>> rose: welcome to the program. we begin this evening with david sanger of the "new york times" looking at questions about russian hacking of american political parties. >> the question here is not does everybody spy on each other. of course they do. the question is, how do you use that material, and in this case, if you believe the american officials, the offense is not doing the spy, the offense is using it to manipulate an election. >> rose: we continue with richard haass of the council on foreign relations looking at the foreign policy of donald trump. >> there are large elements again he's much more conscious of the alleged costs. thinking through, what happens if we dial back, what then happens to the world, what about the proliferations, the come flicks, the lost markets. he's a businessman. it's as if he's looking at one

side of the ledger, how do we save. he's not looking at the revenues. >> rose: we conclude with jimmy walker the man who just won the pga golf tournament. >> i think once you know you can do something, then i think the gates can open. it's the same thing that happens at a golf tournament. when somebody thinks a golf course is tough, somebody puts a good number out there, then somebody's like oh, you can do that. and then you start to see more scores happen like that. i think that's the same way. i know when i won my first event more came very quickly right after that. once you know you can do something then you know you c >> rose: funding for "charlie rose" has been provided by the following: >> 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 politics in an interview this weekend, republican presidential nominee donald trump suggested the u.s. should accept russia's an exation of crimea if it would lead to a better relationship with moscow. the view runs counter to the obama administration which imposed economic sanctions against russiaor an exing the ukraine territory two years ago. it is now believed that the russian government was responsible for the theft of research and e-mails of the democratic national committee and hacking into other campaign computer systems. while the obama administration has stopped short of a formal accusation cia director john brennan said friday that quote interference in the u.s. election process is a very very serious matter. joining me now is david sanger. he's the national security

correspondent for the "new york times" and has been reporting on this story and other allied stories i'm pleased to have him here at the table. welcome. >> it's good to be with you. >> rose: why, in terms of what the russians are doing. we'll talk about that and then we'll talk about trump's interview about ukraine and other areas. why would they do, you know, who did it and why did they do it is the first question. and then the third question is how do we retaliate. >> all fascinating issues. to some degree, this is a story that i think most of us didn't see coming in this election because strange as this election cycle has been, it didn't seem like likely that vladimir putin would, if all the evidence points in that direction, try to actively interfere with an american election. we do know that the russians in the past have used information campaigns in european elections

and tried to interfere there. and to be fair, the united states is not been above in the history messing around this other country's elections too. >> rose: and the regret they didn't support the people in the streets of tehran when they protested their election. >> in 2009 when president obama was concerned there was a backlash of the americans. here's what we know. we know the dnc got hacked and we know that they lost large amounts of e-mails and other data including fund raising data, other databases. >> rose: embarrassing to them in terms of a campaign against bernie sanders. >> that's right. what ultimately ruled in debby wasserman schultz losing her position as head of the party. that's what's known. if you follow the forensics inside the documents that not the comes that come by wiki

leaks but before they did their dump. someone called gucifer2, we don't believe this was an valid we believe this was probably a set up by the russian gru, the intelligence unit. >> rose: let me stop you know. i know there's some communication that they weren't satisfied with the response to that. so they may have given documents to wiki leaks or someone else. >> that's right. and we don't know the transmission. we don't understand how wikileaks got the documents or necessary me who gucifer2 really was. but if you look at some of the documents that got released and you go and you look into the metadata behind them, what do you find. editing marks in surrilic time stamps doing the work in moscow. you find ip addresses, internet protocol addresses that are identical to one's used in previous hacks by the gru and

another russian intelligence agency, the fsb when they attacked the german parliament and there was an investigation in germany that revealed a number of these. so unless somebody is doing one of the world's best deception campaigns, always possible, the forensic evidence would strongly suggest that this was done -- >> rose: there's pretty much agreement on that in terms of all the intelligence sources you have and the security forces you have. >> more consistency on this than on any issue i have seen, charlie, since the north korean hack. >> rose: why did they do it. >> well that gets to another layer of fascinating issues. because the first hack into the dnc was in june of 2015. when nobody in russia and nobody around your table was predicting donald trump would emerge as the nominee. so then the question is, were they doing this because they were trying to collect things in

general. or were they specifically getting that hillary clinton was likely get the nomination. a pretty good call back in june of 2015. and they were looking for material on her. and here you get to an interesting theory of motive. but it's just a theory. in 2011, when hillary clinton was still the secretary of state, there was a parliamentary election that put in place and solidified vladimir putin's hold on the government in russia. there were lots of signs of fraud in that election. and she called it out as secretary as state as frequently as american officials do when there's a fraud length election. and putin believed she was encouraging people to come out and protest in the streets which some did. put down very quickly. >> rose: putin hates nothing like chaos. >> that's right. and nothing like open objection

to his rule. so in his mind, it may well be that the united states started this. that we were mess in their election. and if we want to go do that, he can show a way to go do this as well. now this is all theory, but it's a theory that was laid out in public the other day by the director of national intelligence in the appearance he did at the aspen security summit. >> rose: the point here it's not in order to see donald trump elected because they hate and do not want to see hillary clinton elected, if they did it with that motive. >> if it was with that motive. now there was a second hack of the dnc, we believe by the gru, the military intelligence group, that came in the spring of this year. and it's that hack that tipped off the dnc, that something was going wrong and that's when they called in private investigators

when the fbi came in and so forth. and it looks like it's the documents seized then that we're begin to go see now. it's not at all clear that these two russian intelligence agencies knew the other one was in the system because these guys don't communicate terribly well and in fact compete with each other a fair bit. >> rose: let me understand the difference. the fsb is sort of the inheriter to the kgb. and the gru is? >> it's the military intelligence unit. >> rose: and there's this side issue. there are people who say that if in fact they could do that to the dnc, they could do other hacking they might have done, why wouldn't they have hijacked hillary clinton's server. >> that's right. so we've asked this question endlessly with the fbi and the public comments that the head of the fbi gave to congress last month was this. he said we have no direct

evidence that there was any foreign power in you are server. and he also said, if they were and they were highly sophisticated actors which the russians are, it's not at all clear we would see the evidence. >> rose: they could hide it. >> they could well hide it. and the fsb did a pretty good job of hiding it for the period of time they were in. so does that tell you that they weren't in the server? no. it tells you we don't have any way proving they were or they were not. now, we haven't seen any of those documents though or documents we haven't seen published elsewhere show up. >> rose: that's an assumption. if they had them they would have released something to be damaging to her. >> you would think. but we don't know the totality. >> rose: unless we want to way where it might be more tanging at a more propitious time. >> that's right or see the reaction to this. >> rose: so the u.s., we hack. >> we hack.

>> rose: we retaliate how? >> so, what's the difference between this hack and what we do. >> rose: right. >> and this is a really difficult problem for many in the intelligence community because they don't like the idea of classifying a, the theft of data from the dnc as a cyber attack or necessarily a great sin because an e siflt organization political organization in russia, in china, in europe would be considered to be a legitimate target for the nsa or the u.s. cyber net. the difference is not that we steal stuff the difference is the russians once they did it or whoever in the end took this out, then distributed it and used it for a political purpose to ostensibly to manipulate if you believe that. the u.s. has not come out yet and accused the russians of doing this. their standard of evidence has

got to be a lot higher than the standard of evidence that individual comes, cyber companies would v the president's going to have to make a decision to retaliate or not. you want to do that based on as close to a hundred percent certainty as you can get. >> rose: how much more certainty do they need before they retaliate. >> that's a good question. what can they do that the private companies can't? nsa's job is to go put implants in computer networks around the world to be able to see what's happening. think of them as the cyber equivalent of radar stations that we set up around the world. but of course to do that you've got to break into somebody's system, install an implant that's good enough that nobody's going to find it. keep it going. care and feeding of it each day, checking on it, make sure it's in the right place. you're watering it, you're treating it like it's a bonsai. and in the end, the u.s. may or

may not have evidence because of those implants of who ordered this or what happened to the data when it came back. they may see that all the rest of us don't know. that's what happened in the sony case where the u.s. was up inside north korea's system and knew that north korea had made the attack -- >> rose: they could see. >> they could see. they don't know and they hen't said yet whether that's the case. >> rose: if you don't want people to know what you have because you don't want them to stop doing whatever they do. it used to be the deal with cell phones. remember how the cia got crazy because maybe of the times, you found osama bin laden's phone number. >> it was not in the new york's times and i don't know if we would publish it. but we stopped using it and he stopped using cell phone. >> rose: it was the community got very upset about that. >> they did. the same thing is true in the

implants and this was a big issue during the snowden revelations three summers ago. because we had evidence of how they were up inside china. we published a lot of that because at that point the intelligence community was el telling us the chinese already had a full copy of the documents so who are we protecting. and we learned that while the united states warns everybody not to buy chinese telecom equipment from waway they were up inside waway. the question is not does everybody spy on each other, of course they do. the question is how do they use that material. and in this case if you believe the american officials, the offense is not doing the spying, the offense is using it to manipulate an election. >> rose: i see. so that really is going beyond the pale if you try to manipulate an election. >> but then if you're vladimir putin tell me how that's different from the secretary of state encouraging fraud and protest on the street. >> rose: one thing i want to

make sure i understand too. it is the notion when a government does it for a private concerns, even if they are state owned, this was a big issue between the united states and the chinese. my impression was the chinese said okay we won't do that anymore. >> that's right. >> rose: whether they do or don't that's what they said to satisfy the obama administration. >> that's right. the rules the u.s. set up and tried to negotiate a norm with the chinese, this does not work with the russians, has been stealing intellectual property is illegal in both countries if you were just come into your studio and stealing your scripts, okay. and so it should be, there should be a norm against that in the cyber realm as well. there is an effort by the u.s. to try to impose a norm which not many others have signed up to like with the chinese which says we also won't interfere with emergency services. and we also won't interfere with the computer emergency response

people who try to get you back on-line. and what's coming down the line is i think the u.s. would like a rule that says you know, we're all going to agree we're not going to mess with each other's nuclear codes because that could lead to such a huge problem back and forth. >> rose: such a huge risk. >> and such a huge risk. but you'd only want that deal with the other major nuclear powers unclear how you handle it with everybody else's got nuclear weapons. >> rose: so dianne feinstein the representative in california the chairman of the senate intelligence committee or used to be. >> former chairman. >> rose: minority member, has asked the f.b.i. to investigate and release whatever their determination is as to whether the russians did it or not. >> that's right. she did this with adam shift, an intelligence member on the house side. >> rose: ranking house. >> ranking house side. and i talked to representative shift some about in this this

weekend. here's a concern. there have been two very major hacks on the u.s. government in which while everybody knows who is believed to have done them, the government has never stepped out and accused the countries. and the first was the theft of state department e-mails and whitehouse e-mails and an attack on the joint chiefs of staff that is widely believed inside the u.s. intelligence community to have been the work of the same two russian intelligences agencies. cru and the fsb. so you know what they're to go at home. what they're doing back in washington right now is they're comparing the signatures on the dnc hack to the state department whitehouse and jcs side. >> rose: organized an approach to this. >> if the russian cyber community is anything, it's highly highly organized. more organized and more subtle over the years than the chinese.

the chinese did the opposite personnel management. >> rose: right, right. >> in both cases the u.s. government made the decision not to go reveal what they knew in part maybe for diplomatic reasons and in part because they didn't want to have to reveal the intelligence about how they knew it. what you saw senator feinstein and representative shift do was say look, this is so important to the operation of our democracy, that if you have evidence here, you find a way to make it public. >> rose: the f.b.i.'s not responding. >> and do you know what it's not the f.b.i.'s decision. it's the whitehouse because you're going to have a fight that's going to come up between i don't know this but i can predict it from past history between intelligence people who say we can't reveal our forces and methods and others who say mr. president if you're going to go out and awe excuse the russians of messing with the system you better be ready to back it up. >> rose: do you assume we'll

retaliate. >> assuming that the president is persuaded that this evidence is as good as we think it is from the private sector, it's hard for me to imagine. i wrote a story about this, it was in the sunday times. it's hard for me to imagine that he couldn't do, he couldn't avoid doing something. because as in the case of sony, this goes beyond just spy versus spy. sony was important because he believed that the north koreans were going after free speech and threatening theatre-goers. this would be important because if you don't retaliate, the message you have sent is our electoral system can be manipulated from the outside. >> rose: there's also the political ramifications of all this in terms of not just trying to manipulate an election, but is this being done with the approval, knowledge, direction of vladimir putin, do we think this is actually putin ordering

all this. >> really hard to know. because it could well be done by one of these intelligence agencies or by somebody a freelancer hired by them, in which they are trying to impress putin that they're going out and evening the playing field here. it may not have been ordered, it may have been it's so easy in cyber to have cutouts. in the old nuclear world, we knew that 20 or 30 people who could launch nuclear weapons. we knew who the russians were. >> rose: you knew where it was coming from. >> we knew who it was coming from. in the cyber world it's easier to hire outsiders and have them do an attack that is from a different location which makes it all the more fascinating they were so sloppy in this case about leaving these pieces of evidence.

>> rose: richard haass is coming in. we interviewed him. what's your impression of what he knows about russia because it's hard to know exactly what he said because he said so many things. i met him, i talked to him perhaps, i never heard, i don't know, i never spoke to the guy. when he talks about crimea, what does he really mean, what does he really understand. when he talks about nato, is he simply saying we think they ought to pay their bills and like president obama, we think it ought to be a percentage of the gdp. >> i think you've got to operate out two different sets of issues. i've talked to him now with maggie for a total of about three hours on national security issues over two different interviews. one in march and then one in cleveland. >> rose: what's your impression. >> my impression is this. that on some issues on which have been a hobby horse of his for a while, like the fact that other members of nato don't pay their share. he's taking something that he

has said before and he's escalating it to the next level. nobody disagrees, including president obama, that the members of nato are not carrying their weight, okay. what's different is -- >> rose: president called them free riders. >> that's right. >> rose: he included britain and others in it. >> that's right. actually the ones who are doing the most to carry their weight are the baltic states who are worried about russia. >> rose: and the ones that should be worried about it too. >> they're carrying weight but they're such small countries and small economies they're not contributors in the larger nato enter vise because -- enterprise because of their small size. and he's saying if you don't pay up we'll pull out of nato. when we saw him in cleveland the night before his acceptance speech, i said to him, i had just been in alstonia. but if you saw the russians

attacking or undermining one of these three countries, would you come to their defense. and his answer was, i would basically check first and see whether or not they have been making their own contribution. well, then president obama came back and said, this is an alliance. this is not a business transaction in which we check the ledgers each time. it would be a little bit like your house is burning, charlie, you call up the fire type. and mr. rose, let's check and see where your property payments are. so what i think he's trying to do may simply be, what mr. presume is trying to do may simile be a negotiating tactic to try to scare them into all paying more for fear we will pull back. the problem is, that that feeds into an existing insecurity among many in europe that the united states is pulling back and that even if trud doesn't get elected, this reflects a

broader move within the u.s. to withdraw itself from the conflicts and there the defense commitments. same question in japan and in south korea. >> rose: david sanger thank you for coming. >> thank you, charlie. >> rose: david sanger from the "new york times." stay with us. >> rose: we continue our conversation on politics and foreign policy with richard haass. he's president of the council on foreign relations. i am pleased to have him back at this table. so donald trump and his foreign policy. can you define it for me. >> i think there are two principle dimensions. one is what i would call economic nationalism. the idea that foreign policy is something of a drain and that the real purpose of american foreign policy ought to be to serve the american economy. and the other is we're trench men. if you want to use a stronger word charlie, some version of minimalism or isolationism. but again the idea that foreign is more about costs and benefits from his perspective he wants to dial down dramatically so what

we do. in his view that would spare us the problems of international involvement. and it put aside then a big pile of resources that he believes can better be used at home. >> rose: that's more sophisticated than i would imagine. i think it's simply transaction. >> it's his transactions. if you take a step back it reflects a larger mind set that the world has ripped us off. that by and large almost the equivalent domestically when he says the game is rigged. he's saying the world is ripping us off. allies have cost us more than they helped us. when you look at the span of history and don't get me wrong i think this is wrong but when you look at the span of history the united states has paid much more than benefited from international involvement. >> rose: is that the price of leadership. >> it's not the price but the benefit of leadership. we won the cold war. we've had an extraordinary 75 years of world leadership. >> rose: still the most powerful county in the world. >> absolutely because world war

ii turned out the way it d cold war turned out the way it d the united states and its allies won. since then we did quite well beginning with the gulf war. the only mistakes and three biggest is going to career awe trying to unify, vietnam and iraq. those are examples of american overreach. they weren't allies who misled us. we weren't forced to do any of those things, those were all self creative. we've done extraordinarily well on more than policy when we put certain limits on what of we've done. >> rose: you once made and frequently made the phrase whether it was a war of choice or not. >> absolutely. korea was a war of necessity to begin about but when when we tried to reunified the country. it's true, we signed off on it. the biggest mistake of his presidency and the other two were clear wars of choice. in neither case did we have to do it when we did it, how we did it. it's not clear how vital

american interests were at stake and we paid an enormous price. one of prices, if you add some of what we did in afghanistan and libya, you're seeing a real disillusionment and the fact you've had dud do as well as he's done. bernie sanders did as well as he's done. >> rose: there's no foreign policy. >> which trump has made explicit and some ways sanders made implicit. neither one has much of an active foreign policy and i think this is in some ways the reaction to overreach. now we're getting under reach. we're seeing it across party lines. >> rose: so do you think trump then borders on isolationism. >> large elements of it where again he's much more conscious of the alleged costs. and thinking through, what happens if we dial back. what then happens to the world. what about the proliferation. what about the conflicts. what about the lost markets. i think it's almost like he's looking, he's a businessman as if he's looking at one side of the ledger how do we say not looking at the revenues.

>> rose: how to invest. >> what he's missing is the lost revenues from where u.s. still leads. >> rose: does it make you wonder what he really knows. >> partially what he knows. >> rose: or operating on instinct which he takes pride in. >> clearly he takes pride in that. the only way i could think of de defending it and it's a sketch is the ukraine uniform decisions and uniformed guys going in and mucking around. what happened in crimea was a fundamental threat of the basic principle of international relations. the one thing virtually everyone in the world can agree on is you can't use military force to change borders. it's the basic idea of sovereign tree. the one idea that's been around for a couple hundred years. when saddam hussein tried it in

kuwait the soviet union came together to rebut it. >> rose: you can't change military force to change government. >> borders. what russia did was clearly a threat to the post war or the order in europe. and the fact that we didn't have the military option to resist it, i understand that. but the fact that we have resisted with sanctions at least to penalize russia makes great sense. what mr. trump suggested was that he was going to examine or look at the entire sanctions policy. you have the story then about the republican platform. not talking about the writing lethal assistance to the ukraine, ukrainians, instead they're talking about appropriate assistance, whatever, whatever that means. what seems to be missing is a willingness to push back against russia when russia violates the norms of international society. >> rose: so you think he has a rose-colored vision of russia. >> there sales to be a benign view both of putin, respect for

the man and a wide spread acceptance of what russia has done in europe, what it has done in the middle east. in the case of syria. what's sad to me though about all this is this focus on russia. think about it. russia's a country with 143 million people. it's got a one-dimensional economy oil and gas that shrunk. >> rose: it has in recent times. >> putin is looking for foreign policy to compensate for what he can't deliver at home. he's very good tactically exploiting opportunities, whether it's georgia, ukraine or syria. >> rose: the "new york times" piece about this too but at the democratic convention, i mean what you saw was speaker after speaker suggests that he has no comprehension of american values. you saw democrats take on the american exceptionism argument

that it had been for a long time more frequently, pressed by republicans which you are one i assume. >> i still am but i'm a george had had herbert walker bush republican. i don't like to talk about it because it greats, we ought to be it rather than talk bit. we ought to be something that others want to emulate. >> rose: so if you take that, the democrats, one after another said that it just doesn't grasp america or its role and they were attacking essentially his appreciation the history and constitution of america. >> what i think you have is one candidate, hillary clinton, who is operating to use a sports analogy forgive me within the 40

yard lines of american foreign paul z the post world war ii consensus and donald trump is not. he's the first major party candidate who is operating way beyond the 40 yards. we can argue whether it's the 20 or the end zone. >> rose: i don't know if it's a foreign policy. >> it's connected to foreign policy. if you look at his views on immigration and some other issues, they are again not part of the traditional governing consensus. in some ways it maybe reflects, 70 odd percent of america thinks we're heading in the wrong direction, he is clearly tapping into that. it's not advocacy it's simply an observation that a lot of americans for whatever reason are disaffected. and by operating outside the center of the field, he's clearly deriving some benefit. >> rose: it's interesting too because at the same time they believe that we're on the wrong track. by the politics of america, they believe that barack obama is now experiencing a rise in his

ratings. so as the wrong track has risen barack obama's popularity has risen. >> it's a dilemma for hillary clinton. you have a president that's favorable at rough me 50% plus or minus that would argue the third term argument and you say 50% of americans say we're on the wrong track. >> rose: that's continuity and not change. >> that's part of the dilemma to the clinton campaign to what percent do you represent yourself augerring for continuity. so much of the country's divided. that might be the only explanation for those different numbers that you just suggested. >> rose: was hillary clinton a good secretary of state. >> yes. i mean, she went about things. i think the biggest thing she did that was to me interesting was to quote/unquote pivot. the idea that the united states was not going to spend its proportionate share in the middle east but adjust not

switch but adjust to define 21st century. i think that was the big idea of mr. obama's foreign policy. >> rose: mr. obama says the northern policy as you well know he copied bush 41. >> he did some of that but it was too limited. that might have been his impulse but wouldn't have argued for the retrenchment. bush was an international leader but he can't retrench. obama retrenched in syria, iraq, afghanistan. it seems to me obama went too far. >> rose: retrenchment is a hallmark of his foreign policy as well as multilateralism. >> when history is rough on mr. obama is the retrenchment went too far dialing things down thought the world could organize itself, it couldn't. the more positive way is this putting more eggs into the asia basket. i think the problem was it didn't get executed sufficiently and one of the big pieces of it as you know the trans pacific partnership the trade agreement is sitting there on life support

in the american congress and part now -- >> rose: major political parties against it. >> people want bipartisanship this all to be a warning. sometimes bipartisan shine isn't that great. the strategic as well as economic consequences of that i think are potentially true. >> rose: i suspect that the pivot, the president and secretary of state believed and want, they gave more rhetoric to it than they did action. >> also, and to the extent they gave action to it, it was more dialing down in the middle east and dialing up in the asia pacific and that was argued different. >> rose: they would argue we went to vietnam and we tried to create a level of cooperation and we made our presence there felt. >> we did certain things diplomatically particularly in the first term. it hasn't been consummated. a little bit more military presence. some could argue for some more.

>> rose: if you want to call the jake sullivan of the trump candidacy, who would you call. >> one would have to take the candidate at his word and call him. i don't think there is -- >> rose: obviously no james -- >> there's no equivalent say of condoleezza rice. what i don't see, i see different people. i think it's sam -- is that his name, i see various people there. >> rose: it counts as foreign relations doesn't know his name. >> i don't see anything like a large foreign policy. actually the scale difference what hillary clinton has. >> rose: that's about political as well too it's not just foreign policy. it's about the politics of the thing. >> it's also consistent with the fact that hillary clinton is implicitly and explicitly arguing for more traditionally involved foreign policy. donald trump is arguing for much less foreign policy. the only thing that explains his statements about alliances is statements about trade. >> rose: which brings it back to putin. the i've had people tell me, and

you can weigh in on this that what is at play here is not so much that he favors donald trump, which he may and have said some nice things. it's mainly that he's so putin. he dislikes hillary clinton. because she has done things to him that he thinks -- >> if i may paraphrase mr. trump for a moment i don't have a relationship with mr. putin so i can't sit here and tell you what motivates him. but my point is simply that if u're vladimir putin, if you have a candidate who is raising questions about american support for tra desiral allies in europe and says he's going to revisit the issue of ukraine and sanctions, for me that's a more appealing outcome. >> rose: here's what's interesting too and as one of his very good friends said to me during the republican convention, very good friend who spoke on the same night he

spoke. so there. >> okay. narrows it. >> rose: exactly. he said to me on the air, for him it's everything is almost transactional. so it's an opening bid. whatever he says is to sort of, you know, this is my opening bid. >> that may well be true. >> rose: and therefore whatever he opens with don't expect that to be where he ends up. >> that may work in certain business environments but foreign policy is not about transactions it's about relationships and predictability and reliability. so you've got to be careful with opening bids if they suggest a disgree of change or lack of certainty. countries are counting on us. the japanese, the koreans, the germans and others. they count on us. they franchised a big amount of security to the united states. that's a rock solid commitment if not they'll appease russia or china or go their own ways and

develop capabilities and nuclear weapons. those are two outcomes we have got to guard against. as a result we can't afford an opening bid foreign policy that departs from predictability and reliability. to be a great power, it is essential that countries know when they get up in the morning, there are certain things they can take for granted. there's got to be some assumptions. >> rose: apart from donald trump, are there many big new ideas in foreign policy. >> the big debate are the 41's who want to make the world a more stable place but have a limited foreign policy and the transformers. the people on the right and left who want to create democracy places, bush 43 and to some extent some others. that's been the big debate. in a sense that debate's over. we now have a very different

debate between internationalists and shades of isolationists. so we've gone from a debate about ambition to a debate about pulling back. >> rose: dave brooks made a point it used to be the argue was big government or not and david brooks stepped forward to say in the political arena it's either opened or closed. >> in a northern policy it used to be between big foreign policy and medium now it's between medium foreign policy and small foreign policy. bernie sanders and in elements of the democratic platform and in donald trump and large elements of the republican platform we're seeing what we haven't seen in several generations a serious push towards small foreign policy. >> rose: richard haass, thank you. >> thank you, charlie. >> rose: richard haass, president of the council on foreign relations. back in a moment. stay with us. >> rose: jimmy walker is here. he's the 2016 pga champion. he led start to finish by defending . ga champion and the world's top

rank player. it was his first major title on tour. also became the fourth first time major champion of the 2016 golf season. i am pleased to have him here at this table. welcome. >> thank you. >> rose: just think about this. look at the names, byron nelson and sam sneed, jack nicholas arnold palmer. but you said you would win this. you knew it was coming at some point. >> i had it in my abilities for this to happen and it was a dream to come true. >> rose: i will say the same thing as justin johnson for example once you get a major it

will unleash something so that the likelihood of winning more is more likely. >> i would think so. i think once you know you can do something, then it's, then i think the gates can open. it's the same thing that happens at a golf tournament. when somebody thinks a golf course is tough, somebody puts a good number out there. then somebody's like oh, you can do that. and then you start to see more scores happen like that and i think that's the same way. when i won my first event more came very quickly right after that. once you know you can do something then you know you can do it. >> rose: has your game changed between this and when you won your first tournament? >> i think it's about the same. i feel like this year was just i haven't played quite as well as i would have liked to have especially the last three or four years. i felt i had a break through a week ago in canada, i felt like some stuff was starting to materialize. >> was that from practice or just sort of happened. >> it's from practice and it's from practicing better thinking and staying in a positive frame

of mind not getting so down, just keeping up beat knowing you're right there. so it's been a little bit of both. >> rose: they used to say about tiger that he had a mental edge. that his father had drilled that into him. true? >> i think so. he'd stand out on the range and watch all of us with golf balls. everybody can do it, stand out there and hit the golf ball. what separates the great players is that ability to mentally just dominate the field honestly. >> rose: listen to this though. 65, 66, 68, 67. could you hear the footsteps of jason day? >> i saw the footsteps of jason day. he was right in front of me. that was nice. in the last group you're in the driver's seat you get to watch

what's going on. i know -- >> rose: that's what you get to do. >> being in the last group is huge because you kind of control you fate. >> rose: anything you want to change about your game. i said that to jordan last year and he said maybe add ten yards to my distance. >> for me it's more about finding more fairways. historically not in the straighest driver of the golf ball but i drove it very well last week. >> rose: how many times were you not in a fair way. >> i hit the fair way through times. and hit it in the water once. and the drive i hit in the water i felt like i hit a great shot. it just kind of hopped a couple times left and right. that's what i would like to improve. i'm not talking like a lot, i'm talking, you know, from 52 if i could get up to 60 that would be huge. >> rose: today in modern

golfer, there are coaches that teach you the right mental attitude, people working on your body, somebody who is working on your swing. it's almost like team walker. >> that's right. there are a lot of team out here anymore and i think that's what's kind of happened with golf. it's been a while since i worked with a sports psychologist. i actually started working with a lady about a month ago. >> rose: what did she teach you? what do you learn from her. >> really getting into it. we haven't really develop -- dove super deep, just stepping it in. talking about trusting yourself and trusting what you're doing and believing in yourself. >> rose: believing it. >> yes. you got to, you have it. and it's been great. she's been great so far. i've really enjoyed it. >> rose: do you have a golf instructor, a pro. >> i do. i work with butch harman for the last four years now. >> rose: a good place to go. >> yes, it was. i was at a point where i want to

go see the best guy i think there is going. and he took me in and it's been a great ride. >> rose: what is it they do for someone who hits the ball as well as you do? >> for me, it was just a few little fine tunes with some of the take-away stuff keeping the body more quiet and shorter. >> rose: shorter. >> shorter. i have a big long swing. keeping it short. >> rose: i thought that was good. >> it was in effect but i have a tendency to let the body and the arms run on and run away from the rest of the body and then i get stuck behind it. so taking care of that and when you got the best teacher in the world telling you how good you are. it's like a little injection of confidence. >> rose: that the core and the fundamentals are right there. >> it is. >> rose: and they can take you anywhere you wanted to go. >> yes, i think so and we've done a pretty good job so far. >> rose: talk about strategy in terms of i mean how you approach it. when you approach the first tee

one of the famous tough courses in america, what are you thinking? are you thinking i hospital i -- i hope i get the ball off the tee. >> mine was yesterday i hope i put this in the middle of the fairway. i'm not going to make it up. i did and i had a six iron right in the middle of the green what i was supposed to and just continued that way the rest of the day, keeping it in front of me. i just didn't want to make mistakes. >> rose: did you make any mistakes. >> technically, no. no bogies. but there were some shots i would like to take back for sure. >> rose: why do you think you're good, as good as you are, as your record clearly suggests. as your performance as a golfer. why do you think. >> i don't think it, i know i'm good. >> rose: is it just because you go out there and you see you can play as well as anybody,

period, as you did. >> any given day i can beat anybody. >> rose: you got to have everything in order to beat anybody any given day. >> sometimes. sometimes you don't need everything to get by. i mean there's parts of your game that you don't have it all every day. but you need something to kind of shine. something to pick you up and that's why you practice every fa facet of your day. your short game's got to be on, you are going to make a putt, it's the balance of being on. something really needs to be on every day to keep moving up. >> rose: i don't know where this question is coming from but somewhere i read this. that one often most overlooked shot is the second shot. whatever your iron is. that's the most overlooked productive shot. >> i can see that because it is the second shot can really help

set up if you're going to make a birdie or an eagle or so yeah, i mean the tee shot's important. you want to be in the fairway so it's pretty one dimensional but the second shot's more strategy involved like you're talking about. where many agoing to lead this. do i want the up hill putt, can i hit it on the hole and have the up hill putt. you don't want to hit it long and have the downhill curler. there's a lot of strategy where to hit it. >> rose: did harman refuse to take your check in the beginning? there's a story that -- >> he kind of did. he kind of started working with me. i went and saw him and paid him. and then he said he couldn't work with me at tournaments. and he kind of ended up doing that. >> rose: because he had other people. >> he had other people and i understood that. but he saw me at charlotte and we worked and it was great and i saw him the next week after charlotte i said thank you so

much, i don't know what your deal is with your guys but let me know what i owe you and he said you don't owe me anything. same very next at the players, same thing. came out and watched me play and we practiced and we worked. after the week i had a great week, i said what do i owe you, he said nothing. and i'm like i can't do this. so i knew through just talking to him and stuff that he enjoyed fine wine. and i enjoy some nice wine myself. >> rose: margot was on the way. >> i had one at home and i said this is the easiest thing, this is a no brainer. >> rose: when did you know that golf was your passion, golf was your life? >> i think when i beat my dad for the first time. >> rose: is that right. >> yeah. my dad is a really good player and he shot the same scores the guys did on tv. when i was 15 i beat him i shot 68 to his 69. and i knew right then i said man if i can beat, i always thought

if i can beat my dad i know i'll be pretty good at this game. >> rose: you were how old. >> 15. >> rose: so you knew at 15. >> i did. >> rose: that you had what it took to be a pro. >> i know that's what i wanted to do. did i know that i had what it took then, no. i think i really realized how good i was becoming in college. i think my senior year at baylor i learned how to really play the game. and shoot good scores. and put up good scores and put four rounds together. >> rose: back when you beat your father you knew you were in the right lane. >> yes. i knew i was on the right path. the path i wanted to be in. >> rose: did he know it? did he say you beat me, you can do whatever you want to. >> in a sense, yeah. i think so. it's something that he and i've done forever and we watched golf forever and we talked about it. he had always talked about wanting to be out there, wanting

to be out there, wanting to play on the pga tour, halves -- that was the kind of dream and goal. >> rose: you're an astro photographer, what is that. >> astro photography is taking pictures of deep sky objects at night. i don't do any plan -- planets or sun it's deep sky galaxies and nebula what i shoot. >> rose: how did you come to this. >> this started about six years ago i had a telescope in the backyard my wife got it for me for christmas. in the pollution in san antonio there's not a lot to see and i learned how to attach a camera to it and it just got crazy from there. >> rose: you became obsessed. >> i did become obsessed. i had a lot of fun doing it. i was more than a golfer. it gave me something to do

outside 0 life. it's a form of art and i used to love drawing and now it's on the computer but it's still art what we do. astro photography it's not just a technical thing, it is an art form. >> rose: has nasa bought some of these photographs or you gave it to them. >> they were chosen by nasa. nasa has a thing called astronomy picture of the day and oldest running websites in the history of the internet. it's called asian strong me picture of the day, called apods for short. they pick a picture a day. there's 365 a year and there's thousands of submissions a day. so to get one a year is a treat. and it seems like anymore we're getting three to four a year, which is amazing. >> rose: you're getting three or four a year. >> uh-huh. >> rose: when you snap it, do you know that's maybe an apod? >> yeah, i think so. we put a lot of time into the picture so we're talking -- >> rose: who is we. >> i have a partner in

california that helps run the telescope and the equipment's mine. his name's mike and he's awesome. he lives really close to the telescope and we partnered up. he does a great job keeping everything running and we share the data that comes in. so everything we take, he gets and i get too and we just have fun with it. but it's been an amazing ride with that. i've really enjoyed it and i still enjoy doing it. as far as do i know if it's an apod or not. i try not to put anything out anymore that i'm not a hundred percent pro i think it's an art form in the sense of its creativity on how you want to attack and play the golf course. how do you see the shots. there are guys on tour that are very one dimensional. they hit the same shot over and

over and over and they try to fit that shot into every hole. but me, i'm more of a guy that likes to work. you see like an art. like you know, you watch a guy like bubba watson, every shot he hits something's going on. it's a huge amount. >> rose: good success. great to have you here. >> thank you. >> rose: congratulations. just to think that you're right there. >> right there. >> rose: there you go. jimmy walker, 2016. a pretty stuff course. >> it is. i played there in 2011 and i was happy to come back. >> rose: good luck to you. good to meet you. >> thank you charlie. >> rose: pga champion 2016. thank you for joining us. see you next time.

captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org >> rose: funding for "charlie rose" has been provided by: >> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide.

man: it's like holy mother of comfort food.ion. kastner: throw it down. it's noodle crack. patel: you have to be ready for the heart attack on a platter. crowell: okay, i'm the bacon guy. man: oh, i just did a jig every time i dipped into it. man #2: it just completely blew my mind. woman: it felt like i had a mouthful of raw vegetables and dry dough. sbrocco: oh, please. i want the dessert first! [ laughs ] i told him he had to wait.