in fact she does return to the san diego area, that's an open question. some family members expect it may be two or three days before she's back here. she may not come back here, at least not immediately. her father has been living in tennessee. it's always a possibility they could go back there, we don't know. what we do know is that this family has a lot in front of it.

a lot of healing and a lot of work to do. they have lost two family members. hannah's mother and her younger brother, ethan, and they have got a 16-year-old girl who has been through an incredibly traumatic ordeal over the last week that they have now got to dole with going forward. >> casey wian in san diego, thank you so much. certainly thinking about this family today. even though this is good news for them. we'll keep an eye on the story, developments all day long, but we'll go back to "fareed zakaria gps" talking about why president obama pulled out of a planned one-on-one meeting with russia's put putin. that's after a quick break. litie reality. with centurylink as your trusted partner, our visionary cloud infrastructure and global broadband network free you to focus on what matters. with custom communications solutions and responsive, dedicated support, we constantly evolve to meet your needs. every day of the week.

centurylink® your link to what's next. really? 25 grams of protein. what do we have? all four of us, together? 24. he's low fat, too, and has 5 grams of sugars. i'll believe it when i--- [ both ] oooooh... what's shakin'? [ female announcer ] as you get older, protein is an important part of staying active and strong. ensure high protein... fifty percent of your daily value of protein. low fat and five grams of sugars. see? he's a good egg. [ major nutrition ] ensure high protein... ensure! nutrition in charge! "that starts with one of the world's most advancedy," distribution systems," "and one of the most efficient trucking networks," "with safe, experienced drivers." "we work directly with manufacturers," "eliminating costly markups," "and buy directly from local farmers in every region of the country." "when you see our low prices, remember the wheels turning behind the scenes, delivering for millions of americans, everyday.

"dedication: that's the real walmart"

vo:remember to changew that oil is the it on schedule toy car. keep your car healthy. show your car a little love with an oil change starting at $19.95. this was president obama and president putin in june. sullen and silent. now it's even gotten worse with the white house pulling out of a planned one-on-one meeting in moscow next month. so what to make of it? who is to blame? i have two great experts. julia yaffi is a former moscow correspondent for "the new yorker" she is now with "the new republic." and chrystia freeland wrote her book about russia's transition from communism to capitalism. she's now running for parliament

in canada. welcome to both of you. julia, let me start with you. do we know how much of what is going on is about more than snow den? i mean by which there did seem to be a more promising prospect between u.s./russian relations, the reset, but then you've had syria on which the putin administration has been a big disappointment to the obama administration. you've had even arms control where they have not been particularly forthcoming. and then this. so is this part of a larger trend? >> i think snowden was just the catalyst. he was the straw that broke the camel's back. i think you would have to rewind past syria and go back to libya. the russians felt very much duped by the americans. they had abstained from vetoing the resolution to allow the use of force in libya, and then what ended up happening was not, you know, the use of force was much more than they had anticipated

and then gadhafi ended up getting killed. this really, really rattled putin. then you had the protests, the kind of anti-kremlin protests that broke out around the time of putin's return to power. and the kremlin chose to take an anti-american line in not accusing then secretary of state secretary clinton of almost orchestrating the protests. things just kind of snowballed from there. things haven't been going well for about two years, a year and a half, and the snowden thing i think was really just the last straw. >> and chrystia, isn't the awkward reality here that this anti-americanism actually plays well in russia? is that fair? >> well, i agree with you, fareed, and i would double down on that argument. you know, i've seen some people talk about the cancellation of this summit as a blow forputin, and i think that nothing could be further from the truth. i think that what we're seeing in russia is putin playing the

classic authoritarian leader's playbook. and what he is doing is not only playing to a nationalist zeno phobic anti-western constituency, he is building that constituency. he is doing everything he can to create a power base in russia and a sense among ordinary russians that everybody else is against us, everybody else is hypocritical. we are strong. i am the person who supports you. and all of this is at a peace. the very strong and to my mind really dreadful, terrible, anti-gay legislation, sort of anti-gay push that we're seeing from the russian government is another part of this that's saying we're different from the west, we oppose them, we openly oppose them, we can stand up to them. and ultimately what this is about for putin is consolidating his hold on power in an authoritarian regime and i think it speaks actually -- julia mentioned the democratic

protests. this is something he's actually really worried about. and so what he's trying to do is build up an alternative really quite frightening, nationalistic, hostile power base in his own country. >> julia, was it always like this? it felt like when he came to power, he was seen as a man who seemed to like the west, the west seemed to like him. bush famously looked into his eyes. but he also asked repeatedly for membership in nato. he thought that russia's rightful place was as part of western europe really. and he's moved from that a long way. part of that, i think, is that the price of oil as quadrupled and all of a sudden the russians don't need foreign aid and things like that. but there seems to be something else happening as well, where the putin of today is not the man who took office. >> well, in some ways he is and in some ways he isn't. i think this is his relationship with the west is part of a long tradition of cognitive

dissidence inside russia that goes back hundreds of years. on one hand russia wants to be part of the west, it wants to be seen as an equal partner at the table. on the other hand it wants to be seen as different and unique and wants to be immune from what it sees as the west superimposing its values that are foreign to russia on russia. >> chrystia, when president obama says, you know, i'm trying to look forward and i sometimes feel like they slip back into the cold war, i do think there's something to this in the sense that this is not the most sensible strategy for russia. if you look at russia's national interests, what are their big problems? islamic radicalism to their south. the other problems are the long border with china that they always had. they need the west in way that say would serve russia's national interests, but as you say don't serve putin's particular power interests. >> putin is not chiefly

concerned about what's good for russia. he is chiefly concerned with what is good for putin. and that's where i think actually the cold war analogy is not quite right. this is not -- we are not living in this dual-power world in which moscow is the capital of the soviet union and is seeking to control a big part of the world. we are living with a russia which is a much smaller, relatively economically and militarily much weaker country, and a country in which for all his power, vladimir putin doesn't have the communist party machine to control his country. he is much more comparable to the classic authorize january rulers whose control is brittle. >> we'll have to leave it at that. chrystia, julia, thanks for joining us. chrystia, best of luck on your campaign. up next, a tie can who was

prosecuted and jailed by u.s. authorities explains why america is a great country nonetheless. ,

you might remember the case

of the press baron conrad black, who at one point owned one of the great newspaper empires of the world. but then six years ago, he faced investigations into his handling of his company and was convicted in u.s. federal court on the lesser charges of obstruction of justice and fraud. some of the major charges against him were successfully overturned on appeal, but in the end black served more than three years in american prisons. black, an amateur historian with several important biographies under his belt already, has now written a book about the country that imprisoned him called "flight of the eagle, the grand strategies that brought america from colonial dependence to world leadership." he cannot enter the united states currently so he has joined me from toronto to talk about his benign view of american grand strategy but his much less flattering opinion of our legal system. listen in. >> conrad black, that you for joining me. >> i'm grateful for the invitation, fareed. >> let me ask you first about

just a general tenor of your new book which is kind of about american leadership in the world. you've always been a great fan of america. i was just wondering have your views changed after having had what i think you would describe as a very rough encounter with this country's judicial system? do you still -- how is it that you can go through that process and still be so laudatory about the united states as a great role model for the world? >> well, that's not quite what i wrote. i was laudatory of the rise of the country. i separate that from the fact the country persecuted me half to death, and that does affect my affection for it at the moment in its present condition, but not my admiration for it historically or my fundamental liking for it. of course it has nothing to do with my relations with a great many valuable friendships and

aquaintances i've built up with americans over many years. >> but still, does it make you think that our system of law, for example, that our rule of law is not as great as it is purported to be? >> it is in a terrible condition. 99.5% of your prosecutions are successful compared to about 60% in canada and 50% in britain. it's not because your prosecutors are better, it's because the system is too one-sided. you've got 5% of the world's population, 25% of its incarcerated people and nearly 50% of its qualified lawyers. it's a terrible problem. and the plea bargain system is just an outrage. it's simply the extortion of incriminating perjury with an immunity for perjury in exchange for not being prosecuted or for a reduced sentence. it's not justice and certainly has made a shambles of america's

claim to being a bastion of human and civil rights and has put the bill of rights through the sledder. >> tell me about leadership. you wrote an exhaustive biography of franklin roosevelt. even though you are a conservative, you were quite laudatory toward him. you wrote one about nixon. what do you think distinguishes a great leader? >> well, you've had a variety of them, obviously, in the united states, but i think courage when you need it, sense of a ruse and an ingenuity within limits and getting things done when you need that, such as roosevelt's performance in helping keep the democracies in the war between 1940 and '41. and a vision of the country of what it can do, where it can go, what its moral imperatives are, and a sense of innovation, a

sense in the case of a great nation like the united states, a sense of grandeur. >> so you have a few pages on obama in the end of the book and they're quite dismissive, i think. >> not dismissive. i would never -- fareed, i would never dismiss a president of the u.s. it's a great office and i always respect the holder of the office, the present holder and previous ones. i have to say i don't think the majority of americans would be quite as enthused about this administration as you are. but i am certainly not dismissive of him. but i think that there have been some serious problems. and i think they don't start with him. but i think there is a leadership problem that has been going on for most of the time since reagan retired. the thing that worries me just as an example is that in the terrible year of 1968 with 550,000 draftees in vietnam, 200 to 400 of them coming back dead

every week, riots everywhere in the country. race riots and anti-war riots, assassination of martin luther king and robert kennedy, in that year, lyndon johnson, hubert humphrey, robert kennedy, ronald reagan and richard nixon all ran for president. you can say lots about all of those people but they were all qualified to be president. i don't think the best candidates, for example, in the republican party ran in the election last year. and this -- this is disturbing. i don't think it has ever happened before in u.s. history. and in my judgment, since you asked me, i think that there is a very large number of americans that felt instinctively that the national media and the political establishment had unjustly destroyed a distinguished administration, which mr. nixon had in his first term, and had scuttled the effort in vietnam and never ceased to congratulate themselves for doing it. and the country is uneasy about that. i think that's why rush limbaugh

has 30 million listeners and the network newscasts have declined. >> at the end of the day, though, you balance this with an overall sunny optimism about america. how? >> it's fundamentally a very powerful country. it's a rich country. there's nothing wrong with it in my opinion that some leadership won't deal with. and the habit of american history is when it needs leadership, it gets it. very few people expected great things of abraham lincoln or either of the roosevelts, let alone a less glamorous personality like harry truman. many people disparaged ronald reagan as a rather limited -- intellectually limited actor but they were all very distinguished presidents and led effectively. we'll get back to that. all that's needed, it's conceptually simple and the playbook is well known. is for the elected leader of the country to say we have a serious crisis. these are the proportions of the crisis. this will happen if we don't deal with it. this is our plan of action to

deal with it and i ask for your support. as long as it's plausible, the people will support that. but it's not happening. >> a unique perspective on america. conrad black, pleasure to talk to you. we'd love to have you back. >> i'd always be delighted to speak with you, fareed. very nice talking with you again. up next, what does war do to a country? i'm going to show you some images from syria that will get you thinking. [ gerry ] you really couldn't have come at a better time. these chevys are moving fast. i'll take that malibu.

yeah, excuse me. the equinox in atlantis blue is mine! i was here first. it's mine. i called about that one. it's mine. customers: [ echoing ] it's mine, mine, mine. it's mine! no, it's not! it's mine! better get going. it's chevy model year end event. [ male announcer ] the chevy model year end event. the 13s are going fast. time to get yours. right now, get this great lease on a 2013 chevy malibu ls for around $169 a month. plays a key role throughout our lives. one a day women's 50+ is a complete multivitamin designed for women's health concerns as we age. with 7 antioxidants to support cell health. one a day women's 50+. could lose tens of thousands of dollars on their 401(k) to hidden fees. thankfully e-trade has low cost investments and no hidden fees. but, you know, if you're still bent on blowing this fat stack of cash, there's a couple of ways you could do it. ♪

♪ or just go to e-trade and save it. boom. ♪ peace of mind is important when so we provide it services you and bucan rely on. with centurylink as your trusted it partner, you'll experience reliable uptime for the network and services you depend on. multi-layered security solutions keep your information safe, and secure. and responsive dedicated support meets your needs, and eases your mind. centurylink. your link to what's next.

this week marked the 68th anniversary of the atomic bombing in hiroshima in 1945. there was a somber ceremony in the city's peace memorial park to honor the dead. nuclear weapons like the w-80 warhead that are currently in the u.s. arsenal an explosive impact that is almost 15 times that of little boy, the bomb used on hiroshima, which brings me to my question of the week. how many nuclear weapons does the united states have in its arsenal today? is it a, 5,700, b, 6,700, c,

7,700, or d, 8,700. stay tuned, we'll tell you the correct answer. go to cnn.com/fareed. you can follow us on twitter and facebook. if you miss a show go to itunes.com/fareed. this week's book have the week is franklin del know roosevelt, champion of freedom by conrad black. if you were intrigued by the interview with black, this is his biography of the man he contends was the most important person of the 20th century. a surprising choice for an arch conservative but he makes his case very well. and now for the last look. this isn't an ominous movie clip of an incoming ufo. you're looking at the city of aleppo in syria. watch what happens as you drag this bar to the right. these extraordinary before and after satellite images released by amnesty international this

week show changes to the city. 1,000 roadblocks are scattered throughout and the extent of the devastation is truly vast. after 12 months of bombardments, hundreds of homes and businesses are reduced to smoldering rubble. these pictures illustrate not only death and destruction, but the loss of cultural treasures as well. here you can see this which dates back to 1090 a.d. was completely destroyed in april. the economy is collapsing too, of course. the only construction taking place, makeshift camps for internationally displaced people along the turkish border. the correct answer to our gps challenge question was c. the united states has an estimated 7,700 nuclear weapons as of early 2013. between 1945 and the 1990s, we produced more than 70,000 total warheads and spent at least $8 trillion in