"face the nation." down in new york with israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu he was preparing to head back to israel, and the new iranian president had just sent out yet another tweet, this one critical of israel. netanyahu was not amused. >> what message of peace-- look at the tweets. he's tweet of tweeting here, but he doesn't allow the iranian people to tweet over there in iran. he's saying all these nice things about iranian democracy. they're executing people by the hundreds, jailing them by the thousands, any dissident. i mean, that's double take and sugar talk. but the important thing is it's part of a strategy. iran-- iran's leader, the real leader, is not rouhani. rouhani is a servant of the regime. he's a clerk. the real leader of iran who heads this cult that controls

iran, that controls with an iron fist the arabs people is the ayatollah what mainy. he's the so-called supreme court leader, in some case so-called aptly named. he wants nuclear weapons. this is why they're building the underground bunkers and the i.c.b.m., and the heavy water reactor. that's what they want. the previous president, auk din jad, said we get through through hard actions and hard work. get them crippling sanctions, coupled with a credible military threat, they'll be on the ropes. they're on the ropes now. in comes the new guy, president huh, who said let's do it differently. hard actions, soft words, sugary words, smiles. >> schieffer: what makes netanyahu so suspicious of rouhani, was the book he wrote when he was iran's chief nuclear

negotiator. >> did you hear about this book, bob? >> schieffer: tell me. >> i'm quoting what he says in the book, while he was negotiating with the western powers about stopping the nuclear program, he said, "while we were talking to the europeans in tehran, we were installing equipment in a plant where they convert iranian yellow cake to enrichable form. that's what you need to make a bomb. and then he says, "by creating a calm environment--" calm international environment--" we were able to complete the work, we were able to complete a crucial part of iran's nuclear weapons program." they're not there yet. they have to get through a few more phases and he basically does a fool me once, fool me twice thing. are we going to be fooled twice. we can't listen to the words-- i mean, you can listen to the words. you can talk. i'm not against talking. but it's actions that we want and what we want is the complete dismantling of iran's nuclear

weapons capability. the whole caboodle, the whole thing, dismantle it completely. what khomeini is saying, he made some tactical concessions, some minor concessions give some nuclear material but maintain the necessary material of low-enriched uranium so i can make a bomb and the centrifuges and the underground bunkers. no way. we're not gullible. we're not fools. >> schieffer: netanyahu says he's not against talking to iran but we must listen very carefully. >> look if we can have a real diplomatic solution, which means a complete dismapt ling of the program and no enrichment left-- and also, by the way, no heavy water. not only are they enriching. they have another route to the bomb they're developing under rouhani, by the way. they want two paths to the bomb. they want to keep it in exchange for the smiles and double-talk

they have here. no way. >> schieffer: you said and reiterated it during this visit, if you have to stand alone, israel will stand alone. could israel destroy iran's nuclear capability if you had to? >> well, you know, i will say i's veal a state secret by tell you the american military is bigger and stronger than israel's. but i wouldn't short israel's capacities. >> schieffer: i think you have pretty well explained what iran would have to do if they were going to demonstrate they were really serious. but what would be the first step? >> the first step is i'll say no first steps. full program. just way with syria. you didn't go and say to assad, "well, you know,--" i don't-- "sends me some fancy speaking com diplomat do the u.n. and say nice things and tweet in new york."

you wouldn't say that. i mean, you'd say, "all right, talk is fine. here's what we want complete dismantling of the syrian chemical weapons program." that's what i would say to iran. it's not they wouldn't talk to them. i'd talk to them, and i'd be very clear. and very tough. i would tell them here's the package. if you don't adopt the package, we'll increase the sanctions. and if we increase sanctions, they'll collapse. choose, but it's whole package-- dismantle your program fully, no enrichment capacity left. >> schieffer: for all his deep concern over iran, netanyahu told me he is seeing signs of a new mindset in the arab world where it is recognized that israel and some arab countries may share common enemies. that, he believes could present an historic opportunity. what would that opportunity be? are you talking about israel in

some sort of an alliance with arab countries? >> i don't know if i'd call it an alliance, but i would say there's something i hadn't seen in my lifetime, and that is a real sharp refocusing of priorities in the arab world. remember, these societies have been inundated for 60, 70 years with anti-israeli propaganda. israel is the source of all your problems. this is why we have mis expree so on. that is clearly not the case. you can see israel has nothing to do with what is going on in libya or what ising if on in syria or yemen-- >> schieffer: you could actually see-- >> they got that-- >> schieffer: working with say, many some of the gulf states? >> i think there is a different perspective now. how that translates into practice will take time. i think that they understand that we have to address the central problem of iran's

nuclear weapons and perfectly they're very much concerned with what is happening in syria. they want to see a durable peace between us and the palestinians, but a real peace there, too. they don't want fake piece peace. nobody wants fake things anymore. we want real things that match the situation on the ground. >> schieffer: and we'll be back in one minute. and the best move of all? having the right partner at my side. it's so much better that way. [ male announcer ] have the right partner at your side. consider an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. go long.

this analysis of what we just heard. gwen ifill is coanchor of the pbs's ""newshour" "moderator of "washington week. dana milbank from the "washington post," jim vandettei, from politico, and rounding out the group, our own john dickerson. john dickerson, where do you see this government shutdown ending? is there a way out of this mess? >> well, there may be but we should-- looking at where things are now, i mean, if you look at the white house positions, they see the republicans are totally

divided, shooting at each other in public and saying things in private unmentionable, particularly the house very conservative caucus-- >> schieffer: and you're saying that about republicans. >> the democrats think as long as we're united and they're divided we're nay good place. they think we'll keep the pressure and the house will have to cave. you talk to house republicans and they say the president cannot on this debt limit question with so much in peril, the president, it's not tenable for him to just say i'm not going to negotiate because the polls show that people want some spending reductions in exchange for an increase in the debt limit, and also they sort of expect a president to do this. so that's kind of where things are. is there a happy place they can get to because things are pretty grim right now? the model might be, based on some reporting i've done, the debt limit increase that the republicans voted for in january of 2013. republicans voted for it. it was considered a clean debt limit increase, which is what the president wants, nothing tied to it. but on the side was an agreement that the senate would vote for a

budget or lose their pay. now, that was a separate agreement bfs it was kind of coupled with it. the idea is could thereby a clean debt limit increase that meets the president's criteria but also an agreement between harry reid and john boehner that they would have future discussions on a list of specific issues and that way everybody gets to pretend they got what they want and avoid the calamity of a debt limit breach. >> some day i want to be an optimist but today i am a pessimist. they're probably going to have a solution like every one we've seen in the last three years-- a bad one, short-term one. there's no way out of the this box at this point other than republicans are going to be forced to increase the debt limit. i think john boehner signaled privately they're going to do it, they're going to do trarl what he's saying over the weekend. the problem is, any solution gets to what you're talking about, doing these broader ideas-- pleat do entitlement reform, tax reform. they can't. they've tried. they come from different

worlds. there is no common ground on these poornz they'll say let's punt this another couple of months, let's punt that another couple of months, and we're going to keep relitigating this exact same debate, i think sadly, until after the 2014 elections. >> schieffer: you know, gwen, i was just thinking, i guess you and i were both covering congress back in the days we had the last one of these. >> i'm afraid we were. >> schieffer: how different is this one? >> it feels more toxic except when you go back and review who people had to say at the time, they were using the same words, hostages and extortion." the difference is there was an election year coming hard on the 1995 closure so people really had to get with the program because there was going to be an electoral consequence. bob, i want to congress you for chasing jacob lew and john cornyn around the table to try to get them to say something this morning. clearly, the reason they had very little to say to move the the ball is because very little is happening. they're out of town. there are no secret meetings going on. i think boehner said on another network this morning there was a backroom, but nobody was in it.

this idea of punting i think is the best possible outcome and how sad is that? i think they're all hoping for external-- whether it's wall street revolting, whether it's the american public, public opinion polls slidingly-- they're look for something else to force them to do the job they agree the other side should be coul dike. >> isn't it different this time around. in 1996, there were moderates in washington. even today when you talk about a republican moderate in the house. we need to find a new word. they were not moderate, they're not pro-life or prolabor. you could say slightly less conservative republican who might be willing to wheel and deal but it's just a different world today in washington. >> there may be two dozen moderates but not enough to make enough of a difference. but i think that's the dynamic and that's the difference between '95 and '96 you're not necessarily dealing with reasonable people. they have mabel 50 died hard conservatives in the house and 150 republicans who are terrified of being praerd by one

of those. you know what? americans are oppose to the shutdown, but 57% in the cbs poll of tea party members said they're just fine with the shutdown. so they're responding perfectly rational to their elect exprait have no reason to budget even if it's doing something bad to their open country or the party. >> schieffer: i must say, dana, you must feel like you've died and gone to heav nen that you write a column about what's going on in washington, and while i think maybe you kept some of us laughing when we probably would have been crying otherwise on both sides because you have pointed out the absurdity of this over and over again. >> yes, for me it's an embarrassment of riches. unfortunately, sort of what's good for me is not necessarily what's going goodfor the national interest so i'd be very happy to sacrifice some of the humor they're producing if people could behave rationally. >> schieffer: talk to me about ted cruz. this is really unusual in this town built on seniority, where you have a freshman senator who is not only emerged as the leader of this in the senate but

is leading the house rrngz sometimes against their own leader. >> more than that. he's a complete phone pep i met ted cruz 15 years ago. he wasn't some tea party guy. he was an ambitious kid working for the bush campaign, ivy league debater, and basically what he saw is, hey, sarah palin can do that in 2010. i can ride this tea party. i can take it to town, and i can get really famous, really fast. he's absolute right. he's a real smart guy. he's playing this game very well. i feel bad for john cornyn who is a serious man who actually could cut a deal. >> you can say cruz is a political genius to some extent. he is the one of the few people who recognizes politics today is so different than it was 10 years ago. nobody cares what leadership has to say. we have lot of weak leaders and the grass roots, if you're clever about intervening in primary and exploiting campaign finance laws which very much work to the favor of outside groups at the expense of the establishment you can have awesome power and he has that.

>> is ted cruz leading the parade or did he see the parade and got to the front. >> a little both. >> ted cruz was not the one who came up with the idea, the grand strategy, financed lavishly by conservative groups to defund obamaed care. they've never taken their eye off the ball. i don't think the democrats will saw that coming. >> rewind the clock to 2010. the minute the health care bill was signed into law, the republicans had every right to say we're winning. they've cut government, won more than seats than democrats have won, they they feel like-- and they're right if you look at the polls-- that obamacare is unpopular. that's why the strategy seems so crazy. they were winning. >> schieffer: why is it so many house republicans have no problems with this. they see these polls about this, but they're much different than the situation in their home district. >> that's right. one fact, if we look back at 1995, president clinton at the time could put pressure on some house republicans. why? because he had won in 79 house

districts. there were 79 republicans where bill clt won in their dispringtz now there are only 17 republicans who are in districts that barack obama won. so they don't feel the pressure from a president. their constituents, many are grass-roots tea party folks who got really energized in 2010 based on the president's health care plan so, they're not going to listen to the president. so they're anxious and fine about this with this government shutdown. i think another thing that is a part of this is both in the house and senate, the ted cruzs of the world-- when hubert humphrey tried to take his party on immediately when he came to washington over civil rights among the southern democrat he got slapped back immediately because the leaders had power and his rise in life was going to be determined by those senate leaders. ted cruz's rise in life is determined by the grass roots. and mitch mcconnell who cowed, if he had the power of a party leader of 40 years to go, could try to punish him, but mitch mcconnell is look over his own

shoulder with his own tea party college in his state with his upcoming election. ted cruz has found a new way to power and the power of the people who might restrain him has been diminished. >> schieffer: can i add what i think is one lesson in all of this that i think people on both sides-- never pass a law again that doesn't go into effect immediately. what you have had here with this health care law, you pass it, and nobody really knew what was in it. it's 2,000 pages. it didn't go into effect for two years. so the people who might have benefited and saw some good in this, they-- a lot of them don't even know what those parts of it are. there are also some parts are not too good that have to be straightened out. but the fact, is the opponentes of this have had two years to just go at it from all different angles, and the-- you know, the law is not on the books yet. i i think if this had gone into effect immediately i think you'd have a very different

situation. >> a plot did go into effect immediately, especially the part that allowed young people to stay on their parents' health insurance. >> schieffer: people don't know that. >> the failure is the white house saying we have it now, let's relax, everybody will know how good it is. because it was such a huge bill twasn't all going to go into effect at once, but the white house, if the ball was dropped, was in selling it in a consistent, never taking your foot off the gas pedal way so people would not be so confused when the big part kim kicked in, the big, complicated part. >> we're piling on republicans here at the panel, but the white house carries a lot of blame here. if you talk to democrats off the record they, would say this is a weak white house, in the performance of the health care bill has been weak in large part because of the president. they pass this historic piece of legislation and did nothing to educate the american people. they left a huge void. so again it gets to ted cruz and being politically smart. what do you do when there's a void? pump a little bit of money. not even a lot in terms of the politics, pump a little money to change public opinion against it. >> schieffer: it strikes me

we're 50 years this year since lyndon johnson became president. and in a funny kind of way, his legacy is being enhanced every day in every day way. >> true, he had a very-- >> schieffer: because he knew how to deal with a congress. he was one of the-- >> it was a different congress. >> he had a very different congress to deal with. >> schieffer: yes, but could he make a difference today if he were here rather than barack obama? >> a stronger leader would make a different. when this president was strong, he got health care passed. when he takes his foot off the accelerator. he's winning the showdown debate because he said i'm not negotiating and sticking to it. this is a president who likes to negotiate with himself. when he is strong or any president is strong, he gets stuff done. >> so then the question is and that's true-- the from the feels the heat from democrats wh democrats who have seen him capitulate in the part-- you hear this from white house aide oolz we worry the republicans don't think we're serious about not negotiating on the debt limit, and they insist of the president feels this in his bones that he's not going to negotiate over the debt limit,

and in somewhat that case he would be answering the leadership questions by saying i'll be the leader here, i'm not going to negotiate. and the ultimate outcome of that, is frepublicans hold their position is-- >> where we are right now. >> schieffer: you know, tben, there are some constitutional scholars who say the president doesn't really need the congress' permission to raise the debt limit. do you think there's any chance he might just go ahead and do it? >> let's put it this way-- he hasn't triewld out. it's entirely possible he could use executive privilege, the tenets of the 14th amendment to do that, but i think that's up against the wall. jim just said something interesting, which is whether the country is ungovernable. i would argue the country is not ungovernable. it is possible washington is right now. in fact, governors are doing the job that the they're not doing in washington, and they're either stepping forward or away from the health care plan, in ways that affect people's lives, which is not happening in washington. >> when it domentz heart of the question for court lyndon johnson come in and govern it's possible the answer is no.

i do think we forget about the structural problems we have right now as a country. empirically we're extremely polarized. the filibuster has radicalized the senate. there's not a middle to be had. we'll never know-- if you roll back the clock and the president had engaged people from day one and had relationships and had cut cutsome deals, could we number a different spot in maybe. i think what president obama would say is no. they will never negotiate with me. never wanted to. never will at a. never will tomorrow. >> schieffer: but both lyndon johnson and franklin roosevelt had the ability to understand how much the country could swallow at one time. f.d.r. didn't just the minute the germans started moving across europe declare war -- >> the country wasn't willing to accept the civil rights act. >> schieffer: the country wasn't ready and johnson broke it into two part. you had the '64 civil rights bill and the '65. he knew you couldn't do it all at once. was the president's health care

law just too much at one time? >> well, i mean, that would be the rahm emanuel argument back in time. remember, there was an argumented in the white house to do this smaller because the country is not ready to do it in a pig way, like you talked about. that was rejected by the president and a few of his closest advisers. then the bill was passed along party lines. i think that's another lesson. when you're gog pass huge legislation like this, if it's done exclusively with one-party vote it gets really hard to win public support for it until it fully kicks in and people see an appreciable difference in their life. >> schieffer: i almost forgot about this, the president was asked as an interview if he thought the washington redskins ought to change their name. here's what he said. >> i don't, there are any redskins fan that mean offense. i've got to say if i were the owner of the team and i knew that there was a name of my team even if it had a storied history that was offending a sizable

group of people, i'd think-- i'm think about changing it. >> schieffer: what's your reaction to that gidon't cover-up sports so i can say i call it the washington football team. i don't use the name anymore because i think it's unnecessarily offense and i have what's the point. i have a lot of friends who are big washington football team fans who are not happy with me about this. i just don't understand what the point is. i know it's a nickname. what's the point. >> needless to say he's on the front page of my newspaper with those thrarkz morning. i think it's a fine point that the president should not be making in the middleave crisis. >> it was the last question in an interview. >> as long as the packers remain the packers and beat the redskins every year, i'm a happy man. >> schieffer: thank you all very much for coming.

us today. we hope you tune into "cbs this morning" tomorrow for the latest on the government shutdown, on the two terror raids, and for us we'll be back next week right

here on "face the nation." so we could be a better, safer energy company. i can tell you - safety is at the heart of everything we do. we've added cutting-edge technology, like a new deepwater well cap and a state-of-the-art monitoring center, where experts watch over all drilling activity twenty-four-seven. and we're sharing what we've learned, so we can all produce energy more safely. our commitment has never been stronger.

captioning sponsored by cbs captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

♪ >>dean: hi, welcome back to hometime. we're going to take a couple of neighborhood backyards and make thewht mo homeowner friendly. >>miriam: yep. there's not a whole lot of space to work with, but that doesn't mean you're limited to the grass and the small tree that they now have in each yard. one of the homeowners tried to enhance things with a small paver patio, but there have been some issues there so we'll talk about what went wrong. and we're going to get some good ideas from the landscape designer putting together plans for both yards which we'll be charging into over the next couple of shows. >>dean: we're not talking about a lot of real estate but we will