>> rose: welcome to the program. we begin this evening talking about politics and talking about new hampshire. joining me, mark halperin, john heilemann, glenn thrush, gerald seib and john cassidy. >> i think everybody's known new hampshire is friendly territory toward bernie sanders. that hasn't changed. i think the clinton people are playing hard in new hampshire because they want to reduce the margin of victory for bernie sanders in that state and if they do that, the narrative will be she did better than we thought, on to friendly country for the clintons in the south and nevada and that's a new ball game. so i think they're trying to shape the narrative in a way that makes the loss in new hampshire acceptable to everyone who want to vote for hillary clinton in the end. >> our campaign is a campaign for the people and by the people.

secretary clinton represents the establishment. i represent, i hope, ordinary americans and, by the way, who are not all that enamoured with the establishment. >> i don't think it was particularly progressive to vote against the brady bill five times. i don't think it was progressive to give gun owners immunity or vote against ted kennedy's immigration reform. >> rose: then the 50th super bowl between the carolina panthers and the denver broncos and who better to talk to than jim nantz of cbs sports. >> you know, they changed coaches which means they changed schemes and went from being a task heavy, shotgun-based offense where we're going to dink and dunk and occasionally beat you down the field a little deeper than you expected through the passing game. now they wanted to go physical and gary kubiak came back to denver. he's a great coach. they were going to learn to dominate the line of scrimmage and be primarily a team that

pounded you. to clayton had to change what his whole career would be like and it didn't click till he came back from injury in the season. h he brings respect to the locker room. >> rose: we continue with i.s.i.s. and libya and what the united states should do. we talk to alan kuperman, frederic wehrey and jean-marie gueéhenno. >> you have a very fragmented country. there are two competing governments which have no control over the whole country, and you have the islamic state with the main strong hold in syria which used to be the strong hold of the caliphate, so at the moment there's an effort to bring all the various political actors together, but i believe it's a long way off. >> rose: i.s.i.s. is growing? i.s.i.s. is growing. there are more fighters coming to libya. i.s.i.s. has been attacking oil facilities and there's a fear that i.s.i.s. could expand and

that's why there is so much talk about the military option in libya. >> rose: politics, football and foreign policy, when we continue. funding for charlie rose is provided by the following:. >> rose: funding for "charlie rose" has been provided by: >> rose: additional funding provided by: >> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide. captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> rose: we begin this evening with with election 2016, the first one-on-one democratic debate took place in new hampshire last night. hillary clinton and bernie sanders sparred over their records as progressives among other issues. >> this whole discussion began because i commented, not make an

overall evaluation about the secretary. he was in ohio, i think, in september or november, and she got up and said something like, i have been -- paraphrasing -- i have been criticized because people think i'm a moderate. well, i am a moderate. that's where this came from. that's where this came from, not me phrasing her, it's what she said. there is nothing wrong with being a moderate but you can't be a moderate and a progressive. in terms of president obama, i think if we remember where this country was seven years ago, 800,000 jobs being lost every month, $1.4 trillion deficit, the world's financial system on the verge of collapse, i think that president obama, vice president biden and the democratic leadership in the house and the senate have done a fantastic job. we are in much better chain today nan seven years ago, although my republican colleagues seem to have

forgotten where we were seven years ago. that's the fact. but we still have a very long way to go. >> you know, in the very first debate, i was asked, am i a moderate or a progressive? and i said i'm a progressive who likes to get things done. and cherry picking a quote here and there doesn't change my record of having fought for racial justice, having fought for kids' rights, having fought against the kind of inequities that fueled my interest and service in the first place, going back to my days in the children's defense fund. it certainly didn't stop me from taking on the drug companies and the insurance companies before it was called hillary care -- i mean, before it was called obamacare, it was called hillary care because we took them on, weren't successful but we kept fighting and got the children's insurance program, and every step along the way i have stood up and fought and have the scars to prove it (applause) so, again, i think it's important that -- look, i

understand senator sanders is really trying to distinguish himself -- >> rose: the next republican debate takes place this saturday. abc news announced seven candidates would participate including donald trump and ted cruz. joining me mark halperin, john heilemann of bloomberg politics, gerald seib of "the wall street journal," john cassidy of the "new yorker" magazine, glenn thrush, chief political correspondent for politico. tell me what it looks like on the ground if terms of the conversation and what are the surprises we might expect? >> well, on the democratic side, i think it's a pretty broad agreement that senator sanders is ahead. polls show him 30 ahead. no one thinks those are right but he does have a sizable lead. i think this has to do with what the margin is, how it's framed by the press and candidates, if

senator sanders leaves with a little or a lot momentum. people will look on election night to see if he dominates with young people, does he draw independents, et cetera. on the republican side, i've never covered a primary like this. there are six people fiercely contesting to leave here with some momentum. donald trump is ahead still in all the public and private polling. the other campaigns believe he is vulnerable to not winning this big or maybe not at all and the one candidate who does have momentum that's clear is marco rubio and you have people like john kasich, jeb bush and chris christie who have been trying all week to find out how to stop the momentum rubio took out of iowa and brought here. >> rose: i assume that would be brought to bear tomorrow in the debate. >> this is probably the most important debate of the entire campaign because of its proximity to new hampshire and those six candidates. i think everybody agrees not all six will go from new hampshire to south carolina in the next

contest the republicans have. that debate will also feature choices to make. do people go after the frontrunner donald trump who is leading here in most every state coming up or after ted cruz the winner of iowa or most likely look for ways to contrast themselves with marco rubio who is positioned to leave new hampshire positioned third in iowa as not maybe the establishment favorite by the favorite for the nation depending on how he finishes and depending on whether the old rules apply. >> rose: second in new hampshire gives him huge moment snm. >> second here, first here or third here, if he finishes behind as he did in iowa, trump and cruz. any of those three i think make him the clear establishment favorite which he had been edging becoming over the last few weeks and months as he moved up in the national polls and many members of the establishment looked at christie, kasich and bush and decide they didn't want to bet

on them. >> rose: john heilemann, what happened in last night's debate that night affect the democratic side? >> charlie, i don't think much in the sense that nothing changed the fundamental dynamics of the race in new hampshire. there was a lot of pyrotechnics on the stage last night. it was a very fun, interesting, luminating, dramatic, electric debate, having bernie sanders and hillary clinton on stage together one on one for the first time in this race. when i say all those things in the sense that i think, for a democratic voter who wanted to understand the clear, distinct differences on policy and on philosophy that divide the two of them, and there are many, they were made more clear and drawn in chapper relief than any point in this race so far. there was a half hour where two of them went one on one in a way a lot of people wish most debates were mostly talking about campaign finance but mostly their theory of change.

if you were watching as a democratic voter you could get what was the difference between hillary clinton and bernie sanders. but there wasn't a big moment that changed the fundamental contours of this and suddenly made bernie sanders lose momentum or hillary clinton gain. so i think he's been ahead for a long time here as mark suggested and i think he's still ahead here in the same way after last night. >> rose: glenn, what did you think about last night? >> well, you know, what's interesting is there is really no race here. i frankly have been wondering for about a week why the clinton campaign has been playing this as if there is an actual o contest. we're trying to determine how much she's going to lose by. what i thought was interesting last night is both of them were speaking to their biggest vulnerabilities nationally. hillary clinton has been campaigning here today. she campaigned with a bunch of female surrogates. she was really speaking to the issue specifically about her role as a gender pioneer, as a

breaker of glass ceilings and bernie sanders who obviously has issues with latino and black voters was talking a lot about flint, michigan. i think what we're seeing with new hampshire is in the absence of a really red-hot contest, it is essentially being used as a way for both of these candidates through free media to speak to the voters directly about what they perceive as their vulnerabilities in an attempt to shore them up. >> enough is enough. if you have something to say, say it directly, but you will not find i ever changed a view or a vote because of any donation that i ever received. and i have stood up and i have represented my constituents to the best of my ability, and i'm very proud of that. >> rose: gerald, you said in the democratic debate it was a contrast between clinton the doer and sanders the dreamer. who benefits from that definition? >> you know, i'm not sure, but i was up in new hampshire for the

debate. i was in the hall. i agree it was electrifying in the sense of actual political theater and i don't know that it changed anybody's votes either but i think it defined the difference in the way i tried to describe it this morning. the hillary clinton pitch is i'm a realist, an achiever, i get things done, i get out progressive goals and achieve them, bernie sanders dreams about them and doesn't have a clue how to get there. bernie sanders says essentially if you don't dream big, you don't change things. we have been listening at the washington establish meant to chip away at things, you need a revolution. you can't have a clearer contrast in styles and approach other than that. you get to pick which you want but you do get a choice in the democratic primary. new hampshire was friendly territory for bernie sanders. that hasn't changed. i think people are playing hard in new hampshire because they want to reduce the margin of victory for bernie sanders in that state and if they do that the narrative will be she did

better than we thought, on to friendlier country for clintons in the south and nevada and that's a new ball game, so i think they're trying to shape it in a way to make it better for people who want to vote for hillary clinton in the end. >> rose: what's the new populous. >> bernie's obviously burst on the national scene in the last few months, but i think you have to go back a bit to see where he comes from. i think there is been a populous movement growing for about a decade, starting with the anti-war movement in 2003 and 2004, then after the financial crash, the occupy wall street movement gained very popular, seemed to disappear but really didn't disappear. the young progressives were that, elizabeth warren took up the mantel for a while but decide not to run. bernie sanders enhearted what i call the new poplism which we see in other countries, the rejection of establishment

parties like you had in greece, spain, in the u.k. to some extent, and now we have an american version of this poplism. >> rose: how strong a movement is the new poplism? >> i think they're trying to drag the democratic party as far left as they can. then there are a new group, mostly young, not previously drawn into politics, being drawn into the bernie campaign and feeling the berne. >> rose: mark, who could drop out after the new hampshire primary? obviously depends on who wins and loses, but who has to do well in new hampshire or do better than expected to stay in the race?

>> well, based on resources and attitude and poll position, i think governor christie is probably the most vulnerable though pushing as aggressively as anyone. most to have the public and private polling is in sixth place. if governor christie doesn't improve his lot he would tell you. jeb bush is interesting. his chances to finish in the top two or three at this point don't look great, although i don't rule it out. but he and others suggested he will go to south carolina where the bush name means a lot, his superpack has a lot of money. trump, barring huge collapse, trump, rubio goes forward and leaves john kasich. kasich will look more surprised. he's one who because he's not running a particularly negative campaign, because he appeals to independents, spent a rot of time on the ground, he may move up but if he doesn't he made it clear at breakfast the other day that he, too, will think of

getting out. bush, kasich and christie are the main ones you may see have to make tough decisions after tuesday night. >> rose: donald trump, did his non-appearance in the debate leading into iowa caucuses and the fact that he did not do as well as expected in the iowa caucuses do anything to slow him down in a way that might not be decipherable in the poll results? >> if you're up here on the ground, there is no doubt that all the other republican campaigns, there is a sense that trump and private data, everyone has a sense that some of the air has come out of the trump balloon. the public data doesn't show it much and he is still in the lead by all accounts but he is clearly deflate ago little bit. there's a political and psychic

element with trump. i think it matters a lot if he wins or doesn't. if he finishes second or rubio surpasses him, you could see a lot of air come out of that bubble real quick. >> if you look at what happened in iowa, the core trump vote didn't diminish, it just didn't grow. the late breakers moved to cruz or rubio. if you look at new hampshire, i don't think that core trump vote is going anywhere, but a lot of new hampshire people decide late. almost half voters last time around decided in the last week. are the late breakers going to move somewhere else than trump? if that's what happens, the mass doesn't look so great. he can win but not impressively. >> rose: is he campaigning differently in iowa than -- i mean, in new hampshire than iowa? more rallies, more appearances, more everything? >> first of all, he's not been in the state consistently since

the iowa caucuses. today he canceled an event because he got snowed out. he had to cancel a town hall meeting. he's been doing more traditional new hampshire small-scale -- for trump -- retail events here, both like visiting the manchester police headquarters yesterday, town hall meetings with a couple hundred people rather than multiple thousands. i think responding to criticisms that all he does is hold rallies, so he's going about things differently in the last few days. i think he'll go back to the mega rallies to close this thing out. he clearly seems a little defensive and he's responding to a sense that everything he did in iowa didn't quite work. >> i totally agree with john. it's a trap. he got to where he was by being an undeluded commodity.

he was going to be as brash as anybody. he was going to say to hell with the way the system worked. he tried it. when he skipped the fox debate, i think a lot of people in iowa viewed that as contempt for iowa. have him do sort of conventional politician stuff is shrinking him down to size. i think in the long run he's contributing to his own deflation by changing his rule book. i think eventually you are going to see him revert to the same old trump because that's the thing that got him here. >> rose: what's the success of marco rubio at this point? what happened in iowa that might affect his own momentum? new hampshire? what is he doing? what are the issues propelling him forward? >> well, it's been my view, i think he is succeeding first of all by not being donald trump and, second of all, he's succeeding by being phenomenally disciplined.

you know, the rap on marco rubio now is he's too mechanical and robotic, but he doesn't miss his mark. every debate is a good for marco rubio, maybe not great but good, and he's got a message that cuts across three or four different lanes in the republican party. he can fish out of different ponds. that makes him singular right now in this field, and i think that works to his benefit. >> rose: where can he win a primary? >> that's the great question, isn't it? and we don't know the answer to that question yet. >> i think under the right circumstances, it's possible he could win here, south carolina, michigan, ohio. >> florida. if he could get the other establishment candidates out of this race, the mass sets up nicely particularly a three-way between trump and cruz. he's being himself. he's being likable, relatable, about the future, not engaging in attacks but pushing back when he's attacked.

as we saw in iowa, he's good at surfing the wave and having success to get success. he has a skilled team around him, good at creating the perception of momentum and taking the actual momentum and making it more and building it up. so i think if there were another candidate in this race in his lane who were having success, we might see a different situation, but i think he's poised to do what he did in iowa which is to consolidate a lot of the vote in his lane and it was suggested he plays in several different lanes. >> there is something almost of a consensus among republican campaigns up here that trump is falling a little bit and rubio is rising quite a bit and that the question doing forward -- again, this is kind of consensus view among all the campaigns based on what they're seeing in their numbers -- is marco rubio could bin the new hampshire primary. the question is whether trump declined now which is small but steady and whether rubio's momentum keeps going upward.

the debate is going to matter a huge amount and the closing ads the campaigns put on this weekend but there is a chance the lines will cross and rubio could shock people and end up winning tuesday. >> the other thing is -- the other point, piggy backing on john, rubio has the most to gain from the other subsidiary candidates dropping out. he is likely to pick up 2 to 4% there, those numbers add up. i think one of the interesting story lines that will be developing at the debate is this rivalry between bush who used to be rubio's mentor and rubio. i think bush will go after rubio hard. there's been a suggestion in the rubio camp that bush ought to step aside so rubio can emerge as the consensus candidate to

cruz. >> rose: any consent to bush. very much in the negligent "saturday night live" does ms. bush have any impact? >> older women vote reliably here as elsewhere. i think they're up for grabs a fair amount and i think jeb bush needs attention. trump gets attention whenever he wants, rubio gets attention, cruz because he's aggressive. >> just won iowa. yeah, so you've got bush and kasich and christie struggling for attention and i think for one day jeb bush got attention and that the not nothing with just a week between iowa and new hampshire. >> rose: what economic -- what's the difference in policy in terms of economic policy? >> within the republican party? >> rose: yeah. there really isn't that much. they've so far adopted an old fashioned tax-cutting strategy. rubio is trying to distinguish himself a bit by expanding the earned income tax credit.

trump broke on trade. he's saying he'll impose tariffs which is a revolutionary thing for a republican to do. but the core tax policies are still reagan-ite. it will be interesting to see if trump got the nomination whether he would reverse course on that as well and be more populous. the polls show support for raising taxes on the risk and earned income tax expansion, a mark for which bernie and hillary are talking about. you would think trump wouldn't have anything against that but he's adopted a main stream tax policy and made everything about trade. >> rose: what is the argument about christie and bush and maybe kasich will make against rubio in the debate tomorrow night? >> christie is making the most effective one now which is essentially what's the achievement, the record, the substance that makes this guy a plausible president. there's an element coming from jeb bush as well. the boy in the bubble with the

wonderful christie phrase to describe this in a nutshell, but that's the essential argument that this is barack obama, you know, redacts, which is to say freshman senator, impressive, but not much there and i think that's the best argument to make. the rubio response to that is essentially it's a generational one and that's working in the democratic primary, there is an element in the republican primary as well. the other effective rubio response, is hey, guys, i'm the one who looks like i can beat hillary clinton in the fall and i think that has some resonance in the party as well. >> rose: i think electability has some resonance. let me close asking about ted cruz. i read a column in the "new york times" saying ted cruz really does have strengths in the long run. what's his campaign fro from hee and are there that many evangelicals in new hampshire to come to bat for him?

>> charlie, i think that even ted cruz's people would acknowledge there is a real feeling on his support here. no one, even the mott bullish on cruz think he can finished four, maybe third in the new hampshire primary. but he gets a buy-out of new hampshire. he will be a main contender in south carolina along with the winner of this race and maybe a couple of other people who come out of new hampshire. but he's a guy because of the evangelical support and tea party support and anti-establishment support he has, he will be in the grouping, the top three, whatever you want to call it, in south carolina. in the march 1 s.e.c. primary, he's done a lot of organizing and has a support and he's a player for the next three or four weeks unless somebody takes wind out of his sails down the line. >> we've seen santorum, huckabee and paul exit, for ted cruz,

it's a dream situation, the opposite of what republicans usually face in the republican nominating contest. the cruz lane is now just cruz. you have the establishment lane crowded with trump floating in his own lane. >> rose: the takeaway is expectations, one, can rubio do better than expected and maybe even win and, secondly, does hillary have a possibility of exceeding expectations and narrowing the race in new hampshire, maybe gaining 5 or 10 points beyond expectation? is that the takeaway i should have here? >> exactly. there is a reality and expectations game and they're equally important now on both sides. >> i think if hillary comes within 10 points it will be seen as a relative victory for her. >> rose: and the clintons know how to say we're the comeback girl. thank you all very much.

>> rose: super bowl 50 is almost here on sunday. the n.f.c. carolina panthers will taken to the denver broncos. led by cam newton, the panthers were the top scoring offense, facing the best defense and one of all-time best quarterback players in peyton manning, will happen in levi stadium in santa clara, california. 180 million viewers are expected to be watching around the world. joining me on the phone from pebble beach is jim nantz. he will announce the fourth super bowl for cbs for him. pleased to have him back on the program. thank you for doing this. i know this is a busy time for you. any time with you is a good time, charlie. we have a little tradition going talking on the eve of super bowl broadcast. so i'm very, very excited and honored to be back with you. >> rose: i want to make a

couple of points. i'm showing to my audience a picture of you and your lovely wife courtney on your left and two daughters and your new son, jamison george nantz. and there was some notion he might be born a little bit later, which would have made it a problem. >> yeah, he was born on monday, and thank you for that. he was born monday, february 1. what a way to start super bowl week. and, yes, courtney is there with our little baby girl finley, and i have our oldest daughter caroline and there is jamison. he was due three days after the super bowl game. we have been fretting about this for seven months -- what are we going to do? and lo and behold, monday as i'm getting set to leave the house and make the two-hour drive to san francisco to begin super bowl prep, you know, courtney says, huh-oh, i think my water

broke. i think i may be going into labor. ten hours later, we had our first son. what a blessing. >> rose: congratulations. also congratulations, this is the 50th super bowl. you're there. it was the 50th ncaa final four, you were there. it was also the 50th masters when jack nicholas won at age 46. >> yeah, maybe the most memorable golf tournament of all time, jack's epic sixth green jacket and that was my first masters broadcast. 30 masters broadcasts ago for me back in 1986. i didn't realize at the time it was the 50th. kind of stumbled across the fact i've now gone with the 50, 50, 50 club and it means a lot to me to say i was there for these golden anniversaries. if this was anything like the 50th masters or the 50t 50th final four i broadcast in 1998 when danny manning and

jayhawks made the run, we'll be in store for a great game sunday. >> rose: how do your colleagues see this game in terms of the matchup and this great offense and unique player cam newton and all of his athleticism and his ability and his football savvy and his size and his capacity to pass or run against a very good defense that shut down essentially -- i think touched him more than any quarterback this season, tom brady. >> yeah, tom brady got hit a bunch by the denver defense last week and that has really been what has gotten the broncos to this point, they've rode this incredible defense. but they're going against a special talent. he'll be named the m.v.p. saturday night, talking about cam newton. he's just 26. you've got to think this is first of multiple trips to the super bowl. he's a tough guy to defend.

he's an exciting player to watch. i admire his talent. i also happen to like the joy with which he plays when he's on the field. >> rose: i do, too. people have tried to make a big issue out of the dab, the dance he does in the end zone and all that, but there is something to be said for someone out there wearing a smile on their face all the time and making a game feel like, you know, it's a backyard game and you're a child and you're in love and you have this passion, you're in love with the game. look, i don't see why anybody would have a beef with that, and cam, he's a special talent, i think he's a special person. i've done a number of gamesñr through his five years, and it's a big stage tomorrow. i don't think it's going to be on sunday. i don't think it's too big for him, but he is going to go against a defense that beat tom brady and the patriots twice, pittsburgh during playoffs, beat

cincinnati when the bengals were one to have the best teams in the league. to break it down, i think we're going to be in store for a lower scoring game that comes down to the wire. who knows. this is the 50th one. amazingly, charlie, there has never been an overtime super bowl game and maybe we'll have the first one on sunday. >> rose: panthers are a 6-point favorite, i assume mostly because of cam newton. >> it is. i think also people have watched these two performances by carolina in the playoffs when they jumped out in front of seattle 31-0, held on to win after that because seattle made a comeback run at them in the second half. nonetheless, they got off to this explosive start and turned around and had the same kind of start against arizona. a team i felt was maybe the most well-rounded team in the league this year but certainly got stumped hard by the panthers. i think a lot of it has to do with just the carolina looks like right now, it's hitting on all cylinders on both sides.

>> rose: i love the way they put this team together, too. they knew they had to go out and drafted first cam newton i thinú in 2011. they put together under their general manager really a very strong team. they've got the right coach for this team. it really has so much to make it an admirable team. >> it does, and i think it's a team -- you know, everybody's looking to wear a chip on their shoulder when they take the field or the basketball floor and try to use that as an edge. do i think this team, even though they come in here, that's a pretty sizable favorite, by the way, when you get to a super bowl game and one side is favored by six points. but they, at 17 and 1 on the year, i still don't think they have been given their due, maybe by those of us in the media who cover the sport. it's always been, yeah, they're good but somebody else is better. and you really look at it, if they win on sunday, they will be the fourth team to ever win the super bowl with one loss or

fewer. of course, the fewer being the miami dolphins, the one and only undefeated team to win a super bowl, but the bears of yesteryear, of 30 years ago a this past week, they were the last team to win with only one loss, before that the 49ers. it's been 30-years since we had a one loss champion. they don't get put up in the challenge with the mike or much less even back in the undefeated dolphin days, they don't get talked about in the same breath, but if they win sunday, you can bet that context is going to be brought before the nation during our broadcast. >> rose: let's talk about number 18, peyton manning. >> well, for peyton, everybody, you know, is trying to figure out is this the last rodeo, has

he whispered a possibility into the year of tom brady and bill belichick walking off the field at the afc championship game. i don't have any insight to that, but playing a hunch here, i believe this would be it. >> rose: win or lose? well, listen, if you win, you know, there's only been one hall of fame quarterback in the history of the game who's ever walked away and retired after nning the super bowl, and that was his boss john elway. if you think about all the other legendary quarterbacks, they didn't go out with the win in the last game. so it would be a fairytale ending. if he didn't retire after that, i think that would be a real mistake. you've written the perfect script. now, if he loses, i don't see tremendous downside for peyton's legacy. at the end of the year, he had to come back from injury as a backup, gave the team a spark in

the last week of the regular season, won the last game, big advantage, played turnover free as far as he wasn't picked off during the playoffs, he had one turnover to win against new england on the backwards pass, but he -- look, you know, a lot of people didn't see him being in this game, the way, you know, his season was going. i think in the end he turns 40 in march, a month away, and it's been a magnificent ride for him, and i think it would be really hard to come back and try to figure you're going to be in the same spot next year. >> rose: what does he bring to the broncos? >> well, first off, he has taken them all season. he missed six and a half games because of injury, but he had to come in and learn a completely different way of doing business. you know, they changed coaches, which meant they changed schemes and went from being a pass-heavy, shotgun-based offense, where we're going to dink and dunk and occasion by

beat you down the field a little deeper than you expected through the passing game. now they wanted to go physical around gary kubiak came back to denver, he's a great coach, they were going to learn how to dominate the line of scrimmage and be primarily a team that was going to pound it at you. so now baiten had to change what his whole career has been like and it really didn't start to click till he came back from injury on the last week of the regular season. he brings leadership and respects to that locker room and i think it's virtually -- >> rose: you know what else he brings? i know you know this better than i do, but he brings intelligence to the line of scrimmage. >> absolutely, more than anything. and i would just add to that, when he steps up after breaking huddle and he looks across the line, he's like a bobby fisher, a chess master who can look at the board -- that is, look at the defense -- and he can figure out exactly where the soft spot

is in that defense and he changes on the fly. that's why you see all the hand gestures and the audibles and all that, he's been able to read and identify a defense better than anybody in the history of the game and that is a huge strength to put his team in the right position. >> rose: my friend, thank you so much for joining us. this is a tradition i am proud to be part of. i look forward to the game you will call sunday. it should be great, as someone from north carolina and has a certain affection for the panthers, at the same time i have an affection for excellence and peyton manning has certainly been that. >> eth shoulthat. it should be a very special football game. i think it will live up to the hype and expectations that come with a milestone game like the 50th. i can't wait to call it and as far as i'm concerned the broadcast began with you. so thank you, charlie. >> rose: thank you, jim. back in a moment. stay with us. >> rose: we now turn to libya,

concerns of mining over the islamic state's growing foothold in the country. u.s. officials are reportedly weigh ago military respofnlts secretary of state john kerry addressed the situation in a conference in rome this week. >> as everybody knows, that country has resources. the last thing in the world you want is a false caliphate with access to billions of dollars of oil revenue. >> rose: joining me from washington is frederic wehrey of the carnegie endowment for international peace, alan kuperman of the lyndon johnson school of public affairs. jean-marie gueéhenno, president of the international crisis group. i am pleased to have them all here. jean-marie gueéhenno, tell me te status on the ground in libya today. >> the status such a very fragmented country. there are two competing governments which have no control over the whole country,

and you have the islamic state with the main stronghold in syria which used to be the strong hold of caliphate, so at the moment there is an effort to bring all the various political actors of libya together, but i believe it's still a long way off. >> rose: and i.s.i.s. is growing? >> i.s.i.s. is growing. there are more foreign fighters coming to libya. i.s.i.s. has been attacking oil facilities and there's a fear that i.s.i.s. could expand, and that's why there is so much talk about the military option in libya. >> rose: let me read today from the "new york times." eric schmidt had a piece there and opened by saying president obama is being pressed by some of his national security aids including top military advisors to approve the use of american forces in libya to open another front against the islamic state. but mr. obama, wary of embarking on intervention in another muslim country told his aides to

redouble efforts to help form a unity government in libya, at the same time the pentagon refines its options. how are they going to about trying to define and put together a unity government, frederic? >> well, the factions have signed an agreement that was brokered by the united nations in december. the problem, though, is that this government is really just a government on paper. it hasn't been able to exert its authority on the ground yet and i think that's the real concern in washington and other european capitals is who are they actually going to work with on the ground to combat the islamic state. >> rose: and what's europe doing? the italians are very concerned about, because of their relationship to libya. >> they're absolutely part of the effort. my understanding is they are poised to help out with a possible stabilization force. i think the brunt of the counterterrorism effort, however, would be carried out by the british and the french.

>> rose: the brunt of it and including the united states? >> absolutely, and including the united states. >> rose: the president -- i mean, clearly, we all know and we're familiar with his understandable desire not to be drawn into too deep certainly with combat troops and looking for what people call a kind of small footprint, what are the military options being presented to him, alan? >> well, i think that he's made clear that there isn't going to be a big intervention of u.s. combat forces on the ground and, in the absence of that, no country is going to put a large presence of u.s. combat forces. so what you're talking about is the same mix that you see in iraq, syria and afghanistan, which is special operations forces, air power and drones, essentially.

and the problem is that you need to partner with somebody on the ground, and as your other guests explained, there is no unified libyan military force to partner with. so if we partner with militia a, then militia b is going to view us as the enemy and they're going to actually ally with the islamic state and strengthen the islamic state. so most people think that, if you really want to crush the islamic state, first you need a unified government, then you need a unified libyan military, and only then can the western military intervention help that local military force actually destroy the islamic state. in the absence of that, if we intervene, we're basically just going to be hitting a hornet's nest. we'll scatter the islamic state but not destroy the islamic state. >> rose: so how do we get the unity government, then? >> it's really hard because the only reason that the opposing factions in libya are even thinking about a unity foft is because of the threat of

i.s.i.s. if we go in and damage i.s.i.s., the competing factions in libya will have less incentive to unify. so it's a little bit of a game of chicken and it's not that different from what was going on in iraq, the same sort of thing. if we had attacked i.s.i.s. with full force, then the government in baghdad would have had no incentive to make a deal with the sunni in iraq. it's a very similar sort of thing. you obviously don't want i.s.i.s. to seize large swaths of territory or oil fiends, but you -- oil fields, but you don't want to be the army that deindustries i.s.i.s. because there will be no unification in libya and will actually foster i.s.i.s. in the long run. >> rose: national security advisors and those advising some response in the organization of a unit government have to be fearful of what i.s.i.s. might do. how do they see the threat? >> well, i think i.s.i.s. at the moment does not have the capacity to have a major

expansion. what we have seen recently of i.s.i.s. is that they have attacked oil facilities, but it's hit and run operations, it's suicide bombers. a major ground offensive, i think it's hard to see. what could happen, and there are some places in libya with very weak forces where i.s.i.s. could attack, but i agree with the previous speaker, the war against i.s.i.s. is not going to be won with bombs. it's going to be won by people who are on the ground and prepared to fight and those people have to be libyans. when you look at the politics today, they are very divisive figures. you have in the eastern part of libya, you have a general who is seen as anti-islamists, but he doesn't have the capacity to defeat i.s.i.s. if you want to defeat i.s.i.s., you need to peel off some of the islamest group.

if you have a big military operation with bombings, you might have the opposite results. you might have people who join i.s.i.s. instead of being peeled off i.s.i.s. so i understand president obama's hesitation. >> rose: some people argue that -- including vladimir putin -- that this is the problem with overthrowing the libyan government and supporting it the way we did. i think even bob gates was opposed to doing what we did at that time. is there some resonance in that argument when his historians lot what's happened in libya? alan? anyone. >> yeah, certainly. this libyan situation, unlike iraq and afghanistan where president obama could argue this was a negative legacy left to him by his predecessor george w. bush, the libyan catastrophe is of president obama's own making. here was a country that was led

by a leader that was actually an ally in the war on terror. it was not a perfect country. it was reforming, and -- but it was not a safe haven for terrorists, and what president obama did is he went in and he adestroyed libya. he created anarchy. he created a failed state and, in that vacuum is where i.s.i.s. comes in and presents a threat not only to the region but u.s. national security interests. the great irony is president obama ran his campaign in 2008 or the main part of his campaign was criticizing president bush for destroying iraq and creating a threat to the region and national security. and eight years later president obama did almost the exact same thing in libya. it's being historians will puzzle over for decades. >> rose: there were a whole lot of threats coming from gadhafi that he was going to go

to benghazi and kill everything in sight. the french were arguing we had to go in on humanitarian grounds, and i think the president had some advisors saying you have to do this on humanitarian grounds at the time. >> he did indeed, most prominently susan rice and samantha power was saying there was an insipient genocide in benghazi. even some of us at the time thought this was unlikely to be the case, but now that we have more and more evidence, we have a u.n. investigation of what was going on, it is clear that gadhafi was not -- repeat not -- targeting civilians. he was targeting rebels, and the war was about to come to an end because the rebels were losing and were about to be chased out of the -- country. at that moment the rebels said if we can claim there is going to be a genocide, we can get the u.s. and n.a.t.o. to come in, intervene on our behalf, overthrow gadhafi and we'll have our own country.

unfortunately, president obama's advisors including hillary clinton fell for that propaganda and the president fell for that propaganda. it's like the who's on. we should not get fooled again. >> rose: but there is a great sense, people are arguing in washington that they've got to do something now. you cannot allow i.s.i.s. to grow because to have the oil revenues that are possible there and all of that, that you've got to do something. that's the argument of the moment, is it not? >> yeah, and i think the real mistake in 2011 wasn't necessarily the military operation, it was the absence of a political follow-up. >> rose: right. and today we run the risk of making the same mistake. >> rose: and the whole notion is gadhafi -- >> the notion is what kind of government can you build in libya. and the focus on the hardwear, the focus on the bombs i think makes people forget about what can be done on the politics, and on the politics, much more can be done. i would say libya was never a

real country. it's a combination of tribes. and if you want to have political success in libya, you need to work from the bottom-up. the situation in benghazi is not the situation in syria, is not the situation in tripoli, and that's what you need really to work out. to be honest, i think there is been a bit of neglect of libya in the last two years and that needs to change. >> rose: frederic, my impression is that the president -- go ahead, you may want to comment on that before i come back to you. >> libya, under gadhafi, there were no real estate institutions so there was no state to destroy. the army was virtually nonexistent under gadhafi so i think the real problem was not necessarily the decision to intervene which was not, you ague, was the europeans ass arab well, but the follow-up. there was the crucial first year where i think the international community and the west was so focused on helping libya with elections that they neglected the the security situation.

they neglected the buildup of the militias, building a strong army and police, the spinal cord that you really need to ensure a successful democracy was neglected and comes to me from acknowledgements of the united nations and other dimmatics, so that's the real problem, but we are where we are now and i think the real challenge was, as stated, building viable institutions -- a government, police, democratic rule of law -- i mean, these are the things that are going to ensure extremism doesn't come back, and the islamic state cannot be defeated through bombs alone. >> rose: but -- and, obviously, the president understands that and has said that often in forums about the whole campaign against the islamic state and defending what he's done in syria. yet, at the same time -- i mean, he's concerned about i.s.i.s. and he's concerned about i.s.i.s.'s territory because territory is a recruiting tool for i.s.i.s. >> right. >> rose: and the idea becomes, you know, what kind of footprint

footprint, what kind of military operation without so-called boots on the ground and all of that, so what kind of footprint could he do that might have some impact, whether it's commandos, special forces, whether it's some kind of paramilitary c.i.a., whether it's advisors working with -- >> i think what is going to transpire, if it does, is commandos working with militias. and i absolutely agree with the other speaker that there is a huge risk when you start partnering with militias that you're going to further fracture the country and create warlord-ism. but i think what they may be calculating is they will only give assistance to factions on the ground that support this new unit government. so the president probably believes and i think his advisors are saying we cannot wait for a libyan army to form because it could be years, it could be a decade. they can't wait that long to have a credible partner on the ground, so they're going to war

with whatever they have on the ground and try to mitigate the damage to unity and political stability. >> rose: how long before you think we'll see a decision by the president? >> i don't know what the calculus is on this. i firmly believe they're really trying to get a settlement, to get this unit government to agree on the formation of its military structure. the real sticking point, going back to your other speaker, is the inclusion of this general in the east considered a rogue general by many quartz that has launched his campaign and very polarizing, so the question about what do you do with him is really holding up the formation of this unit government. >> rose: you were one of the people quoted in the "new york times" article. >> right. >> rose: is there division within the administration about this? i mean, the military -- the secretary of defense and the chairman of the joint chiefs seem to be the people recommending a military response. is there division at the national security council and within other advisors to the

president at state or wherever they might be? >> i'm not aware of that. i don't know that, no. >> rose: okay. so essentially what the president said, i hear the problem, give me more options and let's see what we can do about getting behind some kind of unit government. >> i think that's right. the military's job is to prepare for contingency. we know there are reports of special ops troops on the ground figuring out who they can work with and they've probably given the president a menu of options andeth up to him to decide when to execute. >> rose: for more about this program and earlier episodes, visit us online at pbs.org and charlierose.com. captioning sponsored by rose communications

captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

>> the following kqed production was produced in high definition. [ ♪music ] >> it's all about licking your plate. >> the food was just fabulous. >> i should be in psychoanalysis for the amount of money i spend in restaurants. >> i had a horrible experience. >> i don't even think we were in the same restauran