from washington, the "the mclaughlin group," the american original. for over three decades, the sharpest minds, best sources, hardest talk. "the mclaughlin group" is brought to you by siemens. across the country, we're we're

building them to last. siemens, answers. one. mutual assured provocation. >> the bottom line is very simply that what kim jong-un has been choosing to do is provocative, it is dangerous, reckless, and the united states will not accept the dprk as a nuclear state. >> north korea detonated a small nuclear bomb seven weeks ago. this has escalated the ongoing cycle of provocation by north korea and counter-provocation by the u.s. and the u.n. march 7th, u.n. security council votes unanimously to sanction pee i don't sanction pyongyang.

march 11th, the u.s., and south korea, our longstanding ally, began joint annual war games. march 12th. north korea nullifies korean war's 60-year-old armistice between north and south and threatens to attack. march 20, north korea launches cyber attack on seoul, south korea. march 22. the u.s. and ally south korea announce an agreement to retaliate jointly against any attack. march 26th, north korea puts artillery and market forces on highest alert and cuts its hotline to south korea. march 28th. the u.s. displays its nuclear umbrella in action. two b-2 stealth bombers make a daylight bombing run in south korea. april 2, tuesday of this past week, north korea pledges to

restart its nuclear reactor to make more nuclear weapons. april 3. south korea presses washington for an okay to manufacture its own enriched nuclear bomb grade uranium which could potentially result, of course, in a nuclear arms race in asia. >> we seek the complete verifiable and irreversible de- nuclearrization through authentic and credible negotiations. the u.s. and our international partners have a shared vein suring the de- nuclearrization of the korean peninsula. >> secretary of state john kerry and jay carney have both emphasized negotiations for handling the north korean problem. will negotiations work? >> churchill said better to jaw jaw than war war, and i agree we ought to talk with north

korea, john but the problem is kim jong-un has painted himself into a corner, or to use another metaphor, he is way out on a limb. he has threatened to attack american soldiers, attack the united states of america. now, if he does something now, the americans this time, unlike in the past, are going to respond and hit him hard, in which case you could have a war, and if he does nothing, he is in real danger of being humiliated and losing face with his own military and in his own country. so he is really out there. but i do agree with your basic premise, john, the united states, in my judgment, ought to communicate directly with him and, quite frankly, if i were barack obama, in the last analysis to prevent a war, i would call him up on the telephone and say, i want to talk to you. >> why is kim pushing obama's button? >> because he's the third generation, and he's 29 or 30 years old.

he's proving himself as the new leader of north korea. and he's playing the same kind of brinksmanship that his father and his grandfather played before him. i think just about everyone of these steps has been done before. they've shut down the factory zone that's inside north korea. they have threatened -- made all these threats before. they've shut down and started these nuclear facilities. so we've seen this movie many times before. the nervousness is whether this young man knows how to play brinksmanship as skillfully as his fore bearers, that he won't know when to stop, and that really sort of an accidental war could begin. so i think the administration so far is playing it pretty well. they're putting a missile defense system in place. they're upping the exercises that are done every year, and they're relying on china, which really is the power there that can exert some influence on

north korea for china to play a more aggressive stand. that's why talks could work if they get underway. >> thus far, president obama has not used military force in the serious situation. kim sees that, and he's calculating from that, that he wants to figure out what is the limit of obama's reluctance to use military force. is that why he is doing what he's now doing? >> i don't think anybody really knows why he's doing it. he's clearly trying to establish some kind of status for himself. he particularly wants to intimidate south korea. in the process china is going to be the country that's going to worry about it because over time south korea may very well collapse and you may have a union between those two countries, then china would have a belligerent neighbor on its border he, and that's one thing they want to prevent. the first thing we can do is to see what we can do with china.

they are going to be there. they've got a clear motivation to contain north korea. >> you think japan feels the same way as china? >> not quite the same way but i think they are all worried about a very belligerent north korea, which has a lot of technological capability, which has a leader who is prepared to send a lot of people into war apparently. what they are all going to do i think is premature because they don't know to what extent kim jong-un is bluffing and just trying to assert himself. >> china and japan are probably gauging their positions on whether or not they should enter into this, correct? >> that's right. they have to figure on what to do. these two countries have not worked together on too many things but on this issue they can. >> is this all a replay of earlier history? >> to some extent it is. remember, we had a little to do with korea. >> yes, we did. >> we don't want to repeat that, and particularly we don't want to repeat with it troops on the ground. so we will find a way to deal

with north korea with our sophisticated weaponry. >> a good recap of that earlier history, read kissinger's most recent book. not his most recent on china. maybe it's in there but the slightly earlier one, because kissinger was handling all that. >> that's right. the problem with kim jong-un is we don't know what the heck he is up to because he is behaving kind of like the crazy guy in the pen ten tree who nobody wants to go near beck's acting nuts. and this has been the problem that kim jong-un has not behaved in a rationale way so we know just what he is going to do. we at the same time owe china is in a similar situation to us because they're concerned not only about possible reunification, or any kind of further instability that will cause more refugees to come pouring across the border into china. so the u.s. has been wise, through republican and democratic administrations to push for multilateral talks.

what kim wants is direct talks with the white house. >> the united states has a long- term problem here. this guy, 29, 30 years old, he's got a nuclear device, or nuclear bomb. he's got missiles. he has not married the two, but if he's not assassinated or not overthrown in a coupe he is going to be in power 40 years, and he is going to wed those atomic bombs to those missiles, and he he will be able to threaten south cory why and japan and u.s. bases in asia. john, that in occasions we've got to ask whriewrksz are we doing with a 1950s policy with 28,000 americans sitting on the dmz of north korea? south korea has an economy 40 times as large, twice the population. japan and south korea have got to be looking now at their own nuclear options. >> wait a minute is this an argument for a sass nation? >> you know, i tell you, if the war start, i would go for -- if

a war starts and, you know, nobody wants a war. but i think regime change would be in fompletd they are going to go to all out war. >> regime change has gotten a bad name thanks to george w. bush. we're nowhere near that. this is not 1962 where we're at the edge of our chairs. we're not going to have 28,000 troops turn tail, come home because we don't want to protect our allies. so, i mean -- >> sick years since the cory i can't be war. 20 years since the cold war ended. what are they doing? >> allies are allies, as long as -- >> how long are they going to be there? >> let's go to the exit question. did you finish your point? >> i'm just standing up for south korea. >> so you're on the right side. >> i was dog to say, kim is trying to roll that policy back. he's already rescinded the earlier armistic ekes. he's doing every kind of saber rattling that he can do. meantime we don't know what

he's up to. we don't even know exactly how old he is. some say 28, some say 29, some say 30. hopefully by the time they're able to deliver a nuke we'll know more about what he's really up to because they're not there. >> let's wrap it up, eleanor. exit question. on a military readiness scale, def con 5. >> it means a very low level. >> what does or something like. that we raised it in the nixon white house. >> okay, def con 5 meaning normal peace time conditions. derkz f con 1 meaning u.s. forces on maximum alert. how high will this crisis reach before it is resolved? >> i don't think it's a nuclear crisis so i don't think you ought to raise the def con at all. i hope it's resolved. >> i'll go along with all that.

that certainly is a big come- down from all your doomsday talk of about two minutes, a isn't it? >> look, he can't back down. i think -- if does he something, key start a war. >> he can back down. his father and grandfather backed down. >> they didn't back down at all. >> this is a very familiar script. >> former hawk. >> you really want a war? >> i don't want a war. >> you're raising the def con. >> what do you think? >> listen, i don't think that we can expect anything from kim jong-un at this stage of the game. >> def con 4? >> i think it will go more than that. >> lower? >> yes. >> 3? >> until he gets the sense, and we're going to have to do something to back that up that we're really prepared. >> right now dennis rodman knows more about this new leader over there than our cia does. >> he played basketball with him. >> according to some of our own top defense establishment

people, it's ridiculous to raise the derkz f con level at a time when you don't really knew who you are dealing sphwhoo. staying at 5? >> keep it at 5. >> basing it on rodman's basketball acquaintance? >> let's talk to dennis rodman about that. we don't know anything about this kid, and he is not behaving rationally. >> i think it's a def con issue potus pays it forward. the president of the united states announced this week he will take a 5% pay cut in his presidential salary. what's mr. obama's pay? $400,000 a year. this is income, and it is subject to standard income taxation, and those taxes are due april 15th, roughly a week from now. sequester cuts worth $85

billion to the vend this september, and 1 boy 2 truly i don't know over a deck kid have settled in slowly so far. the president's salary is exempt from sequestration. that is the forced budget cuts that automatically cut federal spending on march 1. everyone is taking a hit. white house visitor tours are closed. so are certain local air- traffic control towers. federal agencies will come under further strain in the coming weeks. certain u.s. government departments are expected to close on certain days, and then sequestration impact the economy full force, and that will impact politics. so this presidential budget cut may easy sequestration backlash. chuck hagel, the defense secretary, makes $19,700,000. he also took a pay cut worth 14 furlough days to share the pain

take 14 days of unpaid leave. question, does the white house really think 5% of president obama's salary, that is, $20,000, will alleviate public backlash to the obama sequester? so sat smart move or a dumb move on the president's part? eleanor. >> it's smart and symbolic move, and i commend the secretary hagel for starting, and a number of cabinet officials who have joined in. bye notice members of congress are very quiet about it. most of them can afford to give up 5%, and they are not doing it, and they're the ones who really gave us this sequester because they were unable to come up with a budget proposal that would be fair across the board. >> we know that four out of five senators are millionaires. so they ought to be able to take it. is that what you're saying? >> yeah. >> on the other hand, the millionaires may be in hock. >> to show some solidarity with the american public. ncy pelosi said house members are not going to take

any 5%. she's defending her union, quite frankly. >> what's the union? >> the union is the democratic caucus, john. let me tell you about the sequester. >> republicans aren't stepping up, either. >> the sequester is going to get very serious because there's a report that the clinics are not going to be able to give these vital cancer drugs to folks on medicare, and that is very, very serious. look, $85 billion, i don't care what you say, that's a serious cut, and there's going to be pain. i think what you are going to get is both the congress and the president to say let's decide where we should cut rather than have an automatic slicer. >> he produces his budget next weak and there could be some talks. listen, on the cancer drugs, the people being turned away at clinics have to go to hospitals to get it and it is much more expensive. so the federal government is screwing itself, basically, by make it more expensive. >> mort, question to you for obvious reasons. one, costs $180,000 an hour to

fly. >> that's right. >> obama, president obama, threw this week to colorado to give a -- what shall i say, nonpolitical talk. >> not and if you raiser. >> andy bills that to the american public. then he flies from there to california. >> no he doesn't. the fund-raiser he bills the campaign committee, or the dnc. the colorado trip is public policy. >> public policy, that's billed to you and me and the rest of the public. then he flies from colorado to san francisco and to another point in california. and then he flies back. so he bills that, he bills the sector from colorado to california, both directions, to the dnc, the democratic national committee. the balance he bills to the american public. so do you think he's calculating to keep the dnc

budget as high as -- as stable as it is? >> all presidents do it. >> they calculate how they can bill the public? >> you have a public policy event, and then a political event alongside, and these guys work it out in both white house and all of them probably. they err on the side of billing the public. >> how much do you think the colorado segment cost us by reason of air force one? $2 million. why couldn't he have done that in washington at a microphone and reached a bigger audience? >> i have to object. >> because he wanted to go to california. that's why. >> because it's something new. really, every president does that. >> so what. does that justify in the. >> let's talk about the real sequestration and talk about cancer drugs, talk about other costs that are not being paid right now, and how this really affect real people and not the executive functions of a commander in chief. >> you want your president to live in a bubble and never go

getting to california. >> the construct to go to -- excuse me, it was a construct to go to colorado, which is passing new gun laws, andy went to a police academy, which is right near where the aurora shooting was. there's major federal legislation before the hill. this is a historic moment in the way this country is facing the gun culture. >> do you think it's a preexisting trip or did he say to his will you ten arrangements get me out to colorado, i'll go from there to california? >> no, he went to colorado because colorado has had the gun issue twice, in aurora and columbine. >> wouldn't it have been just as well to do it from the white house? >> he travels the country andy makes his case in those forums, andy uses the white house very effectively. >> this is not flying the way i thought it would fly. okay, the new u.s. economy numbers. on friday the labor department, excuse me, clarence, reported that the economy added 99,000

jobs last month, and that unemployment dropped to 7.6%. question, mort, what do you think about these numbers? >> the 88,000 was much below what most people expected. it's a very, very low, very, very low job creation. we are still living with the problem of job creation. one of the gophers of the federal reserve bank came out and indicated over 25% of the jobs that we are creating are low-wage part-time jobs. so even those numbers are really dismayingly low, particularly in the cop text of a trillion dollar national deficit and a trillion dollar input of money through the federal reserves. so with the most aggressive sometime lie, both monetary and physical this is all we can do. we've got real problems in the economy, and they're not being cured. the policies that are followed have really not helped. >> >> 81,000 new jobs. but before that the experts had predicted 190,000. >> that's right. that's a very low number.

we need 150,000 to 200,000 every month just to stay even, and close to 300,000 to be able to make a dent in the unemployment. >> was that low number of jobs created due to sequestration? >> no, it was not due to sequestration. it was due to the fact that we have a very weak economy that is not being cured. >> why did retail jobs fall 51,000? >> because retailing is falling off the edge of the cliff. that's the real problem. >> not because of consumer spending. >> the real problem? and what follows from that? >> we may have -- yes, it is a very big problem. we may have -- we have such a low growth at this stage of the game that it tees equivalent of another recession. >> the labor force participation is down to 63.3%. >> the lowest in 30 years. >> since 1979. >> on top of that, following christmastime, butt tees same old problem. we have a two-tier economy where wall street is going like gang busters but job creation is still sluggish. i don't see that changing right

now, especially when you've got so much uncertainty in washington, the business world hates unseptember, and we're seeing that reflected. >> the structure of jobs and work in this country is changing just like the media industry is going through this transformation. really, everybody's work life. the congress is completely missing the focus by focusing issue three. green flunks. bp is abandoning wind power. the oil super-giant is selling its $1.5 billion u.s. wind power unit. bp is the 12th largest owner of wind power in the u.s. in 2011

quote unquote, beyond petroleum. he wanted to green bp. now bp wants to unload most of its green, notably wind power. if the sell-off goes through bp's biofuel business and some research initiatives would be all that was left of bp's alternative clean renewable energy. and there's this. besides wind power, bp for 35 years has been trying to make solar energy the photovoltaic cell, fulfill bp's stockholders' expectations. well now bob dudley, bp's current chief exec officer, announced last month that on sohas, quote, thrown in the towel, unquote. question, big oil is retreating from renewable energy. why? because there is no money in it. is there still a future in renewable energy, clarence? >> yeah, there is or they wouldn't be in it in the first place. we know that for the future we

need to lower our oil dependen see, but what this demonstrates, bp is caving to pressure from their stockholders, which is predictable, because when you gauge basic research there is no foreseeable profit turnaround, and -- unless you get real lucky, and so you need some government subsidy which is why we've had government programs to subsidize wind energy. there's kind of a pull-back indicative of why china is way ahead of us on this technology and will continue to be unless we offer some kind of help. >> this is a well intentioned effort to diversify on the part of bp. but why should they? they're fat and happy with all the tax credits they still get from the federal government. when i saw bp come up, i thought you were going to address the oil spill in arkansas where the pipeline with the tar sands oil has taken -- >> yeah, i know you would. >> right. >> all you environmentalists. >> when i saw green, i thought that's flies back.

so he bills that, compulsory market for renewable energy. that's green energy. legislators like california's mandate, they mandate utility companies to acquire a fixed percentage of their subpoena fly from renewable companies. in other words, you must go green. then you and i are -- and the taxpayers in california, they have to pay for the extra costs. >> let me tell you, here's why bp is bailing out. three things. tar sands in canada, secondly fracking, which has opened up all this enormous oil in north dakota and the soviet union, are you sharks far more than. that also natural gas. i shift in my own home, john to natural gas because it's a lot cheaper and america has enormous amounts. so all these old sources of energy are less and less expensive.

>> are you under any constraint by reason of the government of maryland where you live to go into renewable energy? >> no, i live in virginia and we don't do those kinds of things. >> you don't. >> we're in the confederacy. >> that's the home of most of the american presidents, virginia. but you live in virginia. virginia tried three times. >> the mother of presidents hasn't been pregnant for a hundred years. >> pat is absolutely right. the reason why they're going get out of these renewables is because they make no economic sense. the sources of income, fracking and natural gas and all of prediction. will the economy improve by the end of the year? >> i think the economy is going to go straight along, sort of a sluggish path ?ai. think it's poised to get better and l. >> mort. >> i think it is going to continue to slowly subside and get worse between now and the end of the year. >> poised to get