>> rose: welcome to the program. we begin this evening with the former deputy director of the cia, michael morell. >> there's been i think some mistranslation of theirmost of e islamic state of iraq and syria. the translation is actually the islamic, theks.  islamic statef iraq in greater syria. and greater syria to arabs includes not only syria but all of the labon. >> rose: labon's in the name. what does that mean. >> so down into lebanon, into parts of syria and actually parts of israel. so that i think eye have two

goals. they use it to attack the west. i think those are the two goals. >> rose: in a 9/11 kind of attack. >> absolutely, absolutely. this is, charlie, this is the most serious, this is the most serious set of circumstances we've seen in the middle east since the 1973 war i think. >> rose: we conclude this evening with the star of veep, julia louis-dreyfus. >> i always wanted to act. i mean i never thought about i'm going to get into comedy. i've never done stand up or anything like that. i mean these jobssgotten in my n mainly comedic. not everything but a lot of them have been. it's a happy place for me to work. >> rose: mike morell and julia louis-dreyfus when we continue.

>> there's a saying around here: you stand behind what you say. around here, we don't make excuses, we make commitments. and when you can't live up to them, you own up and make it right. some people think the kind of accountability that thrives on so many streets in this country has gone missing in the places where it's needed most. but i know you'll still find it, when you know where to look. captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> rose: michael morell is here. he was deputy director of the

c.i.a. from 2010 to 2013,. twice during that time he served as acting director. the battle for iraq continues, the militants have advanced through the country capturing towns and executing shiites. the insurgents fought for control of the city less than 40 milesth of baghdad. the united states has moved personnel into iraq to protect embassy staff. john kerry indicated that air strikes were under consideration as was cooperation with iran. i'm very pleased to have michael morell back on this program to talk about the crises in the middle east today. welcome. >> thank you charly. it's always ggi!d÷ to be with y. >> rose: u.s. special operation forces captured one of the suspected ring leaders of the terrorist attacks in benghazi in a secret raid over the weekend. one of the perpetrators of the 2012 assault has been apprehended according to u.s. officials. the officials said he was

captured sunday near benghazi by american troops working alongside the f.b.i. following months of planning. what can you tell us about him. >> so he is believed to be one of the ring leaders, one of the guys who led the attack on that night in benghazi. so i'm getting our hands on him is important for two reasons. one is to send a message to everybody else that no longer, no matter how long it takes we're going to get you. message number one. the second reason it's important charlie is because we're going to be able to ask him a lot of the questions that we struggled with. >> rose: exactly. >> right. so you know, we believe there was, c.i.a. believed there wasn't a lot of pre planning. the intelligence community believed there wasn't a lot of pre(d53ek. now we'll be able to find out from him how much pre planning there was. we have ideas about what motivated these guys. but we've always, we said all along we're not really going to know what motivated them until we get our hands on one of them.

now we have our hands on one of the ring leaders we're going to find out what really motivated these guys to go to that diplomatic facility that night. >> rose: that's the big question we want to know why did he go there that night and what did they do when he got there. >> and how much pre planning. >> rose: and what else do we want to know from him. >> who else was involved. what other groups were involved, to what extent was al-qaeda in the islamic involved, to what extent were other al-qaeda groups were involved, that's what i want to know from him. >> rose: was this a hard get for the u.s. >> i think it was difficult to, we knew i was in benghazi obviously some reporters talked to him. >> rose: you seen him. >> right. but in order to actually capture somebody, you havethey're goingy the right time, right. and that's finding somebody and fixing them, right, in a place and time and a location in time to be able to go get them. >> rose: you said the cia has suspicions as to what their

motivation was. what are they. >> what c.i.a. said at the time was that what we believed motivated these guys was watching what happened at the u.s. embassy inazawhere that sas went over the fence, burned vehicles, did damage. what we believed is that the guys this benghazi, the extremists in benghazi, the terrorists in benghazi saw that and said hey let's go do some damage of our own. we later a couple weeks later added to that andanother possib. that's one possibility, there's another possibility. and that other possibility was the day before the attack on september 10th, he encouraged libyans to take revenge for the killing of a senior al-qaeda official in pakistan a couple weeks earlier. hediso he said take revenge.

that could be a motivation too. that encouragement came the day before. but we also added look, we don't know for sure what the motivation was here. and we're not going to find out until we get somebody. >> rose: so he'll have some of the answers if he's talking. >> yes. >> rose: where will he be interrogated. >> i don't know. one possibility is to interrogate him on a u.s. military ship. that gives you some time before you have to read him his maranda rights. but he could also be brought back to the united states directly. so i don't know what the planning is but i think those are the two options. >> rose: bkznow let me turn to . where do you think we are on the ground based on what you might know and what you might from both reading and because you are so familiar with these circumstances. >> so i think the isis advance has slowed.

they were cutting through iraqi cities like butter. they took mozel. they took a number of other cities. they haven't gotten much closer to baghdad the last three or four days thanp days ago. i think the resistance has stiffened. the resistance has stiffened as better iraqi troops have shown up. and as shi'a militia groups have gotten back into the game. remember shi'a militia groups were very important during the 2003-2006-2008 period, largely funded trained equipped by the iranians. i'm sure the iranians are encouraging them again and funding them and providing weapons to them again. but they've joined this fight now and i think that will also make it more difficult for isis to move forward. so i think there's a bit of

this, i think we're moving into a bit of a stalemate on the ground. >> rose: that's two kinds of malicious -- militias we don't like. where are all the iranians and what do they do other than encouraging the shiite militia to get engaged. >> charlie, maybe the best way to talk about the iranians here is to talk about what i see as the three possible scenarios going forward, okay. and the first scenario is the partition of iraq. the end of iraq as a unified state. and i fear that if there is no intervention on the part of anyone in iraq going forward, that's where we're going teend up. >> rose: you end up kurds --

>> you'll have the kurds in the north. that's a very very bad outcome. >> because. >> number one you'll have sectarian violence. they will be fighting each other. civilians, iraqi civilians will die. there will be an awful lot of blood. there will be humanitarian crises. two is u.s. prestige will take another hit. we were going to create this new iraq, and we end up with a divided iraq, a partitioned iraq. third is that the sunni's aren't just the sunnies in in russian iraq. this is al-qaeda in russiantheya safe haven from which to attack western europe and from which to

attack the homeland. forth is that it puts the kurds into an interesting position because the kurds have to decide do we just stay as part of this iraq that doesn't exist anymore or do we declare our independence. and if they were to declare their independence, then the kurds who are in turkey and the kurds who are in syria and the kurds who are in iran would want to join them. >> rose: is that a bad thing. >> that's5y7b a very bad thing because the turks wouldn't allow it and the iranians wouldn't allow it. so you'd have a war in the north. and then i think the other bad part of a division of iraq is it could spill over to the rest of the region. as you know, charlie, these are all lines drawn on a map with not a lot of meaning to them. and so the division of one part of middle east that was drawn by the british almost a hundred years ago puts at risk the rest

of those lines that were drawn. so i think that is a very bad outcome. the second possible outcome which would happen with significant iranian intervention is what i call the iraq holds together under a shi'a dictatorship. so what happens is the iranians come in big like they are in syria but even perhaps bigger. so it's not only the force, it's not only the shi'a militia they've trained and equipped. it may be actually iranian troops themselves who defeat isis pretty quickly and subjugate the sunnis. so in essence what happens is you have an iraq as you did under saddam but the leader is a shi'a. that is bad news for the united

states, although it gets rid of isis. that'svstates because it a big y for iran. they would essentially have a puppet state in iraq in that scenario. >> rose: would they keep maliki if they did that, do you think. >> as long as he did what they wanted him to do. i think maliki would stay because he would beinvite them . and in a region where there is essentially a cold war going on between iran on the one hand and the moderate sunni states on the other, this would be -- >> rose: saudi arabia and others. >> saudi arabia and others, this would be a big victory for the iranians. >> rose: and the battle is for primary see in the region. >> it's for influence and primacy in the region, absolutely. and then the third outcon outcome which i call iraq

reemerges under a new dact see. and in this case, all the sides come together. the united states, the moderate sunni states and iran come together and they put pressure on the various pieces inside of iraq put together a new governing coalition. one that includes all the players. and one that agrees.they're goir al-qaeda. and so what you would have is actually bringing the moderate sunnis back into the fold inside of iraq and getting those sunnis to agree they're going to take on al-qaeda just the way they did in the -- >> rose: in the surge and thea. >> exactly the reawakening. for that to happen there has to be pressure on all sides and maliki hassing to go because

maliki has no trust among the sunnis, zero. so now he has to go and be replaced by a new leader capable of bringing people together. >> rose: so number three would be the one united states would. i assume when the president talks about diplomatic solution that's what he hopes. >> when secretary kerry are talking about the iranians, they're talking about number three. >> rose: why should the iranians do this. >> that's the problem. there's two problems with number three, right, is getting maliki to step down. two is finding a shi'a leader who is going to do the right thing in terms of bringing the sunnis in. getting the trust of the sunnis, getting the sunnis to buy in after they've been burned once here in this process. and getting the iranians to buy in. because quite frankly the best outcome for the iranians is number two. >> rose: exactly. they have control. >> right. now when i think about probabilities associated with these, i put the highest

probability on one which is the break up, right. and then on number two. >> rose: so the best solution is the least likely. >> yes, is the way an intelligence officer would think about it and present it to the president of the united states. so when i think about, charlie when i think about where are we really here there are four things i think about. one is, one is not the decision to go into iraq in theuáplace. i think that is actually defensible. but i'll leave that to historians to figure out. the first mistake that was made was debaathification in early 2003. the coalition provisional authorities order number one was that any member of the baath party had to be removed from government and could never come back. >> rose: rather than saying only those at the top. >> correct, correct. and order number two, i believe the same day or the next day was

that all of those iraqi institutions that were close to the baath party had to be disbanded. there went the iraqi military and the iraq intelligence service creating a vacuum.so thd a bathroom in which sunni insurgentants filled and al-qaeda and iraq[j+] filled. so that was mistake number one. this waso:

clearly there was syria and clearly there was other things the iranians about nuclear. and so there were iraqi government that was more and influence. >> right. so this brings me actually to my second and third reasons why we are where we are. you've captured them both very nicely. the first of those, the second overall after debaathification is to get forces agreement. why was that important. having u.s. forces on the ground i thought did two things. one, it was a restraining, it was a restraining factor on maliki's authoritarian tendencies. and then the second those forces on the ground provided the iraqis with some military capabilities that they did not have. intelligencetlargely and some l.

so when we left at the end of 20 11, we left an iraqi military that didn't have the capability to take on al-qaeda. and we also left a maliki who wanted to show that he was a sovereign, didn't want to deal with the united states, didn't want to accept our help. and we left a maliki who every day was becoming more and more authoritarian and who every day was taking steps to push the sunni away and creating tremendous resentment among them. so he forced sunni out of senior government positions. he tried to arrest a number of three very senior sunnis in his own government. there were protests in the sunni areas of iraq against those things and he crushed them. so he created a tremendous amount of resentiment in the

sunni areas so that when isis returned, they were well consulted by the sunnis. they were embraced by the sunnis because people were so frustrated with maliki. so it's maliki's behavior which is the third factor here behind where we are. >> rose: do you think the sunnis who joined3pkyup with iss thought they could control isis and just used them as a military means because they clearly youce objective they did. >> no. but they're just so anti-maliki. >> rose: it's revenge. >> it's revenge right and end my enemy kind of thing. and then the fourth factor for whyp!9tñ are where we are is syria. so isis is a descendent of al-qaeda and iraq, of aqi. they were already battle tested in iraq. but they became even more battle tested in syria. and their numbers grew as a result of syria. so most of the foreign fighters who have come into syria to

fight with al-qaeda have ended up with isis. so their numbers have grown as$a result of syria. and isis has gotten its hands on additional funding and additional weapons. >> rose: from? >> from those who support the jihad. there are those in the middle east, not governments but there are those in the middle east who believe in bin laden's message who believe in the fight who send checks. >> rose: does this include the foundations in saudi arabia and the places it supported. >> so i say rich gulf arabs who don't think about the world the right way. >> rose: is it religious for them. >> it's religious for them and ideological for them. it's people walking outside of a mosque and putting money inside the basket. >> rose: tell me about the leader of isis. >> we don't know much about him.

there aren't great pictures of him. he is reclusive. he practices high quality, i wouldn't say extraordinary but high quality operational security. the iraqi as far as -- >> rose: what does that mean, high quality operational security. >> doesn't, communicates in ways that doesn't let somebody find his location. doesn't showl20q up on tv a lot. you know, give messages largely through audio rather than video. >> rose: but it is said at the same time that he and theyo are laying outis and what they . >> right. >> rose: they want to createkrñ a new state. >> right. so there's been somemistranslat. so most of the time you hear it as the islamic state of iraq and syria. >> rose: right. >> right. the translation is actually the islamic, the islamic state of

iraq in greater syria. and greater syria to arabs includes not only syria but all of the labon. >> rose: because labo in is in the name. so what does that mean. >> down into lebanon and parts of syria and actually parts of israel. so that i think isis has two goals, this regional that they talk about and the other is to use the regional to attack the west. i think those are the two goals. >> rose: in a 9/11 kind of attack. >> absolutely, absolutely. charlie, this is the most serious, this is the most serious set of circumstances we've seen in the middle east since the 1973 war, i think. >> between the arab neighbors of

israel and israel. so therefore what are the options for the united states if it's that serious? >> so i think we've got to go all in for number three, right. now going in for all in for number three to me means diplomatic negotiations at the highest levels, intense pressure on maliki, intense pressure on the kurds and intense pressure onyfrom us but from the moderate states that are hands off with iraq because they don't like maliki. they have to get over that, right. they have to get over the fact that the shi'a are in charge in iraq and they have to deal with the new iraq. >> rose: they don't like isis because eye cision wants -- isis wants to get rid of them as well. >> let's their incentive here to play. it's not just diplomatic in my

mind. there's a military play here that's part of number three as well. providing assistance to iraqi in equipment and airputting guys oa small number to help the iraqis make the right strategic7m4tact. makes it harder for them to come in the second scenario. >> rose: so if you were advising the president today based on the experience you just said you would urge, i'll go through the list. you would urge them to put some forces in !dñ to train the iraqis.>> i wod say advise and assist. >> rose: what kind of weapons would you give them. >> whatever they need. >> rose: whatever they need. >> yes. >> rose: if they needed air

support you would give that. >> yes. >> rose: and four drones if that was appropriate. >> yes. when i think about air strikes, i think about f16s, i think about drones. >> rose: here's the problem some say. it's not an easy air strike. >> no it's not. >> rose: because$!p(ñ you haveo be precise or you turn the)zq)ñ population against you. >> i said that. and so if you're going to do air strikes, you got to have intelligence because in order to be precise you have to know exactly what you're shooting at and make sure there's no civilians around when you take thau 9x shot.so you can't do air strs until you get the intelligence place right. they go together. or you are going to turn, you are going to turn the population against us. and you're going to increase the focus that isis will put on us. so you got to do it right. so it's;tathat some military plt of getting number three right.

>> rose: in baghdad today perhaps, i can't pronounce the first name, general salamone. >> i haven't met him. >> rose: but you know people that have. >> he's the second most powerful person in iran. he reports directly. >> rose: only the ayatollah. >> the supreme leader. he has command to the supreme leader but he doesn't use it, he goes around hip. the supreme3ó b leader treats hm like a son. he treats the supreme leader like a father. they're totally in sync what they sees a long term interest. he essentially runs their special forces, iranian special forces. their covertlabroad. they're engaged in syria and hezbollah. he's taking now two trips to iraq in the last two weeks in order to find out to what extent

iran could help maliki. >> rose: before that he went to damascus. >> yes. >> rose: here's what's interesting about him. this is according to dexter filkins who wrote a piece about him in the "new york" magazine. there's been conversations taken place between some of6gw3 his e and his people into what depth it was i don't know. but dexter reported that conversation. asthem the axis of evil happene, he shut it down and felt like they had been betrayed. >> so i don't believe that he has any interest in a better relationship with the united states. >> rose: or ever did. >> or ever did. >> rose: because he saw that as a way for the iranians to achieve>> because he understandt their fundmental objective, right, which is power and

influence in the middle east will be, we will try to constrain that, we will try to stop that because it comes at1oy right. >> rose: you believe that's what the ayatollah believes as well. >> yes. >> rose: so suppose you were in baghdad now and had a conversation with him. what would you try to change? how would you want, what conversation would you want to have with him? >> so i would want to have a conversation, i would want to have a conversation, the same kind of conversation that i have with all of my colleagues around the world. you want to have a conversation where you find common ground, where you find a national security issue or set of national security issues where you can agree on. and fact of the matter is, while today al-qaeda in syria and al-qaeda in iraq is seenaas somy

are fighting a moderate opposition, over the long term, they have, iran has absolutely no interest in al-qaeda. because they know that if al-qaeda grows stronger in the region, eventually al-qaeda's going to come after them. so. >> rose: because it's shi'a sunni or because it's something else. >> absolutely. because it's shi'a sunni and it's arab persian, it's both. >> rose: so the conversation with him would be where is the common ground, where is the common ground. what's the common ground. >> the common>> rose: convincee common ground. why should i give up my strategy and my goal, my strategy. >> that's why this is hard, right, is because it would be very difficult to convince him that the isis is a long term threat to him. >> rose: because he believed they could take him out when they want to. >> because he believes that with time, if assad wins in syria,

that assad in a matter of months could deal with al-qaeda in syria and with the right -- >> rose: before i go too far. if assad wins in syria that means he could do what. if he wins he could do what. >> if assad wins in syria, if the civil war ends in syria, then in a matter of months, he will dismantle al-qaeda in syria. >> rose: within a matter of months. >> yes. >> rose: all of the radical elements. >> ruthlessly. >> rose: how attractive is that to us notwithstanding that he has been all the bad person he's been. how attractive is that to us at this moment in history. >> this raises a really interesting kind of way to think about syria, right. there's actually a number of wars going on in syria, not just one. and each of them point in a slightly different direction in terms of what u.s. policy should be. i won't go throughxcjps& five t one of them is a proxy war

between the moderate gulf states and iran. this fight for influence. it's abby proxy war in syria. the moderate arab states have their proxy, it's the moderate opposition in syria. iran hasw4úç its proxy in syria. assad and the shi'a militia, and they're fighting over future influence in the middle east. who should we support in that fight? easy. the saudi arabia and the moderate gulf states. we should be all in with them. but another one of the five wars is a warstate and al-qaeda. the secular arab state is assad. and he's fighting al-qaeda. who should we support in that war? >> rose: assad. >> assad, right. so that's one of the reasons this makes this so difficult. now the problem is, if assad wins, right, we fix the al-qaeda

problem. but iran is the big winner. if awe sunday loses. >> rose: hezbollah and iran are the big winners. >> if assad loses then we've got this mess in syria. >> rose: may take over syria. >> we've got a mess in syria, it may break apart and they have a safe heron. the big losers are iran and hezbollah but we're also big losers right because of the potential for spillover and save haven. it's a mess. >> rose: let me put this on the table. it's not our problem. it's too complicated. we can't make this work. whatever mistakes have been made have beenyou guys fight it out. >> so i would say two things to that. one is, one is that, one of our

best allies on the planet is in the middle. that's a strategy interest in the united states and a political interest. 70-80% of the american public sports the state of israel. we believe our relationship with israel should be stronger so we've got to worry about israel. the second is the spare capacity in the oil market is still in the middle east. and to the extent that you have instability in the middle east, you can drive up oil prices significantly. >> rose: what's been happening is it's been driving up oil prices. >> already, yes. >> rose: so that's the reason we can't say it's your problem, deal with it. we can't, it's not just that we want to leave it to you because you got to figure it out and it has to come from you. it's beyond that you have to ask yourself can we make a difference. if number three doesn't work which is the least likely to

work, we're almost there. >> so in three, right, in three not only do you build this coalition government of all three parties. but you also i think end up giving more autonomy to the different parts of iraq which is what the sunnis want and the kurds want. so you have more of a federation. there's been a big debate all along in washington whether that's a good thing or bad thing but in order to hold iraq together, you may need to give more autonomy to the regions. a little bit more decision-making happened outside of baghdad and the in the rages. -- and in the regions. that may be a requirement of number three. >> rose: where is russia in this? they support the syrians, they have relationship with the iranians. >> so russia with vis-a-vis syria, right. russia vis-a-vis syria has three interests, three interests. one is for the u.s. to just fail, right. that's putin being putin. two is, it is their only

military base outside of russia. & and -- and three is the assad versus al-qaeda war. he does not want al-qaeda on his continent. he doesn't like terrorists. he doesn't want these people going up into the caucuses and causing more problems for him. those are his interests in syria that's why he's doing what he's doing in syria. how is he thinking about iraq? i don't know. i haven't seen any statements he's made recently. i think his focus in iraq would be just what it is in syria, you know. make the u.s. look back. but also don't allow the terrorists to get a foot hold. those are the two things he will be thinking about. >> rose: the final question i have because i know you have to go back to washington is, is it possible that there's some grand bargain with the iranians in which we agree to bring them in

here and they agree to do something on nuclear so that we can solve that problem. >> no, i don't think so. i don't think so. >> rose: there's no wild card around. >> no. for two reasons. one is while there's interesting in bringing them into discussion in scenario three in the diplomatic solution there's no interest at all in letting the iranians, iranian military go on the round in a big way. >> rose: is it possible that therin tehran? is it different or do you always say look the supreme leader makes all the decisions and the person he listens to is not -- >> i believe and there's differences of opinion on this. but i believe that ruhani doesn't matter. the who the president of iran is doesn't matter to the national security policies of the state. the person that matters is the

supreme leader. and as long as we have this supreme leader, we're going to get the kinds of policies that we've seen all of iran which is support to terrorism and the pursuit of and the desire to be power in the middle east. >> rose: intelligence is not easy, is it. >> it's not easy. it's not easy. >> rose: thank you, mike. >> you're welcome. good to be with you. >> rose: back in a moment, stay with us. >> get out. >> rose: julia louis-dreyfus is here. rolling stone magazine calls her the first lady of comedy, i repeat the first lady of comedy. for nine years she made us laugh

as young forgettable elainebennd has won emmy awards and they've renewed the show. she's produced a new season about her art collecting father william louis-dreyfus and is donating many of them to a non-profit in new york. i am pleased to have julia louis-dreyfus back at this table. welcome. >> thank you very much. >> rose: tell me who your character is. >> oh lord, who is she. she's a political animal who is been i would say too long inside the beltway and is someone who is desperate for power and also obviously completely frustrated and thwarted by power. and has sort of lost her moral center. >> rose: just like people in

washington and hollywood. >> yes, to a certain extent, yes. >> rose: you have talked about that. what is the parallel. >> well, i mean i think the parallels are that you have to constantly be working to stay alive, you know, to stay sort of crucial and you're selling yourself in a sense. you're selling a brand, i guess you could say. and you are, you're selling an image of yourself. hopefully you know there's more depth to it than that but we're talking about it. >> rose: in a broad stroke. >> right. >> rose: there are good places in both places and don't suffer from the stereotype. >> right. you're looking at one of them. >> rose: there's also this though. it's often said people in washington really love people in hollywood want to be with them. people in hollywood love power in washington and want to be with them. >> i think that's true. >> rose: you love each other. there's also the ego thing there's a lot of ul lation as

will. >> this is somebody who, i feel bad for her. there's a terrible person in many ways but i understand why she's as frustrated and angry and narcissistic as she is. >> rose: when you heard about the script, you wanted the role. you said to everybody around, this is for me. >> oh lord, yes. >> rose: lord. >> i heard. there wasn't even a script. i just heard the contact, i heard unhappy vice president. i'm like i'm in. i've got to have this job. >> rose: what was it about that small description that made you in? >> what's not to love? i mean, she's, first of all the vice president, not president. so immediately there's sort of you know with all due respect, yes, there's a conflict there. there's a problem. she's number two. who wants toí3 be number two ultimately. if you're running a race, do you want to come in second?

oh, you don't. and so she's not happy about it. it sounded very ripe to me for need and it's proven to be the case. >> rose: you have a certain familiarity with washington. you grew up between washington and new york. >> i did, yes. >> rose: you've been a politician. >> never, never. >> rose: could you have been if you weren't a comedian and actress. >> i think the only thing i could have been, i don't know if this job exists but if somebody could give me money to buy thing for myself. is that job available? other than that i have no skills. >> rose: if your father sold all his paintings and gave all the money to you. i would imagine if he would choose between you. >> i don't know. >> rose: did you do the right thing for you. >> yes. >> rose: you have a great marriage. >> i have a very very great marriage.

very great. i mean you know it's a beautiful marriage and i have a lovely >> rose: and you work together. >> yes, we do, we work together. >> rose: you sit down and say we love it. >> what's nice is that we've obviously known each other a long time and we have a similar sensibility and an aesthetic sense and so most recently we made this documentary and. >> rose: about your father. >> about my father. >> rose: generosity. >> generosity of eye. anybody can go on the computer and just go to generosity of eye.com and they can watch it for free. >> rose: and it's about. >> it's about my father and he's been a an art collector for you know 50 years now and he's amassed a huge collection. he made a decision to set it up as an endowment to benefit the -- >> rose: did he sell it. >> the idea it's a long term endowment. it's structure so that you know as particular pieces are sold,

those funds will then go to the harlem children's center. >> rose: not all at one time. >> no. exactly. it's a long term, very long term gift but it's an unusual one because it sort of art transforming into education. and it gave, so we did this documentary about it. we spoke to many of the artists who are represented in the collection. and at length with my father and it was actually a great opportunity to get to know certain things about my dad. george brucey, he wrote an e-mail. listen to what he said, it's very sweet. i wanted to relay a thought to your father. yesterday when he was talking about how strongly he felt about art which is so clear, he said that it was what he-!w8vdoing ie chalk. although it seems true that the artist works alone, that's not really the case. when your father started collecting my work, i was on the verge of burnout. i was a relative nobody, still

am really, and the fact that he wanted the work was not just helpful in a financial way, it was an enormous vote of confidence. i can say with complete confidence that i would not be where i am without william. i respect his opinion and his eye. he is a true patron in the best sense of the word. so i hope he realizes that he is indeed an integral part part of the processú÷8@d if the brush isn't in his hand. i think that's sweet. >> he's a very serious artist, george. and he takes the time to say all that. and i think his work is wonderful. >> rose: what did you learn about your dad? >> i learned that my father is much more, i didn't understand the depth of his emotional

investment, the energy that he's put into the artist whose works he's selected. he has a very very big life in the art world that i wasn't really familiar with. >> rose: are you serious? he's your father. >> i know but he's a private guy and there's aspects of him. i knew that he would, a lot of this art was not in our house and he amassed all this art. but i didn't know the extent of the relationships he had with these various people. i mean that's a part of it. and it was exciting to see. also the, also very sort of exhilarating to talk to him about why he was doing, making this gift. and that was nice too. >> rose: enucci said this too. she's not a natural comedic performer, she's a natural comedic brain. what does he mean? >> i don't know.

i mean i guess, what does he mean? he is -- >> rose: you have an intellectual or some kind of very smart sense of comedy. >> well, i've been doing it a long time, you know. and i very much enjoy sort of picking things apart comedically and then sort of mining stuff within a scene so maybe that's what he means. his material is so brilliant that it's easy to do because when it's working, when material's working on the page, it's that much easier to find more to add to it not because it needs to but to help and enhance and make it. the material's so rich that he creates that it's kind of a, frankly it's a breeze. >> rose: it is. >> well because the material's so good, do you know what i mean? i mean but i do love -- >> rose: he makes the work a lot easier, makes your job a lot easier. >> yes, it does. >> rose: he says you're a natural comedic brain and

performer. had i known you as a teenager, would i have seen that. were you that way then? >> mm-mm, yes, probably. yes. i mean. >> rose: you were destined to be comedic. >> i always wanted to act. i never thought i'm going to go into comedy. i never done stand up or anything like that. i mean these jobs that i've gotten in my life have been mainly comedic. not everything but a lot of them have been. it's a happy place for me to work, i enjoy it very much but i love doing drama as well. i mean i really do, actually. >> rose: was seinfeld a natural home for you. >> yes. yes. >> rose: it was. >> yeah. oh totally. i mean, seinfeld was, it's funny because larry david who as you know created the show with jerry, and larry and i knew each other from snl days. and he, you know, he and i were both miserable at snl at the time. >> rose: because? >> because it was not a good

time at snl. it was not, it was dog eat dog and neither of us, he wasn't getting any material on the air, i wasn't getting on the air, cept in little b parts and stuff for the most part. we were miserable together and we sort of enjoyed being miserable together. but then he got this show on nbc and it was all of a sudden, it was like the people who were running the show, our show seinfeld, we were sort of like the nuts running the asylum. oh i can't believe we're getting away with this. that's what it really felt like and that was fun. >> rose: i'll talk about all these other projects too. first of all you went from snl to seinfeld and from seinfeld to a variety of other things. the film you made with james gandofini. >> yes, enough said. it was written and directed, and

that was another joy to me. i had a lot of good gigs recently. i wish that jim gandofini were here to enjoy the results of his work. it was a wonderful thing to be able to work with him on that film. i was really proud how it came out. >> rose: and sort of returning to drama for you too. >> yes, right, exactly. i mean there were comedic elements to it but i think ultimately it was more maybe a drama. >> rose: is film different than television for you? >> well, certain kinds of television. for instance veep which is shot with a single camera, we might as well be making a movie. it's movie hours and that's really, well there's that and of course you don't have an audience like we did on seinfeld. that was no laugh track, we had an audience all the time. so which is a delicious experience to you know have an audience. but now that i haven't been doing it for a while, i'm sort of used to doing the single

camera thing and i've gotten used to that. that's more like film making, yes. >> rose: what was the picture paris about? >> picture paris is a short film that i made with my husband brad hall that he -- >> rose: a woman after the nest after the kids have left. >> yes. her youngest has gone off to college and she has a plan for her husband and she are going to go off to paris together and sort of reinvestment their lives and things don't quite work out the way they should. and that was a short film. >> rose: and you were on all of that. >> yes and then some but there are some twists and turns you do not see coming. >> rose: here's a clip from that. here it is. ♪ ♪ !>> rose: you're not justa

frankophile you're french. >> yes, that part of my family is very french. my father's an american citizen, he's lived here for many years. >> rose: you go back and forth a lot. >> not as often as i'd like to. we were just talking about. >> rose: we don't back to paris as much as we'd like to because of all these other things. >> keep getting in the way. there are plenty of life ahead. i plan on going soon, i would like to, yes. >> rose: what is it you would like to do that you have not yet done in terms of acting and

comedy and drama? >> well, i guess i would like to -- >> rose: you've had hits, television its of two kinds now. >> yeah. i think i would like to keep it up. i mean really, because i would like to. i do very much like working and i love collaborating with people whom i respect tremendously and so i'd like to keep doing that. i wouldn't mind dipping mito in -- my toe in the dramatic area. it was really a thrill for me to do that. and i wouldn't mind doing more of that only because i haven't done tons and tons of it and it's something a little different. >> rose: you're thrilled about renewing of veep for another season. >> yes. >> rose: where do you want to take this character, the vice president. >> this vice president became president at the end of season three, and so we have a new sort

of landscape, a new stage starting in season four. >> rose: what does she want to be now she's president. >> exactly. what does she want to be. well she's president but she's trying, she's also running for president at the same time. so she's got to try to stay alive. it does, nothing is easy, nothing comes easy for her and certainly she gets in her own way. so she's trying to figure out, we haven't shot it yet, we'll start again shortly. but she's got to figure out a way to stay alive in the position she's always wanted. and i mean, stay alive politically. i guess physically to but i'm thinking politically. >> rose: this is you at the correspondent dinner. here it is.

>> hello. >> what are you doing? >> hey listen, are you going to this dinner tonight? >> no, i'm not going, man. i've been there once. it's a bunch of politicians trying to explain politics to hollywood. it's not worth it are. >> who wants to see gregor crying in the corner all night. actually i would want to see that. hey do you want to come and pick me up? wait. what the hell are you doing? >> come on. >> seriously, yellow? >> get in the car. >> rose: there you go. >> he's good, isn't he. >> rose: he's good, he's a natural. >> rose: thank you again. >> thank you for having me back

captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

. this is nightly business we port with tyler mathisen and suzy. >> will interest rate hikes become sooner rather than later at the news conference tomorrow? >> big ideas, the three startups that are changing everything, revolutionizing business and one day maybe wall street high flyers. >> and want a tip? a ground breaking new study says one quarter of all public company deals may involve some kind of insider trading. we have all that and more tonight on "nightly business report" for tuesday, june 17th. good evening, everyone and welcome. some people think the great war on inflation begun more than 30 years ago but