weapon so they don't pose a threat to the people and the world again. and it is america helping muslim communities around the word not just in the fight against terrorism but in the fight for opportunity and tolerance and a more hopeful future. america have endless blessings bestow on enduring work. it is americans who welcome our responsibility to lead. from europe to asia, from the far reaches of africa to war torn capitals in the middle east, we stand for freedom, for justice, for dignity. these are values that have guided our nation since its founding. tonight, i ask for your support in carrying that leadership forward. i do so as the commander in chief who could not be prouder than the men and women in uniform. pilots flying in the face of danger in the middle east and

service members who support our partners on the ground. when we helped prevent the massacre of civilians trapped on a distant mountain, here's what one of them said. we owe our american friends our lives. our children will always remember that there was someone who felt our struggle and made a long journey to protect innocent people.d%7$ that is the difference we make in the world. our own safety, our own security depends upon our willingness to do what it makes to defend this nation and uphold the values that we stand for. timeless ideals that will endure long after those who offer only hate and destruction have been vanquished from the earth. may god bless our troops. and may god bless the united states of america.

>> rose: henry kissinger is here. he's a diplomat, nobel peace prize recipient and author. he served as security of state and national security advisor under president clinton. his book is world order reflection on the character of nation in the course of history. in it he writes libya is in civil war fundamental list armies are billing a self declared against iraq and afghanistan young democracy is on the verge of draps to this trouble are added resurgants of tensions with russia and china divided between pledges of cooperation, the concept of order that is the modern era s over. i'm pleased to have henry kissinger to be here. >> thank you. it started on a very positive note. >> rose: this idea of order

has purpose nated your academic public and post public life. it's the concept that you seem to be at the core of how you see the world. >> i see my concern is the achievement of peace. but peace requires order that has two elements. it has to have enough of a balance of power that no single component or nation can optimistally dominate it. it has some values which determine what is an arrangement. because unless its system is accepted by most of its participants, there will be

outbreaks of war. this is the concept of order that i've been interested in. and it doesn't mean order against idealism because idealism is a central component of it. but it does mean that power is also an essential component of it. >> rose: how far back do you look to see the creation of nation states and balancing of power between them? order based on nation states. it's a peculiarly western evolution. rome certainly had ordered and dominated most of the known world and held peace within its boundaries. china certainly had a system of order but almost all previous orders and all the ones i know were variations of empires which

one dominating group or element in it. the west divided itself into a series of nations in the 17th century, to develop a concept of order based on balance of power and to some extent legitimacy. sometimes the balance of power was the dominant element, sometimes the legitimacy that all nations agreed on the nature of just arrangement. but it's the system that broke down and the western system spread around the world in the 19th century as a result of western imperialism. and it has emerged as nation states but the concept of order

based on the nation's state is a special western invention. >> rose: why did you decide to write this book now? >> actually ... >> rose: you describe how it came out of a conversation. >> it's pre occupied me. the conversation was i really, i had actually sort of writing a book before key personalities in international affairs. and when i set down with a friend, he said why write about the past. write about the problem that mostly occupies you at the moment. and that has preoccupied you all your life and see if you can synthesize that. and that actually, that got me started. and it's been implicit in what i've been writing, as you say. but this is a way of summing it up. >> rose: is there an absence

of order when you look around the world. >> it is one of the most chaotic periods that i know about. because every part of the world, almost every part of the world is in the process of redefining itself. some internally to some extent like china, some externally the european system has dominated the world have been abandoned in europe and the united states is moving into a new period in which the dominant is enjoyed in the immediate post period economically is not only there but on the other hand, we are still the essential element in creating a new order. >> rose: a powerful single nation. >> most powerful single nation.

and without our participation, it is very difficult to see how a new system can emerge in most parts of the world. >> rose: but new systems do e -- emerge when there's a vacuum. >> it happens in a vacuum which happens to be in afghanistan, for example. surrounding countries. and then there is some sort of a contest and out of this sometimes a new order emerges. so then the question is whether you can create that order before the contact has taken place. >> rose: some people have talked about the fact that we trend, during the bush era we moved two four in one direction. then in the obama era we moved

two far in the other direction and haven't found a balance between the two. >> it is an extremely difficult problem. we were attacked. we had to reestablish our credibility in the region which we were attacked. and we establish respect. we were bound to unleash a number of latent forces in each of these countries. now bush 43 showed some order and he attempted to bring about a democratic system on the western model in a relatively brief period of time by means of military occupation. >> rose: i think you believe that's not a smart thing to do. >> it was, it was a noble thing

to try but it went beyond the capacity of our system and be perhaps because of our strength because it involved the quarrels between sunnis and shiites and all of the attending forces in the region. but in regards to bush if i ask myself what's our alternatives once he was in iraq, that wasn't so, i thought what we should do is let some government emerge and then not make ourselves the arbiter of the evolution of the era. i understood what he was attempting to do and i have respect for him. obama, went too far in the other

direction. and he seemed to think that confessions of american guilt would gain so much public support abroad, that this could substitute for the military efforts. and probably the long term outcome is in between these two. >> rose: particulate what that is. >> if we cannot make ourselves the major factor in the domestic evolution of every country, particularly by the use of military power. on the other hand, if we take no

interest, then we have the situation that we are now seeing or when we appeared, then we have the situation that was developed enough. if you look at the crises in the middle east, we had indicated, for example. it was clear it was coming to the end of his ability to manage affairs. it was not obvious that we had to be the visible agent of his. >> rose: what would have been the alternative. >> a gradual evolution towards which actually was embodied in one american concept which was in abandoned under the pressure

of events. but i am not saying that i am outlining resolution for every country in the world. i'm saying that the united states has to find a balance between what it must do militarily and what it must do logically. and to understand that some countries have a totally different perception of order and peace than we do so we cannot always act like school masters that we know all the answers and the appropriateness of other countries is measured by the degree to which they follow prescriptions. >> rose: let's talk about putin specifically. what is his intent and what should be the american response?

>> one cannot always get to the question -- i have thought and to some extent still think but i have thought that putin, what putin wanted was an understanding with the united states that recognized the vulnerability of russia's position with long frontiers, with china, the middle: some respect for historic memories. that wasjfoutside. he considered after a period of

humiliation during the olympics and entering ukraine by members i cannot testify on the basis of the analysis that i have made. and a country that -- in another country because its historical views have not been appropriately treated. i was hoping there was a discussion on the highest level between the, between the whitehouse and the kremlin where the future of at least asia would be discussed. we have been drawn now into a

series of tactical decisions step by step which i'm putting emphasis on the military outcome on the russian side. and we cannot accept the proposition that russia can dictate. the outcome of its bordered nations by the constant use of military. >> rose: what do we do now? >> we should keep open the possibility of a fundamental negotiation with russia. >> rose: when you say we. >> the government of the united states. i mean the europeans have made it very clear that they will not engage, run any risk of war. but at the same time, we should also make clear that a continuation of military

operations may risk the fundamental relationship with the united states. and not just in imposing sanctions but what may be prolonged. >> rose: do you think putting that at risk will influence putin? >> i think yes. >> rose: and do you think sanctions will influence him? >> not the way they're being conducted. >> rose: let's talk about this president and how you think he's proceed and do you think putin is motivated by what he perceives to be a weak president. >> i think putin is motivated by a perception that he cannot get through to this administration and that we talk about, we keep offering solutions to outside problems and he's trying to talk about the overall situation. >> rose: you seem to suggest

that putin is more interested in the strategic result here, a diplomatic strategic and he's much more of a deeper thinker about these things than the united states. >> it's a deep world. they play chess we play poker. they lived in a different environment and they have to think about the relationship of societies to each other. we have lived in a relatively secured environment and therefore any disturbance of that environment we believe has some practical solution that can be implemented in a short period of time. let me take syria as an example. we begin by saying that assad has to be overthrown.

the concern with syria is the concern that these extremists groups is against the west. so any solutions in quotation marx to resolving a existing regime and therefore it's likely or could be produce libyan conditions in which suddenly a struggle of each group develop some of which or maybe all of it's become radical. >> rose: you want to avoid destabilize. >> i think the best approach would have been to begin with an agreement on the nature of the outcome in syria. rather than the personality of an individual. and i'm mentioning this only as an example. and i'm not saying that what i

have suggested would have worked. i believe it might have. actually my observation having seen on a strictally strategic basis for 15 years, bush 43 people made a lot of fun of him when he said he looked into the eyes of putin and he discovered a soul. it was not a phrase, an american phrase frequently used, but it gave putin the sense that he was being treated as a respected individual. the three years as i saw it from where i could observe both sides there was a beginning of a

conceivable dialogue. then it started falling apart again over the ukraine. so the challenge we have now which may not be fulfilled is can there be a russian state that works cooperatively with the west but whose special necessities are respected. and one of them is that ukraine can never be a totally foreign country. the russians have famous dissense like -- i think it should be an independent state with existing borders that should be flee to conduct its affairs internationally but in which the if possible some of it should be based on cooperation between the west and russia.

can that be done in any short term negotiation? i don't know. >> rose: do you think it's acceptable to putin. >> i think it's very early in the game because he has exceeded what could have been i expectations when this crises started. >> rose: i want to come to non-nation states and what the threat is to world order. some people have written about this book that is part history part lecture part memoir. they have also said maybe it didn't pay enough attention to non-state actors some have said and some said you don't pay attention to latin america or africa. but beyond all that, we now have a crises that's been created partly by the disarray in syria. partly by a capacity of a non-state actor to get both

finance and funding and create an organizational structure and motivated to try to create a califate and try to create an islamic state. what's the response and what's essential to the states and europe to say and do at this moment because that's what the president has on his plate right now. knowing he has to do things that he does not have to revisit. >> it covers non-state actors. it's discussing the collapse of the state but i won't get into that issue. what we have in the middle east now is a confluence of the series of revolutions that are partly overlapping and partly

competitive. evolution against a state authority within the state of which the up right against mubarak is an example. there is a conflict between brands of islam of which the shi'ite sunni can take within the iraqi state as an example. it's a collapse of the state borders that were drawn in the 1920's by britain and france as an expression of the european balance of power. which did not reflect the actual divisions and realities. so all of these issues are coming together. the administration attended first withdrawals and then to

rely on the secular democratic evolution most similar to that of the west and therefore took the position it took vis-a-vis mubarak expected the same thing to happen in libya. and it led to the demand for assad's withdrawal. which then that's a practical consequence to accentuate all the internal issues in a country in which there is thought one coherent national plug. so in order to have the democratic system separate, you need a minority that can become a majority. now we have a movement that is attempting to resurrect the caliphate which is that the uniform government of all the

islamic people and proceed with extreme exbrutallity to define the world and impetus of the outside countries like the united states. i mention there are three levels the strategic understanding the united states needs. one, what actions does it seek to prevent. even if it has to do it unilaterally because states have our perception of world order or world rife . secondly what actions can be do only together with allies. and third what actions can we undertake at all. the isis issue reflects at least two of those. the first is when the throat of

a man is cut on international television and decapitated, innocent bystanders who were picked as victims, the united states fundamental values are insulted. and that must have some retaliation. and for that we do not need allies. that we can do on our own, without necessarily solving the problem. >> rose: with air strikes. >> i would have thought with air strikes. >> rose: but not troops on the ground. >> not troops. this is not a final solution of the isis problem. >> rose: this is to retaliate for what happened. >> it's to teach isis that there is a heavy price to be paid by seeking to humiliate america and by assaulting. >> rose: isn't that what the

president's doing. >> i think he's doing it. he is doing it not as retaliation. the president is doing, he began to do it as a kind of prevent isis from moving more closely, accompanied with more limitations. and it's now merging, my impression is, in the speech the president will move very close to that position with a different direction because he will find very difficult to express unilateral american action. the second is how can one overcome isis and that requires some strategic assessment. because for example, the room we have chosen is to strengthen the

baghdad government, to have the baghdad government appeal to the sunnis and to speak to the united arab but by arming the kurds, the consequences say they will move out of the iraq defacto way. if a shi'a army is created and it goes into sunni areas, this will present the problems that create crises. so but it's a strategy that makes sense but it will take some time. >> rose: if you need boots on the ground so to speak -- >> not ours. >> rose: but not ours, you've got to find those boots somewhere. you get them where you can find them and clearly you got them from the kurds or the iraqi army

and some militia groups. >> militia groups were trying to create in syria. never quite managed to. would find the most hugeful employment if they were used against isis. >> rose: in syria. >> in syria and maybe in whatever areas the sunnis then decide among themselves to establish. in syria if present borders are considered but at any rate for the immediate future this would be the most useful improvement or huge of the moderate element. >> rose: pre syrian army. >> like the pre syrian army.

and that is, and i would think that saudis and even the qataris would understand the strategic purpose. >> rose: the saudis and the emirates will support it will they not. >> yes. i believe after we have to remember, we're dealing with 20,000 fanatics. but it's a small, it's a relatively small group which has had astonishing successes because of the weakness of the opposition. but if we put together these various elements that we've discussed here, i think they should be, we should be able to fragment them into various groups which one should then defeat with intelligence operation. but the fundamental problems in

the region of the sunni and shi'a have presented by saudis will continue. and it is possible to create a system of order in the region, that will be the next challenge. isis alone, destroying isis will not be the only issue. because at the end of november, we will be facing the deadline of the nuclear negotiations of iran. and that outcome will determine the relative position of many of the countries. >> rose: what do you think that outcome will be?

>> it defends whether it defend the nuclear program or a way to legitimize it with a little delay in it. i would prefer as a successful negotiation that leads to iran joining the international but i don't see how that can be done unless that is a significant impairment of the nuclear military capability of iran. >> rose: and you think the supreme leaders are prepared to accept that? >> i think that's what they're debating in tehran right now. >> rose: you have an interesting phrase about iran. it has to decide whether it wants to be a nation state or a movement. decide whether it wants to be a nation state and fully participate in the community of nations or it wants to be some theocratic in its history.

>> iran has been a nation state, it's been a great empire and it is the center of a jihadist movement. for the last decade they tried to merge the empire and the jihadists. if they can decide to become a nation state, they can have a major impact. >> rose: we've talked about russia, we've talked about the middle east and clearly the imperative of doing something about isis. now china before you leave this evening. there's a clear sense of china's place that is different and has built from whatever's gone in the past. and he seems to want china to be more aggressive. you don't think that's true? >> no. >> rose: but you seem also to believe that china can be accommodating. >> it think the fundamental

effort of it at this moment is to engage in a formal chinese society of americans that we have not seen for 30 years. >> rose: that involves corruption. >> that involves corruption, changing the economic system which means that many people in the bureaucracy have threatened simultaneously because of either because of the potential confident informantion -- corruption and probably because they don't know what is being said. so it creates that. now nationalism is a kind of unifying element in the period. and i think she feels when something is perceived either by him or by the public, it is said

the evolution of sovereignty that he must take a very strong stand. but i don't believe that there is the same impulse as there was in the case of putin of having to demonstrate to his people that he is the protector of historical matrimony. and therefore, it's not a question too much of accommodating. he has said that relationship with the united states and china should set a new example for the relationship between potential adversaries. president obama said the same thing. the only thing that's lacking is some complete program to express it. and that is what to which we pay attention. i think 15 years from now when

china has reached the level of a large middle class, how it will then perceive the international situation. i'm not predicting, i'm saying if we're lucky, it could be that at the end of that period, we have fallen into a pattern that we have found in our interests to continue. but i also think that a military conflict between potential powers will destroy the world. we've seen what happened in world war i. it's not just physical deception, it is the sides on global pages that would be very hard to repair. that is my concern, it's not to accommodate. >> rose: you're worried that there could be a conflict between china and the united states or china -- in which

people will be forced to choose sides. >> well people, there's a lot of discussion about world war i and the legends of world war. one. one of the experiences is nobody threatened to go to war and a number of people took positions that sounded reasonable, it sounded prudent. over a week they suddenly found themselves at war based on mobilization. i think we should try to avoid gradual calculations if we can and avoid the challenge. but in all of this, when you speak about order, i start with the united states and i look at it from the point of view of

what long term environment is most conducive to our values and to our security. >> rose: you also say that u.s. must find a point between introspection and dealing with the rest of the world. >> we have to as a society, and think in historic terms that we're part of a process. we're not part of a pragmatic solution that will then end history. in 1990, a book that was written called the end of history was a lot of attention at the time and justifiably so. we won't see the end of history, we will be part of a process, what we have seen around the world. we continue to go along. we should be in a position one of protecting our security and

secondly of a world in which our values are preserved to the greatest extent and which there are know upheavals of the nature that we put everything at risk. that's a big order. >> rose: the book is called world order. henry kissinger. thank you. always good to see you. thank you for joining us. see you next time. for more about this problem and early episodes visit us on-line at pbs.org and charlierose.com. captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

this is "nightly business report" with tyler mathisen and susie gharib. radio silence, a wall street analyst issues a dire warning for a familiar retail name, radio shack. pay off a very different story for apple. shares rebound as investors try to determine whether its new mobile payment systems will change the way consumers spend and business gets done. and oil slick, why it is a bad time to be in energy bulls. good evening, welcome and thank you for joining us. it was a tale of two companies on wall street today. one, an innovator who saw its stock decline taking the tech

side for a walk, the other, the beating down retailer that one analyst predicts may not be around much very more. we give with apple, the star-filled launch with two new iphones, the first ever and the new mobile smart pay took hold yesterday. but shares went 3% higher, traders say today they took little notice of the larger and updated smartphones and the watch, instead they focused on apple pay. that is the all-new mobile apple pay, the enormous power it may give apple in the trillion dollar consumer marketplace. now apple already known as a disrupter, shaking up the computer industry. but now with apple taking on the slow to catch on mobile payments hoping to succeed where others have failed in taking your wallet off your hip and putting

it on your phone. mary thompson has more. >> reporter: a new iphone and a new business for apple. >> our vision is to replace this. >> reporter: ceo tim cook aiming to replace your wallet with apple pay, a mobile wallet that lets iphone 6 users tap or pay and go as they tap a wave with their phone. the technology made by nearfield communications or nfc, the transaction made more secure because it is not your credit card information stored on the phone. it is a scrambled set of numbers representing your data called a token. master card, along with visa, american express and a number of banks well partner with apple, they expect to recover the fees through higher transaction volumes. google wallet has been around

for a couple of years, but resistance from retailers, among other things, slowed its adoption. so apple brought retailers on board, partnering with macy's and others who will accept apple pay, and they say it will cut down on fraud. >> in the end, the retailers are still responsible for anything that happens at their site. but because apple is turning the credit cards into tokens, there is much less risk that anyone can breach a retailer and get a credit card from them. >> reporter: still, only a fraction of the u.s. stores will accept apple pay for now. analysts see that number growing quickly thanks to the new roll out of point of sales systems that will accept the nfc transactions, as well as consumers broader adoption of the payment. >> get used to it, start using the platform to provide offers, that will then be great for pay pal and google wallet because

they will be able to add more customers themselves. >> meaning apple could pay off for their rivals, as well. for "nightly business report," i'm mary thompson. on the flip side of apple today, the troubled retailer radio shack, shares of the troubled chain fell as much as 13% at one point after an analyst set his price target on the stock to zero and said a bankruptcy filing is close. so how close is the chain to packing it in and can they turn the chain around? morgan brennan reports. >> reporter: radio shack is a retail icon, but for some it is a relic. >> it is not my go-to place. >> more than one analyst sees stocks heading to zero, and others are wary as they lost almost $100 million just earlier

this year, while same store sales fell about 14%. >> everybody knew that radio shack was struggling, that was no surprise, but the magnitude of the losses was shocking, quite frankly, i don't know if the fat lady is singing but she is definitely warming up. i don't think that radio shack has added the liquidity to make it to 2015. >> it is hurting as much if not more than many of them. in the glory days radio shack was there for people who liked to build things, hobbyists, or if your computer needed a new battery. now consumers are turning elsewhere, buying on line or getting new electronics elsewhere. it is part of the attempt at a turn around, and it has not been enough to stave off the dramatic sales slump. >> there was a radio shack within a five-minute drive of

much of the u.s. populati, but now there is much more competition and nothing is more convenient than the nvinternet. >> radio shack is also trying to move past an image that screamed the '80s. the stores are doing okay but it is not likely the store can afford to renovate or open many of them. in fact it has been closing certain locations. what to do? at least one shopper has a couple of ideas. >> i think that radio shack could expand in terms of its services and showing people how to use their devices more intelligently. i think they cans show them how to build their web pages and things like that. i think it is a terrific store. and it should keep going. >> for now, though, the clock seems to be ticking, i'm morgan brennan in new york city. and now to accuse the call on radio shack, the director of research. good to see you again, michael. >> thank you. >> i like radio shack, i was just telling susie i like to go

there because there is nobody there, it is always empty and you can get out in heir. do you thi i the store can make it even into the christmas holiday season give the liquidity position? >> i think without a capital infusion, they can't. i don't think they have enough cash to buy inventory for the holidays. i don't think that venders will advance them inventory without you know, cash payment. and their cash balance is below $100 million. as the reporter said they're losing about $100 million a quarter. so they will be out of cash before christmas, i will say if they don't get the capital infusion before november 1st they don't keep the doors open. so money is coming in somehow. my call is the money will come from a very savvy creditor who will insist on becoming senior to all existing forces. that will happen if they allow the company to renegotiate

existing leases and put the company in better financial health if they declare bankruptcy first. >> you have to wonder why anybody would want to put good money after bad. i guess that is somebody who has some kind of vision. but absent that, is it possible? i mean, what is next for radio shack? will somebody else buy it? >> you know, i think that it made a lot of sense to best buy, handful of years ago, best buy, that is why it was making a big push to stand-alone radio stores. they have about the right size and retail footprint for that. nobody is really looking for small sized stores. you have game shop with five or 6,000 small stores, they are slowly converting to an at&t third party carrier retailer. i don't see anybody stepping up and buying small format stores. if somebody comes in and declares bankruptcy somebody may come in and buy a piece of it.

>> when you and i last spoke we were talking about best buy and really the disruption of this particular space. i don't know how many stores radio shack has right now. but what might be ideal for them in terms of a share store count if in fact somebody comes in and does take them on and try to operate them. >> they probably with thrive with about half as many stores. so 2 to 3,000 stores would probably make sense. i think they need to carry a broader array of products and i think they need capital to bring people back in the store. so their problem is not really what they offer in the store. their problem is driving traffic there. they don't have the money to market, so even though they're actually doing a great job of reformatting the stores they are just not able to make anybody aware of it. that is killing them. >> and michael, in a few words what is the radio shack lesson

here, you have to be a big player on the internet, on line? i mean what is the story? >> the big connection is the internet, it is easier to buy things on the internet than it is to go out to a store for a convenience item. radio shack is a convenience store. they're doomed because of that, i think. >> on that note we end it. on wall street today stocks were able to turn around early losses thanks to a rally in the apple shares we told you about. and enthusiasm for apple helped lift the entire tech sector. the dow rose 54 points, the nasdaq added 34, the s&p up 7 points, energy was a big decliner after the government report showed u.s. oil supplies were higher than forecast last week. and crude prices fell to an eight-month low. west text intermediate fell to $157 a barrel, and bob pisani

takes a look at the drop in oil prices and what is next for the energy sector. >> oil dropped to an eight-month low today. that is great news for consumers and it is a big help for an improving economy. you think with all the chaos in the middle east oil prices would be going up. but the opposite is happening. that is because despite the chaos the demand for oil is weak. because with the exception of the u.s. the global economy is not doing that well. and there are plenty of supplies of oil. the u.s. has become a big additional supplier. so we have lower demand and plentiful supplies. little wonder that energy stocks are lagging the stock market. the major energy, the xle is sitting at a four-month low. and stocks like exxon and chevron have been a major drag on the dow in the month of august. other big energy stocks like petro china were also down today

and they have been weak for days. there is a larger problem for energy. there is not a lot of visibility on demand growth. so if you can project how much economic growth there will be in the world if you have a certainty on what you think the global gdp will be for example, you can project a model that will be a demand for oil. but without a clear picture you're lost trying to figure out the price of oil. the president is speaking about what he will do on the isis threat in iraq and syria. what the traders want to hear is that the president will find a way to get this problem under control. it will mean more certainty for the global economy and stability is what everybody wants right now. for "nightly business report," i'm bob pisani at the new york stock exchange. and as bob reported president obama will address the nation at 9 p.m. eastern time tonight. the president is expected to outline a broad strategy to defeat the islamic militants in the middle east. how will that strategy play out in the markets and how will investors react? joining us now, mike holland,

chairman of his own money firm holland and company. company, mike, complicated situation here, what do you believe the president will say? will it have a market reaction especially tomorrow as we come close, and tomorrow is the anniversary of 9/11? >> well, susie, as bob pisani just reported the market is coming into this with a preview of thoughts about that question. and that is that there will be no surprises. unfortunately we have begun to get used to the terrorist threat over hanging us, as you said, a bunch of years ago, 9/11, was in new york that day. that was -- our wake-up call. we're living with it. it is now getting worse and we presume it will be with us for a long time. he will tell us that tonight. i believe a lot of what he says has been thought about by the markets. the stock market is not political, it was up a little

today. the stock market, susie is more worried about what is going on with mr. putin and eastern europe and in a shorter term basis what is going on with scotland and the u.k., they're coming up with a separation vote in a couple of days. the market was scared, when it looked that there was a possibility that scott land would separate from the u.k. tonight the market is not looking for surprises whatsoever. >> let's talk a little bit about the defense sector and whether in light of the president's new strategy that he will unveil tonight there could be decreased spending in the united states. and if so will it be the aerospace company? the drone makers? where? >> tyler, you put your finger on that, as the president said it will be a three-year plan and in the scheme of things it will be much more than that. all the sectors you just talked about will be longer term beneficiaries, so i think the answer is yes, yes, and yes.

>> so let me just ask, so this war could be three years or more, with that overhanging all of this, i mean, what are you as an experienced investor doing with your portfolio? are you making tweaks to it? adjusting things to allow for this kind of long-term conflict? >> that is the right question for the viewers. because i learned just coming into the business many years ago that one of the most important things about investing is to survive. you survive the fair markets and the way to do that when we hit the new highs as we are right now given all of this negative headlines, one would like to take it off the table. that is just what i'm doing myself. i still have a very full equity portfolio, but i'm taking chips off the table. and in 2008 when things were very ugly as warren buffet said that is when you buy some things. right now i'm actually pairing